From The American Thinker:
July 31, 2010
Liberté, égalité, fraternité in France? Not!
Ethel C. Fenig
Apparently that liberté, égalité, fraternité thing isn't working out too well in France. Unassimilated immigrants. Illegal immigrants. This is thought to cause problems. Crime. Riots. Differences. Mostly blamed on/committed by unassimilated, illegal immigrants. As a result French President Nicholas Sarkozy is threatening to rip France's national polity into shreds by specifically singling out and punishing some (deemed) non French segments of the population with more severe punishment than those (deemed) French who commit the same crime.
If a French individual, whose ancestors were the Gauls, harms a policeman s/he will be appropriately punished. But if a non Gallic individual, say one whose ancestors lived under French colonialism or sneaks in from another country and wanders, does the same an additional punishment will be added--loss of French nationality. As Reuters reports
President Nicolas Sarkozy said on Friday he wanted to strip French nationality from anyone of foreign origin who threatened the life of a police officer, in a crackdown after riots shook two French towns this month.Speaking in Grenoble, where street violence erupted in mid-July after a local man died fleeing police after allegedly holding up a casino, Sarkozy said he also wanted to increase prison sentences for violent crimes.
"French nationality should be stripped from anybody who has threatened the life of a police officer or anybody involved in public policing," Sarkozy said.
Deportation for those who commit crimes and don't have proper proof of citizenship, while tearing down their residences, is also part of the crackdown according to an article in EuroNews . Sarkozy
has ordered the dismantling of some 300 illegal camps of travellers and Roma across France, with the immediate deportation of anyone found without papers. The announcement came after a special ministerial meeting in Paris to discuss the Roma "problem".
"We will proceed with the almost immediate deportation of the Romas who have disturbed public order or have committed fraud, to Bulgaria or Romania," said Interior Minister Bruce Hortefeux.
And what about the French of non foreign origin "who have disturbed public order or have committed fraud"? Sarkozy hasn't said.
The Roma are also known as gypsies. They're a "problem." Reminiscent of France's Jewish "problem." And its North African "problem;" citizens from France's imperialist past who refuse to assimilate into France.
During World War ll the French obediently turned over its Jews and Gypsies to the German occupiers, usually co-operating with them to round them up. Most of the Jews and Gypsies were ultimately slaughtered.
Profiling? Racism? The French?
Posted at 12:05 AM
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Obama's Vision To Islamize The World Moves Forward
from Creeping Sharia:
Obama’s vision to Islamize the world moves forward
Posted on July 31, 2010 by creeping
All at the expense of the American taxpayer. Obama’s twice-appointed, terrorist-supporting Rashad Hussain working his taqiyya and .
Washington — Rashad Hussain, U.S. special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), told a meeting at the State Department on July 20 that President Obama’s vision for engagement with Muslim communities is showing positive results.
“Just a few years ago if you were to ask the state of relations between the United States and Muslim communities around the world people might have told you that this is going to take a while to get back on track,” Hussain said. “But I think that the president, just in the first year, his ability to craft a message, to craft a framework … has really been an accomplishment in and of itself.”
At the meeting, which was attended by officials from OIC countries, Hussain discussed President Obama’s continuing outreach and partnership with Muslim communities around the world. Hussain said President Obama, in his “A New Beginning” speech in June 2009 in Cairo, created a new framework for working with Muslim communities.
“One that recognizes that we cannot engage one-fourth of the world’s population based on the beliefs of just a fringe few and that our engagement can’t be limited to an issue like violent extremism, but that it must be much broader than that,” Hussain said.
via America.gov – President Obama’s Vision to Engage Muslims Moves Forward.
That is the same OIC that wants to submit the entire world to Islamic sharia law via its Islamic blasphemy resolution at the United Nations.
Further, it’s been a give and take relationship. The United States taxpayers give billions of dollars, and Muslim countries that aid and abet Islamic jihad and sharia law take those billions without giving anything in return.
Related: OIC places the United States in its crosshairs – but only in Arabic
Obama’s vision to Islamize the world moves forward
Posted on July 31, 2010 by creeping
All at the expense of the American taxpayer. Obama’s twice-appointed, terrorist-supporting Rashad Hussain working his taqiyya and .
Washington — Rashad Hussain, U.S. special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), told a meeting at the State Department on July 20 that President Obama’s vision for engagement with Muslim communities is showing positive results.
“Just a few years ago if you were to ask the state of relations between the United States and Muslim communities around the world people might have told you that this is going to take a while to get back on track,” Hussain said. “But I think that the president, just in the first year, his ability to craft a message, to craft a framework … has really been an accomplishment in and of itself.”
At the meeting, which was attended by officials from OIC countries, Hussain discussed President Obama’s continuing outreach and partnership with Muslim communities around the world. Hussain said President Obama, in his “A New Beginning” speech in June 2009 in Cairo, created a new framework for working with Muslim communities.
“One that recognizes that we cannot engage one-fourth of the world’s population based on the beliefs of just a fringe few and that our engagement can’t be limited to an issue like violent extremism, but that it must be much broader than that,” Hussain said.
via America.gov – President Obama’s Vision to Engage Muslims Moves Forward.
That is the same OIC that wants to submit the entire world to Islamic sharia law via its Islamic blasphemy resolution at the United Nations.
Further, it’s been a give and take relationship. The United States taxpayers give billions of dollars, and Muslim countries that aid and abet Islamic jihad and sharia law take those billions without giving anything in return.
Related: OIC places the United States in its crosshairs – but only in Arabic
Ground Zero Mega-Mosque Will Contain A Memorial To The 9/11 Hijackers
from Bare Naked Islam:
OMG! Are the jihadists really planning to put up a wall at the Ground Zero Mosque to memorialize the 19 Muslim 9/11 hijackers?
According to Carl Paladino, candidate for NY State Governor, yes, indeed they are.
Carl Paladino, the Buffalo developer hoping to win a Republican gubernatorial primary, is doubling down his opposition to a mosque in Lower Manhattan, saying it’s an “affront to the American people” and “it’s about the Islamists wanting to illustrate that they have conquered America by taking down the World Trade Center.”
In an interview last night with NY1, Paladino equated those building or using the proposed Cordoba Mosque with Muslim terrorists who attacked the United States on September 11 and are waging war on American troops abroad.
“The governor doesn’t really have a clue what this issue is about,” Paladino told Arbetter. “It’s not about religion, it’s not about the First Amendment. It’s about ideology. It’s about the Islamists wanting to illustrate that they have conquered America by taking down the World Trade Center. It’s a claim of triumph.”
“As Governor of New York, I’ll stop the Ground Zero Mosque with eminent domain.”
PALADINO RADIO: listen to the radio ad here
Paladino belittled his critics.
Paladino at proposed mosque site
“These guys have a focus on totally different things. Andrew Cuomo figured it was a political issue and he made it a point to point out, oh, this is freedom of religion. Oh, I’m going to appeal to the religious. Well, he’s trying to point out that he’s a supporter of the Constitution. Well, this is not a constitutional issue,” Paladino told Arbetter. “It’s not a freedom of religion issue. It’s an affront to the American people, and the American people expect their elected representatives to go out and protect them from these things. And Mr. Bloomberg, I don’t know what planet he’s from, okay? But he has no business taking a position on behalf of the people of New York City and especially the families of those that died in that building. He has no business taking a position like he’s taken, and they’re going to have to suffer the consequences of it, because I’m telling you, the American people will not accept this.”
According to a transcript, on NY1, Paladino was asked by Elizabeth Kaledin about his opposition to the mosque.
Q: You’re saying the siting of the mosque is being evidence of plans of conquest.
A: Not plans of conquest, the acts of those Jihadists.
Q: These people are unrelated to the terrorists?
A: How are they unrelated? They telling us they’re related.
Q: There are millions of Muslims in the world.
A: There are millions of them, but these people who are advocating this mosque, we don’t know who they are, do we.
Q: Should we not find out? Calmer minds have prevailed and said let’s find out the trail of the money.
A: Calmer minds would say build your mosque anywhere else, don’t build it in the footprint of the dust storm following 9/11. That dust contains the remains of many, many people. It’s not 600 feet away. It is part of the area that the dust covered. OK? That’s a very solemn place for the American people. I met this afternoon with a mother of a fireman who died there. It’s a terrible feeling she has. Did you know they’re going to put on a wall in this whatever they’re building, they’re going to put on the wall the faces of the men who flew those aircraft into that building. They’re going to put their faces on the wall. Why are we memorializing those men?
Q: We’re off the topic, here, of the mosque. I want to be clear — your opposition to the mosque is bigger than an issue of sensitivity.
A: It absolutely is.
Q: You sound like you’re opposed to, you know, sort of the growth of an Islamic or Muslim practice of religion in Lower Manhattan.
A: Not the practice of religion. The growth of a Muslim, Islamic idea of conquering the world. Okay. They have said it. They have said the world will eventually come under their rule rule. And this was a part of it. The attack on the World Trade Center was a part of it. This is no different than putting up a symbol to Hirohito next to Hickam Field in Pearl Harbor.
Q: Do you think that is a positive message to express to young New Yorkers, especially young New Yorkers?
A: Absolutely.
Q: That we should be looking over our shoulders thinking that Muslims are trying to take over.
A: We better start.
Q: You want to teach that to our children?
A: Yes, because that’s the real world out there, and that’s what our troops are fighting for and dying for in those two wars. Times Union
July 31, 2010
OMG! Are the jihadists really planning to put up a wall at the Ground Zero Mosque to memorialize the 19 Muslim 9/11 hijackers?
According to Carl Paladino, candidate for NY State Governor, yes, indeed they are.
Carl Paladino, the Buffalo developer hoping to win a Republican gubernatorial primary, is doubling down his opposition to a mosque in Lower Manhattan, saying it’s an “affront to the American people” and “it’s about the Islamists wanting to illustrate that they have conquered America by taking down the World Trade Center.”
In an interview last night with NY1, Paladino equated those building or using the proposed Cordoba Mosque with Muslim terrorists who attacked the United States on September 11 and are waging war on American troops abroad.
“The governor doesn’t really have a clue what this issue is about,” Paladino told Arbetter. “It’s not about religion, it’s not about the First Amendment. It’s about ideology. It’s about the Islamists wanting to illustrate that they have conquered America by taking down the World Trade Center. It’s a claim of triumph.”
“As Governor of New York, I’ll stop the Ground Zero Mosque with eminent domain.”
PALADINO RADIO: listen to the radio ad here
Paladino belittled his critics.
Paladino at proposed mosque site
“These guys have a focus on totally different things. Andrew Cuomo figured it was a political issue and he made it a point to point out, oh, this is freedom of religion. Oh, I’m going to appeal to the religious. Well, he’s trying to point out that he’s a supporter of the Constitution. Well, this is not a constitutional issue,” Paladino told Arbetter. “It’s not a freedom of religion issue. It’s an affront to the American people, and the American people expect their elected representatives to go out and protect them from these things. And Mr. Bloomberg, I don’t know what planet he’s from, okay? But he has no business taking a position on behalf of the people of New York City and especially the families of those that died in that building. He has no business taking a position like he’s taken, and they’re going to have to suffer the consequences of it, because I’m telling you, the American people will not accept this.”
According to a transcript, on NY1, Paladino was asked by Elizabeth Kaledin about his opposition to the mosque.
Q: You’re saying the siting of the mosque is being evidence of plans of conquest.
A: Not plans of conquest, the acts of those Jihadists.
Q: These people are unrelated to the terrorists?
A: How are they unrelated? They telling us they’re related.
Q: There are millions of Muslims in the world.
A: There are millions of them, but these people who are advocating this mosque, we don’t know who they are, do we.
Q: Should we not find out? Calmer minds have prevailed and said let’s find out the trail of the money.
A: Calmer minds would say build your mosque anywhere else, don’t build it in the footprint of the dust storm following 9/11. That dust contains the remains of many, many people. It’s not 600 feet away. It is part of the area that the dust covered. OK? That’s a very solemn place for the American people. I met this afternoon with a mother of a fireman who died there. It’s a terrible feeling she has. Did you know they’re going to put on a wall in this whatever they’re building, they’re going to put on the wall the faces of the men who flew those aircraft into that building. They’re going to put their faces on the wall. Why are we memorializing those men?
Q: We’re off the topic, here, of the mosque. I want to be clear — your opposition to the mosque is bigger than an issue of sensitivity.
A: It absolutely is.
Q: You sound like you’re opposed to, you know, sort of the growth of an Islamic or Muslim practice of religion in Lower Manhattan.
A: Not the practice of religion. The growth of a Muslim, Islamic idea of conquering the world. Okay. They have said it. They have said the world will eventually come under their rule rule. And this was a part of it. The attack on the World Trade Center was a part of it. This is no different than putting up a symbol to Hirohito next to Hickam Field in Pearl Harbor.
Q: Do you think that is a positive message to express to young New Yorkers, especially young New Yorkers?
A: Absolutely.
Q: That we should be looking over our shoulders thinking that Muslims are trying to take over.
A: We better start.
Q: You want to teach that to our children?
A: Yes, because that’s the real world out there, and that’s what our troops are fighting for and dying for in those two wars. Times Union
July 31, 2010
Murfreesboro, Tennessee Mega-Mosque Under Investigation Over Burial
From Jihad Watch:
Here we go: Murfreesboro mega-mosque under investigation over burial
An update on this story. The nature of the interaction with mosque officials is entirely too typical: When approached about specifics, respond with lofty generalities; repeat as necessary, and people who still won't back down are automatically Islamophobes, naturally. "Sheriff's office to probe Islamic burial," by Mark Bell for DNJ.com, July 30 (thanks to Twostellas):
Rutherford County's Sheriff's Office will investigate questions regarding a burial at the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro's new site on Veals Road.
Maj. Chuck Thomas told The Daily News Journal on Thursday that the office will "look into some concerns that were brought to our attention."
A group of about two dozen people requested an investigation in a letter and petition presented to Sheriff Truman Jones earlier this week.
"Who is it that's buried here?" group spokesperson Laurie Cardoza-Moore said in a press conference Thursday. "Is it a child? Is it an adult? Is it male or female? There are environmental issues. Was there a casket used?"
The group is also concerned about the burial permit that was issued by the Rutherford County Planning Department.
Cardoza-Moore said the permit was approved for one person to be buried on the site, notarized and dated May 18. But, the group claims the body was buried before that permit was even approved.
"It's our understanding the burial took place on the 17th," said Cardoza-Moore.
Murfreesboro Police have said they gave a funeral escort to the site on May 19, the day after the permit was issued.
Thomas said the sheriff's office will look into the matter.
"We will make sure that the death certificate was obtained and ... that all the laws and rules were followed," Thomas said.
The leader of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, Imam Ossama Bahloul, didn't talk to a WSMV reporter on camera about the issue, but reacted by saying: "We want to be a good neighbor and want to reside in peace."
Body dumps don't build good neighborly relations.
He went on to say, "We wish everyone in the city the very best."
That's swell, but again, how 'bout that burial issue?
Islamic leaders had applied for a conditional use permit for a full cemetery on site, but later withdrew that request....
So is it just kind of a cemetery? Half a cemetery? A hemi-demi-semi-cemetery?
Posted by Marisol on July 30, 2010 3:56 PM
Here we go: Murfreesboro mega-mosque under investigation over burial
An update on this story. The nature of the interaction with mosque officials is entirely too typical: When approached about specifics, respond with lofty generalities; repeat as necessary, and people who still won't back down are automatically Islamophobes, naturally. "Sheriff's office to probe Islamic burial," by Mark Bell for DNJ.com, July 30 (thanks to Twostellas):
Rutherford County's Sheriff's Office will investigate questions regarding a burial at the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro's new site on Veals Road.
Maj. Chuck Thomas told The Daily News Journal on Thursday that the office will "look into some concerns that were brought to our attention."
A group of about two dozen people requested an investigation in a letter and petition presented to Sheriff Truman Jones earlier this week.
"Who is it that's buried here?" group spokesperson Laurie Cardoza-Moore said in a press conference Thursday. "Is it a child? Is it an adult? Is it male or female? There are environmental issues. Was there a casket used?"
The group is also concerned about the burial permit that was issued by the Rutherford County Planning Department.
Cardoza-Moore said the permit was approved for one person to be buried on the site, notarized and dated May 18. But, the group claims the body was buried before that permit was even approved.
"It's our understanding the burial took place on the 17th," said Cardoza-Moore.
Murfreesboro Police have said they gave a funeral escort to the site on May 19, the day after the permit was issued.
Thomas said the sheriff's office will look into the matter.
"We will make sure that the death certificate was obtained and ... that all the laws and rules were followed," Thomas said.
The leader of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, Imam Ossama Bahloul, didn't talk to a WSMV reporter on camera about the issue, but reacted by saying: "We want to be a good neighbor and want to reside in peace."
Body dumps don't build good neighborly relations.
He went on to say, "We wish everyone in the city the very best."
That's swell, but again, how 'bout that burial issue?
Islamic leaders had applied for a conditional use permit for a full cemetery on site, but later withdrew that request....
So is it just kind of a cemetery? Half a cemetery? A hemi-demi-semi-cemetery?
Posted by Marisol on July 30, 2010 3:56 PM
Pakistan: Five Christians Shot By Muslims While Leaving Church
From Jihad Watch:
Pakistan: 5 Christians shot to death coming out of church following threats from "banned" jihadist groups
Of course, given Pakistan's ongoing double game, there is always the question of whether the groups are banned as in "banned," or banned as in "just lay low for a bit or consider changing your name."
"Suspected Islamists Shoot Five Christians to Death in Pakistan," from Compass Direct News, July 29 (thanks to Twostellas):
SUKKUR, Pakistan, July 29 (CDN) -- A dozen masked men shot five Christians to death as they came out of their church building here on July 15, two months after a banned Islamic extremist group sent church leaders a threatening letter, relatives said.
Pastor Aaron John and church members Rohail Bhatti, Salman John, Abid Gill and Shamin Mall of Full Gospel Church were leaving the church building after meeting to discuss security in light of the threats they had received, said the pastor's son, Shahid John.
"As we came out of the church, a group of a dozen armed gunmen came and opened fire at us," said Shahid John, who survived a bullet in his arm. "Fear struck the area. The police arrived 45 minutes after the incident, and we waited for over 45 minutes for the ambulance to arrive."
Besides Shahid John, five others were wounded in the attack.
In May church leaders received a letter from Islamic extremist group Sip-e-Sahaba (formerly Sipah-e-Sahaba until it was banned) warning the Christians to leave the area, said Kiran Rohail, wife of the slain Rohail Bhatti.
"It said to vacate the land, Christians are not welcomed here, they are polluting our land," Kiran Rohail said.
The Sip-e-Sahaba and Sunni Tehrik extremist groups are both linked with an area madrassa (Islamic school) whose students had been threatening the church since 2008, Christian sources said.
"In 2008 a group of Muslim students started making threats for the church to vacate the land, as there are only 55 Christian families living in the area," said the pastor's widow, Naila John, who also lost her son Salman John in the attack.
The masked gunmen of July 15 had young physiques like those of students, Christian sources said, and their manner of attack indicated they were trained extremists....Posted by Marisol on July 30, 2010 4:16 PM
Pakistan: 5 Christians shot to death coming out of church following threats from "banned" jihadist groups
Of course, given Pakistan's ongoing double game, there is always the question of whether the groups are banned as in "banned," or banned as in "just lay low for a bit or consider changing your name."
"Suspected Islamists Shoot Five Christians to Death in Pakistan," from Compass Direct News, July 29 (thanks to Twostellas):
SUKKUR, Pakistan, July 29 (CDN) -- A dozen masked men shot five Christians to death as they came out of their church building here on July 15, two months after a banned Islamic extremist group sent church leaders a threatening letter, relatives said.
Pastor Aaron John and church members Rohail Bhatti, Salman John, Abid Gill and Shamin Mall of Full Gospel Church were leaving the church building after meeting to discuss security in light of the threats they had received, said the pastor's son, Shahid John.
"As we came out of the church, a group of a dozen armed gunmen came and opened fire at us," said Shahid John, who survived a bullet in his arm. "Fear struck the area. The police arrived 45 minutes after the incident, and we waited for over 45 minutes for the ambulance to arrive."
Besides Shahid John, five others were wounded in the attack.
In May church leaders received a letter from Islamic extremist group Sip-e-Sahaba (formerly Sipah-e-Sahaba until it was banned) warning the Christians to leave the area, said Kiran Rohail, wife of the slain Rohail Bhatti.
"It said to vacate the land, Christians are not welcomed here, they are polluting our land," Kiran Rohail said.
The Sip-e-Sahaba and Sunni Tehrik extremist groups are both linked with an area madrassa (Islamic school) whose students had been threatening the church since 2008, Christian sources said.
"In 2008 a group of Muslim students started making threats for the church to vacate the land, as there are only 55 Christian families living in the area," said the pastor's widow, Naila John, who also lost her son Salman John in the attack.
The masked gunmen of July 15 had young physiques like those of students, Christian sources said, and their manner of attack indicated they were trained extremists....Posted by Marisol on July 30, 2010 4:16 PM
U.K.: National Health Service Picks Up Tab For Rapidly Increasing Numbers Of Hymen-Restoration Surgeries For Muslim Women
from Jihad Watch:
Sharia Special in the U.K.: National Health Service picks up the tab for "increasing number" of hymen restoration surgeries for Muslim women
There is a virtually unlimited need, and an unlimited demand for health care the world over. It is a perpetually scarce and costly resource. So, what better way to spend it than in submission to Islamic mores?
Not that the taxpayer-funded virginity "Mulligan" is new to the U.K. This has been going on for a number of years now.
But along with the matter of resources, this practice enables the non-engagement of the issues of honor killing and penalties enshrined in Islamic law. Indeed, for all parties involved in the transaction, there is much to be swept under the rug.
"NHS pays for Muslim virginity operations," by Tim Stewart and David Pilditch for the Express, July 30 (thanks to Twostellas):
AN INCREASING number of Muslim brides are having controversial pre-marriage "virginity repair" operations.
Taxpayers funded 116 hymen replacements on the NHS between 2005 and 2009, official figures revealed.
There were 30 operations in 2009 - up 25 per cent from 24 in 2005, it emerged yesterday.
You'll want to read this next part sitting down:
Private clinics report a huge surge in demand for the procedure, costing between £1,800 and £4,000. It means the taxpayer has forked out up to £400,000 over the four years to fund the half-hour operation.
Doctors say the trend is driven by young Muslim women under pressure from future husbands or relatives who insist they should be virgins.
Gynaecologist Dr Magdy Hend charges £1,850 for hymenoplasty at his Regency Clinic in Harley Street. He said: "In the past, we would do one or two a week. Sometimes now we get two or three a day. Demand has tripled."
Imam Dr Taj Hargey, chairman of the Muslim Educational Centre in Oxford, said it was "disappointing" that Muslim women in this country felt the need to resort "to subterfuge surgery".
The NHS says it does the operation only for "clinical need".
Dear NHS: I've decided I want my tonsils back. Can you hook that up, too?
Posted by Marisol on July 30, 2010 4:37 PM
Sharia Special in the U.K.: National Health Service picks up the tab for "increasing number" of hymen restoration surgeries for Muslim women
There is a virtually unlimited need, and an unlimited demand for health care the world over. It is a perpetually scarce and costly resource. So, what better way to spend it than in submission to Islamic mores?
Not that the taxpayer-funded virginity "Mulligan" is new to the U.K. This has been going on for a number of years now.
But along with the matter of resources, this practice enables the non-engagement of the issues of honor killing and penalties enshrined in Islamic law. Indeed, for all parties involved in the transaction, there is much to be swept under the rug.
"NHS pays for Muslim virginity operations," by Tim Stewart and David Pilditch for the Express, July 30 (thanks to Twostellas):
AN INCREASING number of Muslim brides are having controversial pre-marriage "virginity repair" operations.
Taxpayers funded 116 hymen replacements on the NHS between 2005 and 2009, official figures revealed.
There were 30 operations in 2009 - up 25 per cent from 24 in 2005, it emerged yesterday.
You'll want to read this next part sitting down:
Private clinics report a huge surge in demand for the procedure, costing between £1,800 and £4,000. It means the taxpayer has forked out up to £400,000 over the four years to fund the half-hour operation.
Doctors say the trend is driven by young Muslim women under pressure from future husbands or relatives who insist they should be virgins.
Gynaecologist Dr Magdy Hend charges £1,850 for hymenoplasty at his Regency Clinic in Harley Street. He said: "In the past, we would do one or two a week. Sometimes now we get two or three a day. Demand has tripled."
Imam Dr Taj Hargey, chairman of the Muslim Educational Centre in Oxford, said it was "disappointing" that Muslim women in this country felt the need to resort "to subterfuge surgery".
The NHS says it does the operation only for "clinical need".
Dear NHS: I've decided I want my tonsils back. Can you hook that up, too?
Posted by Marisol on July 30, 2010 4:37 PM
Anti-Defamation League Comes Out Against Ground Zero Mega-Mosque; CAIR Bullies/Urges ADL To Retract Statement
from Jihad Watch:
Anti-Defamation League comes out against Ground Zero mosque; bully CAIR urges ADL to retract statement
Of course, that would just be the shape of things to come in an Islamic state: Bark at the uppity kuffar to put them back in their place.
"Key Jewish Group Rejects Ground Zero Mosque," from the Associated Press, July 30:
The nation's leading Jewish civil rights group has come out against the planned mosque and Islamic community center near ground zero, saying more information is needed about funding for the project and the location is "counterproductive to the healing process."
The Anti-Defamation League said it rejects any opposition to the center based on bigotry and acknowledged that the group behind the plan, the Cordoba Initiative, has the legal right to build at the site. But the ADL said "some legitimate questions have been raised" about funding and possible ties with "groups whose ideologies stand in contradiction to our shared values."
"Ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right," the ADL said in a statement. "In our judgment, building an Islamic center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain -- unnecessarily -- and that is not right."
The Cordoba Initiative did not comment Friday.
Here, the AP stringer uncritically regurgitates the mosque proponents' claims about themselves:
Based in New York, Cordoba aims to improve relations between Islam and the West by hosting leadership conferences for young American Muslims, and organizing programs on Arab-Jewish relations, building civil society in the Muslim world and empowering Muslim women.
The mosque and community center would be located two blocks from the lower Manhattan site of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Cordoba purchased the property for $4 million and planned to build a 13-story, $100 million Islamic center, of which the mosque would be a part.
Cordoba's director, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, has not disclosed the funding sources for the project. But Sharif El-Gamal, the CEO of the company that owns the property, has said the project's backers were committed to transparency and would work with the attorney general's watchdog Charities Bureau.
... and disclose the funding sources? Or just line up some photo ops?
A city community board voted overwhelmingly last spring to back the project even as it drew emotional opposition from some local residents and relatives of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg supports the mosque's construction. Disagreement over the project has become a national issue, drawing opposition from former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin, among others.
The ADL, one of the most prominent groups in American Jewish life, is known for its advocacy of religious freedom and interfaith harmony. Its position on the mosque was met with shock and condemnation by several groups.
Time to dust off the "I, for one, welcome our new overlords" meme:
Jeremy Ben-Ami, head of J Street, the dovish, pro-Israel group, said he would hope ADL would be at the forefront in defending the freedom of a religious minority, "rather than casting aspersions on its funders and giving in to the fear-mongerers."
The Rev. Welton Gaddy, head of the Interfaith Alliance, a Washington advocacy group, said he read the ADL statement "with a great deal of sorrow."
"As an organization that for nearly 100 years has helped set the standard for fighting defamation and securing justice and fair treatment for all, it is disappointing to see the ADL arrived at this conclusion," Gaddy said.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations urged ADL to retract its statement.
Abraham Foxman, national director of the ADL, defended his position.
In a phone interview, he compared the idea of a mosque near ground zero to the Roman Catholic Carmelite nuns who had a convent at the Auschwitz death camp. In 1993, Pope John Paul II responded to Jewish protests by ordering the nuns to move.
"We're saying if your purpose is to heal differences, it's the wrong place," Foxman said of the mosque. "Don't do it. The symbolism is wrong."
It sure is wrong. On so many levels. And the symbolism is just the start of what's wrong.
Posted by Marisol on July 30, 2010 8:34 PM
Anti-Defamation League comes out against Ground Zero mosque; bully CAIR urges ADL to retract statement
Of course, that would just be the shape of things to come in an Islamic state: Bark at the uppity kuffar to put them back in their place.
"Key Jewish Group Rejects Ground Zero Mosque," from the Associated Press, July 30:
The nation's leading Jewish civil rights group has come out against the planned mosque and Islamic community center near ground zero, saying more information is needed about funding for the project and the location is "counterproductive to the healing process."
The Anti-Defamation League said it rejects any opposition to the center based on bigotry and acknowledged that the group behind the plan, the Cordoba Initiative, has the legal right to build at the site. But the ADL said "some legitimate questions have been raised" about funding and possible ties with "groups whose ideologies stand in contradiction to our shared values."
"Ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right," the ADL said in a statement. "In our judgment, building an Islamic center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain -- unnecessarily -- and that is not right."
The Cordoba Initiative did not comment Friday.
Here, the AP stringer uncritically regurgitates the mosque proponents' claims about themselves:
Based in New York, Cordoba aims to improve relations between Islam and the West by hosting leadership conferences for young American Muslims, and organizing programs on Arab-Jewish relations, building civil society in the Muslim world and empowering Muslim women.
The mosque and community center would be located two blocks from the lower Manhattan site of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Cordoba purchased the property for $4 million and planned to build a 13-story, $100 million Islamic center, of which the mosque would be a part.
Cordoba's director, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, has not disclosed the funding sources for the project. But Sharif El-Gamal, the CEO of the company that owns the property, has said the project's backers were committed to transparency and would work with the attorney general's watchdog Charities Bureau.
... and disclose the funding sources? Or just line up some photo ops?
A city community board voted overwhelmingly last spring to back the project even as it drew emotional opposition from some local residents and relatives of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg supports the mosque's construction. Disagreement over the project has become a national issue, drawing opposition from former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin, among others.
The ADL, one of the most prominent groups in American Jewish life, is known for its advocacy of religious freedom and interfaith harmony. Its position on the mosque was met with shock and condemnation by several groups.
Time to dust off the "I, for one, welcome our new overlords" meme:
Jeremy Ben-Ami, head of J Street, the dovish, pro-Israel group, said he would hope ADL would be at the forefront in defending the freedom of a religious minority, "rather than casting aspersions on its funders and giving in to the fear-mongerers."
The Rev. Welton Gaddy, head of the Interfaith Alliance, a Washington advocacy group, said he read the ADL statement "with a great deal of sorrow."
"As an organization that for nearly 100 years has helped set the standard for fighting defamation and securing justice and fair treatment for all, it is disappointing to see the ADL arrived at this conclusion," Gaddy said.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations urged ADL to retract its statement.
Abraham Foxman, national director of the ADL, defended his position.
In a phone interview, he compared the idea of a mosque near ground zero to the Roman Catholic Carmelite nuns who had a convent at the Auschwitz death camp. In 1993, Pope John Paul II responded to Jewish protests by ordering the nuns to move.
"We're saying if your purpose is to heal differences, it's the wrong place," Foxman said of the mosque. "Don't do it. The symbolism is wrong."
It sure is wrong. On so many levels. And the symbolism is just the start of what's wrong.
Posted by Marisol on July 30, 2010 8:34 PM
Anti-Arizona Law Protestors Wave Mexican Flags And Che Guevara Banner
from Floyd Reports (Impeach Obama Campaign):
Video: Anti Arizona Law Protestors waving Mexican Flag (and Che)
Posted by admin on July 31, 2010 · Comments (43)
Protestors of the Arizona Immigration law, many of whom were bused in SEUI workers, are shown in this video waving an American flag.
If you look closely there is also a Cuban flag with none other than innocent-murdering "Che" Guevara proudly displayed on it
Video: Anti Arizona Law Protestors waving Mexican Flag (and Che)
Posted by admin on July 31, 2010 · Comments (43)
Protestors of the Arizona Immigration law, many of whom were bused in SEUI workers, are shown in this video waving an American flag.
If you look closely there is also a Cuban flag with none other than innocent-murdering "Che" Guevara proudly displayed on it
Europe's Response To Hardline Islam Is Like A Man Burning Down His House In Order To Get Rid Of An Unwanted Visitor
From Winds of Jihad:
Europe’s response to hardline Islam is like a man burning down his house to get rid of an unwanted visitor
by sheikyermami on July 31, 2010
By Ed West/Telegraph UK (thanks to Mullah)
Multicultural Befuddlement & Diversity Watch
I remember an episode of Jerry Springer about a man who, sick of the unwanted sexual attentions of another man, took the rather drastic step of cutting off his own penis. And I often think of that example when reading about the British state’s latest response to the problems of multiculturalism and Islamic integration. The “solution”, you see, always involves diluting or curtailing our own culture, religions and freedoms.
Perhaps self-castration is too crude an analogy, although considering the fertility rates of atheist countries, an apt one; a better one might be that Europe’s response to hardline Islam is rather like a man setting fire to his own house to get rid of an unwanted visitor.
I thought this once again while reading Christina Patterson in the Independent, who argued against religious schools on these grounds:
A properly civilised society would accept that while lovely little C of E schools were once an excellent place for children to learn about the religion that shaped their culture, art and laws, you can’t have them without having the madrassa run by the mad mullah next door, and therefore, sadly, you can’t have either, but have, instead, a system of compulsory state secular education, in which children learn to get on with people from all religious backgrounds and none, and are taught about all religions, but also that the culture of the country they’re living in was, for 2,000 years, largely based on one.
And so another bit of English freedom dies.
This is perhaps the first time I’ve read this argument openly and honestly suggested by someone from the Left-liberal, who says, in effect: yes, church schools are a good thing, but diversity means we must have state-enforced uniformity, and greater state control. Sorry about no one mentioning that when mass immigration was first discussed years ago.
Links:
Who is David Cameron to say what the ‘real Islam’ is?
If Richard Dawkins can set up a school free of religious dogma, can I set one up free of Marxist indoctrination?
The Tories’ new crime strategy: preemptive surrender
Was this the plan all along, or is just sheer coincidence that the same people who get to enjoy the culinary delights of multiculturalism (but safely too wealthy to suffer the downsides) now get to run the huge state apparatus required to police diversity?
In the recently published A New Inquisition: religious persecution in Britain today, Jon Davies points out how, in response to a growing number of Islamic “charities” more interested in arms than alms, the 2006 Charities Act took away from Christian churches the presumption they were acting ‘charitably’, or for the public benefit.
They had always been regulated by Parliament, only very lightly, because everyone knew what they did and everyone knew such activities were beneficial to society, especially the poor. But because they couldn’t discriminate between religions, churches must now all satisfy the Charity Commission. As he wrote:
This means that all 13,000 Parochial Church Councils, many of the Finance Committees of the 43 Dioceses, the Archbishops’ Council, the Church Commissioners and the countless host of charitable organisations in whole or in part related to the Church must now satisfy Ms Susie Leather’s Charity Commission that they are of public benefit.
To carry this very substantial task forward, the Charity Commission established a Faith and Social Cohesion Unit, which saw as its first task an analysis of the organisational competence and financial probity of mosques and related Muslim charities.
I wonder how much the head of the Faith and Social Cohesion Unit is earning?
Now if you think churches and their various activities are not acting “for the public benefit”, you might think this a good thing, but you’d certainly be in a minority. If, like the most of the population – atheists, agnostics, those who are indifferent, people who only go to church on Christmas Eve while drunk, church-attending believers – you saw the beliefs and conscience and social networks of the Christian churches as the cement that’s holding our society together, you might start to wonder if burning down the whole edifice is quite the right response.
Share and Enjoy:
Europe’s response to hardline Islam is like a man burning down his house to get rid of an unwanted visitor
by sheikyermami on July 31, 2010
By Ed West/Telegraph UK (thanks to Mullah)
Multicultural Befuddlement & Diversity Watch
I remember an episode of Jerry Springer about a man who, sick of the unwanted sexual attentions of another man, took the rather drastic step of cutting off his own penis. And I often think of that example when reading about the British state’s latest response to the problems of multiculturalism and Islamic integration. The “solution”, you see, always involves diluting or curtailing our own culture, religions and freedoms.
Perhaps self-castration is too crude an analogy, although considering the fertility rates of atheist countries, an apt one; a better one might be that Europe’s response to hardline Islam is rather like a man setting fire to his own house to get rid of an unwanted visitor.
I thought this once again while reading Christina Patterson in the Independent, who argued against religious schools on these grounds:
A properly civilised society would accept that while lovely little C of E schools were once an excellent place for children to learn about the religion that shaped their culture, art and laws, you can’t have them without having the madrassa run by the mad mullah next door, and therefore, sadly, you can’t have either, but have, instead, a system of compulsory state secular education, in which children learn to get on with people from all religious backgrounds and none, and are taught about all religions, but also that the culture of the country they’re living in was, for 2,000 years, largely based on one.
And so another bit of English freedom dies.
This is perhaps the first time I’ve read this argument openly and honestly suggested by someone from the Left-liberal, who says, in effect: yes, church schools are a good thing, but diversity means we must have state-enforced uniformity, and greater state control. Sorry about no one mentioning that when mass immigration was first discussed years ago.
Links:
Who is David Cameron to say what the ‘real Islam’ is?
If Richard Dawkins can set up a school free of religious dogma, can I set one up free of Marxist indoctrination?
The Tories’ new crime strategy: preemptive surrender
Was this the plan all along, or is just sheer coincidence that the same people who get to enjoy the culinary delights of multiculturalism (but safely too wealthy to suffer the downsides) now get to run the huge state apparatus required to police diversity?
In the recently published A New Inquisition: religious persecution in Britain today, Jon Davies points out how, in response to a growing number of Islamic “charities” more interested in arms than alms, the 2006 Charities Act took away from Christian churches the presumption they were acting ‘charitably’, or for the public benefit.
They had always been regulated by Parliament, only very lightly, because everyone knew what they did and everyone knew such activities were beneficial to society, especially the poor. But because they couldn’t discriminate between religions, churches must now all satisfy the Charity Commission. As he wrote:
This means that all 13,000 Parochial Church Councils, many of the Finance Committees of the 43 Dioceses, the Archbishops’ Council, the Church Commissioners and the countless host of charitable organisations in whole or in part related to the Church must now satisfy Ms Susie Leather’s Charity Commission that they are of public benefit.
To carry this very substantial task forward, the Charity Commission established a Faith and Social Cohesion Unit, which saw as its first task an analysis of the organisational competence and financial probity of mosques and related Muslim charities.
I wonder how much the head of the Faith and Social Cohesion Unit is earning?
Now if you think churches and their various activities are not acting “for the public benefit”, you might think this a good thing, but you’d certainly be in a minority. If, like the most of the population – atheists, agnostics, those who are indifferent, people who only go to church on Christmas Eve while drunk, church-attending believers – you saw the beliefs and conscience and social networks of the Christian churches as the cement that’s holding our society together, you might start to wonder if burning down the whole edifice is quite the right response.
Share and Enjoy:
Friday, July 30, 2010
U.K.: Some Muslim Women Getting Hymen-Repair Operations Before Marriage
From Creeping Sharia:
UK: Muslim women getting virginity repair operations
Posted on July 30, 2010 by creeping
Muslim girls need sex too, and apparently they are getting it and don’t want their future husbands to know. Pious.
BRITISH Muslim women are having “virginity repair” operations on the NHS so their bridegrooms cannot tell they have had sex.
Doctors have revealed a surge in the number of women booking themselves in for the controversial 30-minute procedure just before they get married.
Health authority rules say women can have the operations for “physical and psychological” reasons.
And figures show that taxpayers have paid for 116 hymenoplasty procedures on the NHS between 2005 and last year.
But hundreds more are refused the NHS treatment.
And they are so frightened their future husbands will find out they’ve had sex, they are paying up to £4,000 for private surgery.
Muslim brides are under huge pressure to be “pure” when they marry so their husbands can take their virginity on the wedding night.
Many women give doctors false names and addresses and some are even buying chastity certificates to “prove” they are virgins.
Some young women and their families have been publicly shamed or even killed if a husband suspects his bride has had sex before.
One clinic in Harley Street, London, said demand for hymenoplasty ops had tripled in recent months.
Consultant gynaecologist Dr Magdy Hend, performs the op for £1,850 a time.
He said: “In the past, we would do one or two hymen reconstruction operations a week. Sometimes now, we get two or three women a day wanting it.
“Demand has tripled. And the majority of our clients are Muslim women.
“They worry about having had sex and their fiancé and family knowing they have been touched before. The woman fears the husband will divorce or humiliate her. There have been honour killings in extreme cases.
“It is simple surgery that takes half-an-hour. They can have it done at lunchtime and do not have to give their real names.
“They are paying up to £4,000 at other clinics.”
Imam Dr Taj Hargey, chairman of the Muslim Educational Centre in Oxford, said: “The rise in the number of these operations in Britain is a very disturbing trend.
“It is very disappointing Muslim women in this country feel they need to lead a double life, resorting to subterfuge surgery.”
via Daily Star: Muslim NHS virginity repair ops.
UK: Muslim women getting virginity repair operations
Posted on July 30, 2010 by creeping
Muslim girls need sex too, and apparently they are getting it and don’t want their future husbands to know. Pious.
BRITISH Muslim women are having “virginity repair” operations on the NHS so their bridegrooms cannot tell they have had sex.
Doctors have revealed a surge in the number of women booking themselves in for the controversial 30-minute procedure just before they get married.
Health authority rules say women can have the operations for “physical and psychological” reasons.
And figures show that taxpayers have paid for 116 hymenoplasty procedures on the NHS between 2005 and last year.
But hundreds more are refused the NHS treatment.
And they are so frightened their future husbands will find out they’ve had sex, they are paying up to £4,000 for private surgery.
Muslim brides are under huge pressure to be “pure” when they marry so their husbands can take their virginity on the wedding night.
Many women give doctors false names and addresses and some are even buying chastity certificates to “prove” they are virgins.
Some young women and their families have been publicly shamed or even killed if a husband suspects his bride has had sex before.
One clinic in Harley Street, London, said demand for hymenoplasty ops had tripled in recent months.
Consultant gynaecologist Dr Magdy Hend, performs the op for £1,850 a time.
He said: “In the past, we would do one or two hymen reconstruction operations a week. Sometimes now, we get two or three women a day wanting it.
“Demand has tripled. And the majority of our clients are Muslim women.
“They worry about having had sex and their fiancé and family knowing they have been touched before. The woman fears the husband will divorce or humiliate her. There have been honour killings in extreme cases.
“It is simple surgery that takes half-an-hour. They can have it done at lunchtime and do not have to give their real names.
“They are paying up to £4,000 at other clinics.”
Imam Dr Taj Hargey, chairman of the Muslim Educational Centre in Oxford, said: “The rise in the number of these operations in Britain is a very disturbing trend.
“It is very disappointing Muslim women in this country feel they need to lead a double life, resorting to subterfuge surgery.”
via Daily Star: Muslim NHS virginity repair ops.
SEIU And Center For American Progress (Soros-financed) Compare Arizona SB1070 To Jim Crow Laws
From Gateway Pundit:
SEIU and C.A.P. Attack Arizona Law Comparing it to Jim Crow
Posted by Guest Contributor on Friday, July 30, 2010, 8:07 PM
By The P/Oed Patriot
The Center for American Progress (CAP) and SEIU launched a new attack ad against Arizona’s SB1070 law. Following the Progressive playbook, they have decided to bring race into the issue and compare it to old Jim Crow laws.
This is just another way of calling all of those that are against Illegal Immigration racists.
The Tired Old Race Card…. Will they ever get sick of using it?
SEIU and C.A.P. Attack Arizona Law Comparing it to Jim Crow
Posted by Guest Contributor on Friday, July 30, 2010, 8:07 PM
By The P/Oed Patriot
The Center for American Progress (CAP) and SEIU launched a new attack ad against Arizona’s SB1070 law. Following the Progressive playbook, they have decided to bring race into the issue and compare it to old Jim Crow laws.
This is just another way of calling all of those that are against Illegal Immigration racists.
The Tired Old Race Card…. Will they ever get sick of using it?
Questions For Mayor Bloomberg On The Mega Ground Zero Mosque
From Jihad Watch:
Questions for Mayor Bloomberg on the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque
Cliff May asks common-sensical and thought-provoking questions. They'll be ignored, of course. "Dear Mayor Bloomberg: A few questions you might want to ask before approving a mosque for Ground Zero," by Cliff May, July 29:
Your Honor:
In regard to the proposal to build an Islamic center at the site of the 9/11 terrorist attack in Manhattan, I commend you for saying: "Everything the United States stands for and New York stands for is tolerance and openness, and I think it's a great message for the world. . . . " But I would urge you to question whether this project truly represents that idea -- or whether it undermines it.
Start with this: Before this project is approved, surely New Yorkers and other Americans should know who will be picking up the more than $100 million tab. Would you not be distressed were it later to be revealed that funds had been contributed by people who also finance terrorism?
You'll recall that, after the 9/11 attacks, your predecessor Rudy Giuliani turned down a $10 million check from a Saudi prince who had said that America shares blame for the atrocity. Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind the Islamic center project, has said that U.S. policies "were an accessory to the crime that happened." How is that different?
By the way, the Saudi royal family embraces Wahhabism, an interpretation of Islam that cannot be said to value "tolerance and openness." Among other things, in Saudi Arabia non-Muslim houses of worship are prohibited and "infidels" -- people like you and me -- may not set foot in the holy cities of Mecca and Medina upon pain of death. Newt Gingrich has called on Abdul Rauf to state clearly that he disagrees with such policies. Is that not a reasonable request?
I have an additional suggestion: If this project -- also called the "Cordoba Initiative"-- is really to "symbolize interfaith cooperation," if it's really to be an "inter-religious center," a 13-story home for "multi-faith collaboration," should it not contain a synagogue and a church as well as a mosque?
I would recommend putting each on a different floor. On the highest floor, let's put the church -- since Christians founded this great nation of ours. One floor down, let's put a synagogue, since Jews were among the earliest immigrants to find religious freedom in America. And one floor farther down, we'd have the mosque, a place for a newer generation of immigrants to gather and worship freely.
Here's my guess: If you propose this to Abdul Rauf, emphasizing, as you have in the past, the First Amendment rule that the government "shouldn't be in the business of picking" one religion over another, he will nonetheless refuse. He will offer all sorts of explanations, but the truth, I suspect, is that he believes that Islam is not "one of the world's great religions" but rather the only true religion, that others are false and wicked. He will find it blasphemous that you want this center to give equal status to Christianity and Judaism. And he will see putting a church and synagogue on higher floors as symbolizing more than equality....
Read it all.
Posted by Robert on July 29, 2010 2:56 PM
Questions for Mayor Bloomberg on the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque
Cliff May asks common-sensical and thought-provoking questions. They'll be ignored, of course. "Dear Mayor Bloomberg: A few questions you might want to ask before approving a mosque for Ground Zero," by Cliff May, July 29:
Your Honor:
In regard to the proposal to build an Islamic center at the site of the 9/11 terrorist attack in Manhattan, I commend you for saying: "Everything the United States stands for and New York stands for is tolerance and openness, and I think it's a great message for the world. . . . " But I would urge you to question whether this project truly represents that idea -- or whether it undermines it.
Start with this: Before this project is approved, surely New Yorkers and other Americans should know who will be picking up the more than $100 million tab. Would you not be distressed were it later to be revealed that funds had been contributed by people who also finance terrorism?
You'll recall that, after the 9/11 attacks, your predecessor Rudy Giuliani turned down a $10 million check from a Saudi prince who had said that America shares blame for the atrocity. Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind the Islamic center project, has said that U.S. policies "were an accessory to the crime that happened." How is that different?
By the way, the Saudi royal family embraces Wahhabism, an interpretation of Islam that cannot be said to value "tolerance and openness." Among other things, in Saudi Arabia non-Muslim houses of worship are prohibited and "infidels" -- people like you and me -- may not set foot in the holy cities of Mecca and Medina upon pain of death. Newt Gingrich has called on Abdul Rauf to state clearly that he disagrees with such policies. Is that not a reasonable request?
I have an additional suggestion: If this project -- also called the "Cordoba Initiative"-- is really to "symbolize interfaith cooperation," if it's really to be an "inter-religious center," a 13-story home for "multi-faith collaboration," should it not contain a synagogue and a church as well as a mosque?
I would recommend putting each on a different floor. On the highest floor, let's put the church -- since Christians founded this great nation of ours. One floor down, let's put a synagogue, since Jews were among the earliest immigrants to find religious freedom in America. And one floor farther down, we'd have the mosque, a place for a newer generation of immigrants to gather and worship freely.
Here's my guess: If you propose this to Abdul Rauf, emphasizing, as you have in the past, the First Amendment rule that the government "shouldn't be in the business of picking" one religion over another, he will nonetheless refuse. He will offer all sorts of explanations, but the truth, I suspect, is that he believes that Islam is not "one of the world's great religions" but rather the only true religion, that others are false and wicked. He will find it blasphemous that you want this center to give equal status to Christianity and Judaism. And he will see putting a church and synagogue on higher floors as symbolizing more than equality....
Read it all.
Posted by Robert on July 29, 2010 2:56 PM
The Owner Of The Mega-Mosque At Ground Zero Site Explains All
From Jihad Watch:
Sharif El-Gamal, owner of the property slated for Ground Zero mega-mosque, explains it all for you
Aziz Poonawalla, who is the kind of man who posts obscene photoshops about his ideological opponents, and who once fooled a whole passel of rubes at spitblogger Dean Esmay's site by claiming that my use of the standard and ordinary Arabic transliteration of my name was a ludicrous error, has now published a supposedly frank, open, and honest discussion of the plans for the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero with Sharif El-Gamal (pictured above at Tuesday's hearing of Manhattan's Community Board 1), the multimillionaire who owns the property. As might be expected, El-Gamal's answers fall significantly short of actually being frank, open, and honest.
"Q&A with Sharif el-Gamal about Park 51, NYC," by Aziz Poonawalla at BeliefNet, July 24:
As promised earlier in the week, here are the interview questions and answers from Sharif el-Gamal, CEO of SoHo Properties and lead developer of the Park 51 project. I am sincerely grateful to Sharif for taking the time to answer these questions and speak directly to the broader Muslim community.
1. How will you use this center to promote good citizenship and American values? What are the specific American values you seek to promote?
Park51 will be a community center promoting tolerance and understanding through three types of programs: arts and culture, education and recreation. We'll offer all New Yorkers valuable services, world-class facilities and empowering opportunities to learn more about the world around us and about each other. What's more American than serving others?
Swell! But self-consciously over-the-top in its swellness. After all the anger and pain that the plan for this mega-mosque has aroused in 9/11 families and others, for El-Gamal to be nattering blandly about "serving others" as if he and the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf just got back from a meeting of their Boy Scout Troop is disingenuous, to say the least. If this initiative is really all about serving others, what about serving those who oppose it by showing even the tiniest modicum of good will toward them, instead of vilifying and smearing them and dismissing their legitimate objections as "hatred" and "bigotry"? Is Sharif El-Gamal capable of even the smallest acknowledgment that he understands the pain that this mega-mosque is causing, and is willing to accommodate it in some way? Or is he only interested in "serving" his own constituency?
Because New York City is a global city, and New Yorkers come from all parts of the world, we need the kind of community center that our economy and cultural diversity demand. It's about fulfilling a need, meeting demand and looking to the future. I think that's a very American attitude. I know it's something I believe in very much. If we do something, we want to be the best at it, and we're always looking ahead.
If you look at a map of Manhattan, most of our major cultural and community centers are north of Houston. For the past two decades, New York City has become an increasingly attractive place to live. That's a great thing for the city. But, for more people to move into lower Manhattan, they have to have the right services. That's our contribution to Manhattan and the city. By serving all types of New Yorkers, we're doing our part as Americans to make our city and country stronger and safer.
Again, that all sounds really swell. But recall that Poonawalla asked El-Gamal how the mosque would promote "good citizenship and American values," and asked him which "specific American values" the mosque would promote. In response, "serving others" was about as specific as El-Gamal could get.
He had an opportunity to say that the Ground Zero mosque would institute programs to teach Muslims the virtues of American principles that contradict Sharia, such as the freedom of speech and the equality of rights of all people before the law. He could have said that the mosque would teach Muslims the virtues of the Constitutional principle of the non-establishment of religion, as opposed to the theocratic autocracy prescribed by Sharia. He could have said that the mosque would teach that apostates from Islam should not be killed, but should be allowed to exercise their conscience without interference.
He could have said all that and more. Instead, he murmured sweet nothings about "serving others."
2. Why must the project necessarily include a mosque? Wouldn't a general prayer area, which could be reserved in advance by any religious group, be more appropriate and compatible with the community-centric interfaith mission of the project?
We will include a September 11th memorial and quiet reflection space where people of different faith traditions and beliefs, sacred and secular, can find quiet time and solace. Park51 will also include general spaces and world-class facilities for all New Yorkers to benefit from, whether that's a Hebrew class meeting weekly or a yoga studio looking for space on a regular basis. We'll have an auditorium to engage large audiences, and sophisticated classroom space as well.
With respect to the mosque, which will take up only a small portion of the final space, it's a question of meeting a need. This mosque will be open to all. There are probably one million Muslims in the tri-state area and several hundred thousand in New York City. We should understand that Muslim New Yorkers are part of the city and have been for a very long time. Just a few days ago, I stopped to pray at a midtown mosque, and the congregation was led by a New York City Police Officer. He was a Muslim serving our city, keeping us safe.
There's hundreds of thousands of Muslim New Yorkers like him. We're doctors, lawyers, businessmen, cab drivers, teachers and students. That's what people need to know.
Yes, but the question was why must the project necessarily include a mosque? There is no other available real estate in Manhattan to meet this need? The mosque organizers veer back and forth from claiming that they just happened upon this property and their initiative has nothing to do with 9/11, and is several blocks (actually, just around a corner) from Ground Zero, to assuming that it has everything to do with 9/11 and that they're trying to send a "positive message" that "reverses" that of the attacks. But they can't have it both ways.
3. Some of Imam Feisal's past statements [1,2] have been used by critics to undermine the project's credibility. Can Imam Feisal clarify his views on terrorism to reassure New Yorkers he understands the moral weight of the tragedy of 9-11?
Imam Feisal has been a champion of pluralism and tolerance. He fully understands the enormity of 9-11. In fact his own congregation was only blocks away from Ground Zero. He works very hard, day in and day out, to fight extremism and radicalism.
Actually, Rauf is an opening proponent of Sharia who actually calls for restrictions on the freedom of speech in his book, What's Right with Islam Is What's Right with America.
More to the point, this is going to be a community center. Park51 is not a political organization. We do not have a political agenda, and we will be open to all New Yorkers. What we do not have room for are extremist views and opinions. Radical and hateful agendas will have no place in our community center or in the mosque. We are building this center for New York City, because we're New Yorkers. We're Americans. We have families here and futures here.
Define "radical" and "hateful." Is advocating for the rule of Islamic law "radical" and "hateful"? Given Rauf's writings, this is a very important question.
On September 11, 2001, I went down to the site of the attacks and spent two days handing out water to first responders and other victims. Hundreds of Muslims died on that day. New Yorkers of all faiths and no faiths died together. There are also hundreds of Muslims in our police force and fire department and many Muslims who volunteered to help the injured and the hurt. One of my close friends, a Muslim and a New Yorker, headed down to Ground Zero after the attacks, and helped set up a triage.
She was buried in the rubble when the towers collapsed, but she was dug out, thank God, and went right back to work. We understand the horror of that day because we lived it. Terrorists attacked our city and our country, and terrorists have continued to threaten our city and our country. We're proud of the many Muslims who have worked with our fellow Americans to keep our city and country safe.
Does anyone know who he might be talking about? The story doesn't ring true to me, which many will no doubt take as evidence of my inveterate "Islamophobia," but I do this all the time, all day every day, and I've heard thousands of stories of people who were in and around the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, and I've never heard anyone tell the story of a Muslim woman who was working to save people and who was buried in the rubble, was dug out, and went back to work. Given the politically correct avidity to find "moderate Muslims" on the part of both government and media since 9/11, I seriously doubt that if such a woman existed, her story would not have been repeatedly trumpeted far and wide. But I am not saying El-Gamal is necessarily lying; if anyone (including you, Mr. El-Gamal, or even the shifty Aziz Poonawalla) can give evidence to establish this woman's existence and substantiate these claims, I will publish the material here.
4. What are Imam Feisal's specific roles and responsibilities in the project? If he is not in a leadership/executive position, then who is really "in charge" and making the decisions?
Imam Feisal Abdul-Rauf is as an interfaith leader and a visionary in this project. He has served the lower Manhattan community faithfully for over 27 years. He is supported by political and religious leaders across New York City for his commitment to moderation and tolerance and his years of work in bringing people together.
Besides being an open advocate for Sharia, Rauf has (like CAIR) refused to denounce Hamas. He has lied about his commitment to religious dialogue. He has lied about whether the Islamic center planned for the Ground Zero site will contain a mosque or not. And he has lied about whether or not the project is getting foreign funding. He is involved with a group that helped fund the jihad flotilla against Israel.
Park51 is an independent project led by Muslim Americans. This project will be separate from The Cordoba Initiative and ASMA. The next step is forming a non-profit and applying for tax-exempt status. Imam Feisal and I are serving as the project managers until then. This non-profit will be run by an Executive Director, yet to be selected, support staff, and a 23-member Board of Directors. Imam Feisal will be one of the Directors, and will oversee the Cordoba House, which will direct the interfaith programming within Park51.. We have not yet selected the other members of the Board of Directors, but we will be picking people very carefully, based on their record of leadership, relevant experience and positive contribution to New York City and the country. The board will not be limited by religion.
The mosque will be run by a separate non-profit whose Board of Directors will reflect a broad range of experience. While the mosque will be located in the planned final structure of Park51, it will be a distinct non-profit. Neither Park51 nor the mosque, which hasn't been named yet, will tolerate any kind of illegal or un-American activity and rhetoric.
Here again, precise definitions are needed. Does El-Gamal believe it would be "illegal or un-American" to teach Sharia supremacism in lower Manhattan? And of course Aziz Poonawalla doesn't follow up with specific clarifying questions.
5. Will you pledge make all funding sources fully transparent? What are your criteria for accepting funding from a foreign source, to assuage concerns about extremist influences?
We have not yet launched our fundraising campaign. Park51 will incorporate as a non-profit and seek federal tax-exempt status. We are pledging to pursue this fundraising campaign in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. We have hired legal counsel and top-notch auditors to oversee this process from start to finish.
We will hire security consultants to assist us in the process of reviewing potential financiers and philanthropists as we begin to establish our fundraising strategy. We will refuse assistance, financial or otherwise, from any persons or institutions who are flagged by our security consultants or any government agencies.
The Muslim Brotherhood is not "flagged." But it is dedicated, in its own words, to "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within." Will the Ground Zero mega-mosque organizers deal with Brotherhood individuals and groups? If so, how will they keep the Brotherhood's perspective on Sharia and Islamic supremacism out of the mosque? Are they even interested in doing so?
6. Why was the site's proximity to Ground Zero considered a "selling point" [3] ? What other locations in lower Manhattan, if any, were considered that could serve the same purpose?
We are not at Ground Zero. In fact we're as close to City Hall as we are to Ground Zero. Lower Manhattan is pretty small. You can't see Ground Zero from our current building and on completion of our planned building some years from now, there won't be any views of the Ground Zero memorial from the building. To honor those who were killed on September 11th, we have planned for a public memorial within our future facility as well as reflection space open to all.
Of course, a September 11 memorial could be in Des Moines, it could be anywhere. When he talks about how Ground Zero can't be seen from the current building, El-Gamal is in "Ground Zero? What Ground Zero?" mode, as explained above. Rauf's wife Daisy Khan played the other side of this game here, emphasizing the property's symbolic closeness to Ground Zero.
Let me tell you a little bit about the history of this project. We'd been looking for at least seven years to find a space to accommodate the growing population of Muslims in lower Manhattan. We found this site in January of 2006 and getting to the finish line and acquiring the real estate was proof that persistence pays off. We had also been eager to contribute to the revitalization of lower Manhattan, in part because this is our area of business and also because as New Yorkers we wanted to give back to our city and help make it a better place to live.
Prior to purchasing our current facility at 45 Park Place, there were two mosques in lower Manhattan - although Park51 is not affiliated with either of these mosques. One was Masjid Farah, which could fit a maximum of approximately 65 people, and had to hold three or four separate prayer services on Fridays just to fit the crowds.
The second mosque, at Warren St., accommodated about 1,500 worshippers during Friday prayers - people had been praying on sidewalks because they had no room. They lost their space around May 2009. We made the move to buy 45 Park Place in July 2009 in part to offset the loss of this space. Currently, our space at 45 Park Place, accommodates around 450 people every Friday. We are also easily accessible from many different parts of Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Staten Island, which was an important consideration.
At the same time, we thought, why not give back to lower Manhattan and fulfill a pressing need? We looked for a building that could grow into a community center. In Lower Manhattan, the biggest community center is at Bowery and Houston and it's in a basement. There are new residential towers going up in lower Manhattan as we speak. Four Seasons is planning the tallest residential tower in the city a block away from our site. If you think of all of the community centers in Manhattan, they are further north. Residents need services, investment in the neighborhood, activities and opportunities. Community Board 1, which represents the residents of lower Manhattan, acknowledged the needs we were fulfilling when they gave us their clear support on two separate occasions.
Again -- no mention of Ground Zero in any of that windy explanation. It's a far cry from Daisy Khan's words: "I think the building came to us, which goes to show that there is a symbolism there, and that there's a divine hand in it. That it's so close to the tragedy, that its close proximity is very symbolic for the fact that we really want to reverse what happened on 9/11."
7. Do you concede there are genuine, valid concerns about this project which are not derived from Islamophobia or racism? What do you think those concerns are and how would you respond to them?
In a recent poll, even New Yorkers with a favorable opinion of Islam had reservations about the project. People have real questions and we need to work hard to make sure we get them answers, and that's not going to happen overnight. We're going to make sure our fundraising and planning involves people from across the city and we're going to make sure we do so in a way that hears concerns and responds to them.
Unfortunately, the public meetings we had with Community Board 1 and the Landmarks Committee were overtaken by a minority who prevented people from expressing their real concerns. The meetings turned into public spectacles. We're now looking for ways to engage our fellow New Yorkers and fellow Americans and have extended an open invitation to anyone concerned to come visit our space. They'll see we have a warm community that reflects the diversity of this country, and they'll see that we want to build Park51 so it has something for everyone.
I can't say this often enough. We work in lower Manhattan, we care about lower Manhattan and we're here to provide services to lower Manhattan.
The problem with this is that El-Gamal and Rauf and Daisy Khan and all their allies have consistently demonized all the opposition to the mega-mosque. There is nothing "Islamophobic" (a manipulative, trumped-up word in any case) or "racist" about pointing out that throughout history Muslims have built triumphal mosques on the cherished sites of conquered peoples, or that Rauf has not been honest, or that the mosque would be an insult to the people killed by Islamic supremacists on 9/11. I have seen people at Community Board meetings and elsewhere painstakingly and cogently explain why their opposition to the mega-mosque had nothing whatsoever to do with "bigotry" or "intolerance," only to be rudely ignored and again vilified as bigots by mosque proponents.
8. How do you respond to a recent Quinnipiac poll [4] showing a majority (52%) of New Yorkers actively oppose the project? What would you say to the 17% undecided New Yorkers to try and persuade them?
The same poll shows that a majority of Manhattan is behind us. Community Board 1 is overwhelmingly behind us, and they represent the people of lower Manhattan who are closest to Park51 and would be most relevant to our vision. They are the people of lower Manhattan. They've studied our project closely, they learned about who we are and they live in the area we hope to serve. They were clear in their support for us, and we're tremendously grateful for that.
The Board recognized the value in jobs, programs and services we are bringing to the city, and they know that this project is very important for lower Manhattan. That's a major reason why Borough President Scott Stringer, Mayor Bloomberg, Councilwoman Chin and Councilman Jackson, City Comptroller Liu, Attorney General Cuomo, State Senator Squadron, U.S. Congressman Nadler, Governor Paterson a number of key officials and institutions are supporting us. We're also pleased to have the support of September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows. These leaders and organizations know Imam Feisal has served Lower Manhattan for a long time, and that he has been a positive force in this city and country.
But we need to do more to reach out to the undecided New Yorkers, the New Yorkers who have only heard misrepresentations about Park51, and other Americans in other parts of our country. I think that as more information comes out about the project, and more people learn about who we are and how we want to help New York City, we'll see these numbers change.
I want people in New York who are undecided to know we're a part of this city, and we want to make it a better place to live and work. We want to help stimulate our economy, and enhance New York's position as a global hub of ideas and culture.
Then address our real concerns, instead of setting up straw men and engaging in the basest forms of character assassination.
9. How do you make the case for supporting Park 51 to the local Muslim American community? Doesn't Park 51 undermine support for (and even actively harm) more pragmatic mosque projects in Sheepshead Bay and Staten Island?
We're not affiliated with either of those projects, but we do recognize that this project affects people from all over the world. New York City is the capital city of the world. I'm pretty sure New York City also has the largest Muslim population of any city in the United States. Muslim New Yorkers need to do more to become part of the institutions and organizations that serve and contribute to this city. We believe Park51 will be a positive step in this direction.
I believe that our model represents the best of American and Muslim values. More people need to know the truth about Islam, and that's that Islam is a peaceful religion, a compassionate religion, which preaches service to all. Unfortunately, there is some opposition to Muslim projects which is driven by hate and negativity, and we should be concerned by this.
Because hate for one minority can become hate for anyone who's different, and New Yorkers, like Americans, understand the value of diversity and the importance of protecting difference. That's what makes America so dynamic and so unique.
Here again, opposition to the mosque has nothing to do with "hate." No one would ever take the time to "hate" Muslims or think about them at all were it not for the ongoing threat of jihad terrorism and the increasing arrogance and demands of the Muslim community in the U.S. And the mega-mosque is just another example of it.
10. The controversy has alienated many Americans and New Yorkers who are tolerant of Islam per se but viscerally react to the project with offense. In hindsight, what could you have done differently to avoid this reaction?
My heart goes out to the families who lost loved ones. We were all attacked that day, no matter what our color or our religion. I understand that people are offended, but we cannot lose sight of why we are doing this. And we cannot forget that we are a part of this city, a major part of this city, and we need to work together as Americans and as New Yorkers.
Moving forward, I hope and pray the dialogue reaches more New Yorkers and Americans. People have concerns and questions, and we want to answer them in a meaningful way, in a way that lets people know who we really are, what we want to do for the city and how they can be a part of Park51.
We have to appeal to the undecided, and change the conversation about Muslims in America. Because of that, we're offering an open door. You know, I'd love it if Sarah Palin came to Park51 to see our community.
She'd see that we're just as American as she is. She'd get the chance to meet some of her fellow citizens who happen to be Muslims. Consider that an open invitation, Mrs. Palin. We'd love to see you. We want to welcome everybody who cares about this city and about this country.
Fine, let's dialogue. Let's continue this discussion. I've raised what I believe to be legitimate concerns here. I invite Sharif El-Gamal to respond, and we will have a dialogue. I'm ready when he is.
Posted by Robert on July 29, 2010 6:24 PM
Sharif El-Gamal, owner of the property slated for Ground Zero mega-mosque, explains it all for you
Aziz Poonawalla, who is the kind of man who posts obscene photoshops about his ideological opponents, and who once fooled a whole passel of rubes at spitblogger Dean Esmay's site by claiming that my use of the standard and ordinary Arabic transliteration of my name was a ludicrous error, has now published a supposedly frank, open, and honest discussion of the plans for the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero with Sharif El-Gamal (pictured above at Tuesday's hearing of Manhattan's Community Board 1), the multimillionaire who owns the property. As might be expected, El-Gamal's answers fall significantly short of actually being frank, open, and honest.
"Q&A with Sharif el-Gamal about Park 51, NYC," by Aziz Poonawalla at BeliefNet, July 24:
As promised earlier in the week, here are the interview questions and answers from Sharif el-Gamal, CEO of SoHo Properties and lead developer of the Park 51 project. I am sincerely grateful to Sharif for taking the time to answer these questions and speak directly to the broader Muslim community.
1. How will you use this center to promote good citizenship and American values? What are the specific American values you seek to promote?
Park51 will be a community center promoting tolerance and understanding through three types of programs: arts and culture, education and recreation. We'll offer all New Yorkers valuable services, world-class facilities and empowering opportunities to learn more about the world around us and about each other. What's more American than serving others?
Swell! But self-consciously over-the-top in its swellness. After all the anger and pain that the plan for this mega-mosque has aroused in 9/11 families and others, for El-Gamal to be nattering blandly about "serving others" as if he and the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf just got back from a meeting of their Boy Scout Troop is disingenuous, to say the least. If this initiative is really all about serving others, what about serving those who oppose it by showing even the tiniest modicum of good will toward them, instead of vilifying and smearing them and dismissing their legitimate objections as "hatred" and "bigotry"? Is Sharif El-Gamal capable of even the smallest acknowledgment that he understands the pain that this mega-mosque is causing, and is willing to accommodate it in some way? Or is he only interested in "serving" his own constituency?
Because New York City is a global city, and New Yorkers come from all parts of the world, we need the kind of community center that our economy and cultural diversity demand. It's about fulfilling a need, meeting demand and looking to the future. I think that's a very American attitude. I know it's something I believe in very much. If we do something, we want to be the best at it, and we're always looking ahead.
If you look at a map of Manhattan, most of our major cultural and community centers are north of Houston. For the past two decades, New York City has become an increasingly attractive place to live. That's a great thing for the city. But, for more people to move into lower Manhattan, they have to have the right services. That's our contribution to Manhattan and the city. By serving all types of New Yorkers, we're doing our part as Americans to make our city and country stronger and safer.
Again, that all sounds really swell. But recall that Poonawalla asked El-Gamal how the mosque would promote "good citizenship and American values," and asked him which "specific American values" the mosque would promote. In response, "serving others" was about as specific as El-Gamal could get.
He had an opportunity to say that the Ground Zero mosque would institute programs to teach Muslims the virtues of American principles that contradict Sharia, such as the freedom of speech and the equality of rights of all people before the law. He could have said that the mosque would teach Muslims the virtues of the Constitutional principle of the non-establishment of religion, as opposed to the theocratic autocracy prescribed by Sharia. He could have said that the mosque would teach that apostates from Islam should not be killed, but should be allowed to exercise their conscience without interference.
He could have said all that and more. Instead, he murmured sweet nothings about "serving others."
2. Why must the project necessarily include a mosque? Wouldn't a general prayer area, which could be reserved in advance by any religious group, be more appropriate and compatible with the community-centric interfaith mission of the project?
We will include a September 11th memorial and quiet reflection space where people of different faith traditions and beliefs, sacred and secular, can find quiet time and solace. Park51 will also include general spaces and world-class facilities for all New Yorkers to benefit from, whether that's a Hebrew class meeting weekly or a yoga studio looking for space on a regular basis. We'll have an auditorium to engage large audiences, and sophisticated classroom space as well.
With respect to the mosque, which will take up only a small portion of the final space, it's a question of meeting a need. This mosque will be open to all. There are probably one million Muslims in the tri-state area and several hundred thousand in New York City. We should understand that Muslim New Yorkers are part of the city and have been for a very long time. Just a few days ago, I stopped to pray at a midtown mosque, and the congregation was led by a New York City Police Officer. He was a Muslim serving our city, keeping us safe.
There's hundreds of thousands of Muslim New Yorkers like him. We're doctors, lawyers, businessmen, cab drivers, teachers and students. That's what people need to know.
Yes, but the question was why must the project necessarily include a mosque? There is no other available real estate in Manhattan to meet this need? The mosque organizers veer back and forth from claiming that they just happened upon this property and their initiative has nothing to do with 9/11, and is several blocks (actually, just around a corner) from Ground Zero, to assuming that it has everything to do with 9/11 and that they're trying to send a "positive message" that "reverses" that of the attacks. But they can't have it both ways.
3. Some of Imam Feisal's past statements [1,2] have been used by critics to undermine the project's credibility. Can Imam Feisal clarify his views on terrorism to reassure New Yorkers he understands the moral weight of the tragedy of 9-11?
Imam Feisal has been a champion of pluralism and tolerance. He fully understands the enormity of 9-11. In fact his own congregation was only blocks away from Ground Zero. He works very hard, day in and day out, to fight extremism and radicalism.
Actually, Rauf is an opening proponent of Sharia who actually calls for restrictions on the freedom of speech in his book, What's Right with Islam Is What's Right with America.
More to the point, this is going to be a community center. Park51 is not a political organization. We do not have a political agenda, and we will be open to all New Yorkers. What we do not have room for are extremist views and opinions. Radical and hateful agendas will have no place in our community center or in the mosque. We are building this center for New York City, because we're New Yorkers. We're Americans. We have families here and futures here.
Define "radical" and "hateful." Is advocating for the rule of Islamic law "radical" and "hateful"? Given Rauf's writings, this is a very important question.
On September 11, 2001, I went down to the site of the attacks and spent two days handing out water to first responders and other victims. Hundreds of Muslims died on that day. New Yorkers of all faiths and no faiths died together. There are also hundreds of Muslims in our police force and fire department and many Muslims who volunteered to help the injured and the hurt. One of my close friends, a Muslim and a New Yorker, headed down to Ground Zero after the attacks, and helped set up a triage.
She was buried in the rubble when the towers collapsed, but she was dug out, thank God, and went right back to work. We understand the horror of that day because we lived it. Terrorists attacked our city and our country, and terrorists have continued to threaten our city and our country. We're proud of the many Muslims who have worked with our fellow Americans to keep our city and country safe.
Does anyone know who he might be talking about? The story doesn't ring true to me, which many will no doubt take as evidence of my inveterate "Islamophobia," but I do this all the time, all day every day, and I've heard thousands of stories of people who were in and around the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, and I've never heard anyone tell the story of a Muslim woman who was working to save people and who was buried in the rubble, was dug out, and went back to work. Given the politically correct avidity to find "moderate Muslims" on the part of both government and media since 9/11, I seriously doubt that if such a woman existed, her story would not have been repeatedly trumpeted far and wide. But I am not saying El-Gamal is necessarily lying; if anyone (including you, Mr. El-Gamal, or even the shifty Aziz Poonawalla) can give evidence to establish this woman's existence and substantiate these claims, I will publish the material here.
4. What are Imam Feisal's specific roles and responsibilities in the project? If he is not in a leadership/executive position, then who is really "in charge" and making the decisions?
Imam Feisal Abdul-Rauf is as an interfaith leader and a visionary in this project. He has served the lower Manhattan community faithfully for over 27 years. He is supported by political and religious leaders across New York City for his commitment to moderation and tolerance and his years of work in bringing people together.
Besides being an open advocate for Sharia, Rauf has (like CAIR) refused to denounce Hamas. He has lied about his commitment to religious dialogue. He has lied about whether the Islamic center planned for the Ground Zero site will contain a mosque or not. And he has lied about whether or not the project is getting foreign funding. He is involved with a group that helped fund the jihad flotilla against Israel.
Park51 is an independent project led by Muslim Americans. This project will be separate from The Cordoba Initiative and ASMA. The next step is forming a non-profit and applying for tax-exempt status. Imam Feisal and I are serving as the project managers until then. This non-profit will be run by an Executive Director, yet to be selected, support staff, and a 23-member Board of Directors. Imam Feisal will be one of the Directors, and will oversee the Cordoba House, which will direct the interfaith programming within Park51.. We have not yet selected the other members of the Board of Directors, but we will be picking people very carefully, based on their record of leadership, relevant experience and positive contribution to New York City and the country. The board will not be limited by religion.
The mosque will be run by a separate non-profit whose Board of Directors will reflect a broad range of experience. While the mosque will be located in the planned final structure of Park51, it will be a distinct non-profit. Neither Park51 nor the mosque, which hasn't been named yet, will tolerate any kind of illegal or un-American activity and rhetoric.
Here again, precise definitions are needed. Does El-Gamal believe it would be "illegal or un-American" to teach Sharia supremacism in lower Manhattan? And of course Aziz Poonawalla doesn't follow up with specific clarifying questions.
5. Will you pledge make all funding sources fully transparent? What are your criteria for accepting funding from a foreign source, to assuage concerns about extremist influences?
We have not yet launched our fundraising campaign. Park51 will incorporate as a non-profit and seek federal tax-exempt status. We are pledging to pursue this fundraising campaign in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. We have hired legal counsel and top-notch auditors to oversee this process from start to finish.
We will hire security consultants to assist us in the process of reviewing potential financiers and philanthropists as we begin to establish our fundraising strategy. We will refuse assistance, financial or otherwise, from any persons or institutions who are flagged by our security consultants or any government agencies.
The Muslim Brotherhood is not "flagged." But it is dedicated, in its own words, to "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within." Will the Ground Zero mega-mosque organizers deal with Brotherhood individuals and groups? If so, how will they keep the Brotherhood's perspective on Sharia and Islamic supremacism out of the mosque? Are they even interested in doing so?
6. Why was the site's proximity to Ground Zero considered a "selling point" [3] ? What other locations in lower Manhattan, if any, were considered that could serve the same purpose?
We are not at Ground Zero. In fact we're as close to City Hall as we are to Ground Zero. Lower Manhattan is pretty small. You can't see Ground Zero from our current building and on completion of our planned building some years from now, there won't be any views of the Ground Zero memorial from the building. To honor those who were killed on September 11th, we have planned for a public memorial within our future facility as well as reflection space open to all.
Of course, a September 11 memorial could be in Des Moines, it could be anywhere. When he talks about how Ground Zero can't be seen from the current building, El-Gamal is in "Ground Zero? What Ground Zero?" mode, as explained above. Rauf's wife Daisy Khan played the other side of this game here, emphasizing the property's symbolic closeness to Ground Zero.
Let me tell you a little bit about the history of this project. We'd been looking for at least seven years to find a space to accommodate the growing population of Muslims in lower Manhattan. We found this site in January of 2006 and getting to the finish line and acquiring the real estate was proof that persistence pays off. We had also been eager to contribute to the revitalization of lower Manhattan, in part because this is our area of business and also because as New Yorkers we wanted to give back to our city and help make it a better place to live.
Prior to purchasing our current facility at 45 Park Place, there were two mosques in lower Manhattan - although Park51 is not affiliated with either of these mosques. One was Masjid Farah, which could fit a maximum of approximately 65 people, and had to hold three or four separate prayer services on Fridays just to fit the crowds.
The second mosque, at Warren St., accommodated about 1,500 worshippers during Friday prayers - people had been praying on sidewalks because they had no room. They lost their space around May 2009. We made the move to buy 45 Park Place in July 2009 in part to offset the loss of this space. Currently, our space at 45 Park Place, accommodates around 450 people every Friday. We are also easily accessible from many different parts of Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Staten Island, which was an important consideration.
At the same time, we thought, why not give back to lower Manhattan and fulfill a pressing need? We looked for a building that could grow into a community center. In Lower Manhattan, the biggest community center is at Bowery and Houston and it's in a basement. There are new residential towers going up in lower Manhattan as we speak. Four Seasons is planning the tallest residential tower in the city a block away from our site. If you think of all of the community centers in Manhattan, they are further north. Residents need services, investment in the neighborhood, activities and opportunities. Community Board 1, which represents the residents of lower Manhattan, acknowledged the needs we were fulfilling when they gave us their clear support on two separate occasions.
Again -- no mention of Ground Zero in any of that windy explanation. It's a far cry from Daisy Khan's words: "I think the building came to us, which goes to show that there is a symbolism there, and that there's a divine hand in it. That it's so close to the tragedy, that its close proximity is very symbolic for the fact that we really want to reverse what happened on 9/11."
7. Do you concede there are genuine, valid concerns about this project which are not derived from Islamophobia or racism? What do you think those concerns are and how would you respond to them?
In a recent poll, even New Yorkers with a favorable opinion of Islam had reservations about the project. People have real questions and we need to work hard to make sure we get them answers, and that's not going to happen overnight. We're going to make sure our fundraising and planning involves people from across the city and we're going to make sure we do so in a way that hears concerns and responds to them.
Unfortunately, the public meetings we had with Community Board 1 and the Landmarks Committee were overtaken by a minority who prevented people from expressing their real concerns. The meetings turned into public spectacles. We're now looking for ways to engage our fellow New Yorkers and fellow Americans and have extended an open invitation to anyone concerned to come visit our space. They'll see we have a warm community that reflects the diversity of this country, and they'll see that we want to build Park51 so it has something for everyone.
I can't say this often enough. We work in lower Manhattan, we care about lower Manhattan and we're here to provide services to lower Manhattan.
The problem with this is that El-Gamal and Rauf and Daisy Khan and all their allies have consistently demonized all the opposition to the mega-mosque. There is nothing "Islamophobic" (a manipulative, trumped-up word in any case) or "racist" about pointing out that throughout history Muslims have built triumphal mosques on the cherished sites of conquered peoples, or that Rauf has not been honest, or that the mosque would be an insult to the people killed by Islamic supremacists on 9/11. I have seen people at Community Board meetings and elsewhere painstakingly and cogently explain why their opposition to the mega-mosque had nothing whatsoever to do with "bigotry" or "intolerance," only to be rudely ignored and again vilified as bigots by mosque proponents.
8. How do you respond to a recent Quinnipiac poll [4] showing a majority (52%) of New Yorkers actively oppose the project? What would you say to the 17% undecided New Yorkers to try and persuade them?
The same poll shows that a majority of Manhattan is behind us. Community Board 1 is overwhelmingly behind us, and they represent the people of lower Manhattan who are closest to Park51 and would be most relevant to our vision. They are the people of lower Manhattan. They've studied our project closely, they learned about who we are and they live in the area we hope to serve. They were clear in their support for us, and we're tremendously grateful for that.
The Board recognized the value in jobs, programs and services we are bringing to the city, and they know that this project is very important for lower Manhattan. That's a major reason why Borough President Scott Stringer, Mayor Bloomberg, Councilwoman Chin and Councilman Jackson, City Comptroller Liu, Attorney General Cuomo, State Senator Squadron, U.S. Congressman Nadler, Governor Paterson a number of key officials and institutions are supporting us. We're also pleased to have the support of September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows. These leaders and organizations know Imam Feisal has served Lower Manhattan for a long time, and that he has been a positive force in this city and country.
But we need to do more to reach out to the undecided New Yorkers, the New Yorkers who have only heard misrepresentations about Park51, and other Americans in other parts of our country. I think that as more information comes out about the project, and more people learn about who we are and how we want to help New York City, we'll see these numbers change.
I want people in New York who are undecided to know we're a part of this city, and we want to make it a better place to live and work. We want to help stimulate our economy, and enhance New York's position as a global hub of ideas and culture.
Then address our real concerns, instead of setting up straw men and engaging in the basest forms of character assassination.
9. How do you make the case for supporting Park 51 to the local Muslim American community? Doesn't Park 51 undermine support for (and even actively harm) more pragmatic mosque projects in Sheepshead Bay and Staten Island?
We're not affiliated with either of those projects, but we do recognize that this project affects people from all over the world. New York City is the capital city of the world. I'm pretty sure New York City also has the largest Muslim population of any city in the United States. Muslim New Yorkers need to do more to become part of the institutions and organizations that serve and contribute to this city. We believe Park51 will be a positive step in this direction.
I believe that our model represents the best of American and Muslim values. More people need to know the truth about Islam, and that's that Islam is a peaceful religion, a compassionate religion, which preaches service to all. Unfortunately, there is some opposition to Muslim projects which is driven by hate and negativity, and we should be concerned by this.
Because hate for one minority can become hate for anyone who's different, and New Yorkers, like Americans, understand the value of diversity and the importance of protecting difference. That's what makes America so dynamic and so unique.
Here again, opposition to the mosque has nothing to do with "hate." No one would ever take the time to "hate" Muslims or think about them at all were it not for the ongoing threat of jihad terrorism and the increasing arrogance and demands of the Muslim community in the U.S. And the mega-mosque is just another example of it.
10. The controversy has alienated many Americans and New Yorkers who are tolerant of Islam per se but viscerally react to the project with offense. In hindsight, what could you have done differently to avoid this reaction?
My heart goes out to the families who lost loved ones. We were all attacked that day, no matter what our color or our religion. I understand that people are offended, but we cannot lose sight of why we are doing this. And we cannot forget that we are a part of this city, a major part of this city, and we need to work together as Americans and as New Yorkers.
Moving forward, I hope and pray the dialogue reaches more New Yorkers and Americans. People have concerns and questions, and we want to answer them in a meaningful way, in a way that lets people know who we really are, what we want to do for the city and how they can be a part of Park51.
We have to appeal to the undecided, and change the conversation about Muslims in America. Because of that, we're offering an open door. You know, I'd love it if Sarah Palin came to Park51 to see our community.
She'd see that we're just as American as she is. She'd get the chance to meet some of her fellow citizens who happen to be Muslims. Consider that an open invitation, Mrs. Palin. We'd love to see you. We want to welcome everybody who cares about this city and about this country.
Fine, let's dialogue. Let's continue this discussion. I've raised what I believe to be legitimate concerns here. I invite Sharif El-Gamal to respond, and we will have a dialogue. I'm ready when he is.
Posted by Robert on July 29, 2010 6:24 PM
Rush Limbaugh: It's The Left That's Pushing Sharia And Anti-Womens' Rights In The U.S.
From Jihad Watch:
Rush: "Anti-women's rights is a cause of the left. That's who's pushing Sharia in this country: The left. It's the left that wants a mosque at Ground Zero."
Another American against the Ground Zero mega-mosque. "If We Were Really Who They Say We are, We Would All be Liberals," transcript of the Rush Limbaugh Show, July 27 (thanks to Anne Crockett):
Let's take, at face value, the template that the partisan political hacks spew at me. I am, according to them, anti-women's rights. Equal rights for women is no concern of mine, right? I'm the guy that came up with the name "feminazi." I'm not a friend of women's rights, they say. If that were true, I would be pushing for the mosque at Ground Zero. If I were anti-women's rights, I would be all for Sharia law. Sharia law is a not-so-stealth way to undermine women's rights in this country. It would be a perfect cause if I was who they say I am.
Anti-women's rights is a cause of the left. That's who's pushing Sharia in this country: The left. It's the left that wants a mosque at Ground Zero. It's left who thinks "America's chickensssss came home to roost" on 9/11. It's the American left that thinks we got what we deserved on 9/11. It's the American left that wants the mosque at Ground Zero. No one can be pro-women's rights and remain silent about the metastasizing cancer that Sharia law is on women's rights.
Posted by Robert on July 30, 2010 12:06 AM
Rush: "Anti-women's rights is a cause of the left. That's who's pushing Sharia in this country: The left. It's the left that wants a mosque at Ground Zero."
Another American against the Ground Zero mega-mosque. "If We Were Really Who They Say We are, We Would All be Liberals," transcript of the Rush Limbaugh Show, July 27 (thanks to Anne Crockett):
Let's take, at face value, the template that the partisan political hacks spew at me. I am, according to them, anti-women's rights. Equal rights for women is no concern of mine, right? I'm the guy that came up with the name "feminazi." I'm not a friend of women's rights, they say. If that were true, I would be pushing for the mosque at Ground Zero. If I were anti-women's rights, I would be all for Sharia law. Sharia law is a not-so-stealth way to undermine women's rights in this country. It would be a perfect cause if I was who they say I am.
Anti-women's rights is a cause of the left. That's who's pushing Sharia in this country: The left. It's the left that wants a mosque at Ground Zero. It's left who thinks "America's chickensssss came home to roost" on 9/11. It's the American left that thinks we got what we deserved on 9/11. It's the American left that wants the mosque at Ground Zero. No one can be pro-women's rights and remain silent about the metastasizing cancer that Sharia law is on women's rights.
Posted by Robert on July 30, 2010 12:06 AM
America At Risk: National Security And The Threat Of Islamic Extremism
From Newt Gingrich:
America at Risk – National Security and the Threat of Islamic Extremism
In Newt’s speech at the American Enterprise Institute yesterday, he examined the threats facing America today in the context of 30 years of history and demanded that we face up to reality and acknowledge the true nature of the threat of Islamic extremism.
"The left's refusal to tell the truth about the Islamist threat is a natural parallel to the 70 year pattern of leftwing intellectuals refusing to tell the truth about communism and the Soviet Union,” he said. “The fight against Sharia and Madrasahs which teach hatred and fanaticism is the heart of the enemy movement from which the terrorists spring forth.”
America at Risk – National Security and the Threat of Islamic Extremism
In Newt’s speech at the American Enterprise Institute yesterday, he examined the threats facing America today in the context of 30 years of history and demanded that we face up to reality and acknowledge the true nature of the threat of Islamic extremism.
"The left's refusal to tell the truth about the Islamist threat is a natural parallel to the 70 year pattern of leftwing intellectuals refusing to tell the truth about communism and the Soviet Union,” he said. “The fight against Sharia and Madrasahs which teach hatred and fanaticism is the heart of the enemy movement from which the terrorists spring forth.”
Islam, Nothing But Islam
From Winds of Jihad:
Islam, nothing but Islam
by sheikyermami on July 30, 2010
It’s the Islam, Stoopid!
In German: Nächste Watschen für Aygül Özkan
Thanks to PI, slightly edited
Lawyer-by-training and German by naturalisation Aygül Özkan sees German courts as an “alien authority” and would like to see more Turkish Muslims in the judiciary. Özkan recently caused an uproar when she called for the removal of cruzifixes from German classrooms. Since German police is unable to cope with large numbers of increasingly aggressive, criminal gangs of Mohammedan ‘youth’ the import of Turkish policemen is being suggested. Nobody seems to realize that Turkish police would side with the criminals, because Muslim loyalties always lie with other Muslims, never with the infidel nation state.
Now Aygül Özkan is about to introduce a “Media Charter” for Lower Saxony. During a collective act on August 16 in Hannover, the invited media representatives are supposed to sign this so-called “Media Charter on Integration”. The written invitation says that the collective declaration of intent is supposed to generate a publicity effect and all undersigned will have to pledge themselves to “strongly support the integration process in Lower Saxony”.
Özkan’s ministry demands the media use “culturally sensitive” language to further “intercultural openness (which is, of course, humbug, because the term “intercultural” is a one-way-street and don’t we all know the “intercultural openness” of Muslims towards the West), to improve their “intercultural competence” (ditto), to initiate relevant projects and to cover them as journalists.
The NWZ goes on:
It is so far unique in Germany for the government of a federal state to pledge the media to a collective content and even the language used for that.
How very daring! But while Özkan had gotten a lot of backslapping by the media for her attempt at removing the crucifix from the public eye (who wants religion anyway, at least as long as it’s Christian), by getting at the media itself, she went too far and didn’t come by the usual fawning reception to which she must be used by now.
Here we have a woman, young, “modern”, seemingly perfectly assimilated, educated to university level, the lot, yet the first thing she sets her mind on in her high office, even before she is sworn in, is the banning of the Christian symbol from schools and, not even three months later, the abolition of the freedom of the press in favour of her fellow Muslims. Because in spite of all the “integration” and “people with a migration background” hogwash it’s just about one thing: Islam. Just as for this woman, young, “modern”, seemingly perfectly assimilated, educated to university level, everything is about Islam. Islam, nothing else matters……
Other links from EUrabia:
Basel: Parents fined for missed swimming lessons
UK: Surge in tax-funded ‘virginity repair’ operations
France: The threats facing Jews
Switzerland: Swiss People’s Party surveys Swiss on foreigner policy (at least they ask)
Germany: Soccer authorities get ruling on Ramadan fasting
EU: Islam in Europe now has strong local leadership
Islam, nothing but Islam
by sheikyermami on July 30, 2010
It’s the Islam, Stoopid!
In German: Nächste Watschen für Aygül Özkan
Thanks to PI, slightly edited
Lawyer-by-training and German by naturalisation Aygül Özkan sees German courts as an “alien authority” and would like to see more Turkish Muslims in the judiciary. Özkan recently caused an uproar when she called for the removal of cruzifixes from German classrooms. Since German police is unable to cope with large numbers of increasingly aggressive, criminal gangs of Mohammedan ‘youth’ the import of Turkish policemen is being suggested. Nobody seems to realize that Turkish police would side with the criminals, because Muslim loyalties always lie with other Muslims, never with the infidel nation state.
Now Aygül Özkan is about to introduce a “Media Charter” for Lower Saxony. During a collective act on August 16 in Hannover, the invited media representatives are supposed to sign this so-called “Media Charter on Integration”. The written invitation says that the collective declaration of intent is supposed to generate a publicity effect and all undersigned will have to pledge themselves to “strongly support the integration process in Lower Saxony”.
Özkan’s ministry demands the media use “culturally sensitive” language to further “intercultural openness (which is, of course, humbug, because the term “intercultural” is a one-way-street and don’t we all know the “intercultural openness” of Muslims towards the West), to improve their “intercultural competence” (ditto), to initiate relevant projects and to cover them as journalists.
The NWZ goes on:
It is so far unique in Germany for the government of a federal state to pledge the media to a collective content and even the language used for that.
How very daring! But while Özkan had gotten a lot of backslapping by the media for her attempt at removing the crucifix from the public eye (who wants religion anyway, at least as long as it’s Christian), by getting at the media itself, she went too far and didn’t come by the usual fawning reception to which she must be used by now.
Here we have a woman, young, “modern”, seemingly perfectly assimilated, educated to university level, the lot, yet the first thing she sets her mind on in her high office, even before she is sworn in, is the banning of the Christian symbol from schools and, not even three months later, the abolition of the freedom of the press in favour of her fellow Muslims. Because in spite of all the “integration” and “people with a migration background” hogwash it’s just about one thing: Islam. Just as for this woman, young, “modern”, seemingly perfectly assimilated, educated to university level, everything is about Islam. Islam, nothing else matters……
Other links from EUrabia:
Basel: Parents fined for missed swimming lessons
UK: Surge in tax-funded ‘virginity repair’ operations
France: The threats facing Jews
Switzerland: Swiss People’s Party surveys Swiss on foreigner policy (at least they ask)
Germany: Soccer authorities get ruling on Ramadan fasting
EU: Islam in Europe now has strong local leadership
Ramadan Controversies Start Early
From Islamist Watch:
Ramadan Controversies Start Early
by David J. Rusin • Jul 30, 2010 at 10:35 am
http://www.islamist-watch.org/blog/2010/07/ramadan-controversies-start-early
Send RSS Share:
The new moon that signals the dawn of Ramadan remains a week and a half away, but wrangling over accommodations during the Islamic holy month is already in full swing.
First, the city council of Stoke-on-Trent in Staffordshire, England, has offered guidance to schools regarding Muslim students who partake of the daytime fast covering both food and drink. Believe it or not, its official recommendations are cribbed from Towards Greater Understanding, a brazenly Islamist document on "meeting the needs of Muslim pupils in state schools," issued in 2007 by the increasingly radical Muslim Council of Britain.
The adopted Ramadan advice includes: no swimming lessons ("the potential for swallowing water is very high"), no sex education (Muslims must "avoid sexual thoughts"), rearrange tests ("preparing for exams and fasting may prove challenging"), ready "a larger area for daily prayers," steer clear of parent meetings in the evening ("a very busy period for Muslim families"), and "build on this spirit" through "collective worship." What, no canceling of music classes too? And rather than simply excusing Muslims from certain activities, the guide suggests depriving all students of swimming, sex ed, etc. so as not to make Muslims feel disadvantaged.
Such policies are wildly excessive, maddeningly disruptive to the routines of others, and thus unacceptable. IW cannot improve on the words of Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society: "It is wrong that everyone in schools should be forced to observe Islamic laws when they may have no meaning for them."
Second, Minnesota, which has witnessed numerous conflicts over Islam in the workplace, experienced another when the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) protested a policy banning food on the production floor at the Electrolux appliance plant in St. Cloud; it demanded that Muslims on the evening shift be able to enjoy a snack there immediately after sundown. The company soon buckled, allowing Muslims to leave their machines and eat in a separate area.
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act stipulates that "employers must reasonably accommodate employees' sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship" on either the employers or other workers. The compromises in this case are not unreasonable. However, it is a shame that clumsy companies put themselves in positions where they are seen as bowing to CAIR, thus lending undeserved legitimacy to a terror-linked Islamist organization.
Finally, the NYPD will increase patrols of mosques this Ramadan due to fear of bias attacks. Robert Spencer wisely notes that while real threats must be combated vigorously, Islamist groups have a long record of exaggerating the prevalence of hate crimes in order to claim victim status. Indeed, CAIR recently embarrassed itself once more, postulating that a Georgia mosque might have been set ablaze because of anti-Muslim animus; police later arrested a Muslim suspect.
Question: will the NYPD also step up patrols of relevant locales during the Jewish and Christian holidays on which global jihadists often strike — or would that be Islamophobic?
Ramadan Controversies Start Early
by David J. Rusin • Jul 30, 2010 at 10:35 am
http://www.islamist-watch.org/blog/2010/07/ramadan-controversies-start-early
Send RSS Share:
The new moon that signals the dawn of Ramadan remains a week and a half away, but wrangling over accommodations during the Islamic holy month is already in full swing.
First, the city council of Stoke-on-Trent in Staffordshire, England, has offered guidance to schools regarding Muslim students who partake of the daytime fast covering both food and drink. Believe it or not, its official recommendations are cribbed from Towards Greater Understanding, a brazenly Islamist document on "meeting the needs of Muslim pupils in state schools," issued in 2007 by the increasingly radical Muslim Council of Britain.
The adopted Ramadan advice includes: no swimming lessons ("the potential for swallowing water is very high"), no sex education (Muslims must "avoid sexual thoughts"), rearrange tests ("preparing for exams and fasting may prove challenging"), ready "a larger area for daily prayers," steer clear of parent meetings in the evening ("a very busy period for Muslim families"), and "build on this spirit" through "collective worship." What, no canceling of music classes too? And rather than simply excusing Muslims from certain activities, the guide suggests depriving all students of swimming, sex ed, etc. so as not to make Muslims feel disadvantaged.
Such policies are wildly excessive, maddeningly disruptive to the routines of others, and thus unacceptable. IW cannot improve on the words of Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society: "It is wrong that everyone in schools should be forced to observe Islamic laws when they may have no meaning for them."
Second, Minnesota, which has witnessed numerous conflicts over Islam in the workplace, experienced another when the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) protested a policy banning food on the production floor at the Electrolux appliance plant in St. Cloud; it demanded that Muslims on the evening shift be able to enjoy a snack there immediately after sundown. The company soon buckled, allowing Muslims to leave their machines and eat in a separate area.
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act stipulates that "employers must reasonably accommodate employees' sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship" on either the employers or other workers. The compromises in this case are not unreasonable. However, it is a shame that clumsy companies put themselves in positions where they are seen as bowing to CAIR, thus lending undeserved legitimacy to a terror-linked Islamist organization.
Finally, the NYPD will increase patrols of mosques this Ramadan due to fear of bias attacks. Robert Spencer wisely notes that while real threats must be combated vigorously, Islamist groups have a long record of exaggerating the prevalence of hate crimes in order to claim victim status. Indeed, CAIR recently embarrassed itself once more, postulating that a Georgia mosque might have been set ablaze because of anti-Muslim animus; police later arrested a Muslim suspect.
Question: will the NYPD also step up patrols of relevant locales during the Jewish and Christian holidays on which global jihadists often strike — or would that be Islamophobic?
Helping Muslim Americans Overcome Islamist Dominance
From American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD):
Helping Muslim Americans Overcome Islamist Dominance
by IPT News • Jul 28, 2010 at 1:32 pm
http://www.investigativeproject.org/blog/2010/07/helping-muslim-americans-overcome-islamist
When a Boston activist took issue with political and religious leaders embracing what he finds to be a radical Islamist group, community and religious leaders fired back. Charles Jacobs was advised in a letter signed by dozens of rabbis "to discontinue his destructive campaign against Boston's Muslim community, which is based on innuendo, half-truths and unproven conspiracy theories."
In a column, Zuhdi Jasser, founder of the anti-Islamist American Islamic Forum for Democracy, advises Jacobs' critics and political leaders to stop treating the American Muslim community as a monolith. It's a mistake to interpret all mosque leadership as representative of their broader communities, Jasser writes:
"From the inside, many if not most of our mosques in American Islam are suffering deeply from the unopposed hegemony of Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood and toxic foreign petrodollar interests. For exposing this 'tough love,' reformists often pay a heavy price. This is not 'fear-mongering.' It is reality."
Jasser recounts a recent debate he had with Muslim American Society of Boston (MAS) Executive Director Bilal Kareem (see it here). When he raised concern about some toxic elements of Islamism - the merging of mosque and state - Kareem dismissed it as fantasy.
It's not easy for an individual to take on a machine in any circumstance. You can't fight city hall, after all. So when there's a reflexive defense of Islamists by outsiders, the fight facing reformists like Jasser grows more difficult. It's a fight in which the outsiders really should support:
"Only Muslims can bring Islam into modernity. Only Muslims can reform the ideas that led the Imam Anwar Al-Awlakis, Nidal Hasans, and Faisal Shahzads of the world down the slippery slope of anti-Americanism and violent jihad. Only Muslims can counter the sway of toxic transnational ideologies."
Too often, mosque leadership isn't interested in that fight, or may even be part of the problem. Jasser points to one example in which an imam defended two people implicated in terrorist plots. Credit Jasser for wanting to give voice to the majority of Muslim Americans who reject such attitudes:
"We need to do the hard work of finding and promoting Muslim alternatives. Some of us Muslims pray for a day when Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, their progeny, and affiliates are intellectually defeated. That can only happen when the partisan bickering in the U.S. stops and our nation finally takes sides in the global contest between Islamists and liberty-minded Muslims."
Jasser's critics try to minimize his message, but he's far from alone in believing reform-minded Muslims often are being drowned out amid the din created by establishment groups. Read his full column here
From The Daily Caller:
Time to take sides
By Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser
Published: 10:33 AM 07/27/2010
As a dedicated American Muslim activist, I have devoted my life to advocating for reforms against political Islam – the root cause of Islamist terrorism. To that end, I debated Bilal Kaleem, executive director of the Muslim American Society of Boston (MAS) at an April Ford Hall Forum in Boston. I focused on the threat of Islamism (political Islam and shar’iah) to the west, human rights, and freedom. When confronted, Mr. Kaleem feigned ignorance and dismissed the realities of political Islam staying lockstep with his employers. And why wouldn’t he when a coalition of local faith and political leaders continue to blindly give him and his Islamist associates an ideological pass?
Charles Jacobs of Americans for Peace and Tolerance (APT) recently criticized many state political and faith leaders for their blind embrace of Islamists at the MAS and the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center (ISBCC). Rabbi Eric Gurvis of Newton, along with 70 other rabbis, dismissed the criticism as ‘destructive’. This narrative is all too familiar. Any pointed critique of staunch Islamists is inappropriately labeled ‘anti-Muslim’ or ‘fear-mongering.’ Muslim victimhood is a political tool for partisan faith leaders and politicians. Never mind the fact that many devout Muslims raise the same critique against Islamist.
From the inside, many if not most of our mosques in American Islam are suffering deeply from the unopposed hegemony of Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood and toxic foreign petrodollar interests. For exposing this ‘tough love,’ reformists often pay a heavy price. This is not “fear-mongering.” It is reality.
Governor Deval Patrick, Rabbi Gurvis, and other leaders should not elevate Islamists like Imam Abdullah Faaruuq and his team. By doing so, they make reformists irrelevant and kill any hope for a battle of ideas.
Make no mistake. I encourage Boston leaders to engage Muslim communities. But, engagement should be critical of any Islamist origins and goals. If the Governor and a coalition of rabbis do not have the courage to take on the ideas and foreign entanglements of Islamists, who will? If they cannot recognize that American Muslims are far more diverse than the MAS and ISBCC care to portray, who will?
The majority of American Muslims reject Islamist groups. Most American Muslims, like my family, came to the U.S. to leave the suffocating influence of Islamist political parties and their toxic surrogates. But their influencers have followed us here.
And we wonder why the reformist Muslim voices appear so silent? Political correctness has made many blind. Muslims are not monolithic. The strong ‘horse’ of wealthy political Islam actually represents a minority of Muslims. Many American Muslims prefer more humble domestically funded American mosques and Muslim institutions based in the spiritual rather than a political transnational movement.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/27/time-to-take-sides/#ixzz0vDp4nKh2
I ask Rabbi Gurvis to wake up to the threat. I love my faith and yearn for a day that my children can realize an Islam that separates mosque and state and puts the “Islamic state” in the dustbin of history.
Our founding fathers were never afraid to publicly address areas where faith, law, and government intersected. Our revolutionary Establishment Clause came out of that courageous environment. We cannot allow political correctness to trump American security and Islamic reform.
This is not about the religious freedom of Muslims to practice their faith but about needed reform. Only Muslims can bring Islam into modernity. Only Muslims can reform the ideas that led the Imam Anwar Al-Awlakis, Nidal Hasans, and Faisal Shahzads of the world down the slippery slope of anti-Americanism and violent jihad. Only Muslims can counter the sway of toxic transnational ideologies.
Imam Faaruuq is neither leading nor acknowledging that fight. For example, Aafia Siddiqui a former Bostonian turned Al Qaeda operative, was convicted in federal court in February of attempting to murder FBI agents in Afghanistan. Tarek Mehanna of Sudbury was also indicted in October 2009 on terror charges. Imam Faaruuq did not forcefully call for their punishment to the full extent of the law. Instead, he had the temerity to tell WBZ television, “I don’t think they did anything to harm America.” Yet, some remain perplexed as to why many more Muslims are being radicalized?
This is not a war against a generic “violent extremism.” The Islamist problem continues to get exponentially worse because communities like Boston are not addressing the root causes. When a Governor, some rabbis, and other leaders play the religion card while ignoring the entrenched Islamist problem, they put our security in peril. Attorney General Martha Coakley wrongly accepted a $50,000 grant for “sensitivity training” from the ISBCC giving them free reign to anesthetize all of her personnel about the real threat.
The American Muslim predicament is not about violence. It is about the goal of the Islamic state and shar’iah law (Islamism) a goal shared by non-violent Islamists. Islamist organizations are never going to turn around and secularize against their own core mission. We need to do the hard work of finding and promoting Muslim alternatives. Some of us Muslims pray for a day when Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, their progeny, and affiliates are intellectually defeated. That can only happen when the partisan bickering in the U.S. stops and our nation finally takes sides in the global contest between Islamists and liberty-minded Muslims.
Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser is the President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (www.aifdemocracy.org) based in Phoenix, Arizona. He is a former U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander and a physician in private practice.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/27/time-to-take-sides/2/#ixzz0vDpEosIa
Helping Muslim Americans Overcome Islamist Dominance
by IPT News • Jul 28, 2010 at 1:32 pm
http://www.investigativeproject.org/blog/2010/07/helping-muslim-americans-overcome-islamist
When a Boston activist took issue with political and religious leaders embracing what he finds to be a radical Islamist group, community and religious leaders fired back. Charles Jacobs was advised in a letter signed by dozens of rabbis "to discontinue his destructive campaign against Boston's Muslim community, which is based on innuendo, half-truths and unproven conspiracy theories."
In a column, Zuhdi Jasser, founder of the anti-Islamist American Islamic Forum for Democracy, advises Jacobs' critics and political leaders to stop treating the American Muslim community as a monolith. It's a mistake to interpret all mosque leadership as representative of their broader communities, Jasser writes:
"From the inside, many if not most of our mosques in American Islam are suffering deeply from the unopposed hegemony of Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood and toxic foreign petrodollar interests. For exposing this 'tough love,' reformists often pay a heavy price. This is not 'fear-mongering.' It is reality."
Jasser recounts a recent debate he had with Muslim American Society of Boston (MAS) Executive Director Bilal Kareem (see it here). When he raised concern about some toxic elements of Islamism - the merging of mosque and state - Kareem dismissed it as fantasy.
It's not easy for an individual to take on a machine in any circumstance. You can't fight city hall, after all. So when there's a reflexive defense of Islamists by outsiders, the fight facing reformists like Jasser grows more difficult. It's a fight in which the outsiders really should support:
"Only Muslims can bring Islam into modernity. Only Muslims can reform the ideas that led the Imam Anwar Al-Awlakis, Nidal Hasans, and Faisal Shahzads of the world down the slippery slope of anti-Americanism and violent jihad. Only Muslims can counter the sway of toxic transnational ideologies."
Too often, mosque leadership isn't interested in that fight, or may even be part of the problem. Jasser points to one example in which an imam defended two people implicated in terrorist plots. Credit Jasser for wanting to give voice to the majority of Muslim Americans who reject such attitudes:
"We need to do the hard work of finding and promoting Muslim alternatives. Some of us Muslims pray for a day when Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, their progeny, and affiliates are intellectually defeated. That can only happen when the partisan bickering in the U.S. stops and our nation finally takes sides in the global contest between Islamists and liberty-minded Muslims."
Jasser's critics try to minimize his message, but he's far from alone in believing reform-minded Muslims often are being drowned out amid the din created by establishment groups. Read his full column here
From The Daily Caller:
Time to take sides
By Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser
Published: 10:33 AM 07/27/2010
As a dedicated American Muslim activist, I have devoted my life to advocating for reforms against political Islam – the root cause of Islamist terrorism. To that end, I debated Bilal Kaleem, executive director of the Muslim American Society of Boston (MAS) at an April Ford Hall Forum in Boston. I focused on the threat of Islamism (political Islam and shar’iah) to the west, human rights, and freedom. When confronted, Mr. Kaleem feigned ignorance and dismissed the realities of political Islam staying lockstep with his employers. And why wouldn’t he when a coalition of local faith and political leaders continue to blindly give him and his Islamist associates an ideological pass?
Charles Jacobs of Americans for Peace and Tolerance (APT) recently criticized many state political and faith leaders for their blind embrace of Islamists at the MAS and the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center (ISBCC). Rabbi Eric Gurvis of Newton, along with 70 other rabbis, dismissed the criticism as ‘destructive’. This narrative is all too familiar. Any pointed critique of staunch Islamists is inappropriately labeled ‘anti-Muslim’ or ‘fear-mongering.’ Muslim victimhood is a political tool for partisan faith leaders and politicians. Never mind the fact that many devout Muslims raise the same critique against Islamist.
From the inside, many if not most of our mosques in American Islam are suffering deeply from the unopposed hegemony of Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood and toxic foreign petrodollar interests. For exposing this ‘tough love,’ reformists often pay a heavy price. This is not “fear-mongering.” It is reality.
Governor Deval Patrick, Rabbi Gurvis, and other leaders should not elevate Islamists like Imam Abdullah Faaruuq and his team. By doing so, they make reformists irrelevant and kill any hope for a battle of ideas.
Make no mistake. I encourage Boston leaders to engage Muslim communities. But, engagement should be critical of any Islamist origins and goals. If the Governor and a coalition of rabbis do not have the courage to take on the ideas and foreign entanglements of Islamists, who will? If they cannot recognize that American Muslims are far more diverse than the MAS and ISBCC care to portray, who will?
The majority of American Muslims reject Islamist groups. Most American Muslims, like my family, came to the U.S. to leave the suffocating influence of Islamist political parties and their toxic surrogates. But their influencers have followed us here.
And we wonder why the reformist Muslim voices appear so silent? Political correctness has made many blind. Muslims are not monolithic. The strong ‘horse’ of wealthy political Islam actually represents a minority of Muslims. Many American Muslims prefer more humble domestically funded American mosques and Muslim institutions based in the spiritual rather than a political transnational movement.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/27/time-to-take-sides/#ixzz0vDp4nKh2
I ask Rabbi Gurvis to wake up to the threat. I love my faith and yearn for a day that my children can realize an Islam that separates mosque and state and puts the “Islamic state” in the dustbin of history.
Our founding fathers were never afraid to publicly address areas where faith, law, and government intersected. Our revolutionary Establishment Clause came out of that courageous environment. We cannot allow political correctness to trump American security and Islamic reform.
This is not about the religious freedom of Muslims to practice their faith but about needed reform. Only Muslims can bring Islam into modernity. Only Muslims can reform the ideas that led the Imam Anwar Al-Awlakis, Nidal Hasans, and Faisal Shahzads of the world down the slippery slope of anti-Americanism and violent jihad. Only Muslims can counter the sway of toxic transnational ideologies.
Imam Faaruuq is neither leading nor acknowledging that fight. For example, Aafia Siddiqui a former Bostonian turned Al Qaeda operative, was convicted in federal court in February of attempting to murder FBI agents in Afghanistan. Tarek Mehanna of Sudbury was also indicted in October 2009 on terror charges. Imam Faaruuq did not forcefully call for their punishment to the full extent of the law. Instead, he had the temerity to tell WBZ television, “I don’t think they did anything to harm America.” Yet, some remain perplexed as to why many more Muslims are being radicalized?
This is not a war against a generic “violent extremism.” The Islamist problem continues to get exponentially worse because communities like Boston are not addressing the root causes. When a Governor, some rabbis, and other leaders play the religion card while ignoring the entrenched Islamist problem, they put our security in peril. Attorney General Martha Coakley wrongly accepted a $50,000 grant for “sensitivity training” from the ISBCC giving them free reign to anesthetize all of her personnel about the real threat.
The American Muslim predicament is not about violence. It is about the goal of the Islamic state and shar’iah law (Islamism) a goal shared by non-violent Islamists. Islamist organizations are never going to turn around and secularize against their own core mission. We need to do the hard work of finding and promoting Muslim alternatives. Some of us Muslims pray for a day when Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, their progeny, and affiliates are intellectually defeated. That can only happen when the partisan bickering in the U.S. stops and our nation finally takes sides in the global contest between Islamists and liberty-minded Muslims.
Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser is the President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (www.aifdemocracy.org) based in Phoenix, Arizona. He is a former U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander and a physician in private practice.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/27/time-to-take-sides/2/#ixzz0vDpEosIa
The Real Enemies Behind The Lawsuit Against Arizona
From Coach Is Right and Floyd Reports (Impeach Obama Campaign):
This fight is NOT over until we win: Bolton’s ruling on SB 1070 is just a setback, not a defeat » Knowing our enemies by who their friends are: responses to the SB 1070 ruling from our enemies
By Coach Collins, on July 30th, 2010
By Kevin “Coach” Collins
The Leftists dregs marching and chanting in Arizona to show their “solidarity” with the illegal alien invaders to our country are not our real enemies. They are merely sideshow clowns who need something to do now the Cindy Sheehan has disappeared.
Real enemies
The cheers from the arrogant crowd standing in front of the American Embassy in Mexico City went skyward the moment the activist judge made her ruling public. Using a familiar reframe, the rabble chanted “Yes, we could do it. Yes, we could do it,” to signal their Marxist friends in the Democrat Party that they are “down for the struggle.”
Their “struggle” is against America’s sovereignty.
The brazen spokesman for something called the National Day Laborer Organizing Network said the law “never should have existed” He continued with, “Cities who seek to protect the residents that make them function will be punished.” “Punished?” We’ll see.
Democrat Congressman Raul Grijalva said: “This is an important moment for the nation to pause and take a deep breath.” In other words “Boy am I glad we can keep registering these illegal Democrats!”
The obnoxious president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund said, “Tomorrow promises to be a much brighter day in Arizona than anyone thought it would be just 24 hours ago.”
Omar Jadwat,( yes! OMAR JADWAT) staff attorney with of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project said: “This is a major step towards overturning Arizona’s law that if allowed to go into effect would turn Latinos and other people who appear ‘foreign’ into criminal suspects and create an un-American ‘show me your papers’ regime. States and other local jurisdictions cannot be allowed to enact local measures that interfere with federal policies and priorities and invite racial profiling.” The translation of this dribble is “We have to do whatever we can to get these people to the polls to keep our Marxist buddies in power.”
After commending the activist judge, the three Catholic bishops of Arizona said: “…. we know that in practically every parish there are families that have been living with the fear and anxiety generated by SB 1070 that they might be torn apart…” The statement did not mention any feeling or concern for the parishioners of those parishes who have been put out of work by the “families” who are here illegally.
To win this battle we’ll have to carve our way through a maze of enemies, some who come as no surprise and some that come as great disappointments. Either way we have to adopt, overcome and keep fighting. We have to save our country and that’s all there is to it.
We will not remain silent and take this
Americans who have never even written a letter to the editor of a newspaper will walk door to door telling rallying patriots for the fight. Join them or give whatever you can to conservative candidates. Wait for word that the State of Arizona needs money to fight this in court, and then give whatever you can.
Give to the Arizona defense fund, it fights for all of us: www.rga.org/arizona/
Our government is wrong and it’s high time we told them so.
What have you done lately to defend our country? Remember, their free American citizenship is only “free” because we are paying for it. Our enemies are motivated by fear of freedom. Our faith in America must be stronger to defeat them. Stand and fight now or there will be nothing left to defend again in our lifetimes. Make our will stronger than their will. Pray for America.
OBAMA’S TAXES ARE COMING In January the taxes we warned Obama would shove down our throats are coming. They will be killers to all middle class American families. Go to the tool bar at the top of the Collins Report and read about them.
Use this site to contact your Congressional Representative. https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
Knowledge is power. Learn the truth so you can teach our children the truth. To read more about this story, go to these Collins Report sources:
http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/nationworld/report/072910_mexico_1070
http://www.svherald.com/content/news/2010/07/29/more-reactions-wednesdays-sb-1070-ruling
Yesterday’s Rasmussen Presidential Index had Obama at -16. Rasmussen’s latest Generic Ballot poll has Republicans +10 at 46/36.
This day in history July 30
1956: The phrase “In God We Trust” was adopted as the United States national motto. What are the chances it could be approved today?
Have you read this week’s “Betcha didn’t know this..” page? It’s loaded with interesting little “bite size” items you’re bound to enjoy.
Do you have a special intention you wish follow patriotic Americans to pray with you to ask God’s help with? Put a message on our “Please Pray for..” page.
Comments on this or any other coachisright.com essay can be sent to kcoachc “at” gmail.com
This fight is NOT over until we win: Bolton’s ruling on SB 1070 is just a setback, not a defeat » Knowing our enemies by who their friends are: responses to the SB 1070 ruling from our enemies
By Coach Collins, on July 30th, 2010
By Kevin “Coach” Collins
The Leftists dregs marching and chanting in Arizona to show their “solidarity” with the illegal alien invaders to our country are not our real enemies. They are merely sideshow clowns who need something to do now the Cindy Sheehan has disappeared.
Real enemies
The cheers from the arrogant crowd standing in front of the American Embassy in Mexico City went skyward the moment the activist judge made her ruling public. Using a familiar reframe, the rabble chanted “Yes, we could do it. Yes, we could do it,” to signal their Marxist friends in the Democrat Party that they are “down for the struggle.”
Their “struggle” is against America’s sovereignty.
The brazen spokesman for something called the National Day Laborer Organizing Network said the law “never should have existed” He continued with, “Cities who seek to protect the residents that make them function will be punished.” “Punished?” We’ll see.
Democrat Congressman Raul Grijalva said: “This is an important moment for the nation to pause and take a deep breath.” In other words “Boy am I glad we can keep registering these illegal Democrats!”
The obnoxious president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund said, “Tomorrow promises to be a much brighter day in Arizona than anyone thought it would be just 24 hours ago.”
Omar Jadwat,( yes! OMAR JADWAT) staff attorney with of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project said: “This is a major step towards overturning Arizona’s law that if allowed to go into effect would turn Latinos and other people who appear ‘foreign’ into criminal suspects and create an un-American ‘show me your papers’ regime. States and other local jurisdictions cannot be allowed to enact local measures that interfere with federal policies and priorities and invite racial profiling.” The translation of this dribble is “We have to do whatever we can to get these people to the polls to keep our Marxist buddies in power.”
After commending the activist judge, the three Catholic bishops of Arizona said: “…. we know that in practically every parish there are families that have been living with the fear and anxiety generated by SB 1070 that they might be torn apart…” The statement did not mention any feeling or concern for the parishioners of those parishes who have been put out of work by the “families” who are here illegally.
To win this battle we’ll have to carve our way through a maze of enemies, some who come as no surprise and some that come as great disappointments. Either way we have to adopt, overcome and keep fighting. We have to save our country and that’s all there is to it.
We will not remain silent and take this
Americans who have never even written a letter to the editor of a newspaper will walk door to door telling rallying patriots for the fight. Join them or give whatever you can to conservative candidates. Wait for word that the State of Arizona needs money to fight this in court, and then give whatever you can.
Give to the Arizona defense fund, it fights for all of us: www.rga.org/arizona/
Our government is wrong and it’s high time we told them so.
What have you done lately to defend our country? Remember, their free American citizenship is only “free” because we are paying for it. Our enemies are motivated by fear of freedom. Our faith in America must be stronger to defeat them. Stand and fight now or there will be nothing left to defend again in our lifetimes. Make our will stronger than their will. Pray for America.
OBAMA’S TAXES ARE COMING In January the taxes we warned Obama would shove down our throats are coming. They will be killers to all middle class American families. Go to the tool bar at the top of the Collins Report and read about them.
Use this site to contact your Congressional Representative. https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
Knowledge is power. Learn the truth so you can teach our children the truth. To read more about this story, go to these Collins Report sources:
http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/nationworld/report/072910_mexico_1070
http://www.svherald.com/content/news/2010/07/29/more-reactions-wednesdays-sb-1070-ruling
Yesterday’s Rasmussen Presidential Index had Obama at -16. Rasmussen’s latest Generic Ballot poll has Republicans +10 at 46/36.
This day in history July 30
1956: The phrase “In God We Trust” was adopted as the United States national motto. What are the chances it could be approved today?
Have you read this week’s “Betcha didn’t know this..” page? It’s loaded with interesting little “bite size” items you’re bound to enjoy.
Do you have a special intention you wish follow patriotic Americans to pray with you to ask God’s help with? Put a message on our “Please Pray for..” page.
Comments on this or any other coachisright.com essay can be sent to kcoachc “at” gmail.com
From The Washington Times, Zionica and The Patriot Update:
Gingrich: Crucial radical Islamist battlefield is U.S.
-
The Washington Times
8:07 p.m., Thursday, July 29, 2010
PrintEmailView 4Comment(s)Enlarge Text
ShrinkClick-2-ListenSocial NetworksFacebookTwitterQuestion of the DayWill ousted USDA employee Shirley Sherrod win her lawsuit against conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart?
Yes
No
Undecided
Other
Login to Vote
View results
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Thursday said the greatest threat to national security is radical Islam, but the greatest battlefront for that threat is at home.
"This is not a war on terrorism ... this is a struggle with radical Islamists," Mr. Gingrich told a group of about 200 people at the American Enterprise Institute.
In his "America at Risk" speech, he drew comparisons to the U.S.' situation in World War II and the Cold War, calling for today's leaders to use some of the same strategies from those earlier conflicts.
The problem is that many leaders are "sleepwalking" and don't face the Islamic threat, said Mr. Gingrich, who is widely thought to be a possible contender for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.
He did not limit the war to the fighting in the Middle East, saying there are two additional, more important fronts: the United States and Europe. He noted that 54 jihadists have been arrested in the U.S. on terrorism charges since President Obama took office.
"Every one of these instances constitutes a breakdown in national security," Mr. Gingrich said.
He emphasized that such talk does not demonize all Muslims.
"Let me draw a sharp distinction between those Muslims who live in the modern world and those Muslims who would radically change the modern world," he said. "The people who want to worship God in their own way and live under American law - we're not in the fight with them," Mr. Gingrich said in an interview after the speech.
© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
Gingrich: Crucial radical Islamist battlefield is U.S.
By Michelle Phillips
-
The Washington Times
8:07 p.m., Thursday, July 29, 2010
PrintEmailView 4Comment(s)Enlarge Text
ShrinkClick-2-ListenSocial NetworksFacebookTwitterQuestion of the DayWill ousted USDA employee Shirley Sherrod win her lawsuit against conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart?
Yes
No
Undecided
Other
Login to Vote
View results
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Thursday said the greatest threat to national security is radical Islam, but the greatest battlefront for that threat is at home.
"This is not a war on terrorism ... this is a struggle with radical Islamists," Mr. Gingrich told a group of about 200 people at the American Enterprise Institute.
In his "America at Risk" speech, he drew comparisons to the U.S.' situation in World War II and the Cold War, calling for today's leaders to use some of the same strategies from those earlier conflicts.
The problem is that many leaders are "sleepwalking" and don't face the Islamic threat, said Mr. Gingrich, who is widely thought to be a possible contender for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.
He did not limit the war to the fighting in the Middle East, saying there are two additional, more important fronts: the United States and Europe. He noted that 54 jihadists have been arrested in the U.S. on terrorism charges since President Obama took office.
"Every one of these instances constitutes a breakdown in national security," Mr. Gingrich said.
He emphasized that such talk does not demonize all Muslims.
"Let me draw a sharp distinction between those Muslims who live in the modern world and those Muslims who would radically change the modern world," he said. "The people who want to worship God in their own way and live under American law - we're not in the fight with them," Mr. Gingrich said in an interview after the speech.
© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Anti-Islamic Ads On Buses Appear In Some Cities
From The Christian Science Monitor and The Christian Reader:
'Anti-Islamic' bus ads appear in major cities
A group called 'Stop Islamization of America' is promoting ads on major city public transportation that urge people to leave the Muslim faith. The anti-Islamic campaign is sparking thought about the religion's place in American society.
The group Stop Islamization of America paid for bus ads, such as this one in San Francisco, to promote its viewpoint. The ads, which read, ‘Leaving Islam?,’ are intended to be a resource for former Muslims. Muslim rights groups and others consider the ads to be anti-Islam.
Stephanie Rice
.Enlarge
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.By Stephanie Rice, Contributor / July 28, 2010
San Francisco
The growing debate over Islam's place in America, which is escalating in light of plans to build a mosque near ground zero, is increasingly playing out on city streets across the country. On the sides of buses, to be precise.
Skip to next paragraph
Photo Gallery
Larger than life: Billboards around the world
.Related Stories
Ground Zero mosque: spate of terror plots fueling fears
Blog: Pakistani court convicts 5 American terrorists to 10 years in jail
Terrorism cases force more Muslim Americans to grapple with homegrown jihad
.Several groups are engaging in something of a religious ad war over the merits and misconceptions of Islam, a religion that remains a mystery to many Americans.
Ads by a group calling itself Stop Islamization of America, which aims to provide refuge for former Muslims, read: "Fatwa on your head? Is your family or community threatening you? Leaving Islam? Got questions? Get answers!"
IN PICTURES: Billboards around the world
Those ads, appearing on dozens of buses in the San Francisco Bay Area, Miami, and New York, are a response to ones from a Muslim group that say, "The way of life of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. Islam. Got questions? Get answers."
In New York, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community sponsored this campaign: "Muslims for Peace. Love for All – Hatred for None."
The ads are part of a larger conversation over Islam's image, which Muslim organizations say has been hurt by extremists both at home and abroad. But many conservative groups say that concern about the spread of Islam isn't alarmist, pointing to evidence of imams in this country inciting militancy and a growing number of American Muslims arrested for plotting terror attacks.
A self-described "anti-jihadist," Pamela Geller is the conservative blogger and executive director of Stop Islamization of America who conceived of the "Leaving Islam" ad campaign. Her bus posters, she says, were partly inspired by the ongoing Florida case involving a teenage girl who ran away from her Muslim parents after converting to Christianity. The girl, Rifqa Bary, made headlines last year when she claimed her father threatened to kill her for becoming a Christian.
Ms. Geller described her campaign as "a defense of religious freedom," in an e-mail response to questions. The goal, she says, is mainly "to help ex-Muslims who are in trouble" and also "to raise awareness of the threat that apostates live under even in the West."
But some religious rights organizations contend that the real intent is to incite fear about a faith that, according to recent studies, remains misunderstood. A 2009 poll by the Pew Research Center found that 38 percent believe Islam is more likely to encourage violence than other religions.
"In this post-9/11 world … it's almost like there's some political and spiritual currency to be gained by being anti-Islamic," says Steve Spreitzer, programs director for the Detroit-based interfaith group Michigan Roundtable for Diversity and Inclusion.
RefugeFromIslam.com, the website promoted on Geller's ads, contends that Muslim Americans who "long to be free" of their religion are in danger of being killed, and offers protection, including "safe houses," for those who want out. Muslim rights groups and religious leaders say there is no penalty for leaving Islam and that the Koran condemns killing as a sin.
The campaign has whipped up controversy in several cities. In Detroit, which has one of the highest Muslim populations in the country, Geller sued the SMART transit agency in federal district court after it rejected the ads.
Skip to next paragraph
Photo Gallery
Larger than life: Billboards around the world
.Related Stories
Ground Zero mosque: spate of terror plots fueling fears
Blog: Pakistani court convicts 5 American terrorists to 10 years in jail
Terrorism cases force more Muslim Americans to grapple with homegrown jihad
.In the Bay Area, more than 125 religious leaders of various faiths signed a statement in July denouncing the ads as "Islamophobic" and saying they "promote fear of Muslim Americans."
Geller says calling the ads anti-Islam is "a tactic to divert attention" away from the "plight" of ex-Muslims.
In Florida, the Miami-Dade Transit agency initially pulled the ads but then reinstated them days later after Geller and her group threatened to sue. Miami-Dade Transit spokeswoman Karla Damian says the county attorney had reviewed the ad campaign and determined that "although considered offensive by some, it did not constitute removal."
And in the Bay Area, where both tolerance and free speech are regarded as sacred, the 30 bus ads that recently began rolling through San Mateo County have been met with surprise and bewilderment.
Omar Ahmad, a Muslim city council member in San Mateo who also sits on the board of directors for SamTrans, the bus agency running the ads, says he found the campaign "bizarre" but didn't think it would have much effect. "I have a great deal of faith in folks in the Bay Area to take a critical eye to what they see and read," he says.
Geller and her supporters point out that transit agencies in Detroit and elsewhere had no problem with a controversial campaign sponsored by a group of atheists last year. Those ads, also on buses and billboards in many cities, read: "Don't believe in God? You're not alone." Although the ads offended some, they were deemed free speech.
The ads in New York City sponsored by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community recently began appearing on 100 New York City buses and promote the website MuslimsForPeace.org, which condemns terrorism and advocates for a separation of church and state.
Waseem Sayed, Ahmadiyya Muslim Community spokesperson, says the campaign is not a response to Geller's ads but an ongoing effort to reclaim the public image of Islam, which he says has been "hijacked by extremists."
"It's an effort to have the Muslims, the silent majority, snatch the flag of Islam away from these extremists and hoist it above ourselves," he says.
'Anti-Islamic' bus ads appear in major cities
A group called 'Stop Islamization of America' is promoting ads on major city public transportation that urge people to leave the Muslim faith. The anti-Islamic campaign is sparking thought about the religion's place in American society.
The group Stop Islamization of America paid for bus ads, such as this one in San Francisco, to promote its viewpoint. The ads, which read, ‘Leaving Islam?,’ are intended to be a resource for former Muslims. Muslim rights groups and others consider the ads to be anti-Islam.
Stephanie Rice
.Enlarge
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.By Stephanie Rice, Contributor / July 28, 2010
San Francisco
The growing debate over Islam's place in America, which is escalating in light of plans to build a mosque near ground zero, is increasingly playing out on city streets across the country. On the sides of buses, to be precise.
Skip to next paragraph
Photo Gallery
Larger than life: Billboards around the world
.Related Stories
Ground Zero mosque: spate of terror plots fueling fears
Blog: Pakistani court convicts 5 American terrorists to 10 years in jail
Terrorism cases force more Muslim Americans to grapple with homegrown jihad
.Several groups are engaging in something of a religious ad war over the merits and misconceptions of Islam, a religion that remains a mystery to many Americans.
Ads by a group calling itself Stop Islamization of America, which aims to provide refuge for former Muslims, read: "Fatwa on your head? Is your family or community threatening you? Leaving Islam? Got questions? Get answers!"
IN PICTURES: Billboards around the world
Those ads, appearing on dozens of buses in the San Francisco Bay Area, Miami, and New York, are a response to ones from a Muslim group that say, "The way of life of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. Islam. Got questions? Get answers."
In New York, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community sponsored this campaign: "Muslims for Peace. Love for All – Hatred for None."
The ads are part of a larger conversation over Islam's image, which Muslim organizations say has been hurt by extremists both at home and abroad. But many conservative groups say that concern about the spread of Islam isn't alarmist, pointing to evidence of imams in this country inciting militancy and a growing number of American Muslims arrested for plotting terror attacks.
A self-described "anti-jihadist," Pamela Geller is the conservative blogger and executive director of Stop Islamization of America who conceived of the "Leaving Islam" ad campaign. Her bus posters, she says, were partly inspired by the ongoing Florida case involving a teenage girl who ran away from her Muslim parents after converting to Christianity. The girl, Rifqa Bary, made headlines last year when she claimed her father threatened to kill her for becoming a Christian.
Ms. Geller described her campaign as "a defense of religious freedom," in an e-mail response to questions. The goal, she says, is mainly "to help ex-Muslims who are in trouble" and also "to raise awareness of the threat that apostates live under even in the West."
But some religious rights organizations contend that the real intent is to incite fear about a faith that, according to recent studies, remains misunderstood. A 2009 poll by the Pew Research Center found that 38 percent believe Islam is more likely to encourage violence than other religions.
"In this post-9/11 world … it's almost like there's some political and spiritual currency to be gained by being anti-Islamic," says Steve Spreitzer, programs director for the Detroit-based interfaith group Michigan Roundtable for Diversity and Inclusion.
RefugeFromIslam.com, the website promoted on Geller's ads, contends that Muslim Americans who "long to be free" of their religion are in danger of being killed, and offers protection, including "safe houses," for those who want out. Muslim rights groups and religious leaders say there is no penalty for leaving Islam and that the Koran condemns killing as a sin.
The campaign has whipped up controversy in several cities. In Detroit, which has one of the highest Muslim populations in the country, Geller sued the SMART transit agency in federal district court after it rejected the ads.
Skip to next paragraph
Photo Gallery
Larger than life: Billboards around the world
.Related Stories
Ground Zero mosque: spate of terror plots fueling fears
Blog: Pakistani court convicts 5 American terrorists to 10 years in jail
Terrorism cases force more Muslim Americans to grapple with homegrown jihad
.In the Bay Area, more than 125 religious leaders of various faiths signed a statement in July denouncing the ads as "Islamophobic" and saying they "promote fear of Muslim Americans."
Geller says calling the ads anti-Islam is "a tactic to divert attention" away from the "plight" of ex-Muslims.
In Florida, the Miami-Dade Transit agency initially pulled the ads but then reinstated them days later after Geller and her group threatened to sue. Miami-Dade Transit spokeswoman Karla Damian says the county attorney had reviewed the ad campaign and determined that "although considered offensive by some, it did not constitute removal."
And in the Bay Area, where both tolerance and free speech are regarded as sacred, the 30 bus ads that recently began rolling through San Mateo County have been met with surprise and bewilderment.
Omar Ahmad, a Muslim city council member in San Mateo who also sits on the board of directors for SamTrans, the bus agency running the ads, says he found the campaign "bizarre" but didn't think it would have much effect. "I have a great deal of faith in folks in the Bay Area to take a critical eye to what they see and read," he says.
Geller and her supporters point out that transit agencies in Detroit and elsewhere had no problem with a controversial campaign sponsored by a group of atheists last year. Those ads, also on buses and billboards in many cities, read: "Don't believe in God? You're not alone." Although the ads offended some, they were deemed free speech.
The ads in New York City sponsored by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community recently began appearing on 100 New York City buses and promote the website MuslimsForPeace.org, which condemns terrorism and advocates for a separation of church and state.
Waseem Sayed, Ahmadiyya Muslim Community spokesperson, says the campaign is not a response to Geller's ads but an ongoing effort to reclaim the public image of Islam, which he says has been "hijacked by extremists."
"It's an effort to have the Muslims, the silent majority, snatch the flag of Islam away from these extremists and hoist it above ourselves," he says.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)