Danish jihadis collecting unemployment while on jihad in Syria

May 19, 2015

“But first subsidize us, please.”

One of those “insult on injury” moments: these Muslims (1) despise Western liberal society and wish to overthrow it and replace it with one based on their totalitarian sharia law, but they’re quite willing to take our welfare money while they fight to destroy the hand that gives it to them.

We have met the useful idiot, and he is us:

A total of 32 ‘Danish’ terrorists have continued to claim state unemployment benefits amounting to kr.400,000 (£38,500) while fully employing themselves in the act of Jihad in Syria.

Documents acquired by a Danish Radio24syv show the security service and labour ministry had undertaken private discussions about the mispayments, presumably terminating them as they were discovered, but not before a significant amount of taxpayer money had been funnelled to enemies of the state.

Remarkably, out of the 32 fighters claiming Denmark’s generous £75 a day only one had been recognised as fraudulent and stopped by his benefits office. Somehow the remainder had managed to keep claiming, despite not even being in the country.

(…)

Claiming unemployment benefit while conspiring against the host country appears to have become a key part of terrorist life in many Western nations. ‘British’ hate preacher Anjem Choudary was recorded in 2013 making mockery of Westerners who worked regular jobs and paid taxes, and called on Muslims to claim “Jihad Seekers Allowance” instead of working.

Lenin once said “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.” Well, the modern welfare state will do you one better Vlad.

We’ll also give them the money to buy that rope.

That’ll show’em. smiley headbang wall

Footnote:
(1) Not all Muslims, of course. But far too many at least support imposing sharia and recreating the caliphate, even if they’re ambivalent about waging violent jihad to do it.


France mulls ban on Gulf funding of mosques

March 7, 2015

Frankly, I call this a long overdue idea. Since over 80% of the Sunni mosques in the US are supported by Saudi (Wahhabi) money, it’s a shame the idea probably wouldn’t fly here.

Money Jihad

France is considering a prohibition against foreign funding of domestic mosques. This is a sensible proposal given that Saudi funds have been coming with Wahhabi or Salafi strings attached for decades, and Qatar has joined the fray.

But some French Muslims and Socialists oppose the measure, arguing that if mosques cannot be funded by foreign powers then the French government should subsidize the mosques.

How about a third alternative which would be for these mosques to fund themselves through donations from their own members?

From Radio France Internationale on Feb. 15 (h/t EuropeNews):

France to cut Qatar funding of mosques in crackdown on islamic fundamentalism

By RFI with Christina Okello

The French government has announced a series of measures to clamp down on radical Islam being spread in mosques, and wants to cut financial support from countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Critics warn that before it does…

View original post 295 more words


Welfare Handouts for Promoting Terrorism

April 14, 2013

Every time I read about something like this –the UK welfare system handing out money and support to people whose goal it is to destroy the UK, as if it’s their right– I have to shake my head in wonder. This is another victory for cultural jihad.

International Liberty

I don’t think the federal government should be in the business of redistribution income. Simply stated, the welfare state has been a disaster for both taxpayers and recipients.

But our system, with whatever flaws it might have now or in the future, presumably will never be as crazy as the system in the United Kingdom.

A reader sent a story that blows my mind. Our cousins across the ocean give big welfare handouts to terrorist agitators. Here are some excerpts from The Sun.

…hate preacher Anjem Choudary has told fanatics to copy him by going on benefits — urging: “Claim your Jihad Seeker’s Allowance.” He cruelly ridiculed non-Muslims who held down 9-to-5 jobs all their lives and said sponging off them made plotting holy war easier. …Father-of-four Choudary, who has praised terrorist outrages, pockets more than £25,000 a year in benefits — £8,000 more than the take-home pay…

View original post 283 more words


(Video) Pat Condell with a word to rioting Muslims

September 21, 2012

I really have nothing to add. Take it away, Pat! (Slight language warning.)

President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and Senator Kerry — this is how it’s done.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The jihad in Mexico

May 26, 2012

Writing at the Gatestone Institute site, Raymond Ibrahim details the continuing efforts of Hizbullah and its Iranian paymasters, as well as al Qaeda, to strike at the United States through our porous border using a combination of missionary work and alliance with the drug cartels:

According to a 2010 report, “Close to home: Hezbollah terrorists are plotting right on the U.S. border,” which appeared in the NY Daily News:

“Mexican authorities have rolled up a Hezbollah network being built in Tijuana, right across the border from Texas and closer to American homes than the terrorist hideouts in the Bekaa Valley are to Israel. Its goal, according to a Kuwaiti newspaper that reported on the investigation: to strike targets in Israel and the West. Over the years, Hezbollah—rich with Iranian oil money and narcocash—has generated revenue by cozying up with Mexican cartels to smuggle drugs and people into the U.S. In this, it has shadowed the terrorist-sponsoring regime in Tehran, which has been forging close ties with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who in turn supports the narcoterrorist organization FARC, which wreaks all kinds of havoc throughout the region.”

Another 2010 article appearing in the Washington Times asserts that, “with fresh evidence of Hezbollah activity just south of the border [in Mexico], and numerous reports of Muslims from various countries posing as Mexicans and crossing into the United States from Mexico, our porous southern border is a national security nightmare waiting to happen.” This is in keeping with a recent study done by Georgetown University, which revealed that the number of immigrants from Lebanon and Syria living in Mexico exceeds 200,000. Syria, along with Iran, is one of Hezbollah’s strongest financial and political supporters, and Lebanon is the immigrants’ country of origin.

A jihadist cell in Mexico was recently found to have a weapons cache of 100 M-16 assault rifles, 100 AR-15 rifles, 2,500 hand grenades, C4 explosives and antitank munitions. The weapons, it turned out, had been smuggled by Muslims from Iraq. According to this report, “obvious concerns have arisen concerning Hezbollah’s presence in Mexico and possible ties to Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTO’s) operating along the U.S.—Mexico border.”

And it’s not just arms-smuggling and infiltration of Arab jihadis that we need to worry about; jihadist organizations are working hard to covert disaffected Mexicans to Salafist Islam:

Long a bastion of Catholicism, southern Mexico is quickly turning into a battleground for soul-savers. Islam, too, is gaining a foothold and the indigenous Mayans are converting by the hundreds. The Mexican government is worried about a culture clash in their own backyard… Muslim women in headscarves have become a common sight….

The Maya regions, particularly Yucatan, have long been a problem for Mexico City. An uprising there lasted from 1847-1901. A century later, will they face an intifada of their own?

Securing the border, as far as is practical, is essential. That doesn’t mean seal it, which would be impossible, but we need far better control over who crosses and why. And intelligence cooperation with the Mexicans, already underway against the cartels, needs to be expanded against the jihadists who seek to exploit our southern neighbor’s problems to get at us.

As Fausta puts it, “border security is national security“.

Because they’re still trying to kill us.

RELATED: An earlier post I wrote on Hizbullah in Tijuana, and Hamas getting in on the act.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


(Video) The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a work of SCIENCE!!!

April 16, 2012

Don’t look at me like I’m nuts! I heard it on Egyptian TV! It must be true!!

And here’s a sample from the transcript:

Whoever does not believe me can look at The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This is no book of poetry or stories. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a matter of undisputable science.

There was a meeting of the Freemasons in France, and a French woman managed to smuggle out some dangerous documents, which circulated in the meeting.

Between 1897 and 1951, the secret Zionist groups held nearly 23 meetings, one of which was a large gathering, which included over 50 Zionist groups. They issued several documents: How can we gain control over the world’s minds? How can we gain control of the media? How can we turn the mighty national armies into cantons, which will fight one another? How can we gain control over the flow of capital? How can we gain control over the presidents and state leaders, and turn them into collaborators?

A French woman managed to smuggle out these documents, which serve as the backbone of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

And the rest, as they was, was history. A fruit-loopy, conspiracy-mongering history straight from the persecution complexes of minds that can’t handle the modern world, but still a form of history.

According to this site, al-Nas TV is an Islamic religious channel specializing in programming for muftis, scholars who interpret Islamic law. In other words, important cultural and spiritual leaders for significant portions of Egypt’s population. And this is what those “scholars” are learning.

Following on from the questions asked earlier, one has to wonder just how Israel is supposed to negotiate and make genuine peace with a society suffering from cultural paranoid psychosis?

Somehow, I think the question answers itself.

RELATED: The real history of the Protocols is that they were written around 1905 by a Russian mystic who plagiarized a French satirical work that itself never mentioned Jews. He just added them to “prove” Jews were out to control the world. You can read all about it at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum’s site. Sadly, like Hitler’s Mein Kampf, the Protocols is very popular in the Muslim  Middle East.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The Sharia state of Pennsylvania

February 24, 2012

This is absolutely disgraceful:

A state judge in Pennsylvania has dismissed an assault and harrassment case against a Muslim defendant who admitted attacking the victim. Magistrate Judge Mark Martin, a veteran of the war in Iraq and a convert to Islam, ruled that Talag Elbayomy’s sharia defense — what he claimed was his obligation to strike out against any insult against the prophet Mohammed — trumped the First Amendment free speech rights of the victim.

Yes, you read that correctly.

Read the rest of McCarthy’s post,which includes a link to video of the judge’s stupid remarks. PJM’s Bryan Preston has quotes from the judge’s dressing down of the victim, which includes this beaut:

“Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it it makes you look like a dufus and Mr. (Defendant) is correct. In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society.

Wait, let me get this straight: Is Judge Martin saying that, since it was okay for the Muslim to assault the victim, which is clearly against our law, it would have been okay in the judge’s view for the Muslim to kill him? After all, the guy insulted Muhammad and hurt the Muslim defendant’s feelings. Sharia says kill the guy, so why not go all the way? (1)

Newsflash for Judge Martin: they’re called “unalienable rights” because they are inherent from birth in all men, “endowed by their Creator.” They are universal, even if Islamic countries are too benighted to realize it.

And then there’s this little thing called the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

…which has been incorporated into state law for centuries.

I don’t care if this guy dressed up as “Muhammad the transvestite” and shouted at the top of his lungs that Islam’s “prophet” committed lewd acts with the dead. (2) It is immaterial that the Muslim defendant’s feelings were hurt; the victim had the right to act like a jerk, and the defendant had no right to assault him.

The only way “free speech” matters is if we protect speech even when we or others find it offensive. Whether it offends religion, country, or your favorite TV program, it doesn’t matter. As long as it does not directly and deliberately incite violence, it is protected speech.

And it is appalling that an American judge, one who both as a judge and as a soldier swore oaths to protect and defend the Constitution and those very same unalienable rights, should trample on the right to free speech in a fit of cultural relativism.

I’m not sure what the law is in Pennsylvania is for removing a judge, but somebody needs to start working on this jackass’ case right now.

Footnotes:
(1) In fact, in the biographies of Muhammad and canonical hadiths (his sayings and deeds), we know for a fact he had people assassinated for criticizing him.
(2) Which he may well have.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


(Video) The Grand Jihad

February 3, 2012

Encounter Books recently published “The Grand Jihad: how Islam and the Left sabotage America,” by former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy. It’s a book I highly recommend as a study not of the threat of terrorism, per se, but of the assault on the Western liberal tradition of tolerant, pluralist politics. It is a battle waged by political, legal, and cultural means, in which jihadist Islam and the secular Left are allies.

The following video, narrated by Bill Whittle, looks at one aspect of this struggle: the Muslim Brotherhood and the feckless response of the Obama administration.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


America, Islam, and democratic tolerance

June 20, 2011

There’s an interesting post by Roger Kimball at Pajamas Media on Governor Romney’s problem with religion. No, not his Mormonism, though some blockheads might want to make that a problem, but his inability, thanks to the shackles of political correctness, to articulate why Islam poses a problem in America. And it’s not just Romney’s problem, but one shared by most politicians.

In his essay, Roger discusses the principle of religious tolerance and why it does not work when Islam is added to the mix:

Religious tolerance is a nifty idea.  As a Catholic, I’m pleased it exists. But here’s the rub: tolerance only works when practiced by all parties to the social contract.  It’s one thing for a Unitarian and a Catholic to tolerate each other.  They have  some important doctrinal differences.  But they do not endeavor to kill or enslave one another on account of those differences.

The friction of difference works differently when you add Islam to the equation.  Why?  Because Islam does not — in principle as well as in practice  — acknowledge a legitimate sphere of operation for the secular as distinct from the sacred realm.  There is no “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” in Islam because Islam — that’s mainstream, garden-variety Islam, not just its wacko Wahhabist allotropes — regards everything as subordinate to the will of Allah.

Romney, like many well-meaning liberals, wants to regard Islam as a religious phenomenon.  The thought process goes something like this:

  1. We’re in favor of religious toleration.
  2. Islam is a religion.
  3. Ergo, we should tolerate Islam. (Q., isn’t it, e. demonstrandum?)

The problem with this syllogism is what it leaves out of account — namely, as McCarthy puts it, that Islam is a “totalitarian political program masquerading as a purely spiritual doctrine.”

As with all systems of belief in a liberal democratic regime, Islam deserves tolerance to the extent that it extends tolerance. That syllogism really should begin:

  1. We’re in favor of religious toleration for those religions that practice toleration.

And therein, as Shakespeare said, lies the rub. By misunderstanding the mutualism required for genuine tolerance, muddleheaded Westerners turn what originated as a pact into unilateral intellectual disarmament, refusing to think critically about Islam lest they be labelled “judgmental,” “intolerant,” or, worst of all, “Islamophobic.” And that in turn leaves us vulnerable to the cultural or  “civilizational jihad” that the Muslim Brotherhood is waging here and elsewhere through front organizations, the goal of which is the imposition of Sharia law on us all.

While I do sympathize with Romney’s plight (this is delicate, difficult ground for Americans to cover, and rightly so), particularly since he himself was slammed by religious bigotry in the last campaign, it is nonetheless essential for would-be American leaders to grasp, wrestle, and explain to the public then dangers of tolerating the intolerant. Seeing who does it best should be one of our criteria for choosing a nominee and future president.

PS: I urge you to read McCarthy’s article, linked above in the quote, but I disagree with his description of Islam as a political system “masquerading as a religion.” This is a misstatement; Islam is a religion, for it does what any religion does, arranging the relationship between Mankind and the Divine. It is, however, a religion that encompasses a totalitarian and aggressive political program. The distinction may seem minor or semantic, but I think it’s important, for to frame it as McCarthy does would be to ignore the spiritual appeal it has for those who find relief in submission to a higher authority.

PPS: And before anyone asks, no, I am not saying “ban Islam” or “deport all Muslims.” What I am calling for is an open, critical discussion of what Islam is and what its goals are, as opposed to the platitudes we’re fed by politicians and the media. And that includes challenging American Islamic leaders to defend what’s clearly in their scriptures.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Pat Condell on Islamic cultural terrorism

June 17, 2011

There’s a category here at Public Secrets called “cultural jihad,” referring to the efforts of Islamic supremacists to condition Westerners to accept sharia law through grievance mongering and the exploitation of our generally tolerant customs and multicultural guilt. Robert Spencer has called this the “Stealth Jihad,” while former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy examines it at length in his book “The Grand Jihad.”

In Europe, the process is farther along, now involving intimidation, violence, and even enclaves run by Islamic supremacists in which the police refuse to enforce the law. Hence the reason why, in the video below, British comic Pat Condell calls what’s happening in Europe “cultural terrorism.”

Pat really shouldn’t be so shy about his feelings.

NOTE: Keep in mind that when Condell refers to Islamic extremists as “the far Right,” he’s doing so in a European context, where “far Right” means “fascist.” In the US, on the other hand, I believe we’re coming to a more correct understanding — that “Right” means “limited government,” while Fascism is part of the statist, totalitarian Left. See Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” for an excellent discussion.

via The Jawa Report

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


“The United States will be transformed into an Islamic Republic”

December 30, 2010

Those aren’t my words, but those of Egyptian journalist ‘Ata Abd Al-Aal, via MEMRI:

From the transcript:

‘Ata Abd Al-Aal: They should send religious guides, as the Americans call them, or preachers, who should put an end to the calls not to participate in the elections. Some of the sheiks who go to the US during the month of Ramadhan or on other religious occasions incite the Muslims living there not to take part in the elections, because they are living among infidels. This is very troubling, and runs counter to the rights of the Muslims in the US.

The Islamic institutions in the Islamic world should send preachers who are well versed in Islam, who know how to preach to the American mentality, and who are proficient in English and can communicate with the Americans. Over there, they must forsake their own material and personal interests, and must act for the sake of Allah.

[Ultimately,] the US will be transformed into an Islamic republic, as a sheik in the US told me. He said that the most important place for the future of Islam, after Mecca and Medina, was the US.

Now, I will give the chap credit for saying Muslims should participate in elections; the usual radical line is that voting is a sin, for democracy gives to people the right to make laws, a right that belongs only to Allah. But, bear in mind that his suggestion is only a tactic: exploiting democracy to eventually bring about the antithesis of democracy, an Islamic republic ruled by Sharia law.

No, thanks.

PS: No, I am not advocating denying Muslims in America their voting rights as citizens. (Just in case anyone got that dumb idea stuck in their head.) But we do need to be aware of what cultural jihadists like Al-Aal have in mind, so that it may be exposed and opposed.


If it’s not a mosque, then what is it?

September 12, 2010

Writing in the New York Post, Amir Taheri has an interesting theory of what the proposed mosque/community center/whatever at Ground Zero really represents. He mentions the various types of Islamic buildings, all of which have very specific roles in Islam: for example, the takiyah is a Shiite building dedicated to passion plays about the death of Imam Husayn, while a zawiyyah is a type monastic complex.

But then, if the proposed building at Ground Zero is not a mosque, and if it isn’t a cultural center, then what is it?

Taheri’s answer? It is a rabat, a building meant to facilitate conquest:

The first rabat appeared at the time of the Prophet.

The Prophet imposed his rule on parts of Arabia through a series of ghazvas, or razzias (the origin of the English word “raid”). The ghazva was designed to terrorize the infidels, convince them that their civilization was doomed and force them to submit to Islamic rule. Those who participated in the ghazva were known as the ghazis, or raiders.

After each ghazva, the Prophet ordered the creation of a rabat — or a point of contact at the heart of the infidel territory raided. The rabat consisted of an area for prayer, a section for the raiders to eat and rest and facilities to train and prepare for future razzias. Later Muslim rulers used the tactic of ghazva to conquer territory in the Persian and Byzantine empires. After each raid, they built a rabat to prepare for the next razzia.

It is no coincidence that Islamists routinely use the term ghazva to describe the 9/11 attacks against New York and Washington. The terrorists who carried out the attack are referred to as ghazis or shahids (martyrs).

Thus, building a rabat close to Ground Zero would be in accordance with a tradition started by the Prophet. To all those who believe and hope that the 9/11 ghazva would lead to the destruction of the American “Great Satan,” this would be of great symbolic value.

(…)

A rabat in the heart of Manhattan would be of great symbolic value to those who want a high-profile, “in your face” projection of Islam in the infidel West.

I’ll note that Taheri has been controversial in the past, but that last statement echoes the opinions of Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, writing in Canada’s Ottawa Citizen newspaper:

New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it’s not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as “Fitna,” meaning “mischief-making” that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

Imam Rauf and other backers of the “Cordoba House” (since renamed Park51) have been adamant that the purpose of the new building is to promote interfaith understanding. Perhaps we should be listening to what other Muslims have to say, too.

RELATED: You know it’s a bad idea when…

(Crossposted to Sister Toldjah)


Imam Rauf: building bridges to where, exactly? -UPDATED

August 23, 2010

Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam at the center of the controversy over the mosque proposed for Ground Zero in New York City, has claimed he is a man of moderation, a bridge-builder between Islam and America, between Muslims and Americans of other faiths. He wants to show that Islam and the Muslims can be a part of America’s democratic society.

Praising Ayatollah Khomeini and Iran’s theocratic fascist dictatorship is a funny way to do that, however. Soon after the fraudulent Iranian elections of 2009, he wrote, as reported by Michael Ledeen:

He proclaimed that calm had returned to Iran, and that the “official” results–Ahmadinejad in a landslide–were correct.  Indeed, the whole system, according to Imam Rauf, is admirable:

  • The Iranian Revolution of 1979 was in part to depose the shah, who had come to power in 1953 after a CIA-sponsored coup overthrew democratically-elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossaddeq. And in part it was an opportunity to craft an Islamic state with a legitimate ruler according to Shia political theory.
  • After the revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini took the Shiite concept of the Rightly Guided Imam and created the idea of Vilayet-i-faqih, which means the rule of the jurisprudent. This institutionalizes the Islamic rule of law. The Council of Guardians serves to ensure these principles.


(…)

  • (Obama’s) administration understands that what is going on now in Iran is an attempt by the Iranian people to live up to their own ideals. Just as American democracy developed over many years, the United States recognizes that this election is part of the process of an evolving democracy in Iran.


That’s pure appeasement of Iranian tyranny.

So, then, just where does this bridge Imam Rauf wants to build lead?

UPDATE: From the horse’s… mouth. Tell me again this guy is a moderate? On what scale?

As Jim Geraghty puts it:

…to suggest that the indirect effects of a U.S. sanctions regime is remotely morally comparable to al-Qaeda’s deliberate mass murder – much less to suggest that they are morally worse – is to eviscerate one’s claim to be moderate, pro-American, or sensible. He says it is a “difficult subject to discuss with Western audiences.” Does he ever wonder why?


I think I’m OD’ing on the irony

August 18, 2010

For years –years!– the moonbat Left (which includes the Democrat leadership) railed at George W. Bush for destroying our image in the Muslim World, in spite of all the blood and treasure we spent liberating 60,000,000 Muslims from two of the worst tyrannies in the world, not to mention genuinely effective disaster relief in Muslim Indonesia after the Boxing Day tsunami, while their beloved UN did squat-all. Barack Obama campaigned to restore our good name and even went to Cairo to kowtow as a good dhimmi to make a speech apologizing for our supposed sins.

Yet now, with Obama making a complete fool of himself over the jihadist victory monument Ground Zero mosque, to whom does the Left turn to save their multicultural golden calf? George W. Bush. Byron York has the story:

“It’s time for W. to weigh in,” writes the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd. Bush, Dowd explains, understands that “you can’t have an effective war against the terrorists if it is a war on Islam.” Dowd finds it “odd” that Obama seems less sure on that matter. But to set things back on the right course, she says, “W. needs to get his bullhorn back out” — a reference to Bush’s famous “the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!” speech at Ground Zero on September 14, 2001.

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson is also looking for an assist from Bush. “I…would love to hear from former President Bush on this issue,” Robinson wrote Tuesday in a Post chat session. “He held Ramadan iftar dinners in the White House as part of a much broader effort to show that our fight against the al-Qaeda murderers who attacked us on 9/11 was not a crusade against Islam. He was absolutely right on this point, and it would be helpful to hear his views.”

And Peter Beinart, a former editor of the New Republic, is also feeling some nostalgia for the former president. “Words I never thought I’d write: I pine for George W. Bush,” Beinart wrote Tuesday in The Daily Beast. “Whatever his flaws, the man respected religion, all religion.” Beinart longs for the days when Bush “used to say that the ‘war on terror’ was a struggle on behalf of Muslims, decent folks who wanted nothing more than to live free like you and me…”

These people are asking for –nay, demanding!– BushChimpHitler’s help to make up for Obama? Pardon me while I laugh.  Rolling on the floor

There’s plenty to say at another time about their multicultural blindness toward the two faces of Islam; for now, I just want to lean back and savor the moment.

LINKS: More from Hot Air. Roger Kimball thinks this moment is delicious.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Well, that settles it

August 16, 2010

One of top medieval psychos in Hamas has endorsed the mosque planned for Ground Zero in New York City, saying it has to be built there:

A leader of the Hamas terror group yesterday jumped into the emotional debate on the plan to construct a mosque near Ground Zero — insisting Muslims “have to build” it there.

“We have to build everywhere,” said Mahmoud al-Zahar, a co-founder of Hamas and the organization’s chief on the Gaza Strip.

“In every area we have, [as] Muslim[s], we have to pray, and this mosque is the only site of prayer,” he said on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on WABC.

The Ground Zero mosque: Wahhabi-funded, terrorist-approved.

(via Sister Toldjah)


Mr. President, whose side are you on?

August 14, 2010

Last night, President Obama spoke at an Iftar dinner at the White House. (Iftar is the traditional Muslim dinner held at the end of during Ramadan.) In his remarks, he waded deep into controversy over the building of a large mosque at Ground Zero in New York City. In his remarks, he made clear his support for the mosque, appealing to America’s traditions of religious tolerance:

Now, that’s not to say that religion is without controversy. Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities -– particularly 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.  And the pain and the experience of suffering by those who lost loved ones is just unimaginable.  So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders.  And 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 everyone else in this country.  (Applause.)  And 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 that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are.  The writ of the Founders must endure.

We must never forget those who we lost so tragically on 9/11, and we must always honor those who led the 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 also remember who we’re fighting against, and what we’re fighting for.  Our enemies respect no religious freedom.  Al Qaeda’s cause is not Islam -– it’s a gross distortion of Islam.  These are not religious leaders -– they’re terrorists who murder innocent men and 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.

Nice platitudes, which however include the condescending and patronizing section highlighted above. Mr. President, this is not about religious freedom: Muslims have the right to practice their faith in over 30 mosques in New York City, alone, and can build more. And it is not about private property rights (which is funny coming from you, given your treatment of property rights in the GM and Chrysler bailouts), for no serious critic says property owners do not have the right to do what they wish with their property within zoning laws.

It is, however, about the location chosen and the inappropriateness of exercising those rights at that place. Ground Zero is where a Muslim jihadist organization launched a razzia (“raid”) against the kuffar (“infidels”) for the sake of Allah (jihad fi sabil Allah) and in accordance with the Qur’an, chapter nine, verse five:

Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

And, at the same link, verse 111:

Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.

That act of war, done in the name of Islam and in accordance with Islamic law, killed 3,000 of our people and foreign guests. And you think it’s a good thing to build a mosque there? Muslim spokesmen and their liberal and libertarian apologists demand we be tolerant and sensitive. Tell me, sir, why shouldn’t they (and you) be tolerant and sensitive toward the nearly 70% of Americans who oppose building that mosque on that spot?

Contrary to popular Leftist mythology, Americans are very tolerant, generous people. We also have a well-developed sense of decency. And we are not bigots when we say that building a mosque at Ground Zero, one that will be headed by an Islamic supremacist imam and which every Muslim knows is a deliberate provocation, is indecent and an insult to the memory of those who died there.

And what does it say about you, sir, that you side with allies of the Muslim Brotherhood against the wishes of the people who elected you? I’ll let Jennifer Rubin have the last word:

Obama has shown his true sentiments now, after weeks of concealing them, on an issue of deep significance not only to the families and loved ones of 3,000 slaughtered Americans but also to the vast majority of his fellow citizens. He has once again revealed himself to be divorced from the values and concerns of his countrymen. He is entirely – and to many Americans, horridly — a creature of the left, with little ability to make moral distinctions. His sympathies for the Muslim World take precedence over those, such as they are, for his fellow citizens. This is nothing short of an abomination.

Indeed.

LINKS: Lots have been written about this in the last 24 hours. Bad Rachel calls it an act of appeasement. Power Line scoffs at the vapid multiculturalism of the President’s remarks. Debra Burlingame, sister of one of the pilots of the hijacked planes on 9-11, is stunned by the President’s statement. Andrew Bostom quotes Muslim apostate Ibn Warraq on Obama’s Ramadan obeisance to totalitarian Islam. Baseball Crank (always worth reading) says Obama has chosen sides. Blue Crab Boulevard says it’s not a question of rights, but one of wrongs.

ADDENDUM I: Inevitably, this is going to raise the “Obama’s a seekrit Mooslim” issue again. I don’t believe it for a minute and give it the same credence I give Laredo Trutherism. He is, however, an extremely cynical, yet intellectually shallow progressive politician of the Chicago type, who sees people not as individual citizens, but as groups to be pandered to in return for votes and donations. This is also further proof that he is a Leftist academic elitist who looks down on the rest of his countrymen, those “bitter clingers.”

ADDENDUM II: As a matter of pure politics, I have to ask: Is he insane? The leader of the Democratic Party, Obama has now nationalized the Ground Zero mosque issue and by his remarks guaranteed that Democratic candidates across the nation are going to be asked from now until Election Day whether they agree with the President’s endorsement of the mosque, which is strongly opposed by two-thirds of the nation. I wonder how many buried their head in their hands when they heard the news?

FINALLY: I’ve always tried to differentiate between Islam and Muslims, because not all Muslims agree with or want to practice the aggressive, illiberal, supremacist, and intolerant aspects of Islamic doctrine. And so I have to sympathize with those Muslims who must feel their legs have been kicked out from under them by the President’s divisive statement in support of what is, in effect, the effort to build a jihadist victory monument.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

EDIT: Fixed because I had mixed up the iftar meal with the Eid meal held at the end of Ramadan. Thanks to Helen in the ST comments section.

UPDATE: The President tries to walk-back his comments from last night. Good luck with that, bub.


Now I’m confused: Can Muslims be Islamophobic?

August 9, 2010

I mean, that’s the only explanation why two Muslims would call the mosque to be built just a few hundred feet from Ground Zero a provocation, and that every Muslim knows that’s what it is, isn’t it?

New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it’s not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as “Fitna,” meaning “mischief-making” that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

The Koran commands Muslims to, “Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book” — i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of “fitna”

And the Iranian Muslim-American woman who lost her mother when United 175 slammed into the South Tower, she must be an Islamophobe, too:

When I am asked about the people who murdered my mother, I try to hold back my anger. I try to have a more spiritual perspective. I tell myself that perhaps what happened was meant to happen — that it was my mother’s destiny to perish this way. I try to take solace in the notion that her death has forced a much-needed conversation and reevaluation of the role of religion in the Muslim community, of the duties and obligations that the faith imposes and of its impact on the non-Muslim world.

But a mosque near Ground Zero will not move this conversation forward. There were many mosques in the United States before Sept. 11; their mere existence did not bring cross-cultural understanding. The proposed center in New York may be heralded as a peace offering — may genuinely seek to focus on “promoting integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion through arts and culture,” as its Web site declares — but I fear that over time, it will cultivate a fundamentalist version of the Muslim faith, embracing those who share such beliefs and hating those who do not.

The Sept. 11 attacks were the product of a hateful ideology that the perpetrators were willing to die for. They believed that all non-Muslims are infidels and that the duty of Muslims is to renounce them. I am not a theologian, but I know that the men who killed my mother carried this message in their hearts and minds. Obedient and dutiful soldiers, they marched toward their promised rewards in heaven with utter disregard for the value of the human beings they killed.

Liberal multiculturalists and “Big L” Libertarians tell us we’re being intolerant and somehow slighting the principles on which the US was founded when we say a mosque shouldn’t be built at Ground Zero, that it will only cause strife and be a symbol of victory for those Muslims who support the jihad against the West. They imply that we’re being bigoted, ignorant, and Islamophobic.

Yet when lifelong Muslims themselves say the same things, shouldn’t we listen?

LINKS: More from Hot Air.


Best response yet to the “Ground Zero mosque”

August 9, 2010

Of all the responses I’ve seen yet to the mosque slated to be built just yards from the ruins of the World Trade Center, Greg Gutfeld has come up with the best.

Build a bar next door. But not just any bar – a bar that caters to closeted gay Muslims:

As you know, the Muslim faith doesn’t look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I’m building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.

The goal, however, is not simply to open a typical gay bar, but one friendly to men of Islamic faith. An entire floor, for example, will feature non-alcoholic drinks, since booze is forbidden by the faith. The bar will be open all day and night, to accommodate men who would rather keep their sexuality under wraps – but still want to dance.

Bottom line: I hope that the mosque owners will be as open to the bar, as I am to the new mosque. After all, the belief driving them to open up their center near Ground Zero, is no different than mine.

Genius.


A big victory for free speech

July 21, 2010

A rare bit of great news out of Congress: the Senate has unanimously passed a bill protecting Americans against libel judgments rendered in countries that don’t have our protections for free speech:

On July 19, 2010, the U.S. Senate Senate passed the Bipartisan HR 2765 (as amended by the Leahy-Sessions SPEECH Act) by Unanimous Consent. The House of Representatives, which already passed HR 2765 introduced by Congressman Steve Cohen (D-TN) by 433-2, has indicated that it will pass the same bill within days.

The bill was introduced by the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and Ranking Member Senator Jeff Session (R-Alabama). The legislation is cosponsored by Senator Arlen Specter (D-Pennsylvania), Senator Chuck Schumer (D-New York) and Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut).

At the vote, Senator Leahy noted: “I would like to recognize Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, Director of the American Center for Democracy, who herself has been the victim of a libel suit in the United Kingdom, and has been a tremendous advocate for Congressional action in this area.”

The SPEECH Act will uphold First Amendment protections for American free expression by guarding American authors and publishers from the enforcement of frivolous foreign libel suits, filed in countries that do not have our strong free speech protections. Such lawsuits are often used by “libel-tourists” in an effort to suppress the rights of American scholars, writers, and journalists to speak, write and publish freely in print and on the Internet.

The Act grants “a cause of action for declaratory judgment relief against a party who has brought a successful foreign defamation action whose judgment undermines the First Amendment,” and provides for legal fees. These measures will help diminish the severe chilling effect such suits have already had on journalists, researchers, the general media, particularly on matters of national security and public safety.

“The freedoms of speech and the press are cornerstones of our democracy,” said Senator Leahy.  ”They enable vigorous debate, and an exchange of ideas that shapes our political process.  Foreign libel lawsuits are undermining this informational exchange. While we cannot legislate changes to foreign law that are chilling protected speech in our country, we can ensure that our courts do not become a tool to uphold foreign libel judgments that undermine American First Amendment or due process rights.  The SPEECH Act is an important step in putting a stop to this chilling of American free speech.”

Cultural jihadis and terror supporters have regularly used the libel laws of other countries, especially Britain, to attack authors critical of Islam and the jihad against the West. The phenomenon is called libel tourism and is itself a form of terrorism. My congratulations and thanks to the senators of all parties for raising a shield to protect our 1st Amendment rights.

On July 19, 2010, the U.S. Senate Senate passed the Bipartisan HR 2765 (as amended by the Leahy-Sessions SPEECH Act) by Unanimous Consent. The House of Representatives, which already passed HR 2765 introduced by Congressman Steve Cohen (D-TN) by 433-2, has indicated that it will pass the same bill within days.

Shocker: Muslim groups cry wolf about “Islamophobic crime”

July 8, 2010

Both the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Islamic Circle of North America screamed that an arson attack against a mosque in Georgia was an anti-Islamic hate crime, and CAIR even demanded a federal investigation.

One problem: the fire was set by a Muslim.

Ooops. Makes it kind of hard to gin up outrageous outrage and play the victim card, doesn’t it?

(via Jihad Watch)

UPDATE: More at Big Peace.

EDIT: Updated the headline, since the two groups were jumping the gun, not directly lying, though ICNA still has a press release up implying this was an Islamophobic hate crime and making no mention of the fact that a Muslim has been charged for the arson.