Show Notes

<a href="http://www.bannerfans.com"><img src="http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/2834/16090198475.jpg" border="0" width="300" height="300" alt="Powered by BannerFans.com" /></a>

• Upcoming Episodes

  WEDNESDAYS WITH THE PATRIOT HOUR 44

  SIR MALACHI

  Date / Time: 11/12/2009 2:30 AM UTC

  Category: Current Events

  Call-in Number: (347) 324-3321

  <embed src="http://www.blogtalkradio.com/BTRPlayer.swf?displayheight=&file=http://www.blogtalkradio.com%2fMALACHI%2fplay_list.xml?show_id=735335&autostart=false&shuffle=false&volume=80&corner=rounded&callback=http://www.blogtalkradio.com/FlashPlayerCallback.aspx&width=215&height=108" width="215" height="108" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" quality="high" wmode="transparent" menu="false"></embed>
  

  WE ARE THE LEADERS IN UP TO THE MINUTE CURRENT EVENTS! IF YOU LIKE TRUE NEWS REPORTING LISTEN IN TO US! WE ARE CONSERVATIVE INDEPENDENTS AND ARE READY TO FIGHT TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK! EVERY WEDNESDAY AT 9:30 PM EASTERN TIME!

  Upcoming Episodes

  11/14/2009 2:30 AM UTC - THOMAS PAINES "COMMON SENSE"

  11/16/2009 2:00 AM UTC - The Patriot Hour 78

  11/19/2009 2:30 AM UTC - WEDNESDAYS WITH THE PATRIOT HOUR 45

• On Demand Episodes           14853          

  Date / Time: 9/30/2008 3:37 PM UTC

  WHO IS GETTING MONEY FROM BIG OIL!!!!

  Races to Watch IV: Money Flowing from Oil and Gas

  Published by Eliza Krigman on September 29, 2008 3:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

  The oil and gas industry, under the spotlight this fall with energy at the forefront of political discourse, isn't hesitating to put some of its record profits into the hands of candidates who support its cause (or those it's seeking to convert). So far this election cycle, the oil and gas industry has given $12.3 million total to congressional candidates. Oil giants Chevron, Exxon Mobil and BP, each of which is among the top 100 donors of all time a (including employee and PAC donations), are among those companies that are attempting to sway congressional races.
  
  Republicans have historically been the industry's favorite, bringing in as much as 82 percent of the contributions from oil and gas companies in the 2006 election cycle. Of the $12.3 million the industry has given to congressional candidates this cycle, Republicans have collected 75 percent. Nine of the top 10 Senate candidates and eight of the top 10 House candidates who have received the most oil money this cycle are Republicans.
  
  The energy-related issues playing a role in the congressional races this year are numerous. Gas prices hit a new record, and renewable energy is now competing with oil and gas for subsidies. The ban on offshore drilling is likely to be lifted, and many candidates for Congress, particularly those from coastal states, are using this as a major part of their platform.
  
  "I think energy is a big issue on people's minds mainly because of the rise in cost of gasoline, and the rise in cost of home utility bills, especially electricity," said Charles Ebinger, director of the Energy Security Initiative at the Brookings Institution. "The electricity bills in some northeastern states could go up to $1,500 a month this winter. These two things are perceived to be hitting people's pocketbooks the hardest. This is why issues like offshore drilling and nuclear energy are being discussed much more widely."
  
  There is a lot at stake for the oil and gas industry this year--and for the politicians who hope to keep or gain a seat in Congress. The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics has identified the candidates who have received the most money from oil and gas interests in this election cycle, and Capital Eye selected a few races to more deeply examine the impact of well-digger dollars on politics.
  
  "Oil and gas money always plays a prominent role in politics, because there is so much of it," said Daniel J. Weiss, an energy and climate expert at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. "Oil company lobbyists are trying to protect their record profits by opposing an end to industry tax breaks. They're giving a lot of money to people who support those tax breaks."
   
  Here are a few oil-supported races to watch:
  
  Louisiana Senate Race
  
  

  Mary L. Landrieu (D)* Total Raised: $9,493,299 Total from oil and gas companies: $305,950

  John Neely Kennedy (R) Total Raised: $5,622,089 Total from oil and gas companies: $117,900

  
  This election cycle, only Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) have received more money than Louisiana incumbent Sen. Mary Landrieu from the oil and gas industry. Her nearly $306,000 haul is a particularly noteworthy accomplishment given that Landrieu is a Democrat and the oil and gas industry heavily favors Republicans. Landrieu's opponent, Louisiana State Treasurer John Kennedy, hasn't exactly been ignored by the industry, however, having pocketed more than $117,000 himself. Because the oil and gas industry plays such a big role in Louisiana, constituents there may not see the contributions as being tainted, the way constituents in other parts of the country might.
  
  "Oil and gas provide the backbone for the Louisiana economy," said Scott Schneider, spokesman for the Landrieu campaign. "It's the source of thousands of jobs in the state and on the Gulf Coast." According to the state government, Louisiana is the number-one producer of crude oil and the number-two producer of natural gas among the 50 states. As a hub of the energy industry, and one of the few states where offshore drilling is permitted, oil money has always had a significant role in Louisiana politics.
  
  The main reason that the oil and gas industry has been so supportive of Landrieu may be because of her action on offshore drilling. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Landrieu became the first Louisiana lawmaker to push through legislation allowing the Pelican State to recoup lost revenue by sharing royalties from offshore drilling, according to Congressional Quarterly. During fiscal year 2007, Louisiana received $23.1 million from offshore leases--and the state expects this number to go up dramatically in the next decade--and has put the funds toward coastal restoration. Those receiving a piece of the offshore pie have not been shy about contributing to Landrieu: oil rig operator Edison Chouest Offshore ranks fourth among her top contributors between 2003 and 2008.
  
  Landrieu can use every dollar she can raise, as the she seems to be the only Senate incumbent that Democrats fear will lose a seat. "The Republican Party was a beneficiary of the demographic shakeup statewide, there is no question about that," said Thomas Langston, a political scientist at Tulane University in New Orleans. "Yellow dog Dems have been slow to die in Louisiana, and Katrina gave them a push into the grave, because Republicans realize they can win as Republicans." Another upshot for challenger Kennedy's chances is the high approval rating for Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal. In addition, President Bush's approval rating in Louisiana is higher than the national average. However, it may be harder for Kennedy to lay his claim to the GOP since he only became a Republican in 2007.
  
  Kennedy, too, supports offshore drilling, and his campaign said he'd like to see it expanded to end the nation's dependence on foreign oil, spokesman Kyle Plotkin said. "John Kennedy supports drilling everywhere, including the Outer Continental Shelf and [the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve], developing oil shale in the West, investing in clean and renewable energy and conservation," he said.
  
  North Carolina Senate Race
  
  

  Elizabeth Dole (R)* Total Raised: $11,271,438 Total from oil and gas companies: $124,527

  Kay R. Hagan (D) Total Raised: $3,059,918 Total from oil and gas companies: $5,550

  
  The oil and gas industry has given incumbent Elizabeth Dole 22 times more money than Democratic challenger Kay Hagan. Of the candidates for Senate this election cycle, Dole is among the top 10 recipients of oil and gas money--an obvious industry favorite. But despite her enormous financial advantage in this area (and overall), this race supports the notion that money can't buy everything, as these two political veterans are now racing neck-and-neck to Election Day. Recent polls show that this is going to be a close race, and one where the energy debate is a priority for both campaigns.
  
  Both Hagan and Dole have come out in support of offshore drilling, but this is a reversal for both candidates. Before this summer, Dole and Hagan supported a federal moratorium on oil exploration off North Carolina's coast. Historically, many lawmakers have been staunchly opposed to offshore drilling for environmental concerns and the damaging effects it would have on tourism, but sky-high gas prices have caused politicians to re-consider their position.
  
  Part of the energy debate strategy of both candidates in this race has been accusing the other of profiting off of the oil and gas industry. The Dole campaign ran an ad accusing Hagan herself of owning wells and profiting every time North Carolinians go to the gas pump. The News & Observer called the ad inaccurate, because it's Hagan's husband who has investments in companies that own domestic wells, and the Hagans do not own any wells themselves. The Hagan campaign shot back by broadcasting that Bob Dole, Elizabeth Dole's husband and a former Senate majority leader, has a $1 million stake in an offshore hedge fund that speculates on oil. According to the Hagan campaign, the Dole hedge fund investment raises a question: whether Dole's vote against more regulation of hedge funds that speculate on the oil market was motivated by personal financial gain.
  
  While both campaigns are up in arms trying to prove that the other's personal finances make them beholden to Big Oil, there is no question about who is receiving more contributions. Not only has Dole received more than Hagan this election cycle by leaps and bounds, she's raked in more than $277,700 from the oil and gas industry during her Senate career. Since her first run for Senate in 2002, oil and gas companies have been among Dole's top 20 industry supporters. They have no effect on her legislative decisions, though, said Dan McLagan, spokesman for the Dole campaign. "Sen. Dole has never been beholden to any donor," he said, citing Dole's co-sponsorship of the Clean Energy Investment Act, a bill that would establish a government-run bank to assist in the financing, and facilitate the commercial use, of clean energy and energy-efficient technologies within the United States. 
  
  Where these candidates stand on energy issues will come into play for North Carolina voters on Election Day. "Working families spent the entire month of August having to pay more and more for gas," said Colleen Flanagan, spokeswoman for the Hagan campaign. "People in Greenville, Asheville and Raleigh, they aren't in the Senate listening to the back and forth. They're feeling it at the cash register."
   
  New Mexico's 2nd Congressional District
  
  

  Harry Teague (D) Total Raised: $1,529,892 Total from oil and gas companies: $68,700

  Edward Tinsley (R) Total Raised: $1,091,355 Total from oil and gas companies: $43,950

  
  Rep. Steve Pearce is retiring from his 2nd District seat to run for Senate, leaving it to candidates Harry Teague (D) and Ed Tinsley (R) to vie for his spot. The 2nd District, which sprawls over half of New Mexico, is littered with thousands of oil wells. Teague, like Louisiana's Sen. Mary Landrieu, is an anomaly for being a Democrat who's received more money from the oil and gas industry than his Republican opponent. However, party titles in this race are deceptive; it's really more about energy politics. Both candidates have ties to the oil industry: Teague owns an oil field services company, and Tinsley is an oil investor (and restaurant owner). Tinsley is favored slightly, but Teague is raising more money and it's stacking up to be pretty competitive.
  
  Teague is not concerned about his professional background in the oil industry, "My experience in the energy industry is an asset. I've worked in the oil fields, but I also helped to bring wind farms and nuclear energy facilities to New Mexico," Teague said in an e-mail from his spokesman. "The only way we will solve the energy crisis is by drawing on all of these sources to become energy independent, and as a member of the majority caucus in Congress, I will be able to help shape a comprehensive solution to our energy problem."
  
  The oil industry is the top industry supporter for Teague and ranks second for Tinsley. Teaco Energy Company (Teague's own company) accounts for nearly half of the money he received from the oil and gas industry, at $32,200. It should be noted that this is not money Teague is giving to his own candidacy; it's all donations from company employees, according to campaign finance records. However, both Teague and Tinsley have injected their campaign chest with a sizable chunk of their own money: $768,900 and $235,000, respectively, through June.
  
  "Being tied to the oil industry is not as damaging in this district as it would be in another district," said Joe Monahan, a New Mexico political blogger. "[Teague] is a good candidate. He is going to get Republican votes and Democrat votes who might otherwise crossover. It's a district where there are more registered Democrats than Republicans, but those Democrats have been crossing over for many years to vote for Republican congressional candidates."
  
  Normally an oilman running on the Democratic ticket--who could alienate Democrats with his industry ties and Republicans with his social values--would be something of a political misfit, but in this region of New Mexico, Teague might be just right. "He would not be as competitive as he is today, if he were more liberal," said Michael Rocca, a political scientist at the University of New Mexico.
  
  CRP Researcher Douglas Weber contributed to this report.
  
  *Indicates incumbent
  
  

  Campaign Fuel: House candidates getting the most from the oil and gas industry

  Name	Race	Incumbent/Challenger/ Open Seat	Total
  Dan Boren (D)	Oklahoma 02	Incumbent	$154,900
  Joe Barton (R)	Texas 06	Incumbent	$146,441
  Mike Conaway (R)	Texas 11	Incumbent	$128,450
  Roy Blunt (R)	Missouri 07	Incumbent	$108,100
  Charles J. Melancon (D)	Louisiana 03	Incumbent	$99,600
  Mary Fallin (R)	Oklahoma 05	Incumbent	$94,800
  Charles W. Boustany Jr (R)	Louisiana 07	Incumbent	$92,000
  John Culberson (R)	Texas 07	Incumbent	$91,600
  Todd Tiahrt (R)	Kansas 04	Incumbent	$90,500
  Kay Granger (R)	Texas 12	Incumbent	$86,250
  John Sullivan (R)	Oklahoma 01	Incumbent	$84,000
  Randy Neugebauer (R)	Texas 19	Incumbent	$79,950
  Jim Matheson (D)	Utah 02	Incumbent	$76,347
  Chet Edwards (D)	Texas 17	Incumbent	$72,750
  Harry Teague (D)	New Mexico 02	Open Seat	$68,700
  Tom Cole (R)	Oklahoma 04	Incumbent	$65,200
  Peter Graham Olson (R)	Texas 22	Challenger	$60,600
  Gene Green (D)	Texas 29	Incumbent	$59,500
  Gregg Harper (R)	Mississippi 03	Open Seat	$58,500
  Pete Sessions (R)	Texas 32	Incumbent	$56,800

  Totals based on data released electronically by the Federal Election Commission on Sept. 2, 2008.

  Senate candidates getting the most from the oil and gas industry

  Name	State	Incumbent/Challenger/ Open Seat	Total
  John Cornyn (R)	Texas	Incumbent	$853,300
  James M. Inhofe (R)	Oklahoma	Incumbent	$349,750
  Mary L. Landrieu (D)	Louisiana	Incumbent	$305,950
  Mitch McConnell (R)	Kentucky	Incumbent	$299,450
  Steve Pearce (R)	New Mexico	Open Seat	$283,034
  Pat Roberts (R)	Kansas	Incumbent	$174,450
  Lamar Alexander (R)	Tennessee	Incumbent	$164,350
  Bob Schaffer (R)	Colorado	Open Seat	$150,400
  Ted Stevens (R)	Alaska	Incumbent	$127,700
  Norm Coleman (R)	Minnesota	Incumbent	$127,500
  Elizabeth Dole (R)	North Carolina	Incumbent	$124,527
  John Neely Kennedy (R)	Louisiana	Challenger	$117,900
  Max Baucus (D)	Montana	Incumbent	$109,200
  John A. Barrasso (R)	Wyoming	Incumbent	$108,400
  Roger Wicker (R)	Mississippi	Incumbent	$107,250
  Mark Pryor (D)	Arkansas	Incumbent	$103,250
  Saxby Chambliss (R)	Georgia	Incumbent	$101,000
  John E. Sununu (R)	New Hampshire	Incumbent	$90,900
  Jeff Sessions (R)	Alabama	Incumbent	$87,650
  Thad Cochran (R)	Mississippi	Incumbent	$75,700

  Totals based on data released electronically by the Federal Election Commission on Sept. 2, 2008. Senate data based on six-year totals.
  • Tags:
  • OIL
  • CANDIDATES
  • POLITICIANS
  • CAMPAIGN FUNDS
  • MONEY
  No Comments

• Date / Time: 9/29/2008 7:20 PM UTC

  ANTI-ISRAEL GROUP WANTS AMERICAN SUPPORT!!!!

  The Friends of Sabeel in North America, which professes to be the “voice” of Palestinian Christians, is raising cash for the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD).  Sadly for apologists of the Palestinian cause, the European Union axed its funding for ICAHD because of “pressure brought to bear by right-wing Israeli neo-cons who have campaigned obsessively against our funding while threatening publicly to close us down.”  Or at least that version comes from ICAHD’s Jeff Halper, as he described his group’s dire straits without Euro cash.

  Halper, an anthropology professor and American by birth, was a 1960’s-era student radical in the U.S. until he relocated to Israel, where his radicalism simply shifted focus against the Israeli Government.  He founded ICAHD in 1997.

  In 2005-2006, the European Union Partnership for Peace Programme gave nearly a half million Euros to ICAHD for an education program called “Re-Framing: Providing a Coherent Paradigm of Peace to the Israeli Public.”  Ostensibly, this EU funding funnel “supports local and international civil society initiatives that promote peace, tolerance and non violence in the Middle East.”  But most of the cash seems to flow towards groups like ICAHD that simply repeat the standard anti-Israel narrative.

  Friends of Sabeel did not explain why the European Union cut off ICAHD’s funds.  But apparently it was because of Halper’s role in the “Free Gaza Flotilla,” in which “peace” activists broke the blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza by sailing in from Cyprus.   Upon returning to Israel, Halper was arrested and incarcerated overnight.  Apparently even the normally tolerant European Union was unimpressed.

  Last year, when it apparently was more flush with funds, ICAHD published a full-page ad in The New York Times with the headline: “Who Will Stop this Bulldozer from Destroying the Chance for Peace?”  Included was a large photo of a Palestinian woman holding up her arms in the face of a presumably onrushing Israeli bulldozer.  Naturally, ICAHD portrays the Israeli house demolitions as merely a nasty ploy to force Palestinians off their land. That destroyed homes usually housed terrorists, tunnels, or arms caches goes unmentioned, of course.

  Despite this indifference to Palestinian terrorism, ICAHD professes to oppose all “forms of violence” between Israelis and Palestinians.  It insists that a “lasting peace” depends on full Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, but not necessarily any change in attitudes by Palestinians.  ICAHD specially focuses on Israel’s “ongoing policies of Palestinian home demolitions, relentless development of large settlements, and building of the ‘Separation Barrier’ deep into the West Bank area.”  The group is also distressed by America’s “uncritical political support” for Israel and Israel’s chronic “violations of basic human rights.”

  So ICAHD’s allies at Friends of Sabeel in North America are appealing to anti-Israel religious activists in the U.S. to help contribute $30,000 towards ICAHD.  Friends of Sabeel is the American branch of Jerusalem-based Sabeel, which is a think-tank for Palestinian Liberation Theology. The American Sabeel helps to organize U.S. church officials who believe that Israel is the primary villain in the Middle East.  In recent years, Sabeel has advocated that U.S. churches divest their pension funds from firms doing business with Israel, but that campaign has largely collapsed, having been rejected even by liberal denominations.  Board members of Friends of Sabeel in North America include former Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Edmond Browning, radical Catholic eco-feminist theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether, and Christian Century magazine contributing editor James Wall.

  Friends of Sabeel forwarded to its own supporters Jeff Halper’s urgent appeal for American dollars to replace the lost Euros.  “So we now face a real crisis,” Halper glowered.  “That said, those who want us ‘gone’ make a mistake in assuming that we will close if our funding is withdrawn.”  Halper promised to keep his office open and work on a voluntary basis, with two staffers to help him. He thanked his American supporters for having provided an “important supplement” to the now cut off European Union funding, which had helped launch the “Constructing Peace Campaign.”

  ICAHD launched the “Constructing Peace Campaign” last year to rebuild demolished Palestinian homes, so as to spotlight Israel’s supposedly senseless destruction.  As a sort of pro-Palestinian Habitat for Humanity, the peace campaign also hosts an annual two-week summer camp, in which international volunteers help rebuild Palestinian houses as a “symbolic gesture of peace and opposition to the Occupation.”  In between the construction work, the volunteers take field trips to observe what Halper calls Israel’s “Matrix of Control,” including the Wall, the “massive check points,” and “one of the many refugee camps created in 1948.”

  All of this important anti-Israel work must continue, of course.  So Halper defiantly concluded his appeal to American supporters:  “I promise you, no matter what, ICAHD will not be silenced.”

  Trying to rescue ICAHD, the Friends of Sabeel in North America have pledged to raise at least $30,000.  The fundraising includes inviting Halper to the U.S. for a fall tour, during which he will presumably address sympathetic church groups.  “We, along with Jeff, promise you that ICAHD will not be silenced,” the board members of Friends of Sabeel earnestly promised.  “Together, we will continue to be a loud and persistent voice for justice.” 

  Potential American religious supporters of Sabeel and ICAHD will have to ponder whether a group too radically anti-Israel even for European Union support should merit dollars from among U.S. churches.

  • Tags:
  • RELIGION
  • JEWS
  • ISLAM
  • MUSLIM
  • HATE
  No Comments

• Original Air Date: 9/28/2008 5:00 PM UTC

  THE PATRIOT HOUR 18!!!!

  GENERAL RACHEL AND I WILL BE DISCUSSING A LITTLE BIT OF EVERYTHING. SO JOIN US ON SUNDAY AT 1PM EASTERN.
  <embed src="http://www.blogtalkradio.com/BTRPlayer.swf?displayheight=&file=http://www.blogtalkradio.com%2fMALACHI%2fplay_list.xml?show_id=269158&autostart=false&shuffle=false&volume=80&corner=rounded&callback=http://www.blogtalkradio.com/FlashPlayerCallback.aspx&width=215&height=108" width="215" height="108" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" quality="high" wmode="transparent" menu="false"></embed>
  • Tags:
  • CONSERVATIVE
  • MAIN STREET MEDIA
  • NEWS
  • POLITICS
  • SCIENCE
  Comments (15)

• Original Air Date: 9/27/2008 5:00 PM UTC

  PROPHET OF DOOM: CHAPTER 16 "MEIN KAMPF"

  THERE WILL BE NO CALLS TAKEN DURING THIS SERIES OF AUDIO BOOK READINGS. I WILL RUN THIS SERIES ON EVERY SATURDAY AT 1PM EASTERN TIME. THANK YOU FOR JOINING ME ON THIS VERY IMPORTANT BROADCAST SERIES!
  <embed src="http://www.blogtalkradio.com/BTRPlayer.swf?displayheight=&file=http://www.blogtalkradio.com%2fMALACHI%2fplay_list.xml?show_id=268410&autostart=false&shuffle=false&volume=80&corner=rounded&callback=http://www.blogtalkradio.com/FlashPlayerCallback.aspx&width=215&height=108" width="215" height="108" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" quality="high" wmode="transparent" menu="false"></embed>
  • Tags:
  • ISLAM
  • MOHAMMED
  • PROPHET
  • RELIGION
  • TERRORISTS
  Comments (2)

• Original Air Date: 9/27/2008 2:30 AM UTC

  THE PATRIOT HOUR: FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

  DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE!
  <embed src="http://www.blogtalkradio.com/BTRPlayer.swf?displayheight=&file=http://www.blogtalkradio.com%2fMALACHI%2fplay_list.xml?show_id=282219&autostart=false&shuffle=false&volume=80&corner=rounded&callback=http://www.blogtalkradio.com/FlashPlayerCallback.aspx&width=215&height=108" width="215" height="108" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" quality="high" wmode="transparent" menu="false"></embed>
  • Tags:
  • CONSERVATIVE
  • LIBERAL
  • POLITICS
  • MAIN STREET MEDIA
  • NEWS
  Comments (3)

• Original Air Date: 9/26/2008 3:30 AM UTC

  THE PATRIOT HOUR-TERRORISTS SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT!!!!

  THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT INFORMATION ON TERRORISTS !!!
  <embed src="http://www.blogtalkradio.com/BTRPlayer.swf?displayheight=&file=http://www.blogtalkradio.com%2fMALACHI%2fplay_list.xml?show_id=293633&autostart=false&shuffle=false&volume=80&corner=rounded&callback=http://www.blogtalkradio.com/FlashPlayerCallback.aspx&width=215&height=108" width="215" height="108" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" quality="high" wmode="transparent" menu="false"></embed>
  • Tags:
  • ISLAM
  • MUSLIM
  • TERROR
  • WAR
  • MAIN STREET MEDIA
  Comments (7)

• Date / Time: 9/24/2008 3:28 PM UTC

  TANCREDO'S ANTI-JIHAD BILL!!!!!

  International reaction was almost uniformly negative last week when news broke that Britain had officially granted Muslim Sharia courts permission to rule on everything from divorce to domestic violence. After all, in its strictest form, Sharia law requires the stoning of women accused of adultery, and the execution of converts from Islam, among other draconian punishments for offences that aren’t even considered crimes in the West. In the U.K. and abroad, pundits and politicians denounced Britain’s capitulation, but only one elected official responded with a daring proposal aimed at preventing Sharia law from gaining such a foothold in America.

  That that politician was Rep. Tom Tancredo won’t surprise observers of American politics. The Colorado congressman has long been an outspoken critic of the unofficial “open-borders” policy that encourages millions of undocumented immigrants – including would-be terrorists – to enter the U.S. each year. During his short-lived presidential campaign in 2007, Tancredo repeatedly raised the immigration issue during televised debates. He also aired a provocative television ad in which he promised to “stop all visas to nations that sponsor terrorism and [to] arrest and deport any alien who preaches violence and hatred.”

  The ad earned Tancredo scorn on the Left and also on some parts of the Right. Undaunted, he has now proposed a “Jihad Prevention Act” that “would bar the entry of foreign nationals who advocate Sharia law [and] make the advocacy of Sharia law by radical Muslims already in the United States a deportable offense.” In his official announcement on September 18, Tancredo observed: “This is a case where truth is truly stranger than fiction. Today the British people are learning a hard lesson about the consequences of massive, unrestricted immigration.”

  “When you have an immigration policy that allows for the importation of millions of radical Muslims,” he explained, “you are also importing their radical ideology – an ideology that is fundamentally hostile to the foundations of western democracy – such as gender equality, pluralism, and individual liberty. The best way to safeguard America against the importation of the destructive effects of this poisonous ideology is to prevent its purveyors from coming here in the first place.”

  Tancredo hopes his bill will spur public debate, and “send a clear message that the only law we recognize here in America is the U.S. Constitution and the laws passed by our democratically elected representatives…If you aren’t comfortable with that concept, you aren’t welcome in the United States.”

  So far, reaction to the “Jihad Prevention Act” has been muted on both sides, possibly because the media is providing wall-to-wall election coverage. Nonetheless, some prominent supporters have emerged. Having advocated similar measures in the past, the group Muslims Against Sharia praised Tancredo’s initiative. So did scholar Andrew Bostom, author of The Legacy of Jihad. Bostom hailed Tancredo’s “sane approach,” adding, “Thank goodness for Congressman Tancredo’s courage and clarity on this pressing matter!”

  Tancredo also has an ally in columnist and author Diane West. In books like The Death of the Grown Up and in her syndicated columns, West has chronicled what she considers the decline of Western civilization, brought on by everything from a perpetually adolescent popular culture to radical Islam. “What I like about this proposed legislation,” West said in an email interview, “is its clear, direct focus on Islamic law (Sharia).” Focusing on Sharia, West believes, is the “only way to grapple successfully with the repressive overlay of Islam on a society--understanding it as a function of law, and not religion.” She points out that Tancredo’s “bill allows us to see clearly through to the heart of the matter: the danger that unchecked Islamic immigration will bring about a constituency for Islamic law, leading to disastrous changes to our legal system.”

  To be sure, West does have some reservations about the bill. “I'm not sure how he proposes to determine which Muslim immigrants advocate Islamic law and which do not,” she said. “I would prefer to see a general restriction on Islamic immigration to prevent the build-up of a demographic that wills Sharia. Moreover, West notes that this session of Congress is nearly over. Even if Tancredo’s bill were “brought to a vote this week, I sadly doubt it will be passed.” Still another problem is that there is scant enthusiasm in Congress for passing such a bill. With the notable exception of Rep. Sue Myrick, a Republican from North Carolina, the political class has failed even to address the conflicts between Islamic law and Western values – let alone to draft legislation to thwart the spread of Sharia in the U.S.

  Europe may soon prove a model in this regard – the unhappy case of Britain notwithstanding. This December, Israel’s Dr. Arieh Eldad, a former member of the Israeli Knesset, will host the Facing Jihad Summit in Jerusalem. The summit seeks to bring together “European lawmakers who are united in their shared belief that Islam today poses a serious threat to Western civilization.” The idea is to create an alliance of politicians who can workshop legislation to prevent creeping Islamization, which they can then bring back to their home countries and create a voting block in the EU parliament. The attending parliamentarians will be joined by experts on radical Islam such as Daniel Pipes and Bat Ye’or, but bigotry will not be tolerated: Eldad emphasizes that the summit will bar “neo-Nazis and racist parties” like the British National Party. “Seven countries will be represented so far,” Eldad told FrontPage.

  And what of America? Eldad thought it likely that at least a few Capitol Hill politicians would attend the jihad summit. If so, Tom Tancredo might be an ideal delegate.

  • Tags:
  • GOVERNMENT
  • POLITICS
  • BILL
  • LAWS
  • HATE
  No Comments

• < Previous Episodes