From Gateway Pundit

Great.

Quiet Muslim-Only Town in N.Y. Founded by Alleged Terrorist

HANCOCK, N.Y. — If you didn’t know where to look, you’d probably never find Islamberg, a private Muslim community in the woods of the western Catskills, 150 miles northwest of New York City.

The town, sitting on a quiet dirt road past a gate marked with No Trespassing signs, is home to an estimated 100 residents. There are small houses and other buildings visible from the outside, but it is what can’t be seen from beyond the gate that has some watchers worried.

Islamberg was founded in 1980 by Sheikh Syed Mubarik Ali Shah Gilani, a Pakistani cleric who purchased a 70-acre plot and invited followers, mostly Muslim converts living in New York City, to settle there.

The town has its own mosque, grocery store and schoolhouse. It also reportedly has a firing range where residents take regular target practice. Gilani established similar rural enclaves across the country — at least six, including the Red House community in southern Virginia — though some believe there are dozens of them, all operating under the umbrella of the “Muslims of the Americas” group founded by Gilani.

Federal authorities say Gilani was also one of the founders of Jamaat al-Fuqra, a terrorist organization believed responsible for dozens of bombings and murders across the U.S. and abroad. The group was linked to the planning of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and 10 years earlier a member was arrested and later convicted for bombing a hotel in Portland, Ore.

Shoe bomber Richard Reid has been linked to the group, along with convicted D.C. sniper John Allen Muhammad. But it is Sheikh Gilani who creates the most controversy and concern.  ~foxnews.com

Katrina Vander Heuval:

Last month, the bipartisan Rand Corporation concluded in an important report that the very notion of a “war on terror” is counterproductive, and that intelligence and police cooperation should be the centerpiece of our strategy. More recently, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman — no milquetoast when it comes to using military force — criticized the Dems’ position on Afghanistan as ill-conceived “bumper sticker politics.” Friedman quoted a valuable Time article by Afghan expert Rory Stewart. Reporting from Kabul, Stewart explains: “A troop increase is likely to inflame Afghan nationalism because Afghans are more anti-foreign than we acknowledge, and the support for our presence in the insurgency areas is declining … The more responsibility we take in Afghanistan, the more we undermine the credibility and responsibility of the Afghan government and encourage it to act irresponsibly.”

Stewart, a longtime observer of Afghan politics, makes clear that the temptation to throw more military forces at the problem may do more harm — to our security, to the Afghan people who are already angry about mounting civilian casualties, and to the stability of a region whose underlying conflicts require political resolution not more US or NATO troops.  ~alternet.org

From Powerline:

If this report is correct, Nancy Pelosi was carrying on her own foreign policy in opposition to that of the United States, trying to work with the socialist Hugo Chavez and the Communist FARC terrorists to undermine America’s ally, Colombia. In normal times, this would be unthinkable. Given the crazed state of today’s Democratic party, I’m not so sure.

Further, the statement that Pelosi designated the outrageously left-wing Jim McGovern to head up her mission to the terrorists is also interesting. It may tie in with this document, which, as reported by the Associated Press, apparently records an attempt by Democrats to encourage FARC to hold on until Barack Obama becomes President:… ~powerlineblog.com

We know that Chavez is a favorite among the lefties here in the US. With myriads of actors and politicians making pilgrimage to see the glorious leader and his 21st century socialism at work. We know too that leftist NGO’s actively and routinely give aid and comfort to these leftist revolutionary/terrorist gangs.

As we learn more about the Colombian military’s daring hostage rescue last week, one detail stands out: In tricking FARC rebels into putting the hostages aboard a helicopter, undercover special forces simply told the comandantes that the aircraft was being loaned to them by a fictitious nongovernmental organization sympathetic to their cause called the International Humanitarian Mission.

It may have taken years for army intelligence to infiltrate the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, and it may have been tough to convincingly impersonate rebels. But what seems to have been a walk in the park was getting the FARC to believe that an NGO was providing resources to help it in the dirty work of ferrying captives to a new location.  ~online.wsj.com

Shattered windows and bomb scares are growing threats for recruiters working to find young men and women to join the U.S. military, according to a new report that claims attacks on military recruiting stations are on the rise.

The report, issued by a not-for-profit group that supports members of the military, calls the incidents — including the spray-painting of graffiti — “attacks,” and claims there have been more than 50 since March 2003.

“The peace protesters are not peaceful,” said Catherine Moy, executive director of Move America Forward, which released the report. “They are violent. They are causing havoc in an illegal manner on recruiting offices across the United States.”  ~foxnews.com

This should not be a surprise at all since good communist have always supported ‘resistance’ and revolution in the face of the ultimate evil (America).

Besides attacking recruiting stations anti-war communists have decided that abridging the religious rights of others is fair game as well.

I’m talking about this clueless and insulting article at Time.com (to both audiences and the troops).

The author mentions how tough it is for far-leftist-liberal Hollywood, “to turn this war into edifying entertainment for the mass audience.” How tough could it be?

…there’s a slew of American movies on the subject: In the Valley of Elah, The Kingdom, Rendition, Lions for Lambs and Redacted–and soon, Badland, Grace Is Gone and Charlie Wilson’s War. Most are worthy; some feature Oscar-winning actors and directors. And so far, all show how tough it is to turn this war into edifying entertainment for the mass audience. ~time.com

Obviously, it’s pretty damn hard for liberals to make edifying war movies. But then we know they would have an easier time making movies about the glorious revolution of Hugo Chavez. (Minus the creation of AK-47 factories and the closing of media outlets who dissent from Chavez’s dictatorship.) Their ideologically colored glasses won’t allow them to see anything heroic, useful, or dramatic in this war (or our soldiers). And unfortunately they think that audiences are too stupid to realize that they should revel in the anti-american education the left is trying to give them.

But quality, or lack of it, was irrelevant to audiences. They avoided both films like summer school. ~time.com

Imagine that. Why won’t American audiences take their medicine?

As a critic, I give the Iraq films now in release passing marks for good intentions and audiences an incomplete for poor attendance. ~time.com

What this film critic brings to light is the incredible disadvantage that Hollywood labors under. That is, the albatross of their own liberal anti-american politics. With films like Lions for Lambs and Redacted filmmakers seem to have reached the nadir of their preachy influence. Americans stubbornly refuse to convert to the ‘New Patriotism’ which looks a great deal like old fashioned treason and subversion but is now marketed by progressives as, “dissent,” the new and highest form of patriotism.

For example, a host of liberals will accept nothing less than defeat in war for American troops. Murtha (and Obama) says that our criminals, uh, I mean, rapist cold-blooded murderers, er, American soldiers can’t win this war. Harry Reid said the war was lost a long time ago.

All hail the new patriotism! Long may she waive.

This is ancient wisdom that some state department employees don’t understand and would dispute, with tears if they have to. No wonder our government is so disfunctionally lame.

Envoys Resist Forced Iraq Duty
Top State Dept. Officials Face Angry Questions

Some quotes from the WashingtonPost article:

…Service in Iraq is “a potential death sentence,” said one man who identified himself as a 46-year Foreign Service veteran. “Any other embassy in the world would be closed by now,” he said to sustained applause.

…Thomas reminded them, according to an audiotape of the session, that “every member of the Foreign Service, there can be no doubt, has agreed to worldwide availability. Every member . . . has taken an oath to the flag and the country.” If volunteers come forward for the unfilled posts, he said, “we will cease this operation. But if not, we will continue. . . . If we have to, we will redirect assignments.” ~washingtonpost.com

My guess is that the dissenters here are really saying that diplomacy doesn’t and cannot work in Iraq. It apparently only works in peaceful countries where peace already reigns. But then that would make their cushy paper-pushing jobs kind of superfluous, wouldn’t it?

WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 — Israel’s air attack on Syria last month was directed against a site that Israeli and American intelligence analysts judged was a partly constructed nuclear reactor, apparently modeled on one North Korea has used to create its stockpile of nuclear weapons fuel, according to American and foreign officials with access to the intelligence reports.  ~nytimes.com

If Syria had a partly constructed nuclear reactor Iran’s is probably much further along, wouldn’t you think? They’ve been at it far longer and are highly motivated.

Nearly one out of every five Democrats thinks the world will be better off if America loses the war in Iraq… ~foxnews.com

19% of democrats polled believe that the world will be better off if America LOSES the war in Iraq. Another 20% of Democrats just aren’t sure if it’s ok to win or if the evil empire should lose all it’s wars on principle. The question to ask about this poll is how many Democrats lied and didn’t express their true feelings. Certainly 19% is a low number.

From John Kerry calling our troops uneducated to Cindy Sheehan calling them war criminals, (oh wait, Kerry did that too), democrats and liberals express hatred, loathing, and disgust for our military and America but welcome ‘dialogue’ with enemies who also express hatred, loathing, and disgust for our military and America. What can this possibly mean?

Meanwhile: As Columbia welcomes Ahmadinejad to campus, Columbia students who want to serve their country cannot enroll in the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) at Columbia. Columbia students who want to enroll in ROTC must travel to other universities to fulfill their obligations. ROTC has been banned from the Columbia campus since 1969. In 2003, a majority of polled Columbia students supported reinstating ROTC on campus. But in 2005, when the Columbia faculty senate debated the issue, President Bollinger joined the opponents in defeating the effort to invite ROTC back on campus. ~weeklystandard.com

General Petraeus just received a big middle finger from the ‘mainstream’ Democrats at MoveOn.org. The slander and mudslinging from the left is routinely defended as free speech. And this will no doubt beminimized by apologists as nothing, but it proves the point that the left hates America and wants to see it changed. Radically changed.

Liberals will say that they love America, they just want to change everything about it so that can be ‘better’, ie more socialist, more equal.