Obama Apologizes for Stupid Americans’ Opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque
Fox sends out ambush squad to talk to NYC mosque investors -- but doesn't mention key Fox investor
By David Neiwert
August 27, 2010
Financial jihad at Ground Zero
Cordoba Initiative, Park 51 Project, Federal grant money
By Doug Hagmann
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Prepare to be righteously outraged.
As if it isn’t enough that slumlord and terrorist apologist Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his cadre of associates are rubbing salt in a still-gaping American wound through his plans to erect an iconic symbol of Islamic conquest in the shadows of the former World Trade Center, the Cordoba Initiative (as it was once known) is asking you, the American taxpayer, to subsidize it.
made on or about November 5, 2010 with the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC) by Sharif El-Gamal, the developer of the Ground Zero mosque and Rauf associate.
The LMDC was formed in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks by former Governor Pataki and former Mayor Giuliani to help plan the rebuilding and revitalization of Lower Manhattan. It is a joint State-City corporation governed by a 16-member Board of Directors, half appointed by the Governor of New York and half by the Mayor of New York.
They have yet to be awarded any funding by the LMDC as the confidential review process is still underway. Nonetheless, the mere
fact that El-Gamal and his associates applied for grant money is raising some eyebrows. Congressman Peter King (R-NY), the presumptive new chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee called it “absolutely disgraceful,” and added that “it goes entirely against the spirit of the fund” in an interview with Fox News. “It’s an affront to the memory of all those who were murdered on 9-11. There are so many worthwhile projects in lower Manhattan. This shows a gross insensitivity to the most fundamental feelings of New Yorkers and to those murdered on 9-11 it is a slap in the face that is a terrible insult.”
The grant application was submitted under the Lower Manhattan Community and Cultural Enhancement Program that is administered by the LMDC. That program was established “to provide up to a total of $17 million in grants through a competitive process to not-for-profit and government organizations engaged in cultural or community programs or projects.” The “Ground Zero mosque project is asking for nearly a third of the available money. Will they get it? Some of it? All of it? It’s indeed possible, according to the research and interviews I’ve conducted this week.
As reported by Reuters in an article on August 27, 2010, a spokesman for New York City Comptroller John Liu said that the Islamic Center “could qualify for tax-free financing,” and that Liu “is willing to consider approving the public subsidy.” Rauf, El Gamal and the mosque’s backers are attempting to raise at least $70 million in tax-exempt debt to build the center.
Regardless of the funding sources, those of us who understand the Islamic playbook must not let the construction of this symbol of conquest happen. Not for our sake or the sake of our families and our future generations.
To courteously voice your concerns over the possible grant being awarded to the Cordoba Initiative (now referred to as the Park 51 Project), you might consider contacting the LMDC directly. Below is their contact information, along with a listing of the present board members.
Lower Manhattan Development Corporation
One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Phone: (212) 962-2300
Fax: (212) 962-2431 / 33
LMDC Board of Directors
Avi Schick, Chairman
John C. Whitehead, Founding Chairman
Lawrence T. Babbio, Jr.
Amanda M. Burden
Robert M. Harding
Thomas S. Johnson
Kate D. Levin
Robert K. Steel
Kevin M. Rampe
William C. Rudin
A Ground Zero Mosque is Demanded—But Can Islam Itself Learn Tolerance?
By Kelly O'Connell
Sunday, September 12, 2010
”If the devil wants in, he’ll get in.”—Sons of Anarchy
Why do major religions react in radically different ways to similar stimulus? For example, why would desecration of one religion’s holy books bring mostly shrugs, whereas another religion threatens armed conflict when their guru is spoofed? It is part of the modern American myth to accept that “all religions teach the same thing, and lead to the same place.” This patent falsehood can be traced to Joseph Campbell and like minds who helped spread this brain-numbing disease of universalism. But what is the organic source of Muslim rage? This issue must be raised by Western politicians and officials as we are increasingly forced to adapt to Muslim communities, beliefs and practices.
It is unfair to ascribe unpleasant traits to an entire class of people that are shared by only part. But it would be suicidal for Americans to completely ignore the history and beliefs of a movement that is growing stronger, which has an explosive past, and that admittedly few understand. Of course to reduce all of Islam to anger and rage is a major error. But we must admit its adherents tend towards dramatic over-sensitivity to perceived slights. Yet, instead of making excuses for a trend that naturally saddens and makes us feel uncomfortable, we must accept Islam’s permanently aggrieved nature as a simple fact and then plan how to responsibly respond to future incidents. Along these lines, a few stories from the life of Mohammad will cast light upon the problem.
I. Multicultural Paradoxes
The recent threat by Florida pastor Terry Jones to burn copies of the Koran (aka Qur’an), versus imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s plan to build a Ground Zero mosque has produced an interesting study in contrasts. One cannot help but note the different standards used for the two situations. On the one hand, aggrieved Americans opposed to a Muslim religious center built on property cleared by Islamic terror have been advised to accept this as an act of good faith. But when a small-time pastor threatened to burn a copy of the Muslim holy book, Americans were again advised to be “sensitive” to the Muslim need to have their holy writ absolutely protected. Is this a contradiction, or an acceptable standard?
It is interesting that Islam has been essentially given the status of a “little brother” when it acts up, and concessions appear to be perpetually made on its behalf. But there is nothing amusing about Fatwas being called out on authors, or seeing massive public prayer demonstrations made in public streets, or any of the various violent attacks made on Western sites in the last few decades.
It is obvious for Islam to be treated as an equal and looked upon with respect that it must live up to modern standards of religious practice. But let’s being honest—Muslims in Western countries are not going to repatriate to the Saudi Peninsula, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc because they are criticized by their neighbors. And undoubtedly, truth be known, these expatriate Muslims live better, safer and more privileged lives than they did in their Muslim home states. Therefore, these Western Muslims ought to be given every encouragement to liberalize and separate off from the violent old creed. This means we consider taking the time and initiative to engage these newcomers in discussions about American history, our religious ideals, and the beauties of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
But what explains the curious Muslim impetus towards violent reactions to what they regard as acts of impiety? A brief study of the life of Mohammad provides some suggestions.
II. Studied Revenge or Unpleasant Coincidence?
A. Acts of Muhammad
After Muhammad heard the voice of Allah, and then began to preach to the pagans, Christians and Jews, he received much resistance against conversion. Driven from Mecca, he left on his Hijira, and came instruct the Jews elsewhere on his identity. Muhammad explained to them the fact he was the last prophet sent. When the Arab Jews realized he was not from the line of King David, nor even Jewish, as called for in Isaiah 9 regarding the Messiah, they apparently laughed in his face and scorned his claims as possibly the result of madness. Neither did the Jews throw in with his army. Muhammad never forgot or forgave this egregious act of impiety.
When Muhammad finally conquered Mecca he took all the remaining Jews of Medina, dug an enormous pit and began the grisly holy work of beheading 800 Jewish men in the public square. Apparently this took an entire day and long into the evening. Then the women were passed off to the Muslims as concubines while the children were sold off into slavery.
An Evil Old Man & Wretched Poetesses:
According to both Martin Lings in his Muhammad, His Life Based On The Earliest Sources, and Alfred Guillaume’s translation of from the Sirat Rasul Allah by Ibn Ishaq (The Life of Muhammad), the founder of Islam was tormented by a young woman from Mecca, Asma bint Marwan. She had been putting out poetry criticizing Muhammad when he asked, in exasperation, “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?” His follower Amayr b. Adiy al-Khatami went late at night to her house and ran a sword through her, having first pulled a suckling infant off her chest before the execution. When Muhammad heard of this brave feat the next day, he said, “You have helped God and His Apostle, O Umayr!”
A very aged man, Abu Afak—purportedly over 100 years old, was also executed for lampooning Muhammad through poetry. He was killed by Salem b. Omayr after Muhammad heard of his verse and exclaimed, “Who will deal with this rascal for me?” Apparently, Asma Bint Marwan had heard of the old man’s execution which angered her into composing her own demeaning verses. Obviously, Muhammad did not accept criticism by poem.
B. Muslim Law & Tribalism: Lex Talionis
It would be impossible to overlook the strong element of Lex Talionis, or “An eye for an eye” justice at the root of the Koran. The composition of the Muslim law, or Shari’ah, is no mystery, according to unparalleled orientalist Joseph Schacht. He points out in his Introduction to Muslim Law that a strong element found within Shari’ah is tribal or pagan law. Some of the most savage aspects of the Shari’ah, including judicial amputations for theft, etc, which can be traced to this pagan code.
One of the signal elements of Shari’ah is the fact that there appears to be no spirit of Natural Law in this code, meaning that punishments meted out centuries ago cannot be updated regardless of the barbarity. An example is the stoning of women, or lashing of apostates. Because this law is presented as perfect, it is not changed since one cannot update perfection.
D. Arab Psychology
According to Raphael Patai, in his book The Arab Mind, there are certain hallmarks of Arab and Muslim thought. First, is a belief that emotions cannot be held always in check, and that it is perfectly understandable when great anger or grief is unleashed. The result is a tendency to be overly emotional and offer blind loyalty to their causes. The scholar of Muslim society, Sania Hamady, in Temperament and Character of the Arabs, describes this as a balance between the quick-temper versus a typical sense of fatalistic resignation. Such outbursts of temper will strike most often in crowds and quite frequently include utter disregard for personal safety.
Patai also describes the Muslim tendency to attack randomly all foreigners when one group is initially targeted, a characteristic Middle East expert Bernard Lewis, in The Jews of Islam, claims represents a warring against all unbelievers, writing it was “‘al-kufru millatun wahida’ ...ie the realm of the unbelievers is one nation.” Patai also claims there is a deep-felt need in the Arab psyche for personal revenge, as characterized by the blood-feud, described by the phrase “Dam butlab dam,” or “Blood demands blood.” In fact, Patai describes this as one of the chief historic attributes of the Arab people, being a propensity towards strife and conflict, and the carrying of long grudges.
Obviously, the doctrine of jihad is enormously controversial, but a few general remarks are apropos. First, it has been claimed, ad nauseam, that… “Islam is a religion of peace.” What exactly this sentiment would mean to an Arab from the classical period (Ayyam al-Arab, aka the Days of the Arabs) would be hard to fathom. But we can at least note that ancient Arabia boasted a warrior ethos which other antiquated societies, like ancient Greece, also claimed. There was no “pacifist movement” in the ancient world, and any person suggesting such would have found themselves excluded very quickly from the protective environs of the tribe. As Michael Bonner writes in Jihad In Islamic History, Doctrines & Practice, “Islam arose in an environment where warfare—or at any rate, armed violence with some kind of organization and planning—was characteristic of everyday life.“And Islam, having never had a Reformation, still carries the warrior mentality in its ethos to this day.
Second, and perhaps even more important, there was never a debate in ancient Islam about the “Just War” as developed by Saint Augustine, according to Bonner. The reason for this is quite easy to explain. Muslims followed Muhammad’s theory of God, not Christ’s. Islam does not value the notion of “turning the other cheek,” as Jesus taught. Instead, this society was seen as bathed in blood from ceaseless strife, struggle and warfare. A dichotomy was presented: There is a House of Peace (or Allah) and a House of War. All unbelievers live in the House of War, and therefore the House of God can attack the unbelievers at any time, justly. Therefore, a Muslim “Just War” has always been one which pitted Muslims against unbelievers.
III. 9/11 Mosques & Burnt Korans
America’s way has always been based upon various Christian theories of government and religious tolerance, since our founding. This raises an interesting question: Given the claim by both Christianity and Islam of having the last prophetic voice of mankind—can anyone imagine Jesus having 800 Pharisees or Sadducee Jews put to death for refusing to accept His religious claims? Further, is it even conceivable that Christ would have had an old man or pregnant woman with suckling babe on chest—slaughtered for writing insulting poems? Perhaps it is therefore time we ask American Muslims to filter their ideas about God and Muhammad through the lens of Jesus, who died nobly for others instead of killing for his reputation or beliefs, and yet whose Spirit lives in America. After all, good Muslims say they believe in Jesus.
Aristotle writes about the “telos” which is the direction in which a thing naturally moves. Could it be that Islam’s natural telos ~ at this point in time~ still moves towards the primitive and savage, being fixated on anger, revenge, over-reaction, and violence? If so, this still does not mean all Muslims tend towards violence, or that Islam cannot evolve. After all, isn’t it time Islam finally had its Reformation? Protestantism occurred about 1,500 years after Christ. Today it has been about 1,500 years since Muhammad preached. So the timing couldn’t be any better to turn over a new leaf, put aside violence, and embrace religious tolerance and civil society.
Until Islam does have a genuine Reformation, and gives up physical attacks, sexism, and primitive punishments, the majority of Americans will have mixed feelings about the religion. Until then, can we perhaps find some “failsafe” (“Fail-safe describes a feature which, in the event of failure, responds in a way that will cause no harm, or at least a minimum of harm…”) way to keep a handle Islam’s surfeit of anger and violence? And what might a “Failsafe Islam” look like? One which is kept in check by legal and ethical guidelines, those acceptable for America’s traditions and rights based theory of the Good Life. Hopefully, time will tell soon enough.*******
Fox sends out ambush squad to talk to NYC mosque investors -- but doesn't mention key Fox investor
By David Neiwert
August 27, 2010
By Daniel Greenfield
Sunday, August 15, 2010
At an Iftar dinner in the White House, Barack Hussein Obama proclaimed that he supports the building of the Ground Zero mosque as part of his “unshakable commitment to religious freedom”. Which of course sounds very noble and good, until you ask a single question, Where is the religious freedom in the Muslim world?
This has ominous implications for the prospects of religious freedom in America. Nor is this a theoretical issue. Jews are fleeing European cities in record numbers because of Muslim persecution. The recent case of Malmo, highlights the fact that Islam actually threatens religious diversity. Simply to protect themselves, Malmo’s 650 Jews were forced to spend half a million Kronor a year. The situation is much the same across Europe, as Jewish institutions are forced to become fortresses. What the Nazis did not succeed in accomplishing in Europe, the rise of Islam seems to be doing.
Nor are Christians safe, they are simply in the majority for now. But Christians and other religions were once in the majority in the Middle East. Until they were massacred and repressed by the tidal wave of Islam. Today the religions that were once a majority, whether it is Jews in Israel, Christians in Byzantium or Zoroastrians in Persia, have become oppressed minorities. Some may take comfort in the notion that “It can’t happen here.” But the fate of Europe’s Jews, shows that it can happen here. And that it is happening here.
Looking at the religious map of the world today, Islam has grown in non-Muslim countries, while non-Muslims continue to dwindle in Muslim countries. And even the number of non-Muslim religious believers in non-Muslim countries dwindles, when Muslims are introduced into the equation. If Islam were a fish in a fish tank, it’s clear that it would be a piranha. If you put it into the fish tank, very soon you have a lot of Islamic piranhas and only a handful of other fish that survive, only because the piranhas need to keep some of them alive in order to feed on them. If you don’t like that picture, take an honest look at the Muslim world, with its dominant Muslim caste and inferior non-Muslims living in the cracks of their walls, and draw a better one.
Over and over again, the rise of Islam has meant the eradication of religious freedom
The question is do we want to import this into the United States? Because history and current events show that there is no better way to insure the end of religious freedom in the United States, than to introduce Islam into the picture. Over and over again, the rise of Islam has meant the eradication of religious freedom. And those who fail to learn from that past, will be doomed to repeat it.
Obama attempted to position his remarks as being against religious intolerance, but yet he spoke in defense of religious intolerance. Because what greater act of religious intolerance could there than building a mosque in a place where Muslims had previously murdered 3000 Americans? Nor are such actions unique on the part of Muslims, who have routinely hijacked other people’s sacred areas and structures to make a statement about Islamic supremacism. If Islam were truly as tolerant as Obama claims, its adherents would not attempt to build a massive mosque complex that they do not actually need in this place.
And what of the Iftar dinner itself which Obama spoke at. The Iftar dinner is the nightly break in the fast of Ramadan. And what is Ramadan? It commemorates the revelation of the first verses of the Koran to Mohammed. And those first verses of the Koran conclude with, “Guide us the straight way, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).” That same verses appears in the daily prayers of Muslims.
Ramadan marks the beginning of Islam’s intolerance for other religions
Seen in that light, Ramadan marks the beginning of Islam’s intolerance for other religions, as embodied in its scriptures. When Muslims schools teach pupils that Jews are apes and Christians are pigs, they are relying on the wellspring of hate already in the Koran. A non-Muslim country holding an event to mark any aspect of Ramadan is as mad as sheep celebrating their own slaughter.
Let’s look at how some of the participants in Obama’s Iftar dinner embody that famous Islamic tolerance. There is Hassan Jaber, Executive Director of ACCESS. “ACCESS paid for commercial driving lessons and attempts at hazardous material hauling certificates for two men convicted as part of the Detroit Al-Qaeda sleeper cell. Testimony at their trial revealed that the men planned to bomb the MGM Grand Casino and a host of other prominent US sites.” (Debbie Schlussel). Access has funded a conference at which Sami Al Arian, of Islamic Jihad, spoke. There’s also Ingrid Mattson, who is against any reform of Islam and places loyalty to Islam before America. There’s MPAC’s Salam Al Marayat, who has defended Hezbollah who has been described as having “disturbing sympathies for Islamic terrorists”. Dalia Mogahed, an apologist for Sharia law and the subjugation of women. And those are only some of the names in attendance.
Finally let’s turn to Obama’s own enthusiasm for religious freedom. That enthusiasm was markedly absent when Caplin and Drysdale lawyers were intimidating conservative. churches. They even intimidated Jewish non-profit groups who wanted Palin to speak at an Anti-Ahmadinejad rally, by threatening their tax exempt status. Mortimer Caplin was a major supporter of Obama, and part of Obama for America. But Obama was not upset when his supporters were silencing the religious freedom of Christians and Jews.Which suggests that his “Unshakable Commitment to Religious Freedom” is actually rather shaky indeed. And appears to be reserved for Muslims. Which would reaffirm what Obama himself said in his own book; “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction”.
His endorsement of the Ground Zero mosque is another case of Obama standing “with the Muslims” and against Americans of all other faiths
His endorsement of the Ground Zero mosque is another case of Obama standing “with the Muslims” and against Americans of all other faiths, who want the freedom to practice their religion in peace without harassment, persecution and violence from the followers of Islam, who believe that all other religions are invalid, and that all forms of government and law that are not governed by the Koran, have no right to exist.
Religious Freedom must be defended, from all those who would take it away. The history of Islam is the history of genocide, oppression and ethnic cleansing practiced by Muslims against non-Muslims. Islam is the death blow to religious diversity and freedom. And nowhere better is that seen than Mecca, a city that was once a mecca for different religions, which is now barred to all but Muslims. Mecca is the Muslim ideal. And it exemplifies what they hope to accomplish.
Meanwhile, Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais, the Imam of the Grand Mosque of Mecca, has praised terrorism saying “Allahu Akbar! These are signs of victory: Jihad has remained the only wining card and the light of hope in the hands of those sincere people among the Ummah”. He has called Jews “scum of the earth” and “rats of the world”, Christians, “cross-worshipers” and filled with “rotten ideas and poisonous culture” and had similarly charming things to say of Hindus. This is how the world looks from Mecca, the heart of Islam. And this is why Islam and religious freedom are incompatible.
Obama concluded his remarks by saying: “And we can only achieve “liberty and justice for all” if we live by that one rule at the heart of every great religion, including Islam — that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.” But that is not the rule at the heart of Islam. And this is not the first time that he has tried to sell that particular lie. But Islam never equates Muslims with non-Muslims, as Obama pretends it does. Its offer of brotherhood is only open to fellow Muslims. Its tolerance is only for fellow Muslims. And that is at the heart of the problem. And it is why the rise of Islam means the end of liberty and justice for all. To stand for liberty and justice is to take a stand against Islamic bigotry.*******
Over the past 100 years, America has brought peace and prosperity to billions, while Muslims have been slaughtering and enslaving their neighbors, especially women, wholesale
By Fred Dardick
Saturday, August 14, 2010
For you liberals who somehow got forwarded this column and still don’t know what Sharia law is, allow me to enlighten you. It is the literal interpretation of Islam that leads to the widespread abuse and enslavement of women. It’s also called the reality of “that woman in Iran who’s waiting to see if she’s going to get stoned to death for adultery” rules. Who knows if she really committed adultery? In Islamic societies all a man has to do to give his wife the proverbial dirt nap, is simply claim she did.
Under Sharia law, men are the judge, jury and executioners of women, and Obama apparently thinks Americans are too stupid to know this. While Obama may be able to lawyer his way around the Ground Zero mosque as a “religious tolerance” issue, the rest of us know a load of bs when we see one.
Ever wonder how the Islamic Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem got built smack dab on top of the ancient Jewish temple mount? I can promise you, it was no attempt to “build bridges” either that put it there. It was more like “let’s take over the Jews most treasured religious site and plant a mosque on it to show them who’s boss”. That’s why Jews pray at the Western Wall, because if they tried to visit the top of the temple mount, the Arabs would riot.
Every time Obama speaks to Muslims, it’s always how wonderful and understanding Islam is compared to our knuckle dragging Judeo-Christian customs. Rather than apologizing endlessly for America, and in this case our opposition to the Ground Zero mosque, how about being honest for a change, champ?
Over the past 100 years, America has brought peace and prosperity to billions around the world, while at the same time Muslims have been slaughtering and enslaving their neighbors, especially women, wholesale. Talk about the war that never ends. Shia vs. Sunni violence has been going on for centuries and, by the looks of Iraq, will continue for centuries more.
The irony is if our President, who clearly feels his #1 job is reaching out to the Muslim world, had half a brain in his communist head, he would be out there speaking forcefully against Sharia law and educating his fellow Islamists to the dangers of a literal interpretation of the Koran.
Who knows, maybe then Obama could finally do some good for a change and save lives, rather than destroy them.
Obama’s Ground Zero Mosque
For Barack Obama, the answer is now pretty clear: He stands with shariah
By Frank Gaffney Jr.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
In the process, Mr. Obama also inadvertently served up what he likes to call a “teachable moment” concerning the nature of the enemy we are confronting, and the extent to which it is succeeding in the Brotherhood’s stated mission: “…Eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”
As the AP reported, “President Barack Obama on Friday forcefully endorsed building a mosque near Ground Zero saying the country’s founding principles demanded no less. ‘As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country,’ Obama said, weighing in for the first time on a controversy that has riven New York and the nation. ‘That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.’
“Our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect to those who are different from us—a way of life that stands in stark contrast to the nihilism of those who attacked us on that September morning, and who continue to plot against us today.”
So much for the pretense that, as White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had previously declared, the President would not get involved because the Ground Zero mosque (GZM) controversy was “a local matter.” (As opposed, say, to the arrest of a Harvard professor on disorderly conduct charges.)
Gone too is the option of continuing to conceal an extraordinary fact: the Obama administration is endorsing not only this “local matter,” but explicitly endorsing the agenda of the imam behind it – Feisal Abdul Rauf. Rauf is the Muslim Brother, who together with his wife Daisy Khan (a.k.a. Daisy Kahn for tax purposes, at least) runs the tellingly named “Cordoba Initiative.” He is believed to be on a taxpayer-underwritten junket and/or fund-raising tour of the Middle East, courtesy of the State Department, which insists that he is a “moderate” in the face of abundant evidence to the contrary. Interestingly, the President’s rhetoric – like that of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other apologists for and boosters of the GZM – tracks perfectly with the Muslim Brotherhood line about why we need to allow what Lieutenant General William “Jerry” Boykin has correctly described as an “Islamist victory arch” close by some of America’s most hallowed ground. It is, we are told, all about “religious freedom” and “tolerance.”
Actually, it is all about submission to shariah – arguably the most intolerant of theo-political-legal codes, ironically particularly when it comes to respect for freedom of religion. Rauf’s mosque complex and the shariah ideology/doctrine that animates it – the same program that animated the jihadists who destroyed the World Trade Center and many of its occupants on 9/11 – has everything to do with power, not faith.
As notable as what the President said is the company he keeps. Consider a few examples from this year’s Iftar dinner guest list:
Ingrid Mattson heads the largest Muslim Brotherhood front in the country, the Islamic Society of North America. ISNA was an unindicted co-conspirator in the biggest terrorism financing trial in the nation’s history and was identified as a Brotherhood “associated or friendly” group in documents introduced as evidence uncontested in that Holy Land Foundation prosecution. Ms. Mattson now presides over the selection, training and certification of Muslim chaplains for the U.S. military and prison system – interestingly, a job formerly in the hands of Muslim Brother Abdurahman Alamoudi, the founder and first head of the American Muslim Council, who is currently serving a 23-year sentence on terrorism charges.
Salam Al-Marayati is president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). In 1999, then-House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt withdrew his nomination of Al-Marayati to a leadership position on the National Commission on Terrorism when it became public that Al-Marayati claimed that the terrorist group, Hezbollah, was a legitimate organization and has the right to attack the Israeli Army.
Dalia Mogahed runs the insidious Gallup Center for Muslim Studies and advises President Obama on Muslim affairs as a member of the President’s Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. In an October 2009 interview with the London Telegraph, she made the following astounding assertions: “I think the reason so many women support shariah is because they have a very different understanding of shariah than the common perception in Western media.” “The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with shariah compliance.” “The portrayal of shariah has been oversimplified in many cases.”
The most prominent American public figure to directly challenge such pap is former House Speaker Newt Gingrich who, in remarks before the American Enterprise Institute last month, declared, “Stealth jihadis use political, cultural, societal, religious, intellectual tools; violent jihadis use violence. But in fact they’re both engaged in jihad and they’re both seeking to impose the same end state which is to replace Western civilization with a radical imposition of shariah.”
In a brilliant appreciation of Mr. Gingrich’s address, Andrew McCarthy, an accomplished former federal prosecutor (he put away the ringleader of the first effort to destroy the World Trade Center, “the Blind Sheikh,” OmarAbdel-Rahman) and author of the superb New York Times bestseller, The Grand Jihad , wrote in National Review Online: “Henceforth, there should be no place to hide for any candidate, including any incumbent. The question will be: Where do you stand on shariah?”*******
Statement By Debra Burlingame On President Obama’s Support For The Ground Zero Mosque
By News on the Net
Posted on Saturday, August 14th, 2010
This morning, Debra Burlingame, Keep America Safe Board Member and Co-founder of 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America, released the following statement in response to President Obama’s remarks about the Ground Zero mosque:
"Barack Obama has abandoned America at the place where America’s heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see. Since that dark day, Americans have been asked to bear the burden of defending those values, again and again and again. Now this president declares that the victims of 9/11 and their families must bear another burden. We must stand silent at the last place in America where 9/11 is still remembered with reverence or risk being called religious bigots."
“We will honor the memory of our loved ones. We will protect our children, whose lives will never be the same. We will not stand silent.”
Debra Burlingame Board Member Keep America Safe*******
Obama’s Ramadan White House Bow to Islam
Obama "forcefull” support of the Ground Zero Mosque?
By Judi McLeod
Friday, August 13, 2010
This master of the mealy mouthed mouths platitudes via a TelePrompter and travels to Town Halls with his very own cheering section.
When is the last time anybody ran into a forceful Metrosexual?
Obama is a wuss who talks about plugging holes when the holes needing to be plugged have been exaggerated all out of proportion.
As this corner has said before the only hole Obama should plug is the rabbit hole in which he is trying to drag down American society.
Truth is the closest Barack Obama ever gets to forceful is surrounding himself with forceful females: Oprah Winfrey with whom he celebrated his last birthday; slumlord Valerie Jarrett and his globetrotting wife.
Since when can surreptitious, which Obama truly is, be translated into “forceful”? When it is AP who is sending the message, that’s when.
It’s easy to come on like a despot when you have all the toys, all the bells and whistles, all the power and money in your little corner. As easy as saying you got all the balls through the hoop when no one was there to prove otherwise.
“That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances,” he said. “This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.”
Make that a global citizen and a president whose eligibility is questionable. And make it what is left of America when the most anti-American president ever elected gets through with it.
And what have Muslims having the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country really have to do with building a mega mosque so near to the site where so many died at the hands of radical Islam on Sept. 11, 2001?
The obsession for a Mosque near Ground Zero when 70% of Americans object, is being forceful on the part of those pushing for a September 11, 2011 groundbreaking.
Obama was not being forceful but pandering to the Muslim Brotherhood at the White House on Ramadan.
Mark Friday, Aug. 13, 2010 as Obama’s biggest bow to the power of Islam, not abroad this time, but right in the White House.
Meanwhile, it’s just another Friday night in ObamaLand.*******
Obama Defends Ground Zero Mosque as ‘The Writ of Our Founders’
Obama is all for it
By Warner Todd Huston
Friday, August 13, 2010
During Obama’s Ramadan celebration dinner (called an Iftar dinner) Obama addressed the Ground Zero mosque.
Even as Obama claimed that he understood that Ground Zero was “hallowed ground” he went on to say that the Muslims may build their Mosque anywhere they want and we should let them because of it is in keeping with “the writ from our founders.”
Here are the relevant parts of the address (my bold for emphasis):
That is not to say that religion is without controversy. Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities – particularly in New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. The pain and suffering experienced by those who lost loved ones is unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.
But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure.
We must never forget those who we lost so tragically on 9/11, and we must always honor those who have led our response to that attack – from the firefighters who charged up smoke-filled staircases, to our troops who are serving in Afghanistan today. And let us always remember who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for. Our enemies respect no freedom of religion. Al Qaeda’s cause is not Islam – it is a gross distortion of Islam. These are not religious leaders – these are terrorists who murder innocent men, women and children. In fact, al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion – and that list of victims includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11.*******