Thursday, December 27, 2007

Statism is Here

Statism: The belief, almost always unjustified, that no matter what the problem, government can solve it better than private citizens. It is not merely about mandating universally poor health care. It is about protecting our homes and families. Gun control is a typical example. It is the unjustified belief that police, who have no legal duty to protect the individual from crazed nutcases who want to kill, will nevertheless be there and will protect you.

The latest outrage is from a town in California that prohibits private citizens, on pain of criminal prosecution, from fighting fires to protect their homes. No. The volunteer fire department is the only permitted firefighting agency. Leave your own hose at home. Doug Bandow reports here. Here, neighbors were threatened with criminal prosecution for buying a fire truck and organizing neighbor volunteers, some of who are professional firefighters.

My original intent in starting this blog was to focus on stupid government tricks. This report certainly qualifies.

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Hillary Christmas Ad

This was so bad, I thought it was a joke. But as I keep looking , I don't think it is. I think they are serious.

Hillary Christmas Ad

I guess the leftist spirit of Christmas is to take money from person A, give it person B, and take credit for being the giver.

How low can they sink?

Sunday, December 09, 2007

Mahmoud El-Yousseph's Letter to the Editor

The following letter was published in the Marion Star (Print) and the Columbus Dispatch online letters. I am certain that Mr. Yousseph will not mind my reproducing it here in its entirety:

Proper punishment for convicted terrorist

Central Ohio sleep tight tonight. A second Columbus man was busted for terror ties and was sentenced for 10 years in jail. What a relief!

Nuradin Abdi, a Somali immigrant, was convicted last week and will spend the next 6 years behind bars and then be expelled to Mogadishu. Take it from this Muslim, Abdi is getting what he deserves.

Abdi was convicted of providing material to terror activities and plan to carry out attack at an area shopping mall, targeting innocent citizens. He claimed that was in response to U.S. agression against Muslims abroad.

That is not how you should show gratitude to the country that took you in as a refugee, provided you with a chance at work, safety, and security. If he was dissatisfied with our government foreign policy (as am I), there are many legal avenues available, even to non-citizens. By advocating the use of violence, he was part of the problem and not the solution.
Fortunately, he did not have a chance to carry out his plan.

I must admit I've never met the man. However, when I read about his case four years ago, I was suspicious about the government's claim, since Abdi was arrested based on secret evidence. This was, afterall, at the height of anti-Muslim feeling in the U.S.

Still fresh on the minds of Muslims across America were the two high profile cases of two other U.S.-born Muslim converts: Brandon Mayfield, an attorney from Oregon and James [Yusuf] Yee of Washington state. Mr. Mayfield was falsely accused by the government and was implicated with the Madrid bombing, while Captain James Yee, who served in the U.S. Army at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, was charged with espionage and many other serious offenses. Later the government dropped all charges against both of them. The government agreed to settle with Mayfield for $ 2 million, and offered him a formal apology: The federal government "regrets that it mistakenly linked Mr. Mayfield to this attack." The U.S. Army lost a valuable human resource. Captain Yee received an honorable discharge, no apology, and he wrote a book about his ordeal to pay off his $200,000 legal expenses.

During that hysteria, I spoke publicly in defense of Abdi and about his right to free and fair trial based on evidence. I even contributed to his legal defense fund. Now after his case is over and he has admitted guilt to terror ties, I accept that this misguided man has betrayed his family, local Somalis, Central Ohio's Muslim community, and the country that welcomed him.

Of special concern to me is the lack of response to this issue by local Muslim and Arab leaders, especially by The Council of American Islamic Relations [CAIR]. CAIR has defended Abdi vigorously throughout his case when it perceived he was a victim. One would think that CAIR leadership would have the moral courage to denounce Abdi's act, once he was found guilty on credible evidence. I made four attempts by phone seeking a reaction from two CAIR members, my messages were not returned. Sadly, that was the same group that I once admired and took heat for defending in the press.

Lets hope and pray that the New Year does not bring us anymore unpleasant surprises, the likes of Nuradin Abdi. As far as this Muslim is concerned, I will continue to speak out my opinion -- a freedom which is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution -- even when it is not popular. But I will keep in mind my late mother's (bless her soul) advice to me as I embarked for America: Don't spit into the plate that feeds you!

Mahmoud El-Yousseph, Westerville

Friday, December 07, 2007

M. Zhudi Jasser Speaks Out

In an interesting article in the Middle East Quarterly, M. Zhudi Jasser, a Muslim activist against radial Islamists, describes his contacts with teh Flying Imams. At the end of the article, Mr. Jasser echoes my own thinking on what needs to be done by Muslims and non-Muslims:
Countering Islamism and combating Islamist terrorism should be a greater public responsibility for the organized American Muslim community than the obsession with civil rights and victimization in which current Islamist organizations engage. Americans living in fear for their security are looking to moderate, traditional Muslims to lead this fight. The credibility of the Muslim community suffers because groups such as CAIR, ISNA, and the North American Imams Federation deny the interplay between Islamism and terrorism.

Non-Muslims also have a role. Both the U.S. government and mainstream media often give Islamists and their organizations exclusive voice to speak on behalf of American Muslims, which creates a cycle of apparent, if not real, empowerment. Seldom do they turn to non-Islamists and anti-Islamists who may represent far more American Muslims. The recent refusal of PBS to air the ABG Films, Inc. documentary Islam v. Islamists is a prime example of the manner in which media producers and executives shield Islamists from criticism.

Monday, December 03, 2007

Sharia Law Barbarism

On the Teddy bear named Mohammed and the lashed for the rape victim (for being in a car with a man not her husband), finally a New York Times editorial with which I can agree:
Muslims who wonder why non-Muslims are often baffled, angered, even frightened by some governments’ interpretation of Islamic law need only look to the cases of two women in Saudi Arabia and Sudan threatened with barbaric lashings.
What one Muslim leader, Ibrahim Mogra of the Muslim Council of Britain, said about the Sudan case can also be applied to the Saudis’: “How does this help the cause of Islam? What kind of message and image are we portraying about our religion and our culture?”
And what about the Sudanese protesters demanding her life? What does that say?

Even CAIR shudders at the Sudanese reaction to the teddy bear situation, albeit in a more muted fashion than I would.

Gender Silliness