Levitt Letter Extra News

By Paul Sperry, Investor’s Business Daily

Maintaining a high level of vigilance against a patient, stateless and often invisible enemy hiding behind a religion isn’t easy, especially in politically-correct Washington. One tireless watchdog is Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., who has founded the House Anti-Terrorism/Jihad Caucus to educate fellow lawmakers and Americans about militant Islam’s long-term threat. The diminutive yet feisty Myrick, a former Charlotte mayor and now deputy Republican whip, sat down with IBD to discuss the zeitgeist inside official Washington concerning the war on Islamic terror.

IBD: What persuaded you to start the Anti-Terrorism/Jihad Caucus, and what do you hope to accomplish?

Myrick: I decided to start the caucus out of a deep frustration, because President Bush does not talk to the American people about the long-term threat of radical Islamofascism infiltration in America. Since 9/11, I’ve tried to get the president and several members of his administration to talk to the American people about the dangerous enemy that we’re facing. I took them all the materials I could find about what we did during World War II that were used to unite the American people. Everyone I spoke to said, “We do not want to frighten the American people.”

I waited for someone else to start to educate the people; however, it did not seem to be happening. At that point, I sought to become educated on the matter. What I have learned is quite disturbing. I decided that if members of Congress were informed, they would have an opportunity to educate people in their districts. So I started the caucus and brought in three other co-chairs — Bud Cramer (D-Ala.), Kay Granger (R-Texas) and Jane Harman (D-Calif.).

We hope to start a dialogue with America. Until, and unless, we understand what we are fighting, we have no chance. We must inform the people, since it is evident they will have to protect their national sovereignty, because the government is not doing it.

IBD: How many members are in the caucus?

Myrick: We have 118 members — both Democrats and Republicans. The threat we face from radical Islamofascists is not a partisan issue. This is a matter that affects all Americans, regardless of political, social, economic, or any other affiliations.

IBD: Should Americans be concerned about recently declassified documents detailing a secret plot by Islamist groups in
this country, tied to the dangerous Muslim Brotherhood, to take over America from within, to Islamize our society?

Myrick: Americans must be concerned — alarmed. That is what I am referring to when I say that the administration has not explained who we are fighting and where we are fighting them. “We’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” is not the whole story. It is amazing that we actually have the enemy’s playbook, yet for some reason we don’t want to seriously confront the threat we are facing.

The radical Islamofascists have told us how they intend to infiltrate all areas of our society and use the freedoms that are guaranteed under our Constitution to eventually Islamize our country, eliminate our Constitution, and enact sharia law. I know that it sounds a bit fanatical, but it’s true.

In 1998, Osama bin Laden declared war on the U.S. What did we do? Nothing. Then he attacked again and again around the world before finally striking inside the U.S. Yet, rather than confront the threat head-on and declare war on radical Islamofascists, we seek to placate the threat at home by saying radicals have hijacked Islam.

IBD: Are there any Muslim groups with which federal or other government officials — as well as businesses and nonprofits — should think twice about doing outreach or interfaith activities?

Myrick: I know of some Muslim nongovernmental organizations that are doing good things, such as the Islamic Supreme Council of America, the American Islamic Congress, and the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. However, groups such as Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and others have a proven record of senior officials being indicted and either imprisoned or deported from the U.S. Just to name a few: Ghassan Elashi, a founding board member of CAIR, is serving 80 months in prison; Randall “Ismail” Royer, the communications director for CAIR, is serving 20 years in prison; and Bassam Khafagi, the director of CAIR’s community relations, has been arrested and deported. There was a lot of evidence presented at the recent Holy Land Foundation trial, which exposed CAIR, ISNA and others as front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood.

IBD: What about Congress — does it have a formal vetting process for screening radical Muslims? Those invited to pray or speak at the Capitol, or who may try to otherwise visit or use Capitol facilities?

Myrick: To my knowledge, there is not a formal vetting process. Members of Congress invite religious leaders to pray. Back in the 1990s, Siraj Wahhaj became the first Muslim chaplain to give the opening prayer to Congress. Siraj Wahhaj was also an unindicted co-conspirator in the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993.

There is a policy that members of Congress can reserve rooms for speakers, events, etc., within the Capitol complex, and there is not much oversight as to who can be present at such events. Remember, these are public buildings, paid for by American taxpayers. It is the people’s house.

IBD: During WWII, Uncle Sam plastered public places with propaganda posters of the enemy, commissioning artists to paint frightening impressions. The campaign rallied the American people against a common enemy. Yet in this war, the U.S. government hasn’t even issued a wanted poster of Osama bin Laden. Why do you think that is?

Myrick: For one, we are too politically correct today. “We don’t want to frighten the American people.”

IBD: We often hear that Islam is a “religion of peace” and “tolerance,” and that jihadists have “hijacked” or “perverted” a “great religion.” Is this accurate, that nothing in Islam promotes or condones violent jihad against infidels? Or does such rhetoric simply play into the Islamists’ hands in their attempts to sugarcoat the threat, and confuse Americans?

Myrick: There are definitely passages in the Koran that promote or condone violent jihad. However, you can also find passages in the Bible which promote violence. I think that the president is failing the American people by sugarcoating the problem we are facing and only making things worse for the future. We should explore every means of encouraging moderate Muslims to speak out against the radicals. There are many who want to, and do — such as Sheikh (Muhammad Hisham) Kabbani (of the Islamic Supreme Council of America) and Zainab al-Suwaij (of the American Islamic Congress) and Dr. Zuhdi Jasser (of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy). But they do not get the media attention.

IBD: Many Islamists are well spoken, and seem skilled at manipulating not only our media but also our laws. If they can use our constitutional freedoms against us to block due scrutiny, what chance do we have of marginalizing them?

Myrick: Over the last 25 years, there has been a concerted effort on the part of radical Islamists to infiltrate our major institutions in America. They have done that by funding professors’ projects in our colleges and universities. Then, they influence what is taught by making the program dependent on their yearly donations. Several classes have graduated and are now in the media, the judicial system, teaching in our schools and colleges, various branches of our government, even in our military. They are masterful at manipulating minds to fit their purposes.

IBD: How can they be exposed?

Myrick: We need to shed the veil of political correctness that shields government officials from speaking out against them. Until we do that, we do not have a chance of marginalizing them. As soon as someone broaches the idea that the Koran has violent passages, they get shot down as Islamophobes and racists. Rather than debate these points, groups like CAIR seek to silence the debate. The American people deserve to see and hear the debate, but most people in positions of influence are afraid to say anything.

IBD: Jihad watchers have warned about “sharia creep” in schools and local governments. We see sharia being practiced in some parts of Europe; could it happen here?

Myrick: I believe sharia could easily be practiced here. If a local community becomes infiltrated by extremists who run the town or village operations, then it could easily be implemented in this country. Unchallenged, it will happen.

IBD: The FBI director says the bureau can find no evidence of sleeper cells inside the U.S. How confident are you that the 9/11 cells were the last?

Myrick: From the information that I have heard reported publicly, there are sleeper cells inside the U.S. . . . Hezbollah sleeper cells, al-Qaeda sleeper cells, maybe others.

IBD: How worried are you about “virtual jihad” — the use of al-Qaeda-inspired Web sites to motivate homegrown terrorists?

Myrick: I’m very worried about it, but again, we have certain freedoms in this country. We have a lot of freedom to express ourselves, more than in any other country in the world. People go pretty far in the statements they use to criticize the U.S. That’s legal, as well it should be. But the risk of motivating Americans to engage in jihad through the Web is a very serious problem that our Congress and administration should address immediately. We face an ironic dilemma in that our freedom could very well cost us our freedoms.

IBD: Christian prison chaplains warn that Muslim chaplains are converting inmates to Islam by the cellblock. Are the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Prisons doing enough to monitor this situation?

Myrick: They are aware of it and are supposedly monitoring it. Also, I have read that Abdurahman Alamoudi, founder of the American Muslim Council, placed Muslim chaplains throughout our military. He is now in jail on charges of terrorism. The chaplains, to my knowledge, are still in their current positions. Go figure.

Copyright 2000-2007 Investor’s Business Daily, Inc.

By Tim Johnson, McClatchy Newspapers

BEIJING — The medicine cabinet in the average U.S. home is filling with drugs made in China , and some experts say that could be a prescription for trouble.

China’s booming pharmaceutical industry has doubled exports to the United States in the past five years, undercutting competitors and making American consumers reliant on the safety of Chinese factories and captive to any disruptions in Sino-U.S. commerce.

It might seem like merely a trade issue. But industry experts in Europe and the United States say national-security concerns are edging into the debate.

Consider this scenario:
If a major anthrax attack were to occur in the United States — larger than the one in 2001, when five people died— pharmaceutical companies that make the two antibiotics most suitable for treatment, Cipro and doxycycline, would have no choice but to rely on China or India for key ingredients once American stockpiles were exhausted. Those ingredients no longer are made in the West.

A Portuguese company that ramped up doxycycline production in 2001 at Washington’s request said China now controls the flow of its crucial drug component.

“If we were asked to do this again, we would be dependent on China providing us with key starting materials that are unavailable in the rest of the world,” said Guy Villax, the chief executive of Hovione, a Lisbon -based fine chemicals company.

The spectacular growth of China’s pharmaceutical industry coincides with some equally huge problems. A kickback scandal ensnared China’s State Food and Drug Administration and its chief in charges that they gave approval for bogus drugs, including a counterfeit antibiotic that left 13 people dead. Wary of rising public anger, the state issued a Draconian sanction: It executed the agency chief in July.

Cases of tainted toothpaste, toys, and pet food that have made global consumers wary of the “Made in China ” label added urgency to a high-profile drug agency purge.

Even so, China’s $65 billion pharmaceutical industry is galloping at an annual growth rate of 24 percent in the first eight months of this year. Competitors say China’s drug companies not only have low-cost advantages, but also get a nearly free pass from U.S. drug regulators, who hold the screws to American companies— raising their costs significantly— but rarely inspect in China .

China says it’s a reliable source of safe medicine for its own citizens and export markets. At a news conference in early December, the deputy drug agency chief, Wu Zhen, called on countries to work together to ensure a safe global supply chain of medicines.

“To solve the drug safety problems, we need international cooperation,” Wu said. “We hope to have . . . more cooperation, and less finger-pointing.”

China dominates more than just antibiotics. U.S. regulators license 714 plants in China to produce ingredients for over-the-counter, generic, and prescription drugs for Americans. China has snagged a major share of the global sales of many vitamins, antibiotics, enzymes, and painkillers. It makes a third of the world’s acetaminophen, an over-the-counter pain medication. Acetaminophen is sold under many brand names, the best known of which is Tylenol, though Tylenol itself isn’t made in China .

This brings up another possible scenario:
“Just suppose you are taking some cholesterol drug, and its intermediates or active ingredients are made in China . Then there’s some conflict with Taiwan. Will your drug still be available?” asked Joe Acker , the president of the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers’ Association , a trade group in Washington. “The whole drug supply could be in jeopardy in these kinds of situations.”

Acker noted that he thinks that the United States could rebound from disruptions in the increasingly globalized supply chain for drug components, in which materials are bought from a number of low-cost countries.

“I’m not a Chicken Little type of person,” Acker said. “However, if there were to be a major problem, and we could not source material from China, we would have to gear up production very quickly.”

The anthrax scare jolted the United States just a week after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to news organizations in Florida and New York and to the offices of two U.S. senators. Authorities don’t know the source of the letters, and no arrests have been made.

Because of the attacks, the Health and Human Services Department increased stockpiles of antibiotics and vaccines against anthrax.

“We have enough antibiotics . . . to treat 40 million Americans,” Bill Hall, a spokesman for the department, said in an e-mail, adding that the government also has 28.75 million doses of anthrax vaccine.

Bayer, the German health-care giant, held patent protection until 2004 over the antibiotic known as ciprofloxacin, which it marketed as Cipro. That antibiotic now is mass-produced by generic firms, which get a key ingredient, dichloro fluorobenzene, from one of four Chinese companies or two Indian firms.

The Chinese and Indian companies are all but exempt from oversight by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“Only 13 inspections were conducted in China in 2007,” Rep. John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat who chairs the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, said at a hearing Nov. 1. “At this rate, it would take the FDA 55 years just to clear this backlog.”

By giving China a virtual pass on FDA inspections, Acker said, Chinese firms get a cost savings of about 25 percent above American companies, which face unannounced on-site inspections at any time.

Since European pharmaceutical companies also face tougher standards, they too have stopped producing some basic drug ingredients, ceding production to Chinese and Indian companies that face less scrutiny and have lower costs.

On both sides of the Atlantic, manufacturers say they fret over the national-security implications of the massive off-shoring of production to Asia.

“If there is a peak in demand triggered by a pandemic or a terrorist event, there will be little domestic production capacity to meet public health needs,” said an August 2006 white paper by the U.S. chemicals trade group in conjunction with the European Fine Chemicals Group, its counterpart.

Chinese chemical companies that sell ingredients used by foreign pharmaceutical firms also shield themselves from the news media.

Sun Dongliang, the deputy chief of the chemical industry chamber under the powerful China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, refused a request for an interview.

“He thinks that your interview has nothing to do with the chemical industry. It’s about pharmaceutical things,” said an assistant who gave only her surname as Guo.

All four Chinese companies that manufacture the key ingredient for ciprofloxacin declined requests for interviews.

China offered foreign journalists a tour of two model pharmaceutical plants in Hangzhou on Nov. 23. The plants were spotless. Workers in facemasks toiled in jumpsuits on assembly lines. Polished machinery gleamed. One factory made Chinese medicines to treat prostate ailments. The other made herbal remedies.

Outsiders say Chinese drug plants run the gamut from First to Third World.

“You will see some companies where you can eat off the floor. They are state-of-the-art,” said Acker, the U.S. trade group chief. “I hear other stories of places where people are making chemicals while wearing flip-flops.”

Despite multiple requests over a two-week period, McClatchy was unable to gain access to any drug ingredient-manufacturing facilities other than the model firms presented by the Chinese government.

Although Chinese authorities warn against foreign finger-pointing, the government’s own reaction to the scandal over bogus and substandard drugs earlier this year was extremely harsh.

After drug chief Zheng Xiaoyu’s execution, the state began a vast housecleaning. This week, it said it had shut down 300 drug and medical-device makers, convicted 279 people of irregularities and prompted drug companies to withdraw 7,300 applications for drug approval, indicating more rigor in the approval process.

Such actions left doubt whether consumers ought to be reassured by the factories shut down or alarmed at the state of the industry. Wu, the deputy drug chief, said he hoped to restore faith in Chinese drugs after the kickback scandal.

“The corruption case . . . has tarnished our image,” he said. “One of the targets of this campaign is to clean up the legacy caused by this corruption case.”

Still unclear is whether increased self-policing is sufficient given the magnitude of China’s production and its rising share of global medicine chests.

Villax, the Portuguese executive who’s a board member of the European Fine Chemicals Group, said some Chinese pharmaceutical manufacturers were cutting corners and that unless enforcement tightened “people will die.”

“It’s not low-cost labor that concerns us,” Villax said. “What we’re saying is there are a lot of people not playing by the rules, and not getting caught.”

A sign of the troubles that can occur in the pharmaceutical industry came at a plant that was manufacturing a key ingredient used in ciprofloxacin.

A deafening blast ripped through the Fuyuan Chemical Co. plant in Jiangsu province on July 28, 2006. Once the smoke cleared, 22 people lay dead and another 29 were injured. China’s State Administration of Work Safety later issued a report charging the plant with ignoring safety rules, adopting low construction standards and operating without permits.