The Call to Jihad:
“Radicalizing” Muslim Youth in America
Dear Press For,
We now frequently read how people like the Ft. Hood jihadist and the “Underwear Bomber” have been “radicalized.” But have you noticed that very few officials in government or members of the “establishment” media ask what is “radicalizing” these people?
This past Tuesday, our friends at Front Page Magazine conducted an interview with Dave Gaubatz (see below, highlights added), co-author of the explosive blockbuster book Muslim Mafia.
Here’s one excerpt from the interview:
Every homegrown jihadist arrested last year either acknowledged or had access to materials calling for jihad.
A primary goal of ACT! for America is, over time, to persuade enough policy makers and elected officials, at all levels, that our national security strategy must include action that addresses the ideological “call to jihad.”
Another topic Gaubatz addresses in the interview is the lawsuit CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) has filed against him. He says that CAIR executives have said things that “amount as a threat” against him!
Did you know we have nearly 40,000 signatures on our petition calling for a government investigation of CAIR? If you haven’t yet signed, please click here and help push us over 40,000!
Islam’s Child Martyrs in America
Posted By Jamie Glazov On February 9, 2010 @ 12:13 am In FrontPage
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Dave Gaubatz, the first U.S. civilian (1811) Federal Agent deployed to Iraq in 2003. He is the owner of DG Counter-terrorism Publishing . He is currently conducting a 50 State Counter-terrorism Research Tour (CTRT). He is the co-author (with Paul Sperry) of the new book, Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America.  He can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org  and his site is MuslimMafiaInternational.com .
FP: Dave Gaubatz, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
I would like to talk to you today about jihadi torture videos that have come into your possession and also about Islam’s child martyrs in America.
But first, give us some updates on your new research in terms of counter-terrorism.
Gaubatz: Thank you Jamie.
I just returned from DC, MD, PA, WV, VA, and NJ conducting various counter-terrorism (CT) research. I would like to say that while various realms of our government are doing an outstanding job in protecting our families from future Islamic based terrorist attacks, we have several serious problems. One of them is that our President doesn’t even officially have any type of plans on a “War on Terrorism.” Sadly, we are being overtaken by these groups. I meet Americans and other concerned citizens from Canada and the UK, and they know America and their countries are slowly/patiently being overtaken from within, while their leaders are ignoring the national threats.
FP: Give us some specifics on what you have recently discovered.
Gaubatz: I am beginning to see more and more violent material published and distributed to young Muslim children advocating killing Jews and Christians, and how to conduct treason/sedition inside America and to ultimately take our country down as we know it.
CAIR (Muslim Brotherhood) strongly informs its followers to not assist our law enforcement agencies and to not conduct slander and backbiting against Islamic leaders. Within Sharia law there are severe penalties for undermining the efforts of the ‘Islamic Ummah’ (Nation) and their specific target of a worldwide Ummah under Sharia law.
I have been provided hundreds of DVD’s originally videotaped by Islamic terrorist groups while they conducted torture and killings of people (even Muslims) who have helped their enemies (Israel, America, UK, Canada, etc…) to further (in their opinion) oppress the Muslim Ummah.
FP: Talk a bit more about these videos.
Gaubatz: This part of my work is very depressing because I have to review the most extreme animal actions by terrorist groups on innocent people, to include young children. I reviewed hundreds of videos the American people and law enforcement do not get to see, and our government does not want the American people to see. Why? I will explain later. I witnessed innocent people being slaughtered like animals. The Islamic terrorist groups had children cut and behead a fellow Muslim. In addition several young Muslim men had to stand in line and wait their turn to have their tongues removed by an al-Qaeda member with a razor blade. Several men had to put their arm on a board and a terrorist used a baseball to break his arm. Then he had to put his other arm out for the same treatment.
These are the type of people CAIR supports and even our government supports. The IRS grants CAIR and other such organizations non-profit organizational status and tax free benefits, while you and I are forced to pay taxes to support the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood. Something doesn’t seem right and politicians who protect these groups will lose in the end. The American people will not allow our children to suffer at the hands of terrorist groups.
FP: Share with us how Muslim children are being taught to kill “oppressors” of Islam, even inside America.
Gaubatz: For many years I have tracked the materials coming into America from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan specifically. Based on my research, these two countries are responsible for distributing jihadi materials, not just to adults, but to Muslim youth right here in America.
The message is clear: “Islam is a religion of Jihad, in peace and in war. Jihad is one of the noblest principles of Islam.” The manual where this message is found is titled, “A Guide for The Young Muslim.” The manual further describes Jihad as being physical fighting against their enemies and oppressors. It is admired to be a “martyr.” This book was found in northern VA, and a CAIR pamphlet was beside it.
“Martyrdom means transfusion of blood into a society, especially a society from anemia. It is the martyr who infuses fresh blood into the veins of the society.” The manual in which this teaching was contained was found in VA (again alongside a CAIR brochure). It is titled “The Martyr” and was originally printed in Houston, TX.
I would like to explain how the above statement is applicable here in America and reaches Muslim children. When Maj. Hasan murdered the innocent people at Fort Hood, he was trying to revitalize the Muslim people to not lose hope, to continue pursuing the agenda of al-Qaeda and others, and most importantly to let them know there are “martyrs” working inside America who are ready to die for Islam. He is 100% correct. Sleeper cells are alive and well not only in America, but Canada, the UK, and most countries worldwide.
(Continue reading interview)
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.
Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.
"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."
In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.
"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."
Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.
In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.
Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.
"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."
The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA.
Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.
Roosevelt's role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when naming him the 20th century's second-most influential figure.
"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"
NIRA's role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional within two years of its passage.
"Historians have assumed that the policies didn't have an impact because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding," Ohanian said. "We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and prices."
Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition policies persisted — albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years.
The number of antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice fell from an average of 12.5 cases per year during the 1920s to an average of 6.5 cases per year from 1935 to 1938, the scholars found. Collusion had become so widespread that one Department of Interior official complained of receiving identical bids from a protected industry (steel) on 257 different occasions between mid-1935 and mid-1936. The bids were not only identical but also 50 percent higher than foreign steel prices. Without competition, wholesale prices remained inflated, averaging 14 percent higher than they would have been without the troublesome practices, the UCLA economists calculate.
NIRA's labor provisions, meanwhile, were strengthened in the National Relations Act, signed into law in 1935. As union membership doubled, so did labor's bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate. Unemployment persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the highest in nine years.
Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.
"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."