Posts Tagged ‘CAIR’

An appeal to my reasonable conservative friends:

Important: if you are not reasonable and open-minded, don’t read any further. I’m not looking for “zots.” I’m looking for reasonable people who are serious about making the right choice. When I know I’ve chosen wisely, I feel at peace, without doubt in my mind, and start to get excited – like Chrissy Mathews, I get “that tingle.” How do you feel when you know you’ve made the right choice?

At this point, you’ve been following the primary race for months, and that means you are looking to make the right choice. Are you aware of how important making the right choice is in this primary process? I agree, and that’s why it is important to keep an open mind. That’s why you’ve read this far, so you might as well hear me out.

Obama has made it clear that he is pinning his reelection efforts on class warfare. So, think about whom you would want the GOP nominee to be if you were Obama, and you needed a target for class warfare? I agree – Mitt Romney. Understand that Obama uses Alinsky tactics, and Alinsky tactic 13 is “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Simply put, it is much easier to attack an organization or an idea if you can ‘put a face on it’. If you can find a single individual who both represents your opponent, and who, given the right spin, can be portrayed as the face of evil, you can use this person as a proxy for your attacks on your adversary. What face would you put on the 1%? Mitt Romney.

You may think that Mitt Romney is a great guy, and a great example of success, and I agree with some of that (and certainly applaud his success), and I would add that you should have no doubt in your mind that this is exactly what Obama will do (stick a big, fat 1% on him), and you can imagine that he is licking his chops in anticipation of doing it. If Mitt Romney is the nominee, this is what the general election will look like. Click Here. No matter what he says or how well he says it, he will not be able to shake that label. How does that make you feel about Mitt? And it doesn’t help that he has a habit of making mistakes and saying the wrong thing. Click here. Even Romney booster John McCain no longer believes Romney can win. Click Here. Moving on.

Obama’s second trick is throwing “red meat” distractions to keep us from discussing the areas where he is most vulnerable, such as economic and foreign policy. The biggest distraction so far has been the contraception controversy. And Rick Santorum took the bait- big time. Rick Santorum is a great father with great moral values, but he is also a one trick pony. Social issues are important, but he just can’t stop talking about them, and that has gotten him in a ton of trouble. The issue isn’t that he talks a lot about social policy, the issue is that he just can’t change gears quickly enough to avoid the damage caused by Obama’s intentional deceptions and sleights-of-hand. Consider how many distractions Obama will throw out there if Rick is the nominee. We’ll be talking about birth control all the way through November. By the time Rick manages to shift the debate back to Obama’s weak points, it may be too late.

Rick also tends to make serious, and very public, mistakes. For example, he loses his cool very quickly. Click Here. Cringing? He also gets confused regularly – in this instance, he gives Obama credit for CREATING jobs, publicly, on CNN! Click here. Just imagine if he makes even ONE mistake like this in the months between the nomination and the general election. Understand the very real risk with Rick. How do you feel about that, given the stakes?

Please understand that all of this is just fact, and I understand that some of you will now feel a bit disturbed and unsure at this point. But, I digress.

Newt is a flawed man, but recognize that his flaws are less subject to substantive attack. For example, Freddie and Fannie? It may be a big deal in the Republican primary, but Democrats do NOT want to go there! Yes, he’s had multiple marriages, but how many times has Rush been married? Do you still listen to Rush, at least here and there? And, of course, Democrats cannot launch credible attacks on the subject of adultery – we can go there. Before I close, I urge you to do one thing, and one thing only… please watch this video – click here. You’ve read this far, so another minute or two won’t kill you. Click here. Now, how do you feel about this man going up against Barack Obama?

The above letter from J.M. Stein at Red Side of Life is so good, as is, that I chose not to break up his text with my comments.

Indeed, Stein makes a very compelling case. But if there is still any doubt in your mind, please consider a few additional facts:

  • Besides the “1%er” card that Stein says will be played against Romney, the Democrats also have their old favorite: the race card. Mitt is a very committed member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, aka the Mormons, and until 1978, Mormon theology relegated blacks to a kind of second-class membership in the church. After considerable social and political pressure, the church’s “living prophet” declared a new “revelation” changing the previous position which had been held since the church’s inception. Already, many on the Left are raising a stink about this. We can be sure that if Mitt were the nominee, this ugly issue would only get uglier — much uglier. The Democrat-Media Complex will make sure of that.
  • The issue of contraception is problematic for Santorum not only for the reason Stein explains — namely, that the Left is skillfully and shamelessly using it to sidetrack discussion away from Obama’s staggering malfeasances in both foreign and domestic policy — but also because the driving force behind Obama is the “Shadow Party” funded by George Soros, who has an obsession with population control. Soros and other Agenda 21 promoters believe that world population must be reduced by literally billions of people. Santorum, the father of seven children — one of whom has Trisomy-18, a genetic disorder for which many Leftists believe abortion to be the only appropriate response — has the Left’s bull’s-eye on his back.
  • The Left surely will demonize Newt just as viciously as they would Romney or Santorum. That’s what the Left does — to anyone who opposes them. A key difference, however, is that Newt fights back. Like the late, great Andrew Breitbart, Newt is a “happy warrior” who both understands the Left, and loves taking them on. Plus, like Breitbart, Newt understands that Big Media is every bit as much our opponent as is the Democratic Party. He is smart, articulate and confident enough to be able to answer their attacks on the spot, without hemming or hawing. People in media continually try to nail Newt with their “gotcha” questions — but they never succeed.
  • America’s survival is threatened not only by terrorism and rogue states outside our borders, but by two major enemies within: communism and radical Islam. Yet, no other candidate besides Newt even mentions Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers and George Soros. Newt is the only one who seems to recognize — or at least, will publicly say — that Obama is not a misguided incompetent with well-meaning intentions, but rather a Marxist radical who believes America is more evil than good, and who is committed to destroying the freedoms that have made America great. As for radical Islam, while Rick Santorum recognizes the threat from Iran, and is very knowledgeable on national security matters, only Newt recognizes — and openly talks aboutthe giant strides that sharia (Islamic law) has already made right here in the U.S., thanks to CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, MAS, MSA and the whole alphabet soup of Muslim Brotherhood-spawned groups that, despite proven connections to Hamas and other terror groups, are presented as legitimate “moderates” in our media and have infiltrated our government at high levels, including within the Department of Homeland Security.
  • We can look around and see the perfect storm of economic collapse, national-security threats and inflamed social passions that is converging on us. America is — whether or not we yet realize it — in as much danger now as Britain was in the spring of 1940. Almost too late, the British people finally recognized that Winston Churchill — whom they’d previously despised as “impulsive” and “arrogant,” whom they’d castigated for his “poor judgment” and “grandiose ideas” — was actually the best man, perhaps the only man, who could lead them through the crisis. I’m not saying Newt is Churchill — but having studied Churchill, I am struck by the remarkable parallels between the two. Just as Churchill saw who Hitler really was long before most of his countrymen woke up, Newt understands the dangers to America that many people have so far been unable or unwilling to see. Newt will help open their eyes — because, like Churchill, Newt has a gift for explaining things in ways people can understand. Just as importantly, Newt has the bulldog tenacity and unabashed can-do attitude that the nation needs in its leader if we are to make it through the tough times ahead. As we saw so clearly during the South Carolina debate — when standing ovations kept erupting as Newt spoke — Newt has, as Churchill did, the power to inspire.

Read Full Post »

Did you ever think you would see the day when the Virginia Military Institute would be celebrating jihad and the caliphate? Or when ROTC training would be partially in the hands of a foreign, Arab government? Such is life in the Twilight Zone that is the Age of Obama. From Big Peace:

Amid talk on Capitol Hill about defunding public broadcasting—and just after NPR was exposed as willing to take money from the Muslim Brotherhood—it turns out that a film produced by PBS already has. At 5:30 p.m. on March 23, a PBS-produced movie, Cities of Lightfunded by Arcapita, a shariah compliant bank supervised by a leading international supporter of jihad, Taqi Usmani—will be shown to America’s next generation of ROTC students and military leadership.

[Today], the [three-day] East Meets West conference celebrating the caliphate… [begins] at the Virginia Military Institute (VMI), known as America’s oldest state military school.

Cities of Light portrays Moorish Spain as an area of tolerance and mutual understanding. In actuality, the Muslim occupiers frequently persecuted people of other religions and made them pay a Jizyah, or tax to be levied on non-Muslims. [The film’s] donor, Arcapita, …is renowned for having Shariah bigshot Taqi Usmani on their Shariah advisory board. Usmani has explicitly advocated jihad against any non-Muslim state, even ones where Muslims are welcomed as equals and allowed to practice their religion without interference. [i.e., the United States of America!]

The Defense Department grant that funded this caliphate-celebrating conference at VMI is part of “Project GO” [Global Officers] — formerly the ROTC foreign language and culture program, but newly renamed by the Obama administration. But here’s the real shocker:  The Obama administration has delegated the management of Project GO to the International Institute of Education (IIE), a private entity that has as sponsors and partners several UAE entities including the Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum Foundation, an arm of the ruling dynasty of the United Arab Emirates. (Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum is the ruler of Dubai.) For all I know, al-Maktoum may personally be a nice guy, but in no case can it be a good thing that decision-making power over an important part of the training of ROTC students all over the U.S. has been partially delegated to the decision-makers of the United Arab Emirates!

As to VMI specifically, there’s also a Muslim Brotherhood connection. Several entities associated with the conference have supported CAIR, an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood.

In 2002 the Al-Maktoum foundation provided $978,031.34 in the form of a Deed of Trust for CAIR’s Washington, D.C. headquarters.  In 2006 UAE Minister of Finance Sheikh Hamdan bin Rashid Al Maktoum endorsed a proposal to build a property in the United States to serve as an endowment for CAIR.  And… another significant funder of that film [being shown today to our VMI cadets] was the Sabadia Family FoundationAccording to reports, the Sabadia Family Foundation was a major supporter of the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR). Over a 4-year period, the Foundation wrote $755,000 in grants to CAIR. And CAIR, according to the prosecution’s documents in the Holy Land Foundation trial, is associated with Hamas, a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Once again, the Obama administration has shown its first loyalty to be not to the U.S. armed forces that defend us from our enemies, but to those very enemies themselves.

Here’s the question:  Which of the several congressional committees who could claim oversight on these UAE-managed Defense Department ROTC Global Officer grants will investigate [how and why] taxpayers [have ended up] paying over half a million dollars for [VMI’s] celebration of jihad, the oppression of religious minorities and the Muslim Brotherhood?

Since they are Defense Department grants, sounds to me like this is a job for the Armed Services Committee, on which sits our champion, Allen West.

Please check here to see if your own Representative sits on this committee, and if so, contact him or her immediately!

Hat tip: Creeping Shariah

Read Full Post »

If you do one thing today to help save our country, please make it a phone call to your Congressperson to tell him/her to support Congressman Peter King’s hearings on homegrown Islamic terrorism in the U.S. and the radicalization of the U.S. Muslim community by jihadists and sharia promoters. (Congressional switchboard: 202-224-3121.) Or go to your congressman’s website, http://xxx.house.gov, where xxx is your representative’s last name, and email them a message.

Here’s a visual example of why these hearings are so necessary — a screenshot of the CAIR site taken in January 2011 (the image has since been taken down, under protest):

With people like CAIR encouraging Muslims to stonewall law enforcement, it’s no wonder that

[c]ops and federal agents agree with Rep. Pete King that they don’t get a lot of tipsters from the Muslim community – but they say that’s true of many other communities.

Counterterrorism and intelligence sources from the NYPD and FBI say law enforcement faces the same problem with the Mafia, drug cartels and the MS-13 gang. [Doesn’t it make you feel better about Muslim groups to hear them compared to…MS-13?!!]

“Criminals are criminals. It gets dicier because Muslim extremists wrap their work in religion, but the smokescreens, the silence and intimidation are similar,” an FBI source said.

“What’s different is the risk — the extent of the damage, the number of innocent people who can be hurt.”

King has outraged many Muslim-Americans by convening hearings into homegrown radical Islamists and claiming the community has stonewalled terror investigations.

If King is outraging people, he’s probably doing something right. But the pressures he must be facing are enormous. And for some reason — either ignorance, appeasement, or some combination of the two — King has assembled a line of witnesses that is rather disappointing. From Investors Business Daily:

The New York Republican [Peter King] blames the Council on American-Islamic Relations for creating a backlash against his hearings. Yet his Thursday curtain-raiser is bookended by witnesses who are staunch allies of CAIR, a group so shady the FBI director has blackballed it from outreach.

As House Homeland Security Committee chairman, King is giving a Muslim politician — Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn. — first turn at the witness-table mike. Ellison, who’s spoken at several CAIR fundraisers, has already tried to discredit the hearings as “a witch hunt.”

Worse, King gives the last word to someone who threatens to undermine his most explosive charge — that the Muslim community is not cooperating with law enforcement. That final witness, Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, claims Muslims have been “pivotal” in fighting terror.

“I don’t know what King is hearing,” said Baca, who’s also appeared at CAIR fundraisers. If he “has evidence of noncooperation, he should bring it forward.”

That will be tough: King has impaneled none of the “cops or FBI agents on the ground” who he insists have been telling him “every day” that Muslims are withholding information. Without them, Baca threatens to steal the headlines.

Baca made headlines last year on the Hill when he angrily defended CAIR against FBI charges it’s a terrorist front group. When a lawmaker pointed out that the Justice Department had designated CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror-financing case in U.S. history, Baca shot back: “CAIR is not a terrorist-supporting organization.”

CAIR’s L.A. chapter is listed on the sheriff’s website as a partner. Among other things, CAIR gives mandatory two-hour Islamic “sensitivity training” to new cadets at the sheriff’s academy. This is the same CAIR that recently posted a flyer on its own website urging Muslims to slam the door on FBI agents asking for information.

We’re told that the White House lobbied for testimony from Baca, who has decried what he calls “this constant uninformed chatter about religion being a factor in terrorism.” But why give him Day One billing?

….King’s staff [does highlight] other witnesses, including the uncle of a radicalized young Muslim who’ll testify his Minneapolis mosque instructed members not to cooperate with FBI investigators. While powerful, the public needs to also hear from law enforcement officials working such cases. (Interestingly, Ellison defended that same pro-jihad mosque.)

They have told the press that outreach to Muslim leaders more often than not proves a one-way street. About the only information investigators ever get involves complaints of “hate crimes,” not tips about jihadists.

“Many FBI officers have grown impatient with what they see as Muslim resistance,” the Washington Post reported in a front-page story published in 2007. “The Muslims are ‘in denial’ over the threat in their midst, one senior officer said, adding: ‘All they say is “There is no problem. Stop picking on us.”‘” Of course, homegrown Muslim terrorism is a major problem, with dozens more cases emerging since that article ran.

Islamist groups and leaders are shuddering over the prospect of King outing them on national TV. That’s why they’ve tried to shut down the hearings.

But their Democrat co-conspirators are running just as scared. The true nature and scope of the threat from radical Islam that they’ve worked so tirelessly to filter out from public view could finally break out into the open and make them look very bad.

King can’t cave to their demands. If he’s going to do this, he has to go all the way. That means producing witnesses who are authorities, not just citizens or activists, and can back up his charges with first-hand evidence.

Before we blame King for not “going all the way,” consider this from the New York Daily News story first cited in this post:

But even some anti-terrorism cops are worried that King’s push could backfire — by making moderate Muslims feel they are being scapegoated [thereby making them] more vulnerable to anti-American propaganda.

“When people hear ‘witch hunt,’ that can’t be good for us,” said an NYPD source.

King said he is aware he is treading on perilous ground and that an insensitive comment by a Homeland Security Committee member could be twisted into “official American policy” in jihadist propaganda.

Congressman King is doing his best to tread a razor-thin line not of his making. On one side, people such as the readers of this blog, who want him to do more — much more — to expose the terrifying extent to which shariah-promoters have infiltrated not only U.S. mosques, but our prison system, police forces, homeland security apparatus, military, universities, media, and local and national governments. On the other side, people — including in the federal government — from whom even mentioning the word “Islamic” in the same sentence as “terrorist” provokes raving hysteria. And indeed, King has been getting death threats from that side.

As anti-shariah patriots, though, we need to keep up the heat on Congressman King, while doing everything we can to support him in pressing forward into dangerous territory.

Along with calling your own Congressman, please keep Rep. Peter King and the other members and staff of his Homeland Security Committee in your prayers.

Read Full Post »

Seeing Allen West confront that CAIR guy with facts the other night reinforced for me how amazingly powerful the simple truth is. The Left is so rooted in a false ideology, and so accustomed to deceiving people in order to get their way, that they instinctively recoil from truth — including from plain, unadorned facts. It’s like a crucifix to a vampire. Like water on the Wicked Witch!

One of the reasons Allen West wows people is that, sad to say, it’s become so rare for politicians to stand on — and stand up for — the facts, that when Allen West does so, he really stands out from the crowd. (Of course, to stand on the facts, you have to know the facts, and too few people have taken the trouble to learn the facts about Islam. Methinks most of  ’em really don’t want to know, since, once you know, you have a responsibility to do something. And that’s where the courage part comes in — which Allen West also has in abundance.)

Seeing West’s refusal to be cowed by CAIR reminded me of someone else with the kind of chutzpah we conservatives need: Andrew Breitbart. After watching his speech in Madison, WI, last week, calling out the unions’ mischief, and his awesome, hilarious speech at CPAC, describing how much fun — yes, FUN — he has, going to leftists’ protests and deconstructing them on the spot, I was inspired to watch this video of Andrew in action, intimidating the intimidators by asking them to answer honest questions. (They couldn’t.)

This is how it’s done, folks.  Take it from Andrew Breitbart, Scourge Of Leftists! Watch ’em wither before his onslaught! Fighting fruitcakes can be fun! ( Also, as Breitbart shows here, and as Allen West showed the other night, defeating them is easier than we thought. Just the facts, folks, just the facts.)

Boy, do I love this guy. If you do, too, you’ll be happy to know: Andrew’s got a new book coming out!

Read Full Post »

Javier Manjarres of The Shark Tank blog received the 2011 “Blogger of the Year” award at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) a couple weeks ago. Manjarres is a Florida dude whose blog made a big difference in helping to get Allen West elected to the House of Representatives, as well as Marco Rubio to the Senate. I especially like Javier because he seems to share the philosophy of West to the West Wing that we need Allen West as our Commander in Chief, the sooner the better.

Well, today he ran a story that warmed the cockles of my heart: “West’s Decision to Run for President Not Up to Him, But His ‘Real Bosses.'”

Allen West for President!!!  Well, not so fast. Just last week, the Shark Tank opined that Allen West should be seriously considered for the Presidential ticket in 2012.  Subsequent to that op-ed piece was the confrontation that West had at a Pompano Beach townhall meeting with a CAIR official that is now a permanent part of Internet History.  Prior to that incident, a woman in the crowd asked Congressman West if he would run for President of the United States. West eloquently stated that “I have to prove myself, I have to prove myself as an statesman, as a capable legislator.” Congressman West then went on to explain how our country got into our current predicament:

“We got into this mess because we thought that leadership was about giving a very good teleprompted speech.”

West went on to say that he is focused on being the best congressman he can be, and that like anything else- like perhaps running for higher office- it would be up to God and his wife Angela, and West suggested that she ask her for an answer.  Being the intrepid finned reporter I am, I walked over to Angela and asked her if she would like to see Allen run for President in 2012.  Angela answered me, “Not right now, but…”

Ah, but the greatest Town Hall Moment — and it’s already gone viral — is the one below, which we also have courtesy of the Shark Tank.   Nezar Hamze — yes, that Nezar Hamze, the regional head of CAIR, who harassed West after a previous town hall (see here) — showed up, to harass him some more. But West wasn’t having any of it. Nobody intimidates Allen West — not even the Muslim Brotherhood (yes, CAIR is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, which has spawned most of the Sunni Muslim terrorist groups in the world today).  Hamze must be a glutton for punishment, because the history of Islam is its own condemnation, and Allen West knows that history backwards and forwards. Listen to how much the crowd appreciates an American standing up for America against Muslim “political correctness”!

Read Full Post »

Today is your day to weigh in. I hope that, no matter how shy you are, you will cast your vote on a question I will ask at the end of this post.

Two days ago, I posted a defense of Allen West against some “friendly fire” from the wonderful conservative columnist Diana West (no relation), who in turn was disappointed with Allen’s response to some criticism he’d gotten from a group of liberal religious leaders — you know, “Coexist” bumper sticker types. (Disclaimer: I don’t know if these particular individuals sport those on their cars — but to judge from the letter they sent Allen West, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised.)

As you may know, Allen West caught some flak for making critical comments about his fellow Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) in an interview a couple weeks ago. The “Coexist”ers rebuked Allen for being so critical of Islam and so uncivil toward a colleague. Allen responded to them with a letter containing some very harsh words about CAIR, an organization that Ellison has been very buddy-buddy with. West criticized Ellison’s involvement with CAIR, which he called one of those “organizations that masquerade as peaceful moderates” while having

long histories of supporting violent anti-American and anti-Israel terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood. These organizations operate within our borders, and as an elected official, I have the obligation to speak the truth and educate my constituency on the threat they pose. I spent 22 years protecting the United States in uniform and I will continue to do that in the House of Representatives.

The “Coexist” bunch was not mollified, to no one’s surprise.

However, the letter also disquieted some in the anti-Islam community — for very different reasons.  That’s because,  in the same letter, West also said (but notice the phrases I’ve boldfaced):

I am neither anti-Muslim nor anti-Islam. I respect every religion, and the right to practice that faith in a peaceful manner.

In a town hall meeting… Nezar Hamze, Executive Director of the South Florida chapter of [CAIR], asked me a question about my stance on Islam.

I told Mr. Hamze… that “I will always defend your right to practice a free religion under the First Amendment.” I want you to know that I will always support religious freedom practiced in a way that is peaceful for all Americans. Throughout my more than 22 year career in the U.S. Army and working for the government, including 43 months serving in the Middle East, I befriended many who practice the Islamic faith, and have known these people to be peaceful, patriotic Americans.

Let me be clear. It is the extremist, radical element that has hijacked Islam that presents a dangerous threat to both our country and our allies throughout the world. This radical jihadist movement has no place in the United States of America or anywhere on earth. I’ve seen firsthand the vicious hatred that stems from their radical interpretation of the Koran, and I condemn it fully.

[boldface mine]

After the comments about CAIR mentioned earlier, and some sober words about the grave dangers we face as shown by the 1998 embassy bombings, the U.S.S. Cole bombing and the 9/11 attacks, West ended the letter with this:

I certainly will take your concerns to heart, and hope that we can work together to continue to educate the American public on the importance of both understanding the threats we face, and exercising religious tolerance. It appears to me that you have the very same goals as I do — to keep our freedom intact and ensure that the foundations on which this country was founded are never jeopardized.

[boldface mine]

I emphasized certain phrases in the paragraphs above because those should be kept in mind as we look at the following, which is a critique of Congressman West’s letter by Ben, an anti-Islam activist who runs the blog Islam Exposed and is apparently a longtime Allen West fan. Yesterday, Ben posted a piece called “Why I Must Reject Rep. Allen West.”  Ben is not just disappointed, as Diana West was; Ben feels betrayed. Since I’m impressed with Ben’s knowledge of Islam, and his commitment to defeating it, I think he deserves to be heard. Here are his rebuttals of each of several phrases and sentences in West’s letter.

“I am neither anti-Muslim nor anti-lslam”

If any seeker or holder of high office is not against Islam, then I am against him.  Once you know what it is, you must be opposed to it if you have any morality.

“l respect every religion”

Islam is not a religion, it is a way of life: intra-species predation. Respect is given where respect is due, Islam is not owed any.

“practice that faith in a peaceful manner”

Islam’s faith component serves as a troop motivator and camouflage. It promises Muslims eternity in a celestial bordello if they wage jihad and threatens them with eternal torment in the fire if they refuse.  If it is a religion, it must be peaceful and beneficent.

War is a required part of Islam, ordained by 2:216. It is not like “cafeteria Catholicism” it is all or nothing: …”Then do you believe in a part of the Scripture and reject the rest? “…2:85Islamic law requires a minimum of one military expedition against disbelivers in every year, if it is not performed when possible, all who know of the obligation are in sin.

“right to practice a free religion”

Islam is slavery, not freedom. Believers are Allah’s slaves, purchased to fight his wars; 9:111. Is there a right to engage in world conquest?  In 8:39, Allah orders Muslims to fight until only Allah is worshiped, “alltogether and everywhere”.  3:110 tells Muslims that they are “the best of peoples”. Bukhari’s collection  of authentic hadith informs us that the expression means: “the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.”

Islamic law informs us that when women and children are captured by Muslims, “they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled”.

Is there a right to rape?  The hadith also inform us that Moe gave tacit approval to the practice of raping captives and the Noble Qur’an has seven references to “right hands possess“.

“religious freedom”

Religious freedom is for legitimate religions, not crime syndicates. Islam’s mission is mercenary and its method is martial.  Islam does not reciprocate, it demands a monopoly.


The Qur’an contains eight verses which prohibit friendship with disbelievers. Tafsir Ibn Kathir sheds some light on this issue in “The Prohibition of Supporting the Disbelievers“; “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.”

“radical element that has hijacked Islam”

Islam has not been hijacked, it is evil by design. Terrorism is not a modern innovation, it is a foundational sacrament in the core of Islam. I refer doubters and dissenters to a previous post: “What’s Wrong With Islam/Muslims?” for the disgusting details.

“their radical interpretation of the Koran”

The interpretation belongs to Islam’s founder; what he said and did while not engaged in revelation shows us how he interpreted what he revealed.  In the last decade of his life, [Muhammad] started a war on the average of every six weeks. A glance at the table of contents of The Life of Muhammad will tell you what you need to know about Islam.

These are good points, in my opinion.  But I’d like to close with a perspective from David Gaubatz, an incredibly brave man who went undercover with CAIR, and afterward, co-authored an exposé of what he’d found, titled Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America.  Gaubatz was also the first U.S. civilian Federal Agent deployed to Iraq in 2003. So Gaubatz probably hates radical Islam as much as anyone out there. But ponder his words in a FrontPageMag interview that was done when his book came out in 2009:

I owe my life to Muslims from Iraq who risked their lives for me and many Americans in 2003. The family of Mohammed Rehaief (Iraqi lawyer who rescued Private Jessica Lynch in Nasiriyah, Iraq) are examples of Muslims who truly represent the Islamic people. They saved my life on several occasions and I had the opportunity to rescue their family from Al Qaeda who had threatened their lives.

Further I have always advised all children are innocent and I (like many American troops) would have given my life for them in Iraq. During many of my lectures I have informed people they should not fear the Islamic people, but have every right to be an “Islamic Scholar Phobe”…. There are numerous Islamic scholars [and imams] in America who have openly called for the destruction of America and Israel.

So… what say you?

Has Allen West buckled under, like so many other politicians — has Washington already “gotten to him”?

Or is he simply “picking his battles” as his intellectual mentor Sun Tzu might advise — and being careful and clever in his choice of words, as I maintained here two days ago?

Please click on “Comment(s)” and tell us what you think!  (Comment anonymously if you wish.)

Read Full Post »

You knew – surely you knew, didn’t you? – when Allen West made those comments last week about Congressman Keith Ellison and Ellison’s Islamic faith, that there was bound to be a ruckus afterward. Well, sure enough, this week the shi’ite (or should I say the sunni?) hit the fan.

The first incident was on Monday night, when Allen West held his first town hall meeting back in his South Florida district since being sworn in as Congressman. This also happened to be one of the first congressional town halls in the country since the January 9 attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona. West is nothing if not a man of his word; he pledged after his election last fall that he would come home from Washington once a month and meet with his constituents, so that’s exactly what he did. (He did mention to reporters a few weeks ago that he does hold a concealed-carry license, and that, for his own protection, he might be packing heat at his town halls!)

The meeting, held at St. Mark’s Catholic School in Boynton Beach, attracted a standing-room-only crowd.

Congressman West began the meeting with a quick PowerPoint presentation representing the financial condition of the United States, then asked for those who had not voted for him to be the first to come to the microphone to ask questions and to see how he “can better serve you.”

…The first question from the crowd was from a college age girl bringing up the reason for West’s suspension as battalion commander for the 4th Infantry Division of the U.S. Army. West was suspended for using an unauthorized interrogation technique to help save the lives of his soldiers. Congressman West quickly responded that had she been one of the soldiers in his command today and the same situation arose, he would do the same thing to protect her life.

Oh, how I love the way this man refuses to backtrack, water down, dodge, sugarcoat or appease. But, wait, it gets even better.

Freshman Republican Congressman Allen West clashed with an advocate for Muslim-American civil rights at a sometimes-rowdy town hall meeting Monday night.

The tense exchange drew boos from [the] largely Republican crowd.

The confrontation came as West, an Iraq War veteran who was backed by the Tea Party in last November’s election, took questions from constituents. Nezar Hamze, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations [CAIR] in Miami, stepped to the microphone and accused West of making anti-Muslim comments in the past….

“I will always defend your right to practice a free religion under the First Amendment,” West said. “But what you must understand, if I am speaking the truth, I am not going to stop speaking the truth. The truth is not subjective,” he continued to loud applause.

West’s comments on Islam have stirred controversy in the past. He recently said Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minnesota, represents “the antithesis of the principles upon which this country was established.”

The new GOP congressman pulled no punches commenting on the political crisis in Egypt, drawing parallels between the chaos in that country and the 1979 revolution in Iran. West said the U.S. must stop the Egyptian militant group, the Muslim Brotherhood, from seizing power.

“President Carter, President Obama; Iran, Egypt; the Shah, Mubarak; the Ayatollah, the Muslim Brotherhood. It is a scary parallel. We cannot allow the Muslim Brotherhood to fill the void of leadership that can occur in Egypt,” West said.

The second incident was a letter signed by a gaggle of “national religious leaders” to Congressman West, calling on him

to apologize for saying that Muslim congressman Keith Ellison represents the ‘antithesis of the principles upon which this country was established.’

The letter — signed by the Interfaith Alliance’s Welton Gaddy, the Rabbinical Assembly’s Jack Moline, the Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism’s David Saperstein and the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty’s J. Brent Walker — chastises West for his comments about Ellison, and also criticizes his “tendency to offer intemperate comments about Islam….”

The Sun Sentinel reports:

In response, West said on Wednesday his comments on Ellison “are not about his Islamic faith but about [Ellison’s] continued support of CAIR….

“It is the extremist, radical element that has hijacked Islam that presents a dangerous threat to both our country and our allies throughout the world,” West said in a return letter. “This radical jihadist movement has no place in the United States of America or anywhere on earth.”

“The problem is, these fanatics are often supported by certain groups and organizations that masquerade as more peaceful moderates,” West wrote. “Organizations such as CAIR have long histories of supporting violent anti-American and anti-Israel terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood.”

West told the letter-writers he shares their goal to exercise and safeguard religious tolerance.

All the usual leftists and Muslim-appeasers are, predictably, howling about West’s response. No surprise there.

But, on the opposite end of the spectrum, some folks – including the wonderful anti-Islam stalwart Diana West (no relation), whom I regard very highly –  are taking West to task  for being too soft on Islam. They see his latest statements as the disappointing – in West’s case, heartbreaking – cave-in on Islam that, sadly, we have come to expect from everyone who goes to Washington. At Big Peace, she writes:

The political atmosphere is toxic. I am not talking about the “heat” of the rhetoric the media love to wring their hands over, particularly when conservatives are making winning arguments. I mean the political atmosphere is toxic to the truth. Facts. Statements of fact. Just as once upon a half-century-plus ago, you couldn’t talk about the communist conspiracy in America without a ton of media and elite bricks coming down on your head, today you can’t talk about Islam, its tenets, its historical record, stated goals and agent-organizations without a similar avalanche of criticism.

Once, communists and fellow travelers had control — in some cases literal, in others by dint of influence — of the talking space; now, the Muslim message dominates. Or, should I say, the Muslim Brotherhood message dominates. You may think the MB is that Islamic group predominantly behind the organization of the anti-Mubarak protests, but the organization is here, in the USA, too. Indeed, the leading Islamic organizations in the US are demonstrably proven to be linked to or even fronts for the Brotherhood even as they are also the very groups that the US government engages, strenuously, in that strength-sapping exercise of “Muslim outreach.” ISNA, CAIR, MSA, MAS, MPAC. NAIT …. The list of groups goes on, reflecting the massive web of Muslim Brotherhood concerns targeting our national debate, targeting our talking space — already drastically constricted due to what we short-hand as “political correctness” but which is in fact a tool of good, old-fashioned Marxist subversion. This richly interwoven web also targets individuals who stand up against the spread of Islamic law and cultural influence.

Among those so targeted by these various influences is Rep. Allen West (R-FL), who, as readers know, is a big favorite of mine. Yesterday, Congressman West issued a statement, I suppose, to make it all go away, or at least subside a little. It’s hard to operate with that ton of bricks on your head.

Diana West rightly cuts Keith Ellison, the catalyst of this latest fracas, no slack at all.

Keith Ellison… among other things, hit the Minnesota-Somali hustings (D-MI) in 2008 for Al Franken with one Abdullahi Ugas Farah, a Somali leader who… was  in 2003 one of two speakers presiding over the opening of a new sharia court in Mogadishu.

She goes on to say – again, quite rightly:

The extremist, radical element — jihad — has not “hijacked” innocent passenger Islam; such radicalism steers the plane — or, more to the point, charts the flight path. Would that the Congressman’s reply have noted instead that his comments were directed at the Islamic faith in jihad, in the Islamic intolerance, indeed, negation of other faiths, and that the respective holy men ought to consider engaging in some serious study of sharia, jihad and dhimmitude and joining this most vital debate — not suppressing it.

I share Diana West’s concern about the apparent “nuancing” in Allen West’s stand vis-a-vis Islam. In these statements, he doesn’t sound like the Allen West we’ve come to know in videos of his speeches and interviews that have gone viral on YouTube.

However, partly because I like to play “devil’s advocate,” and partly because I want to make sure that we judge him fairly, I think it’s important to point out a few things.

First of all, Allen West has repeatedly pledged to represent the people of his district to the best of his ability. That is a different constituency than those of us who made those YouTube videos go viral. It is much like the way Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger modulated in some ways once he became Pope Benedict XVI. Benedict did not do that to “appease” anyone, because, first, that’s not the kind of man he is, and second, popes don’t have to appease anyone. Rather, it was because he now has a completely different role, which calls for a slightly different style of communicating. No change in the rock-core truths, mind you, but perhaps a different way of trying to get them across to people. (Please note, I am not saying I agree with everything Benedict says, nor am I comparing Allen West to the pope! I’m just drawing what I hope is a useful analogy.)

If you study Allen West’s statement to the “religious leaders” carefully, and look at this exact wording, you have to admit the possibility that his views haven’t changed at all, but that he is just being very, very clever in his word choices. Most of his comments are  hard-hitting – certainly more hard-hitting than anything being said by any other person in office right now – but the main thing that I think is bothering Diana West and others, myself included, is that red-flag phrase, “hijacked Islam.”

You know, I know, and Allen West knows that Islam itself is indeed a sick ideology.

However, as long as Muslims kept to themselves – which in fact they mostly did for several centuries, after Western civilization thoroughly trounced them militarily, technologically and culturally – they were, with one exception (the Barbary pirates), not a problem to the United States. Although the Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928, and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, started fomenting genocide against the Jews in Palestine in that same era, these people were not a problem to the United States until Saudi Arabia got hijacked by Wahhabism – or, more precisely, made a Faustian bargain with the Wahhabis.

I would like to refer you to a very enlightening report issued by Freedom House’s Center for Religious Freedom, which is one of the most energetic fighters against the religious repression in Islamic countries. Freedom House is chaired by none other than James Woolsey, who has, among other things, collaborated with heavyweights Frank Gaffney and Andrew McCarthy on the landmark report I’m continually referencing on this blog, Shariah: The Threat to America.

The Freedom House report I want to recommend to you today is Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques. (Indeed, I wish I could make it required reading for everyone in Washington, since it paints a much more alarming picture of what is actually going on in American mosques than anyone in the public eye is admitting).

Woolsey’s foreword to the report includes some very interesting history. In 1979, two crucial events rocked the Islamic world: the radicals’ takeover in Iran and radical extremists’ temporary takeover of the great mosque in Mecca. This takeover of the Grand Mosque was a huge blow to the Saudi monarchy that I don’t think we Westerners can even comprehend, for that mosque, the one that contains the Ka’aba, is the “holiest site in Islam,” and it is the Saudi rulers who are charged with safeguarding it on behalf of all the planet’s Muslims.

As Woolsey explains, until those two events – the Iranian Revolution and the Grand Mosque takeover – our relations with the Saudis were generally smooth. Indeed, Woolsey talks about attending a dinner party in Saudi Arabia in 1978, a party where men and their wives – in Western dress, no less! – socialized  together, alcohol was consumed, and conversation was “informed” and “sophisticated.” In short, the kind of mundane event that is altogether unimaginable in Saudi Arabia today.

1979 changed everything.

The Saudis chose after the twin shocks of that year to strike a Faustian bargain with the Wahhabi sect and not only to accommodate their views about propriety, pious behavior, and Islamic law, but effectively to turn over education in the Kingdom to them and later to fund the expansion into Pakistan and elsewhere of their extreme, hostile, anti-modern, and anti-infidel form of Islam. The other side of the bargain was that if the Wahhabis would concentrate their attacks on, essentially, the U.S. and Israel, the Saudi elite would get a more-or-less free ride from the Wahhabis and the corruption within the Kingdom would be overlooked.

As a result, this Wahhabi sect, which would have been regarded as recently as fifty years ago as an austere, fringe group by a large majority of Muslims, is now extremely powerful and influential in the Muslim world due to Saudi government support and the oil wealth of the Arabian peninsula. Former Secretary of State George Shultz, not known for either a propensity for overstatement or for hostility to the Saudis, calls this deflection of Wahhabi anger toward us “a grotesque protection racket.”

Yes, we all know that radical Muslims “are doing exactly what this book [the Quran] says,” as Allen West put it in that famous video clip. But, before 1979, the vast majority of the world’s Muslims were not doing exactly what their “holy book” says.  It’s a bit like the phenomenon of Christians divorcing and remarrying despite Jesus’ clear commands to the contrary. Or like Catholics contracepting and aborting at the same rates as the rest of the population, despite 2,000 years of clear Church teaching that absolutely condemns those very things. (But that’s another story! Again, for now, I’m just trying to draw an analogy.)

My point is that people of any and every religion often find it convenient to ignore the teachings of their religion. And for a long, long time, most Muslims did. Things did happen along the way during the last 100 years that have altered the way that large numbers of the world’s Muslims think about and practice their religion.

Thus, in a certain sense, what Allen West said the other day is true. Until I have evidence to the contrary, I believe that Allen West’s views about Islam are the same as ever, and that, now that a national spotlight is being focused like a laser on him, he’s just being very, very careful and clever in his word choices.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: