The Ground Zero Mosque developers should have really taken the time to take Public Relations 101 in some college somewhere — before they tried to sell this Cordoba House idea (oh wait it’s called “Park51” now) to the American public.
Now that Imam Rauf has been exposed for the terror-loving stealth jihadist that he is, the strategists behind this sick charade have moved him to the side (because, we are told, he is going on a “tour”) and have replaced him as the poster boy for the jihadist victory mosque with Imam Abdullah Adhami.
And who, pray tell, is this new face of Islamic moderation and modernity?
Well, let’s see, as Pamela Geller broke this story on Friday, Adhami, like Rauf, thinks Sharia Law should replace the American Constitution. Lovely and heart-warming isn’t? Just the thought of amputations and stonings gets us all so warmed up and tingly. Better yet, guess who one of Adhami’s heroes is? Adolf Hitler? Idi Amin? Pol Pot? John Wayne Gacy? Ted Bundy? Jeffrey Dahmer? No, but close. It’s . . . .wait for it. . . . .it’s. . . .Imam Siraj Wahhaj!
That’s right, and if you want terror-adoring cheer, you don’t need to shop anywhere else!
Bill O’Reilly is clearly continuing his shameless and cowardly surrender to Sharia Law. Daily on his program, The O’Reilly Factor on FoxNews.com, he engages in the standard and phony obfuscations about the jihadi threat the West faces, consistently refusing to honestly name and label the Islamic foundations of the terrorist enterprise. Back in April 2010, he blatantly sided with our society’s dhimmis, blaming South Park for doing the Mohammed shows. Rather than praising Parker’s and Stone’s courage, standing up for their right to make any script they wished, and denouncing the despots who threatened their lives (and the tenets of the Islamic religion that sanction such threats), O’Reilly publicly promoted submitting to Sharia Law, thereby surrendering to the forces who killed filmmaker Theo van Gogh.
Now, this past Tuesday, on his July 13 program, O’Reilly hit a new low, making a grotesque statement about the millions of suffering persecuted Muslim women around the world. In a bizarre debate with Laura Ingraham about France’s move to ban the burqa, O’Reilly flippantly jokes about a tragic and deadly reality in which any serious, sensitive person would find nothing laughable.
Faiza Ali, of the New York chapter of CAIR, has declared that Muslims can freely leave Islam without anything to worry about. Islam, she says, does not practice coercion and preaches that forced faith is not true belief. She has made this assertion in her criticism of Pamela Geller’s “Leaving Islam” ad campaign on city buses. The campaign is aimed at helping Muslims, like Rifqa Bary, who are fearful of leaving their religion due to Islam’s death penalty for apostasy.
Hmmm if Faiza is right, I wonder what this poor family’s trouble is all about.
I have an idea, let’s start a fund to send Faiza Ali to Iran, and then to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Comedy Central, as we by now are well familiar, censored images and references to Muhammad in the latest episode of South Park. One would think that in our free society, our leaders, media and citizens would collectively stand together and defend South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Unfortunately, the situation is the reverse; the L.A. Times’ coverage of the Muslim death threats made to Parker and Stone perfectly manifests our media’s and culture’s disposition: the report does not back free speech nor denounce the censorship of the show, let alone the death threats or the Islamic theology on which they are based.
In this context, major props have to go out to Jon Stewart for backing Parker and Stone and for standing up for free speech in America. For courageously turning his back on the lib-Left’s agenda of overseeing the West’s surrender to Sharia Law, he is a true Patriot.
I have been cringing observing the debate between several NewsReal bloggers and John R. Guardiano about the existence — or lack thereof — of a “moderate Islam.” Once again, no matter what evidence and arguments are presented to the “there is a moderate Islam” proponent, it’s all useless, as they just go back to the same mantras they regurgitate over and over again, not absorbing anything that was just said to them.
When Robert Spencer entered the battle, it was clearly the end. He sliced, as always, through all the BS and presented the irrefutable case that there is no such thing as a moderate Islam. And now, lo and behold, Guardiano counters by saying he will deal with Spencer’s arguments later but then, suddenly, he goes back to mantras that show that, once again, he has not digested anything that has just been said to him. Anyone who reads Spencer’s post and gets the facts straight, cannot possibly, with good conscience or sound mind, write what Guardino writes in his latest post.
This is why I urge Spencer: for your own time, sanity and energy, please do not continue with this, as no matter what you will say again after this round, Guardiano will again return to his repetitions, as if you had never spoken.
Mr. Guardiano, in your latest post, in the second to last paragraph, you reveal that you have entered a dialogue about a subject that you do not understand and the main essence of which completely eludes you.
Wow, according to Fox News, Janet Napolitano just described what happened at Fort Hood as “violent Islamic extremism.”
This is quite a step. How long did it take her to figure this one out?
It must be hard, after all, when you’re a person who heads Homeland Security but who has no idea who the 9/11 hijackers were – and thinks that they came from Canada. It’s really difficult when your first instinct after Abdulmutallab almost blew himself up on Northwest Airlines Flight 253, is to say that the airport security “system worked.”
Hmmm, I wonder if Napolitano will now confirm that thirteen American heroes lost their lives at Fort Hood precisely because of people like her, who have created a culture where naming Islamic extremism and crystallizing its roots is disallowed? Major Nidal Malik Hasan would have been thrown out of the army a long time before his shooting spree if members of the army were not afraid to get in trouble for violating “diversity” and felt safe to point a finger at a Muslim who was preaching hate and violence against non-Muslims.
In Turkey just recently, a father and grandfather repeatedly beat Medine Memi, a sixteen-year-old girl, for the crime of talking (allegedly) to boys. The police weren’t interested. The beatings were eventually deemed insufficient punishment for Medine for the temerity of having her own human agency, so the father and grandfather killed her by burying her while she was “alive and fully conscious.”
My dear friend and courageous freedom fighter Phyllis Chesler has written about this barbaric murder and described it as a “savage, heartless, primitive act” that “is the ultimate, logical consequence of burying women alive—shrouding them–while they still roam the earth. One becomes claustrophobic under the burqa, until one gets used to being seen as a ghost, invisible, non-human, dead.” read more…
The New York Times has an extensive profile of the American jihadist Omar Hammami, a.k.a. Abu Mansoor Al-Amriki, detailing his odyssey from being a middle-class American boy in Alabama to a hateful jihadist in Somalia. We are told that Omar dropped out of college because, as he had himself explained, he “could no longer bear to be in the company of women.”
Hmmmmmm. I wonder why that would be?
The mainstream media has, with its typical slick expertise, succeeded in avoiding yet another crucial phenomenon that explains what caused the terror attempt on Flight 253.
It keeps mentioning, in passing, how Abdulmutallab was “lonely,” but it never honestly explores why he was lonely.
In his 300 postings under the name “farouk1986″ in an online forum, the 23-year-old Nigerian boy frequently complained about his loneliness and about how he had “never found a true Muslim friend.”
Question: Could Abdulmutallab’s loneliness have had something to do with his limiting his social life because of the Qur’an’s mandate to Muslims that they never make friends with infidels? (5:51) One needs to have a little distance, it appears, before getting in the mood, and following the instruction, to slaughter them. (9:5, 9:29)
In an ideal world, Abdul Mutallab would be getting waterboarded right about now. I would volunteer to do the honors if no one was really up for it.
We know that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al-Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed – which included waterboarding – forced KSM to give up crucial information that prevented countless terrorist attacks and saved an infinite amount of innocent lives. It allowed, for instance, the U.S. to capture key al- Qaeda terrorists and to thwart a planned 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles.
On yesterdayâ€™s Oâ€™Reilly Factor, Oâ€™Reilly had a profound discussion about the Fort Hood massacre with Bernie Goldberg, author of the new book, A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media. Goldberg is always superb and this time he narrowed in wisely on the pathologies that the Fort Hood massacre has exposed: the political correctness nurtured by the Left in our society and the disinclination of so-called â€œmoderateâ€ Muslims to stand up in mass numbers and denounce the likes of Nidal Malik Hasan.
In making his point, Goldberg shrewdly asked when we are going to see a Million Muslim March take place in Washington â€“ in which a million Muslims gather to denounce terror and declare that what Nidal Malik Hasan did was un-Islamic.
Goldbergâ€™s point is crucial, but we need to add to it. The key that is often missed in our nationâ€™s discussion on Islamic terrorism is that this is not necessarily about Muslims themselves. As the scholar Robert Spencer has stressed over and over again, the problem is not Muslims, the problem is Islam â€“ in the sense that the problem is what Islam teaches. So the crucial issue in all of this is not what this Muslim may think or that Muslim may think. Itâ€™s not about these empty arguments about whether the majority or minority of Muslims are peaceful or not. The issue is what Islamic theology mandates.