Monday, May 31, 2010

Soccer Dad

Soccer Dad

France's chutzpah

Posted: 31 May 2010 05:09 PM PDT

From NRO:

France's President Sarkozy termed Israel's conduct "disproportionate"; Chancellor Angela Merkel's administration noted that Israel's actions did not conform to proportionality; the European Union's high representative for foreign affairs, Catherine Ashton, demanded that Israel end its blockade of the terrorist entity Hamas, which controls Gaza, without any preconditions such as the release of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit and the cessation of Hamas rocket attacks on Israel.

I don't know how many of you recall France's greatest military adventure of the past generation:

The Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior has been blown up in Auckland Harbour, New Zealand.

One of the 11 crew members on board has been killed. He has been named as Portuguese photographer Fernando Pereira, 33.

Two explosions, 60 seconds apart, ripped through the stern at 2345 local time (1245 BST) and the environmentalists' boat sank in four minutes.

Captain Peter Willcox said he had no idea what caused the blast, but strongly suspected sabotage since there were no explosives on board and only a small engine was operating at the time.

I generally don't have much sympathy for Greenpeace. But Greenpeace, however misguided, did not challenge France's right to exist and was not aiding terrorists intending to threaten French nationals. Nor were its members videotaped shouting "Death to France."

Sarkozy, alas, is starting to mimic his pathetic predecessor.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry on the Flotilla skirmish

Posted: 31 May 2010 02:51 PM PDT

The following is the proper reply to all the current ranting about the Flotilla skirmish. My source is IMRA, but it is not their original content, so I am going to reproduce the whole thing. I assume the Israeli Foreign Ministry wanted it distributed:

Ministry of Foreign Affairs 31 May 2010 - distributed May 31, 2010 5:18 PM

A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. It has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza.

1. A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. Such blockade has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza, which has repeatedly bombed civilian targets in Israel with weapons that have been smuggled into Gaza via the sea.

2. Maritime blockades are a legitimate and recognized measure under international law that may be implemented as part of an armed conflict at sea.

3. A blockade may be imposed at sea, including in international waters, so long as it does not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral states.

4. The naval manuals of several western countries, including the US and England recognize the maritime blockade as an effective naval measure and set forth the various criteria that make a blockade valid, including the requirement of give due notice of the existence of the blockade.

5. In this vein, it should be noted that Israel publicized the existence of the blockade and the precise coordinates of such by means of the accepted international professional maritime channels. Israel also provided appropriate notification to the affected governments and to the organizers of the Gaza protest flotilla. Moreover, in real time, the ships participating in the protest flotilla were warned repeatedly that a maritime blockade is in effect.

6. Here, it should be noted that under customary law, knowledge of the blockade may be presumed once a blockade has been declared and appropriate notification has been granted, as above.

7. Under international maritime law, when a maritime blockade is in effect, no boats can enter the blockaded area. That includes both civilian and enemy vessels.

8. A state may take action to enforce a blockade. Any vessel that violates or attempts to violate a maritime blockade may be captured or even attacked under international law. The US Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations sets forth that a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade.

9. Here we should note that the protesters indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade by means of written and oral statements. Moreover, the route of these vessels indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade in violation of international law.

10. Given the protesters explicit intention to violate the naval blockade, Israel exercised its right under international law to enforce the blockade. It should be noted that prior to undertaking enforcement measures, explicit warnings were relayed directly to the captains of the vessels, expressing Israel's intent to exercise its right to enforce the blockade.

11. Israel had attempted to take control of the vessels participating in the flotilla by peaceful means and in an orderly fashion in order to enforce the blockade. Given the large number of vessels participating in the flotilla, an operational decision was made to undertake measures to enforce the blockade a certain distance from the area of the blockade.

12. Israeli personnel attempting to enforce the blockade were met with violence by the protesters and acted in self defense to fend off such attacks.The morality of Israel's actions in this incident is the same as that of Israel's Gaza blockade.

Crossposted on Judeopundit

Passion and instinct vs. reason and wisdom

Posted: 31 May 2010 02:04 PM PDT

I gotta say that "passion and instinct" should win every time. (Besides, "passion and instinct" always gets the girl.)

I also think that the "reason and wisdom" is overrated. I mean in middle of battle Capt. Reason and Wisdom shouts, "Fire at Will." Huh? Why'd he take out his first officer at critical moments?

Crossposted on Yourish.

More Video Of The Gaza Flotilla Ambush

Posted: 31 May 2010 12:11 PM PDT

Keep in mind what one of the Flotilla spokespersons said while you watch the video:
Audrey Bomse, a spokesperson for the Free Gaza Movement, which is behind the convoy, told the BBC Israel's actions were disproportionate. "We were not going to pose any violent resistance. The only resistance that there might be would be passive resistance such as physically blocking the steering room, or blocking the engine room downstairs, so that they couldn't get taken over. But that was just symbolic resistance."

When the media dutifully reports everything you say without investigating whether it's actually true, you actually can say just about anything. 

Meet One Of Those Peace Activists From The Gaza Flotilla

Posted: 31 May 2010 11:52 AM PDT

Here's one of those humanitarian activists who came prepared:

  And apparently, the group sang songs too. Check out this video from MEMRI:

 'Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Jews, the army of Muhammed will return'

  And what is so special about Khaybar?

Sunday, May 30, 2010

Soccer Dad

Soccer Dad

The annals of smart diplomacy - npt edition

Posted: 30 May 2010 11:43 AM PDT

President Obama has done much to distance himself and his administration from the Bush administration. However In some ways he has persisted. And when he has chosen a different path, it hasn't always been successful. President Obama summarizes his approach to international relations like this:

Obama acknowledged that the U.S. is "clear-eyed" about the shortcoming of the international system, but he said America had not ever been successful by "stepping out of the currents of cooperation."

"We have succeeded by steering those currents in the direction of liberty and justice, so nations thrive by meeting their responsibilities and face the consequences when they don't," the president said.

Surely President Obama considers the recent conclusion of discussions of the NPT as an example of his approach. The New York Times reports:

While rejecting a deadline, for the first time the main five nuclear weapons states accepted vague language referring to a new, stronger international convention on eliminating nuclear weapons, and the idea of a "timeline" was introduced.

Despite differences over the pace of disarmament and proliferation concerns, the document breathes new life into a treaty seen as under threat, analysts said. "That is the positive, there is much more attention on future action and new benchmarks," said Prof. William C. Potter, the director of the center for nonproliferation at the Monterey Institute of International Studies.

The Washington Post offers a few more details in its conclusion:

The U.S. delegation at the NPT review in New York had fought to excise all mentions of Israel in the final document. But on Thursday evening, as delegations prepared for a last round of talks, the conference president informed them that the latest draft of the text was a take-it-or-leave-it document, officials said. Final NPT documents require a consensus.

Many diplomats had expected U.S. officials to withhold approval of the final document because of the mention of Israel. But the U.S. government was apparently reluctant to be viewed as the spoiler at a conference that focused on one of Obama's priorities.

National security adviser James L. Jones said Friday that the U.S. government "deplores" the decision to single out Israel and would "not permit a conference or actions that could jeopardize Israel's national security."

And this mention of Israel, of course, is why the NPT was controversial.

A good merchant - unlike Gen. Jones - knows the value of what he's trying to sell and what he's trying to get in exchange. As the Post observes, a final version of the NPT document was the highest priority of the administration. It's ridiculous for Jones to "deplore" the singling out of Israel. That was the cost of getting what the administration wanted. If it had placed a greater value on protecting Israel, the administration wouldn't have minded seeing the conference end without an agreement. The merchants who offered the administration the "take it or leave it deal" correctly read the values both of what the administration wanted and what it was willing to agree to, to achieve its goal.

How did Iran, currently seeking to join the nuclear club, view this?

The final statement of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference has called for the establishment of a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East.

The 28-page document, which was agreed upon on Friday by all 189 NPT signatories after a month-long round of talks at UN Headquarters in New York, called for a conference to be held in 2012 "to be attended by all states of the Middle East, leading to the establishment" of a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East.

Western diplomats said the United States finally agreed to a deal at the UN that would pressure Israel to join the NPT, Al reported.

In this case the administration didn't steer anything, it was steered. Here's how Meryl put it:

The Obama administration threw Israel under the bus again. The NPT conference ended with all 189 countries--the U.S. included--issuing a statement that names Israel, and only Israel, when calling for a nuclear-free Middle East. It does not name Iran or Syria, two nations that were on the nuclear weapons track. It calls on Israel, and only Israel, to join the NPT, which Israel has never signed. Iran is a signatory. The document does not call on Iran to stop pursuing nuclear weapons.

Meryl emphasizes that if the United States reallly opposed the language singling out Israel, it had an option: not to sign.

Henry Sokolski concludes:

Bottom line: With the possible exception of Iran, it is difficult to see how Obama or anyone got anything out of this exercise but regret.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Carnival of maryland begins again

Posted: 30 May 2010 04:59 AM PDT

Clark's brought back the Carnival of Maryland. I have two weeks now to come up with a Maryland related post.

The Carnival of Maryland was originally founded by my friend Pillage Idiot who is now retired.

If you want, check out another of Clark's sites, Clark's Picks. I found his post on Tom Dooley fascinating.

Why should I believe you when you say there's nothing there?

Posted: 30 May 2010 04:23 AM PDT

Andrew Alexander shows us what an ombudsman is supposed to do:

There was quite a noisy scene in a peaceful Chevy Chase neighborhood two Sundays ago. The midafternoon calm was shattered when 14 buses showed up without warning and about 700 protesters descended on the home of Gregory Baer, a deputy general counsel for Bank of America.

They chanted and jeered as speakers, using a bullhorn from Baer's front porch, railed against the bank's policies and its role in home foreclosures. Baer, away when the protests began, was booed when he returned and edged through the crowd before entering his home, where his teenage son was alone and frightened. Neighbors complained about the disturbance, organized by a grass-roots group called National People's Action and the huge Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Montgomery County police officers appeared as participants returned to their buses, which whisked them to another protest at the Chevy Chase home of a lobbyist for J.P. Morgan Chase.

There was no mention of the protests in the next day's Post, prompting calls from perplexed readers. Several had read a full account on and wondered why The Post had nothing. Journalists for The Nation and Mother Jones also reported from the scene.

Bank demonstrations continued downtown that Monday and The Post ran an online-only story. But it made only passing reference to Sunday's Chevy Chase protests and offered no details.

Though he isn't harsh, Alexander makes clear that his paper missed the story. The one sour note was this:

In fairness to The Post, all local media seemed unaware. George Goehl, executive director of the Chicago-based National People's Action that spearheaded the protests, said, "We didn't call any media in advance."

But HuffingtonPost reporter Arthur Delaney said he learned of the protests from SEIU sources, which raises the question of whether The Post is sufficiently plugged into the nation's most politically active labor organization.

A few months ago, the Post hired David Weigel to report on conservatives. In the past week this was one of the big political stories in the political blogosphere. Weigel, however, last week did what liberal critics of conservatives do: blasted Sarah Palin. He seems less like a serious reporter than an anthropologist.

It didn't require being plugged into a union to be aware of the story. It required being concious and watching Fox News. At the end of his column Alexander makes some good observations:

Beyond that, there were numerous ways The Post could have gotten back in the game on the story. For example, how did Chevy Chase neighbors react? Did protesters break trespass laws? When does First Amendment expression infringe on residential privacy? Does President Obama, who enjoyed SEIU electoral support, sanction these types of protests? And is a blitz on private residences a new protest tactic?

To survive, The Post needs to own its local audience. Readers lose faith when there's news in their backyard but not a word in their newspaper. And not writing about raucous liberal protests feeds the perception that The Post is overly eager to write about raucous Tea Party protests.

The Post's negligence here is important given its coverage of the Sestak scandal. Notably there's yesterday's editorial which opens:

OKAY, if all the facts are out, then we would agree: Nothing inappropriate happened. On the basis of the memorandum issued Friday by White House Counsel Robert F. Bauer, the Joe Sestak job-for-dropping-out-of-Senate-race scandal is a non-scandal -- except for the White House's bungling of the episode. The unnecessary coverup, it turns out, is always worse than the non-crime.

So when a protest by a union that supported the President is ignored, how can we accept your assurance that in the Sestak matter nothing untoward happened?

JoshuaPundit, for one, isn't convinced by the administration's account.

Ummm...I seem to remember that Sestak originslly said back in February that "somebody in the White House" contacted him about the post. And when asked about the job ( not a term customarily used to describe a post on an 'advisory council) in response reiterated that yes, it was a high position.

Bill Clinton is not "somebody in the White House" the last time I looked, and a place on an advidsory board is not a 'high position'. So was Sestak lying then...or is he lying now?

If Sestak was exaggerating all this time, why didn't the White House expose him months ago when it would have embarrassed him and perhaps helped drag Specter to a primary win?

And why get Clinton involved just to offer an advisory board position? And how is that still not a bribe, as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 211? What was Sestak going to be, a freaking intern?

And if this was all it was, why couldn't it have been detailed by Sestak weeks ago? Why wait? Why did the White House call Sestak's brother? Why time it all together? Why wouldn't Obama or Gibbs answer questions about this simply and directly?

The answer,of course, is that it took weeks to tie everybody's story together and figure out who was going to get what in exchange for engaging in this coverup.

Well, the lack of transparency makes it look exactly that way. And when the details don't add up, it makes things look a whole lot worse. The Post's incuriousness in this story is pretty amazing.

Don Surber points out that adding Bill Clinton to the story doesn't help the administration:

Guess what? This does not let the White House off the hook. In fact, it helps sink the hook deeper in the lip of the administration. Bill Clinton spoke for the White House oat the request of the White House. He is their agent. At some point, the White House asked Clinton how it went and he told them.

The Provocateur makes an excellent point too:

What is without question is that this looks awful. The best defense for this White House is the claim that this is done all the time. That may be true but in fact, Obama promised to rise above all of this. Even if no laws were violated, this goes against every bit of the soaring rhetoric that Obama made in the campaign. There's nothing inspiring or transparent about any of this. At best, there was no direct quid pro quo but just an implied one. That wouldn't be illegal, just scummy. That said, this first broke in February and now it's almost June and we still don't know much. No one will explain exactly what was said and why this isn't illegal. The reality is that this is politics as usual. Obama had no accomplishments coming into the presidency. He won largely on his soaring rhetoric, and this episode is another example that the soaring rhetoric is NOT backed up by action.

So even if there's no scandal as the Post concludes, doesn't it at least make the administration look overly cynical and political? That the Post won't even entertain this thought is even more damning.

The fact that a protest that could have been politically damaging to the President was ignored by the paper, makes me less willing to believe the Post when it tells me that there's nothing to the Sestak scandal.

Council speak 05/30/10

Posted: 30 May 2010 02:37 AM PDT

The council has spoken:

Council Submissions

Non Council Submissions

Friday, May 28, 2010

Soccer Dad

Soccer Dad

Bad week for eniviromental craziness

Posted: 28 May 2010 04:06 AM PDT

Earlier this week, James Taranto had fun with a New York Times report that the public was becoming skeptical of global warming claims by scientists.

First he observed:

We're old enough to remember the "greenhouse effect," which became "global warming," which became "climate change," which now apparently has become "climate science."

(Some of us actually remember when scientists told us that we were headed into a new ice age.)


Skepticism, the Times implies, is a sign that people are foolish and easily misled. But the opposite interpretation is closer to the truth: Those who refuse to accept outlandish claims based merely on an appeal to authority are exercising intelligence and common sense.

Charles Krauthammer today, observes that one of the causes of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, was due to ill-considered environmental fears:

Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there. As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production. (President Obama's tentative, selective opening of some Atlantic and offshore Alaska sites is now dead.) And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we've had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

So we go deep, ultra deep -- to such a technological frontier that no precedent exists for the April 20 blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.

There will always be catastrophic oil spills. You make them as rare as humanly possible, but where would you rather have one: in the Gulf of Mexico, upon which thousands depend for their livelihood, or in the Arctic, where there are practically no people? All spills seriously damage wildlife. That's a given. But why have we pushed the drilling from the barren to the populated, from the remote wilderness to a center of fishing, shipping, tourism and recreation?

"Worsen conditions"

Posted: 28 May 2010 03:59 AM PDT

China's Xinhau news service has this misleading headline:

Israel to worsen condition of Hamas prisoners

Read the article and this tells you how bad Hamas prisoners would have it:

According to the bills, prisoners in Israeli jails who were convicted for joining terrorist organizations will be barred from meeting family and receiving newspapers.

What is really going on:

In an attempt to put pressure on the Hamas leadership in Gaza to release Gilad Schalit, the Ministerial Committee for Legislation this week approved a bill that, if ratified, would take away some of the amenities enjoyed by Hamas terrorists currently incarcerated in Israeli prisons, including many captured by the IDF during December 2008-January 2009's Operation Cast Lead. No longer would these inmates be allowed to enjoy the cultural edification of multi-channel cable TV. Nor would they be permitted to pursue a higher education through Israel's Open University. Access to books and visits by relatives might be curtailed. Prolonged isolation of prisoners is also being considered.

Obviously, the Geneva Convention governing the proper treatment of prisoners would not be compromised. Prisoners would continue to have access to lawyers and medical treatment.

And as long as the International committed of Red Cross doesn't insist on visiting Gilad Schalit as should be dictated by international law, it's hard to see where the international community could object to Israel curtailing some extras to Hamas prisoners.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Submitted 05/28/10

Posted: 28 May 2010 03:58 AM PDT

This week's Watcher's council submissions are up.

Council Submissions

Non Council Submissions

The poverty of gaza

Posted: 28 May 2010 01:00 AM PDT

In Defying Blockade, Cargo and Passenger Vessels Head for Gaza, Isabel Kershner of the New York Times reports:

In a sarcastic e-mail message to reporters this week, Israel's Government Press Office recommended a high-end restaurant in Gaza, the Roots Club, attaching the menu and a link to its Web site. "We have been told the beef stroganoff and cream of spinach soup are highly recommended," the office said. The restaurant would, of course, be out of reach for most of Gaza's 1.5 million residents. Israeli military officials put unemployment there at almost 40 percent.

International organizations active in Gaza paint a bleaker picture. A United Nations Development Program report published on Sunday determined that about three-quarters of the damage caused by Israel's military offensive in Gaza in the winter of 2008-9 had not yet been repaired. And a report by the United Nations humanitarian coordinator blamed the blockade for "suffocating" the agricultural sector in Gaza and said that insufficient food was now a problem in more than 60 percent of households.

Yes, international organizations in Gaza paint a bleaker picture. But is it a more accurate picture. The other day I noted a Financial Times report that mentioned that there's such a glut of luxury items in Gaza - smuggled through tunnels - that prices are falling! If Gazans are thriving without the relief organizations, the organizations have reason to deny that; they don't want to lose their or perceived usefulness.

Additionally, it's dishonest and unfar to portray Israel as being cruel for preventing building materials into Gaza, when Hamas would use construction materials to reinforce its military infrastructure:

With regard to the military networks: Hamas is rebuilding and strives to upgrade its military-terrorist wing (the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades). That includes replacing the weapons lost with new ones (including advanced weapons) by smuggling them in through the tunnels (despite Egypt's intensive counter-activities). So far Hamas has smuggled in dozens of standard rockets, hundreds of mortar shells, dozens of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, and tens of tons of standard explosives and raw materials for the manufacture of homemade weapons. The smuggling allows Hamas to extend the range of its rockets and to improve its anti-tank and anti-aircraft capabilities. In addition, the tunnel system in the Rafah region is in use again and is a vital channel for smuggling weapons (as well as food, equipment and fuel). Weapons are being manufactured again, and military training and instruction have been renewed (although for the time being theIzz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades are keeping a lower profile than they did before Operation Cast Lead).

With regard to security systems: Hamas is particularly concerned about restoring its internal security forces, which were severely damaged by the fighting, and to strengthen its control over the Gaza Strip. Five months after the end of Operation Cast Lead, Hamas succeeded in restoring the forces' daily functioning, as can be seen by their increased deployment and visibility. The oppression of Hamas opponents (primarily Fatah) has been renewed to ensure that they do not try to regroup. In addition, new operatives are being recruited and an emergency exercise was being held to simulate emergency deployment and dealing with an Israel attack (a lesson learned from the blow delivered by the IDF at the beginning of Operation Cast Lead). Headquarters have been assigned temporary quarters, most of them in civilian locations, to find solutions, even temporary, for the problems involved in restoring the apparatuses which were attacked.

Kershner also fails to acknowledge that Hamas, by now, is partly responsible for the housing crisis in Gaza.

Nidal Eid was praised by Hamas officials as an example of anti-Zionist resistance when he managed to build a house here last year despite an Israeli blockade that barred the import of any building materials. But earlier this week, his house was the first to be demolished by the Hamas government, which said it had been illegally built on public land.

Bulldozers, accompanied by Hamas forces and police officers who beat residents with sticks, razed at least 25 houses, including some concrete structures here in Rafah, the southernmost city of Gaza.

Even as Kershner reports on the poverty in Gaza, tthere is plenty of evidnece that goods are getting through. And there's good reason for Israel to prohibit the importing of construction materials. This reminds me of Tony Blair's sister-in-law, Lauren Booth. Two years ago she went to Gaza claiming that it was a "concentration camp." Of course photographs of her in a fully stocked grocery store.

But Lauren Booth was an anti-Israel activist. Isn't Isabel Kershner supposed to be reporting the news? Even the information that contradicts the popular impression that Israel is starving the residents of Gaza.

Crossposted on Yourish. making MPAC-UK look moderate

Posted: 27 May 2010 11:30 PM PDT

I've taken a keen interest in recent months in comparing the two Muslim Public Affairs Committees: and MPAC-UK ( is actually a "Council.") Both have blog-like websites, and it happens to be an interesting moment for comparing the two. Both have posts, for instance, about the new Muslim Miss USA. declares "Miss USA is NO MODEL for Muslim Women":

Of course Fakih's no representative for anyone but her pitiable deluded self, but the hullabaloo and the mad rush by the kuffar to hail her as the 'example' Muslim woman speaks volumes, at least now they have revealed why they want to ban the hijab and other modest clothing options that cover Muslim women.
In contrast, the MPAC-UK article doesn't once use the word "kuffar," and it is even accompanied by a large picture of her smiling face. Their title: "Miss USA Targeted by Zio-Nazis." Isn't moderation grand?

A constant theme at MPAC-UK is that Muslims should get involved in the political process, and they are sometimes scathing against Muslims who think that "democracy is kuffar," as puts it. admits to once coming out in favor of voting, but they seem rather penitent in a recent article:

While accepting that democracy is kufr, we considered the act of voting as a lesser of two evils and considering the experiences of our brothers across Europe we felt that some participation might forestall anti-Muslim legislation . . .

Having witnessed the ineffectual and futile attempts of Muslims to influence the politics of kufr, in fact quite the opposite happened - the kufr of democracy unduly affected Muslims, led to compromises in the religion and with some even denunciation of the Divine Shariah, we have come to the conviction that political participation in democracy is not in the Muslims best interests.

MPAC-UK loves leftists who make common cause with Muslims. Perhaps the more conservative might at least espouse something that we would consider conservative economic principles? No such luck. Another recent post is entitled "Beware the evils of Capitalism." Let us end with the most jaw-dropping current post at the site: "In Praise of the Mutawwa":
There are few jobs in life that can be as rewarding as that of the Hai'ah (religious police), those tasked with enjoining the good and forbidding the evil. One can only look upon such individuals who risk life and limb with admiration as they work tirelessly to ensure that the insidious kufr of the west does not infiltrate the blessed land of the haramain.

And it's a constant battle, as those desirous of introducing evil choose ever more clever methods. For example the Harry Potter books were rightfully banned in bookstores across the Kingdom, and the covers were instantly recognizable even to those Hai'ah who could not speak or read English. However some stores would import similar books that were not as 'famous' in the hope that they would go undetected and that is where Muslims from the west helped play a role in keeping the Kingdom kufr free.

The article is accompanied by three YouTube videos showing the admirable efforts of the Mutawwa. The titles: "DESTROYING AN ILLICIT KUFFAR ALCOHOL FACTORY," "ARRESTING SORCERERS," and "DEALING WITH FREE MIXING." I don't have the patience to watch. Feel free to watch and tell me what they're like in the comments section.

Crossposted on Judeopundit