The Guardian asked me for my take on a Kenneth Roth column, an illogical and nonsensical leftwing piece on Obama's perverse miscarriage of justice -- the civilian trials of war criminals. The notorious Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch since 1993, "has led the politicization and erosion of universal human rights as a moral force."

I responded with a rebuttal to Roth an hour or so before the Obama verdict came in, and in the words of one editor, "well, your opening paragraphs prove prophetic -- would you like to update?"

And update I did ......... and to The Guardian's credit, few tweaks were made (eg, substituting 'al-Qaida terrorist' for 'Muslim terrorist') and they ran the whole thing:

The lesson of Ghailani's trial fiasco Pamela Geller, The Guardian

Well, that didn't take long. He's baaaaack from a sweet but altogether too-short suspension. Tonight I was Keith Undershtupper's Olbermann's Worst Person in the World. And here I thought my week could not be topped. This makes the honor being given to me this on Friday night at The Breakers, the Freedom Center's Annie Taylor Award for Courage, so much richer.

Now this is the cherry on the yellowcake. This is my what, fourth time honored by this asshat (here and here and here -- kinda). And he calls what I do the "two-minutes hate"? Maybe his conscience was bothering him, if he still has one: the closest thing to a genuine Orwellian two-minutes hate in the media today is Olbermann's "Worst Person in the World" segment.

The verdict came down late today after chaotic deliberations in the first civilian trial of a GITMO prisoner.  Ahmed Ghailani was found innocent of all but 1 of over 280 charges against him in the bombing of U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Apparently the evidence charging him with 224 counts of murder could not be used in court, because "coercive" techniques were used to get information from him.

The jury did found him guilty of "conspiracy to destroy government buildings." Huh? So the Muslim terrorist killed 224 people and he's guilty of ............... destruction of public property? Are we under attack from within or what? 

This is a serious setback for the US -- no one can make a case for civilian trials. Another breathtaking Obama failure, yet again putting Americans and national security at risk.

Check out a further validation of what I warned of in my book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America and on my blog in 2007 and 2008.

Obama’s Train Wreck of a Presidency by Pamela Geller, Big Goverment

The hits keep on coming from a train wreck of a presidency.

I just got my healthcare renewal form. My rates are up over 30% across the board, and that’s with a $5,700 deductible. This is the fruit of Barack Obama’s health care “reform,” to make healthcare affordable and accessible for everyone.

Obama really makes me sick — oops, I can’t afford to get sick.

I want a waiver — oops, I don’t know any crooked Democrats (is there any other kind?) who can fix it for me.

Who is the recipient of these goodies from this crooked administration? Unions, of course, and FOO (Friends of Obama).

Historian and finance analyst Kenneth Schortgen, Jr., notes in The Examiner that while Obama has given waivers for his new healthcare scheme to 111 corporations and other entities, the form to apply for a waiver is hard to find and harder to wade through, and:

“to receive a waiver it appears you must have political capital with the administration to be accepted.  For most small businesses, you will be incurring the new taxes, fees, and programs that will add thousands to your bottom line, and in more than a few cases, might cause a small business to close their doors.” 

 

Schortgen points out that “in March, AT&T reported from an internal study that the new Healthcare program will cost their company over $1 Billion in new and additional costs,” and that on the list of groups already granted waivers,

“unions are one of the largest entities given a waiver, and speaks to the political gifts given by the Administration to them.  The Obama Presidency has proven their partnership with unions since 2008 to the detriment of small business.”

Okay, but Obama’s other policies must be in better shape, right? Wrong.

This week Ahed Khalfan Ghailani became the first detainee who has been held at Guantanamo to be tried in civilian court, under Obama’s policy of treating acts of war as law enforcement issues. Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani faces charges of conspiracy and murder in jihad bombings in Africa that killed 224 people, including twelve Americans.

Today the jury was deliberating and a verdict was expected, but one of the jurors sent the judge a note asking to be replaced, because other jury members were giving her a hard time for “her opinions.” If the jury is deadlocked, it is unlikely that prosecutors could again bring together the witnesses who testified in this trial. Bringing witnesses from Kenya and Tanzania to testify would be hard, and maybe impossible, to repeat.

How about Obama’s foreign policy? Any good news there?

Obama has vowed to defeat al-Qaeda, but this week British General Sir David Richards said that a defeat of al-Qaeda was “unnecessary and would never be achieved.”

I agree with General Sir David Richards that al-Qaeda can’t be beaten, but not for the same reasons. Clearly, if we are afraid to freely discuss the ideology and motives behind this global war on the West, then we cannot beat it. If we dare not speak its name, surely we cannot defeat it. If, instead, those who speak to the religious ideology that compels war against the “non-believers” are the ones demonized, surely it will defeat us.

Rules of engagement, political correctness, and foreign aid to our assassins make it impossible to defeat this enemy. Give me The Bush Doctrine — “you are either with us or against us” — as opposed to The Obama Doctrine, “we are against us.”

Meanwhile, the Afghan Council that is trying to end the war there has recommended that Taliban prisoners be freed from Gitmo to join peace talks back home.

The very idea that we would be releasing Taliban terrorists to join “peace” negotiations is really scary. Not for the obvious reason that upon their release they will join the Muslim army and kill our soldiers, but scary because of the fact that our “leadership” would even consider such suicidal insanity.

The idea of peace to the enemy is a “pax islamica,” a world living under the horror of Islamic law. Obama’s jihad against Israel, while effectively aiding and abetting the most violent and imperialistic Islamic supremacists, is a lethal cocktail for freedom-loving peoples.

Meanwhile, Obama is strangely silent on the case of Sayed Mossa, who is awaiting trial in Afghanistan for converting to Christianity. Apostasy (conversion out of Islam) is punishable by death in Islamic law. In a similar case back in 2006, Abdul Rahman was spared the penalty of death and granted asylum in Italy after the Bush administration intervened. President Bush and others had insisted Afghanistan protect personal beliefs.

American blood and treasure in Afghanistan…for what?

There's more. Go here.

More high level infiltration by stealth jihadists.

I can only equate the moral inversion of having the terror promoting, jihadist MPAC lecturing US law enforcement on counter terrorism efforts with the UN vesting the Muslim leader, Hajj Amin el-Husseini, a full partner of the Axis before and during World War II and responsible for the wholesale slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Jew during the Holocaust, with the same status as the Jewish Agency for Israel.

A special sitting of the General Assembly, was convened under pressure of the Muslim states, in order to issue the invitation  in a form which would invest the Arab Higher Committee with the same diplomatic status as the Jewish Agency for Palestine, the internationally recognized representative of the Jewish people.: [source;[1] THE ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE ITS ORIGINS, PERSONNEL AND PURPOSES: The Documentary Record submitted to the United Nations May 1947. NY: Nation Associates, 1947]

A genocidal Muslim leader given the same diplomatic status as the Jewish agency in the UN for the creation of Israel. The mufti should have been hanged.

Fast forward: MPAC and its leaders consistently have supported terrorist groups like Hizballah. Their incitement to jihadic violence has actually cause Muslims to be radicalized. The group also has followed a consistent pattern of opposing U.S. counterterrorism efforts and defending designated terrorist organizations and their supporters. They are speaking to US counterterrorism officials.

Different century, same nazi.

Executive Summary: LA Law Enforcement Conference on "Radicalization" Features Islamist Radicals who have Impeded U.S. Counterterrorism Efforts

by Steven Emerson, IPT News
November 17, 2010

Note: This is an executive summary of Steven Emerson's full assessment of MPAC's record. To see the full report, click here.

 

Two leaders of an Islamist organization, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), are scheduled to lecture Southern California law enforcement officials Monday about radicalization despite a history of opposing U.S. counterterrorism efforts.

 

Salam al-Marayati and Edina Lekovic will join high-ranking officials from all law enforcement agencies from Greater Los Angeles at the two-day conference in Pismo Beach, Calif., entitled "Radicalization Conference 2010: Radicalization and Homegrown Violent Extremism."

 

Throughout its history, MPAC and its leaders have issued statements in support of terrorist groups like Hizballah and, perhaps most significantly, disseminating incendiary statements that actually cause Muslims to be radicalized. The group also has followed a consistent pattern of opposing U.S. counterterrorism efforts and defending designated terrorist organizations and their supporters.

 

Those positions also involve perpetuating the false narrative that U.S. policy is engaged in a war against Islam. MPAC has taken aim at many U.S. counter-terrorism efforts and prosecutions. For example:

 

• In a March 2003 Los Angeles Times article discussing the FBI's relationship with Muslim American communities, al-Marayati attacked the FBI for allegedly profiling only Muslims for prosecution, a demonstrably false charge. "[T]he FBI's policy of targeting people because of their race and religion…That's what they've been doing since the attacks, and we don't know of any case that has resulted in the arrest, indictment or prosecution of a terrorist," al-Marayati said.
• Even though the LA Fusion Center – consisting of representatives of the FBI, Los Angeles Police and Los Angeles Sheriff who exchange intelligence – is hosting this conference on radicalization, MPAC frequently criticized the creation and use of fusion centers. In April 2009, the organization supported a statement released by the American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Elections (AMT) calling for their elimination: "We are fully united in asking the Obama administration to address … use of McCarthy-era tactics, most notably dissemination of Islamophobic analysis by federally-funded 'fusion centers' to local law enforcement agencies."
• MPAC has also targeted the FBI's use of informants and undercover officers whom MPAC alleges instigate terrorist plots. Despite the fact that informants are widely used including in drug, gang, and organized crime investigations, a February 2009 MPAC press release argued that "federal law enforcement cannot establish trust with American Muslim communities through meetings and town hall forums, while at the same time sending paid informants who instigate violent rhetoric in mosques…"

 

In April 2009, after federal authorities disrupted an alleged plot to bomb synagogues and fire missiles at American military aircraft, Al-Marayati continued his attacks against law enforcement. Asked in an interview whether it was useful to have informants in mosques, Al-Marayati replied by suggesting that the defendants, later convicted, were not real terrorist threats:

 

"These were individuals who were either petty criminals or gullible people who were guilty of stupidity. They were not imminent threats to our country, as the FBI has stated," Al-Marayati told Fox News. "We want those tax dollars to be used to fight al-Qaeda…"

 

In a 2003 counterterrorism paper, MPAC advocated the removal of Hamas, Hizballah, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad from the government's list of terrorist groups. The organization argued that Washington's "preoccupation" with these groups "raises the question as to whether targeting Palestinian groups serves true national security interests or is based on political considerations."

 

And in one of the most high profile cases, MPAC repeatedly went to bat for Sami Al-Arian, a University of South Florida professor arrested in 2003 for allegedly serving as North American leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a designated terrorist organization said to be responsible for the deaths of two Americans and more than 100 Israelis. Yet, despite all of this indisputable evidence showing Al-Arian to be an officer in a murderous Islamic terrorist organization, MPAC and al-Marayati defended Al-Arian when he was first arrested, protested that he was being put on trial and even defended him after Al Arian pled guilty in 2006 to one charge of making and receiving contributions of funds, goods, and services to or for the benefit of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. A month earlier, , al-Marayati had lauded Al-Arian at a fundraising dinner as a man who "defied the odds in a system that is unfair," adding, "[T]here is no way that you can get a fair trial in view of any of these issues today."

 

However, the judge presiding over Al-Arian's case saw things differently. Judge James S. Moody, Jr., said Al-Arian continued to lie about seeking "only aid for widows and orphans. Your only connection to widows and orphans is that you create them, even among the Palestinians."

 

One reason for MPAC's participation in the conference may be traced to the involvement of Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. Sheriff Lee Baca has become a fixture at events sponsored by Islamist organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and frequently defends their radicalism.

 

During a House committee hearing earlier this year, U.S. Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., questioned Baca his close relationship with CAIR. The Los Angeles Times reported that Baca responded "When you attack CAIR… you attack virtually every Muslim in America." Souder then noted the testimony of an FBI agent identifying CAIR as a Hamas front. "I served in the United States Marine Corps," Baca shot back. "…. CAIR is not a terrorist supporting organization."

 

The record indicates otherwise. CAIR was listed as an un-indicted co-conspirator in the Hamas funding trial of HLF, been described in court as a Hamas front by an FBI agent and had its relationship with the FBI severed based on exhibits which leave open the question "whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and HAMAS."

 

In featuring MPAC officials, who claim to speak for all Muslims, as speakers before this prestigious law enforcement conference, the organizers and the participants confer respectability on an organization that has helped foster radicalization, not counter it. This action abets a deception deliberately perpetrated by MPAC that it is a "moderate" group that is opposed to Islamist terrorism. For a more extensive examination of MPAC's statements supporting terrorist groups, its record of issuing incendiary statements claiming that the FBI and USG are involved in "selective prosecution" of Muslims simply because of their religion (see the IPT's dossier on MPAC here.)

 

Conference organizers are ignoring available evidence of MPAC's radicalism, instead believing the organization to be an appropriate partner in countering radicalism. Now it's time to ask whether the other organizers of the event were aware of MPAC's history of radicalism and counter-productive "counter-terrorism" assistance. And if they were aware, or did not bother to ask questions since MPAC is so prominent in Southern California, what does that say about the ability of these law enforcement groups to truly detect threats to American society?

Please read the rest of the report here.

Last week, I responded to the frivolous ridiculous lawsuit by Rifqa Bary's parent's attorneys here. Boiled down to its essential oils, it's free speech, stupid.

Tarazi’s response? He motions the court to treat our motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment, effectively asking the court to put the whole thing off so Tarazi can engage in a fishing expedition through discovery. 

DEFENDANT GELLER’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO “MOTION OF PLAINTIFF TO TREAT DEFENDANT PAMELA GELLER’S MOTION TO DISMISS AS A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION”

Defendant Pamela Geller, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby responds in opposition to “Motion of Plaintiff to Treat Defendant Pamela Geller’s Motion to Dismiss as a Summary Judgment Motion” (Doc. No. 25). Plaintiff’s motion is a feckless attempt to avoid responding to Defendant Geller’s properly supported motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for failure to state a claim, and under Rule 12(b)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction so he can prolong this vexatious litigation and engage in a costly “fishing expedition.” As an initial matter, Plaintiff never bothers to explain how the vague and general discovery he proposes would produce any material fact that is relevant to the arguments raised in Defendant Geller’s motion to dismiss.

Indeed, conspicuously absent from Plaintiff’s motion is any discussion regarding the merits of Defendant Geller’s motion to dismiss (or any challenge to the authenticity or accuracy of the information contained in the attached exhibits for that matter). And the reason is obvious: Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails as a matter of law, and he knows it. No amount of discovery can change that conclusion. And this court need not consider matters outside of the pleadings to concur and dismiss the claims against Defendant Geller. Nevertheless, the exhibits attached to Defendant Geller’s declaration1 that were filed in support of her Rule 12(b)(6) motion are properly within the pleadings and can be considered by the court because the documents were specifically referred to by Plaintiff in his Amended Complaint.2    Venture Assocs. Corp. v. Zenith Data Sys. Corp., 987 F.2d 429, 431 (7th Cir. 1993) (“Documents that a defendant attaches to a motion to dismiss are considered part of the pleadings if they are referred to in the plaintiff’s complaint and are central to her claim.”); (see also Pl.’s Mot. at 2 (acknowledging that the court can properly consider for purposes of a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) exhibits attached to the defendant’s motion that are referred to in the complaint and citing Bassett v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426, 430 (6th Cir. 2008), for the legal authority to do so)).

Moreover, this court is not bound by the pleadings or documents referred to in the pleadings when considering Defendant Geller’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). Nichols v. Muskingum Coll., 318 F.3d 674, 677 (6th Cir. 2003) (“[When] reviewing a 12(b)(1) motion, the court may consider evidence outside the pleadings.”). Consequently, Plaintiff’s arguments are without merit.
In his motion, Plaintiff makes the broad and vague statement that he “needs time for Discovery to develop the factual background with respect to both the general and broader context of the many defamatory statements by both Defendants.” (Pl.’s Mot. at 3). What “factual background” and “broader context” does he refer to? We know the specific statements that he claims are defamatory, and we know the context in which they were published.3    Those facts are alleged in the Amended Complaint. Moreover, we know, based on Plaintiff’s sworn admission, that no reasonable person could take Defendant Geller’s statements as factual or unbiased. (Am. Compl. at ¶ 22 (admitting that Defendant Geller “was never acting as an unbiased fair and impartial reporter with regard to the Rifqa Bary case”)). Thus, based on this admission and the facts alleged in the Amended Complaint in light of controlling case law, in particular, Scott v. News-Herald, 25 Ohio St. 3d 243 (1986) and Vail v. The Plain Dealer Publ’g Co., 72 Ohio St. 3d 279 (1995), this court must dismiss the defamation claim against Defendant Geller as a matter of law.

Consider further Plaintiff’s vague and conclusory “conspiracy” allegation. (See Am. Compl. at ¶ 31). This claim does not meet the minimum pleading requirements as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), and must be dismissed as a matter of law. In his motion, Plaintiff unwittingly admits that his conclusory conspiracy claim is legally deficient. He acknowledges that he has no factual basis for making such a claim and that he hopes to find some evidence to support the claim by engaging in a vexatious fishing expedition. (See Pl.’s Mot. at 3 (requesting “time with Discovery . . . [to] develop the factual basis regarding the conspiracy issue”)). At the end of the day, this is a tacit admission that this claim is frivolous.
In the final analysis, this court should deny Plaintiff’s motion and direct him to respond without further delay to Defendant Geller’s motion to dismiss, which is properly before the court. Defendant Geller should not have to endure one more day of needless and costly litigation to defend against claims that fail as a matter of law.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Geller respectfully requests that the court deny Plaintiff’s motion and direct him to file a proper response to her motion to dismiss.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Patrick Dunphy Patrick Dunphy, Esq.* (OH Bar No. 0017827) FALKE & DUNPHY, LLC
/s/ David Yerushalmi David Yerushalmi, Esq.* LAW OFFICES OF DAVID YERUSHALMI,
/s/ Robert Muise Robert Muise, Esq.* Thomas More Law Center 

Footnotes:

1 The main and obvious purpose for filing Defendant Geller’s declaration was to authenticate the exhibits that were referred to in the Amended Complaint. Thus, the background information was necessary to establish the requisite personal knowledge to do so. The declaration does not create any material factual dispute. (See Pl.’s Mot. at 2 (incorrectly claiming that this declaration requires the court to convert the motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment)). The facts at issue (i.e., not the legal conclusions couched as facts) for purposes of Defendant’s motion are those facts alleged by Plaintiff in the Amended Complaint, including those relevant facts related to the documents referred to in the pleading. These facts, when viewed in light of the controlling law, compel this court to dismiss the claims against Defendant Geller.

2 In her declaration, Defendant Geller refers the court to the specific paragraph(s) in the Amended Complaint where the document is referenced. Indeed, Plaintiff admits in his motion that at least 12 of the exhibits are referred to and relied upon by him in the Amended Complaint (Pl.’s Mot. at 2), and are thus properly before this court for purposes of Defendant’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff never bothers to explain, however, why Defendant’s motion should not be granted based on these exhibits—or the facts as simply stated in the Amended Complaint.
3 The only discovery necessary in this case for purposes of a motion for summary judgment on the defamation claim is whether or not Plaintiff did make any false or misleading statements in a sworn affidavit filed in the Rifqa Bary case, which would then make the alleged defamatory statements true and thus not actionable as a matter of law. For purposes of Defendant Geller’s motion, however, we assume that the factual allegations (and not the legal conclusions) in the Amended Complaint are true. And based on these alleged facts and in light of controlling law, as noted briefly in this response and more thoroughly in Defendant’s motion to dismiss, the alleged statements are not defamatory and are in fact protected speech under the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions.

A Wayne Valley High school student used the word “Taliban” and said it was innocent, mentioned in a conversation about a video game, but a Muslim student who overheard it at school on Thursday perceived he was looking at her when he said it. So the child was suspended.

More knee-jerk submission to sharia (Islamic law: do not insult islam) for fear of Muslim violence. There can be no other explanation. These cowards call it political correctness, but it is way beyond that now.

How dare they suspend this child for saying "taliban"? A Muslim girl perceived the student was "looking at her" when he said it.......... so Muslim pereception = suspension.

This is beyond.

And the Taliban are devout Muslims, adhering to the strict code of the sharia. Could it not be argued that the school insulted Islam by implying that Taliban is a bad word and not a devout, holy Islamic group? Obama is partnering with Taliban in Afghanistan, is he not? Where is CAIR defending the piety of the Taliban?

Is the punishment the same for Muslim students who "offend" or are "perceived" to offend non-Muslim students?

Based on this impossible standard, every Muslim Student Association on college and university campus should be thrown off campus for their harassment, intimidation and threats towards the Jewish students. Based on this, they should serve jail time.

Bullying dispute erupts at Wayne school over ‘Taliban’ comment North Jersey.com

WAYNE — On one side, a Wayne Valley High school student claims that his use of the word “Taliban” was innocent, mentioned in a conversation about a video game, according to his mother.

But to a Muslim student who overheard it at school on Thursday, it was upsetting. And she had perceived that he had looked at her when he said it, Principal Robert Reis said.

Now the boy is facing a one-day suspension on Monday, because, Reis said, he continued to talk about the incident and it got back to the girl and upset her. Reis said she felt the boy was boasting that he’d gotten away with something.

“This has nothing to do with the fact that the boy used a word,” Reis said. “This has everything to do with the boy hurt a girl’s feelings.” And after the boy was told by administrators not to discuss what happened, Reis said, “He went back and hurt her feelings a second time.”

But the boy’s mother, Rosa Giordano, said the incident “is totally being blown out of proportion” and she plans to fight the disciplinary action.

The incident has unfolded during a time of heightened sensitivity about bullying in schools. Reis said the school takes a “no nonsense” stance and coincidentally had been planning a December forum to discuss the issue.

Giordano said her son was not being a bully and is himself bi-racial.

“He never saw this girl before,” she said. “It was an innocent thing. How does she know he was not talking about a newspaper story?”

She said she plans to go to the district offices early Monday morning to fight for her son to be allowed to attend school that day.

“I don’t want this on his record as a racial slur and bullying,” she said. “I am sorry the girl got offended by the world ‘Taliban.’ I will make sure my son never says the word again … the poor kid is so upset he doesn’t want to go to school.”

Reis said administrators had planned to treat the situation as a teachable moment and meet simultaneously with both students to talk about it. The boy was suspended after the girl came to Reis upset a second time.

Giordano claims her son was embarrassed by the incident. She said he told a friend “nothing happened” because he didn’t want to talk about it, not to brag that he got away with anything.

"A teachable moment?" Clowns with a slave mentality are teaching our children.

Muslim students were suspended from school for making death threats to a classmate because of a loving tribute he made to British soldiers on Facebook. Typical? Yes. Getting worse, more emboldened? Certainly. But the money quote came for the school Principal ---

Principal Wendy Thomas said Facebook was an increasing concern for schools.

So Facebook is the problem? The method of delivery is the problem, but not the nature of the death threat. Delusional. It is also interesting to note that the grammar and spelling of the Muslim students borders on illiterate. What are they doing there? What happens to this boy now, after the limelight of media moves on? His life is in jeopardy.

Further, it is the counter-jihad groups, like the EDL, that are demonized by the media and political elite with nary a criticism for would-be annihilators inspired by jihad.

Six pupils have been excluded from school for making death threats to a classmate on Facebook after he admitted supporting British troops.

Five Muslim boys and one white girl, all aged 12, have been disciplined following the incident.

The yobs threatened to attack attack terrified Darius Gill, 13, with knuckle dusters and knives in revenge for not supporting Islamic extremists.

The chilling threats came hours after Darius - whose father is Asian - posted a touching tribute to the thousands of squaddies who have lost their lives defending Britain.

Darius Gill and his mother Clare Allington: She pulled her son out of school after he received death threats on Facebook

But a gang of pupils expressed outrage at Darius' patriotism.

One message - littered with spelling mistakes - said: 'Fight on Monday gonna be heavy knuckle dusters nd knifes hopefully I don't die.'  

His friend added: 'ill bang him ma slef am a terrorist.'  One of the thugs also posted a chilling picture of himself holding a rifle.

Shockingly, other pupils - who have set up a Muslim Defence League which celebrates British deaths in Afghanistan - also added comments condemning Daruis.

Fortunately Darius' mother Clare Allington read the comments on Monday morning - the day of the promised attack - and immediately pulled her son out of school.

Yesterday Clare, 42, from Coventry, said: 'I logged on and it broke my heart. I was reading all sorts about knuckle dusters, knives and death.

'They were planning to attack him at school that day so I rang the school straight away.

'I usually keep an eye on what Darius posts on Facebook.

'I have his password and usually check it every day but didn't last weekend until I was at the Warwick University campus on Monday.

'If I hadn't read the threats and pulled my son out of school he could be dead.

'They might just be school children but they are fanatical and dangerous. The threats have to be taken seriously.

The children were excluded from the Sidney Stringer Academy in Coventry following the Facebook bullying campaign

'My son wrote supporting the British troops in Afghanistan and also said he was sad so many soldiers had died.

'The so-called Muslim Defence League which has been set up in the school by a number of pupils believe that Darius should join them in hating British soldiers.   

'It's appalling and extremely upsetting for Darius.'  

Shockingly, one of the thugs bragged about being quizzed by police and still threatened to attack Darius.

He posted: 'IM IN TROUBLE WIV DE POLICE CUZ OF SUSSPICIAN OF THREAT TO DARIUS OVER FB U HAVE A RITE TO REMAIN SILENCE!!! (JOKES) BUT IM IN TROUBLLE WIV DE POLICE IM BANGGIN DARIUS THURSDAY NO1 JUMP IN 1 v 1.'  

Principal Wendy Thomas said Facebook was an increasing concern for schools.

Check this out from the guy who called me a conspiracy theorist.

What is really sick is that Geraldo says he is open-minded because of 911 victims.......so why wasn't he open-minded to me, as I am on the same side as the 911 families' opposition to the Ground Zero mega-mosque?

This left wing idiot pals around with Hamas-linked, Muslim Brotherhood front CAIR NY. And they play him like a fiddle.

Armaros points out:

First it wasn't the fire which brought it down....STRAW MAN.....It was the kinetic energy of the WTC falling down or the base columns weakened by the WTC going down next door as that energy transferred under ground to the base columns of WTC 7.

Put a cake on the table and drop a phone book next to it you will see the center top of the cake vibrate or even shake downward.  Then try to hit the table from underneath the cake and you will again see the top of the cake (roof) vibrate. It is that simple. If you put weight on the cake and repeat the same exercise, the cake may even collapse (if it is a mousse or light cream cake)

Watch this schmuck try and marginalize and paint me as an extremist:

I love her.

Palin: Jerusalem is Israel’s Capital – not a Settlement INN

Sarah Palin, the unofficial Tea Party candidate for president, told 85 GOP freshmen Congressmen in an open letter, “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, not a settlement.”

Writing on the Fox News website, the 2008 vice presidential candidate for the Republican  party advised the new legislators, “You can stand with allies like Israel, not criticize them. You can let the President know what you believe… and stick to the principles that propelled your campaigns.”

He other comments on foreign policy regarded Iran and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. She urged the Republican newcomers to “stick to our principles: strong defense, free trade, nurturing allies, and steadfast opposition to America’s enemies. We are the most powerful country on earth and the world is better off because of it."

"Our president does not seem to understand this. If we withdraw from the world, the world will become a much more dangerous place.”

Palin, who visited Israel during her campaign with 2008 Republican presidential candidate John McCain, called on the new Republicans to “push President Obama to finish the job right in Iraq and get the job done in Afghanistan; otherwise we who are war-weary will forever question why America’s finest are sent overseas to make the ultimate sacrifice with no clear commitment to victory from those who send them.”

Without mentioning a military attack on Iran, she said everyone “should be prepared to stand with the president against Iran’s nuclear aspirations using whatever means necessary to ensure the mullahs in Tehran do not get their hands on nuclear weapons. And you can stand with the Iranian people who oppose the tyrannical rule of the clerics and concretely support their efforts to win their freedom – even if the president does not.”

The Tea Party, which has instilled an old-fashioned patriotic and anti-big government zeal into the Republican party, has called for cuts in foreign aid. Palin advised the new Congressmen not to cut the defense budget when it comes to facing “so many threats – from Islamic extremists to a nuclear Iran to a rising China. As Ronald Reagan said, ‘We will always be prepared, so we may always be free.’

Palin’s open letter focused on undoing the “damage that has been done in the last two years,” since the election of U.S. President Barack Obama. She reminded the legislators that the Republican party campaigned on promises to cut government spending and repeal the health care law that President Obama pushed through Congress.

She also warned them against praise from certain media elements. ”When the left in the media pat you on the back, quickly reassess where you are and readjust, for the liberals' praise is a warning bell you must heed,” Palin declared. “Trust me on that.”