LONG BUT VERY IMPORTANT ARTICLE: An Anatomy of Surrender: Westerners are acquiescing to creeping sharia.

Bruce Bawer
An Anatomy of Surrender
Motivated by fear and multiculturalism, too many Westerners are acquiescing to creeping sharia.
Spring 2008

Islam divides the world into two parts. The part governed by sharia, or Islamic law, is called the Dar al-Islam, or House of Submission. Everything else is the Dar al-Harb, or House of War, so called because it will take war—holy war, jihad—to bring it into the House of Submission. Over the centuries, this jihad has taken a variety of forms. Two centuries ago, for instance, Muslim pirates from North Africa captured ships and enslaved their crews, leading the U.S. to fight the Barbary Wars of 1801–05 and 1815. In recent decades, the jihadists’ weapon of choice has usually been the terrorist’s bomb; the use of planes as missiles on 9/11 was a variant of this method.

What has not been widely recognized is that the Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1989 fatwa against Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie introduced a new kind of jihad. Instead of assaulting Western ships or buildings, Kho­meini took aim at a fundamental Western freedom: freedom of speech. In recent years, other Islamists have joined this crusade, seeking to undermine Western societies’ basic liberties and extend sharia within those societies.

The cultural jihadists have enjoyed disturbing success. Two events in particular—the 2004 assassination in Amsterdam of Theo van Gogh in retaliation for his film about Islam’s oppression of women, and the global wave of riots, murders, and vandalism that followed a Danish newspaper’s 2005 publication of cartoons satirizing Mohammed—have had a massive ripple effect throughout the West. Motivated variously, and doubtless sometimes simultaneously, by fear, misguided sympathy, and multicultural ideology—which teaches us to belittle our freedoms and to genuflect to non-Western cultures, however repressive—people at every level of Western society, but especially elites, have allowed concerns about what fundamentalist Muslims will feel, think, or do to influence their actions and expressions. These Westerners have begun, in other words, to internalize the strictures of sharia, and thus implicitly to accept the deferential status of dhimmis—infidels living in Muslim societies.

Call it a cultural surrender. The House of War is slowly—or not so slowly, in Europe’s case—being absorbed into the House of Submission.

The Western media are in the driver’s seat on this road to sharia. Often their approach is to argue that we’re the bad guys. After the late Dutch sociologist-turned-politician Pim Fortuyn sounded the alarm about the danger that Europe’s Islamization posed to democracy, elite journalists labeled him a threat. A New York Times headline described him as marching the dutch to the right. Dutch newspapers Het Parool and De Volkskrant compared him with Mussolini; Trouw likened him to Hitler. The man (a multiculturalist, not a Muslim) who murdered him in May 2002 seemed to echo such verdicts when explaining his motive: Fortuyn’s views on Islam, the killer insisted, were “dangerous.”

Perhaps no Western media outlet has exhibited this habit of moral inversion more regularly than the BBC. In 2006, to take a typical example, Manchester’s top imam told psychotherapist John Casson that he supported the death penalty for homosexuality. Casson expressed shock—and the BBC, in a dispatch headlined imam accused of “gay death” slur, spun the controversy as an effort by Casson to discredit Islam. The BBC concluded its story with comments from an Islamic Human Rights Commission spokesman, who equated Muslim attitudes toward homosexuality with those of “other orthodox religions, such as Catholicism” and complained that focusing on the issue was “part of demonizing Muslims.”

In June 2005, the BBC aired the documentary Don’t Panic, I’m Islamic, which sought to portray concerns about Islamic radicalism as overblown. This “stunning whitewash of radical Islam,” as Little Green Footballs blogger Charles Johnson put it, “helped keep the British public fast asleep, a few weeks before the bombs went off in London subways and buses” in July 2005. In December 2007, it emerged that five of the documentary’s subjects, served up on the show as examples of innocuous Muslims-next-door, had been charged in those terrorist attacks—and that BBC producers, though aware of their involvement after the attacks took place, had not reported important information about them to the police.

Press acquiescence to Muslim demands and threats is endemic. When the Mohammed cartoons—published in September 2005 by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten to defy rising self-censorship after van Gogh’s murder—were answered by worldwide violence, only one major American newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, joined such European dailies as Die Welt and El País in reprinting them as a gesture of free-speech solidarity. Editors who refused to run the images claimed that their motive was multicultural respect for Islam. Critic Christopher Hitchens believed otherwise, writing that he “knew quite a number of the editors concerned and can say for a certainty that the chief motive for ‘restraint’ was simple fear.” Exemplifying the new dhimmitude, whatever its motivation, was Norway’s leading cartoonist, Finn Graff, who had often depicted Israelis as Nazis, but who now vowed not to draw anything that might provoke Muslim wrath. (On a positive note, this February, over a dozen Danish newspapers, joined by a number of other papers around the world, reprinted one of the original cartoons as a free-speech gesture after the arrest of three people accused of plotting to kill the artist.)

Last year brought another cartoon crisis—this time over Swedish artist Lars Vilks’s drawings of Mohammed as a dog, which ambassadors from Muslim countries used as an excuse to demand speech limits in Sweden. CNN reporter Paula Newton suggested that perhaps “Vilks should have known better” because of the Jyllands-Posten incident—as if people who make art should naturally take their marching orders from people who make death threats. Meanwhile, The Economist depicted Vilks as an eccentric who shouldn’t be taken “too seriously” and noted approvingly that Sweden’s prime minister, unlike Denmark’s, invited the ambassadors “in for a chat.”

The elite media regularly underreport fundamentalist Muslim misbehavior or obfuscate its true nature. After the knighting of Rushdie in 2007 unleashed yet another wave of international Islamist mayhem, Tim Rutten wrote in the Los Angeles Times: “If you’re wondering why you haven’t been able to follow all the columns and editorials in the American press denouncing all this homicidal nonsense, it’s because there haven’t been any.” Or consider the riots that gripped immigrant suburbs in France in the autumn of 2005. These uprisings were largely assertions of Muslim authority over Muslim neighborhoods, and thus clearly jihadist in character. Yet weeks passed before many American press outlets mentioned them—and when they did, they de-emphasized the rioters’ Muslim identity (few cited the cries of “Allahu akbar,” for instance). Instead, they described the violence as an outburst of frustration over economic injustice.

When polls and studies of Muslims appear, the media often spin the results absurdly or drop them down the memory hole after a single news cycle. Journalists celebrated the results of a 2007 Pew poll showing that 80 percent of American Muslims aged 18 to 29 said that they opposed suicide bombing—even though the flip side, and the real story, was that a double-digit percentage of young American Muslims admitted that they supported it. u.s. muslims assimilated, opposed to extremism, the Washington Post rejoiced, echoing USA Today’s american muslims reject extremes. A 2006 Daily Telegraph survey showed that 40 percent of British Muslims wanted sharia in Britain—yet British reporters often write as though only a minuscule minority embraced such views.

After each major terrorist act since 9/11, the press has dutifully published stories about Western Muslims fearing an “anti-Muslim backlash”—thus neatly shifting the focus from Islamists’ real acts of violence to non-Muslims’ imaginary ones. (These backlashes, of course, never materialize.) While books by Islam experts like Bat Ye’or and Robert Spencer, who tell difficult truths about jihad and sharia, go unreviewed in newspapers like the New York Times, the elite press legitimizes thinkers like Karen Armstrong and John Esposito, whose sugarcoated representations of Islam should have been discredited for all time by 9/11. The Times described Armstrong’s hagiography of Mohammed as “a good place to start” learning about Islam; in July 2007, the Washington Post headlined a piece by Esposito want to understand islam? start here.

Mainstream outlets have also served up anodyne portraits of fundamentalist Muslim life. Witness Andrea Elliott’s affectionate three-part profile of a Brooklyn imam, which appeared in the New York Times in March 2006. Elliott and the Times sought to portray Reda Shata as a heroic bridge builder between two cultures, leaving readers with the comforting belief that the growth of Islam in America was not only harmless but positive, even beautiful. Though it emerged in passing that Shata didn’t speak English, refused to shake women’s hands, wanted to forbid music, and supported Hamas and suicide bombing, Elliott did her best to downplay such unpleasant details; instead, she focused on sympathetic personal particulars. “Islam came to him softly, in the rhythms of his grandmother’s voice”; “Mr. Shata discovered love 15 years ago. . . . ‘She entered my heart,‘ said the imam.” Elliott’s saccharine piece won a Pulitzer Prize. When Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes pointed out that Shata was obviously an Islamist, a writer for the Columbia Journalism Review dismissed Pipes as “right-wing” and insisted that Shata was “very moderate.”

So it goes in this upside-down, not-so-brave new media world: those who, if given the power, would subjugate infidels, oppress women, and execute apostates and homosexuals are “moderate” (a moderate, these days, apparently being anybody who doesn’t have explosives strapped to his body), while those who dare to call a spade a spade are “Islamophobes.”

The entertainment industry has been nearly as appalling. During World War II, Hollywood churned out scores of films that served the war effort, but today’s movies and TV shows, with very few exceptions, either tiptoe around Islam or whitewash it. In the whitewash category were two sitcoms that debuted in 2007, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s Little Mosque on the Prairie and CW’s Aliens in America. Both shows are about Muslims confronting anti-Muslim bigotry; both take it for granted that there’s no fundamentalist Islam problem in the West, but only an anti-Islam problem.

Muslim pressure groups have actively tried to keep movies and TV shows from portraying Islam as anything but a Religion of Peace. For example, the Council for American-Islamic Relations successfully lobbied Paramount Pictures to change the bad guys in The Sum of All Fears (2002) from Islamist terrorists to neo-Nazis, while Fox’s popular series 24, after Muslims complained about a story line depicting Islamic terrorists, ran cringe-worthy public-service announcements emphasizing how nonviolent Islam was. Earlier this year, Iranian-Danish actor Farshad Kholghi noted that, despite the cartoon controversy’s overwhelming impact on Denmark, “not a single movie has been made about the crisis, not a single play, not a single stand-up monologue.” Which, of course, is exactly what the cartoon jihadists wanted.

In April 2006, an episode of the animated series South Park admirably mocked the wave of self-censorship that followed the Jyllands-Posten crisis—but Comedy Central censored it, replacing an image of Mohammed with a black screen and an explanatory notice. According to series producer Anne Garefino, network executives frankly admitted that they were acting out of fear. “We were happy,” she told an interviewer, “that they didn’t try to claim that it was because of religious tolerance.”

Then there’s the art world. Postmodern artists who have always striven to shock and offend now maintain piously that Islam deserves “respect.” Museums and galleries have quietly taken down paintings that might upset Muslims and have put into storage manuscripts featuring images of Mohammed. London’s Whitechapel Art Gallery removed life-size nude dolls by surrealist artist Hans Bellmer from a 2006 exhibit just before its opening; the official excuse was “space constraints,” but the curator admitted that the real reason was fear that the nudity might offend the gallery’s Muslim neighbors. Last November, after the cancellation of a show in The Hague of artworks depicting gay men in Mohammed masks, the artist, Sooreh Hera, charged the museum with giving in to Muslim threats. Tim Marlow of London’s White Cube Gallery notes that such self-censorship by artists and museums is now common, though “very few people have explicitly admitted” it. British artist Grayson Perry, whose work has mercilessly mocked Christianity, is one who has—and his reluctance isn’t about multicultural sensitivity. “The reason I haven’t gone all out attacking Islamism in my art,” he told the Times of London, “is because I feel real fear that someone will slit my throat.”

Leading liberal intellectuals and academics have shown a striking willingness to betray liberal values when it comes to pacifying Muslims. Back in 2001, Unni Wikan, a distinguished Norwegian cultural anthropologist and Islam expert, responded to the high rate of Muslim-on-infidel rape in Oslo by exhorting women to “realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.”

More recently, high-profile Europe experts Ian Buruma of Bard College and Timothy Garton Ash of Oxford, while furiously denying that they advocate cultural surrender, have embraced “accommodation,” which sounds like a distinction without a difference. In his book Murder in Amsterdam, Buruma approvingly quotes Amsterdam mayor Job Cohen’s call for “accommodation with the Muslims,” including those “who consciously discriminate against their women.” Sharia enshrines a Muslim man’s right to beat and rape his wife, to force marriages on his daughters, and to kill them if they resist. One wonders what female Muslims who immigrated to Europe to escape such barbarity think of this prescription.

Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury and one of Britain’s best-known public intellectuals, suggested in February the institution of a parallel system of sharia law in Britain. Since the Islamic Sharia Council already adjudicates Muslim marriages and divorces in the U.K., what Williams was proposing was, as he put it, “a much enhanced and quite sophisticated version of such a body, with increased resources.” Gratifyingly, his proposal, short on specifics and long on academic doublespeak (“I don’t think,” he told the BBC, “that we should instantly spring to the conclusion that the whole of that world of jurisprudence and practice is somehow monstrously incompatible with human rights, simply because it doesn’t immediately fit with how we understand it”) was greeted with public outrage.

Another prominent accommodationist is humanities professor Mark Lilla of Columbia University, author of an August 2007 essay in the New York Times Magazine so long and languorous, and written with such perfect academic dispassion, that many readers may have finished it without realizing that it charted a path leading straight to sharia. Muslims’ “full reconciliation with modern liberal democracy cannot be expected,” Lilla wrote. For the West, “coping is the order of the day, not defending high principle.”

Revealing in this light is Buruma’s and Garton Ash’s treatment of author Ayaan Hirsi Ali—perhaps the greatest living champion of Western freedom in the face of creeping jihad—and of the Europe-based Muslim scholar Tariq Ramadan. Because Hirsi Ali refuses to compromise on liberty, Garton Ash has called her a “simplistic . . . Enlightenment fundamentalist”—thus implicitly equating her with the Muslim fundamentalists who have threatened to kill her—while Buruma, in several New York Times pieces, has portrayed her as a petulant naif. (Both men have lately backed off somewhat.) On the other hand, the professors have rhapsodized over Ramadan’s supposed brilliance. They aren’t alone: though he’s clearly not the Westernized, urbane intellectual he seems to be—he refuses to condemn the stoning of adulteresses and clearly looks forward to a Europe under sharia—this grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna and protégé of Islamist scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi regularly wins praise in bien-pensant circles as representing the best hope for long-term concord between Western Muslims and non-Muslims.

This spring, Harvard law professor Noah Feldman, writing in the New York Times Magazine, actually gave two cheers for sharia. He contrasted it favorably with English common law, and described “the Islamists’ aspiration to renew old ideas of the rule of law” as “bold and noble.”

With the press, the entertainment industry, and prominent liberal thinkers all refusing to defend basic Western liberties, it’s not surprising that our political leaders have been pusillanimous, too. After a tiny Oslo newspaper, Magazinet, reprinted the Danish cartoons in early 2006, jihadists burned Norwegian flags and set fire to Norway’s embassy in Syria. Instead of standing up to the vandals, Norwegian leaders turned on Magazinet’s editor, Vebjørn Selbekk, partially blaming him for the embassy burning and pressing him to apologize. He finally gave way at a government-sponsored press conference, groveling before an assemblage of imams whose leader publicly forgave him and placed him under his protection. On that terrible day, Selbekk later acknowledged, “Norway went a long way toward allowing freedom of speech to become the Islamists’ hostage.” As if that capitulation weren’t disgrace enough, an official Norwegian delegation then traveled to Qatar and implored Qaradawi—a defender of suicide bombers and the murder of Jewish children—to accept Selbekk’s apology. “To meet Yusuf al-Qaradawi under the present circumstances,” Norwegian-Iraqi writer Walid al-Kubaisi protested, was “tantamount to granting extreme Islamists . . . a right of joint consultation regarding how Norway should be governed.”

The UN’s position on the question of speech versus “respect” for Islam was clear—and utterly at odds with its founding value of promoting human rights. “You don’t joke about other people’s religion,” Kofi Annan lectured soon after the Magazinet incident, echoing the sermons of innumerable imams, “and you must respect what is holy for other people.” In October 2006, at a UN panel discussion called “Cartooning for Peace,” Under Secretary General Shashi Tharoor proposed drawing “a very thin blue UN line . . . between freedom and responsibility.” (Americans might be forgiven for wondering whether that line would strike through the First Amendment.) And in 2007, the UN’s Human Rights Council passed a Pakistani motion prohibiting defamation of religion.

Other Western government leaders have promoted the expansion of the Dar al-Islam. In September 2006, when philosophy teacher Robert Redeker went into hiding after receiving death threats over a Le Figaro op-ed on Islam, France’s then–prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, commented that “everyone has the right to express their opinions freely—at the same time that they respect others, of course.” The lesson of the Redeker affair, he said, was “how vigilant we must be to ensure that people fully respect one another in our society.” Villepin got a run for his money last year from his Swedish counterpart, Fredrik Reinfeldt, who, after meeting with Muslim ambassadors to discuss the Vilks cartoons, won praise from one of them, Algeria’s Merzak Bedjaoui, for his “spirit of appeasement.”

When, years after September 11, President George W. Bush finally acknowledged publicly that the West was at war with Islamic fascism, Muslims’ and multiculturalists’ furious reaction made him retreat to the empty term “war on terror.” Britain’s Foreign Office has since deemed even that phrase offensive and banned its use by cabinet members (along with “Islamic extremism”). In January, the Home Office decided that Islamic terrorism would henceforth be described as “anti-Islamic activity.”

Western legislatures and courts have reinforced the “spirit of appeasement.” In 2005, Norway’s parliament, with virtually no public discussion or media coverage, criminalized religious insults (and placed the burden of proof on the defendant). Last year, that country’s most celebrated lawyer, Tor Erling Staff, argued that the punishment for honor killing should be less than for other murders, because it’s arrogant for us to expect Muslim men to conform to our society’s norms. Also in 2007, in one of several instances in which magistrates sworn to uphold German law have followed sharia instead, a Frankfurt judge rejected a Muslim woman’s request for a quick divorce from her brutally abusive husband; after all, under the Koran he had the right to beat her.

Those who dare to defy the West’s new sharia-based strictures and speak their minds now risk prosecution in some countries. In 2006, legendary author Oriana Fallaci, dying of cancer, went on trial in Italy for slurring Islam; three years earlier, she had defended herself in a French court against a similar charge. (Fallaci was ultimately found not guilty in both cases.) More recently, Canadian provinces ordered publisher Ezra Levant and journalist Mark Steyn to face human rights tribunals, the former for reprinting the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, the latter for writing critically about Islam in Maclean’s.

Even as Western authorities have hassled Islam’s critics, they’ve honored jihadists and their supporters. In 2005, Queen Elizabeth knighted Iqbal Sacranie of the Muslim Council of Britain, a man who had called for the death of Salman Rushdie. Also that year, London mayor Ken Livingstone ludicrously praised Qaradawi as “progressive”—and, in response to gay activists who pointed out that Qaradawi had defended the death penalty for homosexuals, issued a dissertation-length dossier whitewashing the Sunni scholar and trying to blacken the activists’ reputations. Of all the West’s leaders, however, few can hold a candle to Piet Hein Donner, who in 2006, as Dutch minister of justice, said that if voters wanted to bring sharia to the Netherlands—where Muslims will soon be a majority in major cities—“it would be a disgrace to say, ‘This is not permitted!’ ”

If you don’t find the dhimmification of politicians shocking, consider the degree to which law enforcement officers have yielded to Islamist pressure. Last year, when “Undercover Mosque,” an unusually frank exposé on Britain’s Channel 4, showed “moderate” Muslim preachers calling for the beating of wives and daughters and the murder of gays and apostates, police leaped into action—reporting the station to the government communications authority, Ofcom, for stirring up racial hatred. (Ofcom, to its credit, rejected the complaint.) The police reaction, as James Forsyth noted in the Spectator, “revealed a mindset that views the exposure of a problem as more of a problem than the problem itself.” Only days after the “Undercover Mosque” broadcast—in a colossal mark of indifference to the reality that it exposed—Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir Ian Blair announced plans to share antiterrorist intelligence with Muslim community leaders. These plans, fortunately, were later shelved.

Canadian Muslim reformist Irshad Manji has noted that in 2006, when 17 terrorists were arrested in Toronto on the verge of giving Canada “its own 9/11,” “the police did not mention that it had anything to do with Islam or Muslims, not a word.” When, after van Gogh’s murder, a Rotterdam artist drew a street mural featuring an angel and the words thou shalt not kill, police, fearing Muslim displeasure, destroyed the mural (and a videotape of its destruction). In July 2007, a planned TV appeal by British cops to help capture a Muslim rapist was canceled to avoid “racist backlash.” And in August, the Times of London reported that “Asian” men (British code for “Muslims”) in the U.K. were having sex with perhaps hundreds of “white girls as young as twelve”—but that authorities wouldn’t take action for fear of “upsetting race relations.” Typically, neither the Times nor government officials acknowledged that the “Asian” men’s contempt for the “white” girls was a matter not of race but of religion.

Even military leaders aren’t immune. In 2005, columnist Diana West noted that America’s Iraq commander, Lieutenant General John R. Vines, was educating his staff in Islam by giving them a reading list that “whitewashes jihad, dhimmitude and sharia law with the works of Karen Armstrong and John Esposito”; two years later, West noted the unwillingness of a counterinsurgency advisor, Lieutenant Colonel David Kilcullen, to mention jihad. In January 2008, the Pentagon fired Stephen Coughlin, its resident expert on sharia and jihad; reportedly, his acknowledgment that terrorism was motivated by jihad had antagonized an influential Muslim aide. “That Coughlin’s analyses would even be considered ‘controversial,’ ” wrote Andrew Bostom, editor of The Legacy of Jihad, “is pathognomonic of the intellectual and moral rot plaguing our efforts to combat global terrorism.” (Perhaps owing to public outcry, officials announced in February that Coughlin would not be dismissed after all, but instead moved to another Department of Defense position.)

Enough. We need to recognize that the cultural jihadists hate our freedoms because those freedoms defy sharia, which they’re determined to impose on us. So far, they have been far less successful at rolling back freedom of speech and other liberties in the U.S. than in Europe, thanks in no small part to the First Amendment. Yet America is proving increasingly susceptible to their pressures.

The key question for Westerners is: Do we love our freedoms as much as they hate them? Many free people, alas, have become so accustomed to freedom, and to the comfortable position of not having to stand up for it, that they’re incapable of defending it when it’s imperiled—or even, in many cases, of recognizing that it is imperiled. As for Muslims living in the West, surveys suggest that many of them, though not actively involved in jihad, are prepared to look on passively—and some, approvingly—while their coreligionists drag the Western world into the House of Submission.

But we certainly can’t expect them to take a stand for liberty if we don’t stand up for it ourselves.

Bruce Bawer is the author of While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within. He blogs at BruceBawer.com.

 

 

 

LOUIS FARRAKHAN Supports Obama Read This It Will Frighten You

http://www.DiscoverTheNetwork.org Date: 2/25/2008 11:23:19 AM
LOUIS FARRAKHAN
 
<!– Individual Profile:
–>

  • Leader of the Nation of Islam
  • Orchestrated the 1995 “Million Man March”
  • Renowned for his hatred of whites and Jews

Addressing a crowd of some 20,000 people at the Nation of Islam’s annual Saviours’ Day celebration, Louis Farrakhan said Sunday that presidential candidate Barack Obama represents the “hope of the entire world” that the United States will become a better neighbor to other nations. “This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better,” he said. “This young man is capturing audiences of black and brown and red and yellow. If you look at Barack Obama’s audiences and look at the effect of his words, those people are being transformed.”Farrakhan likened Obama to NOI founder Fard Muhammad, who also, like Obama, had a white mother and black father. “A black man with a white mother became a savior to us,” said Farrakhan. “A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall.”

The current leader of the Nation of Islam (NOI), Louis Farrakhan was born Louis Eugene Walcott on May 11, 1933 in Roxbury, Massachusetts. As a young man in Boston, he became a popular entertainer as a calypso singer, dancer, and violinist. While in Chicago in February 1955, he was invited by a friend to attend a Nation of Islam Saviours’ Day Convention at a local mosque. Soon thereafter Farrakhan joined NOI.

In the 1960s Farrakhan developed a strong enmity toward fellow NOI member Malcolm X, who backed a more moderate vision of black civil rights than did Farrakhan. When Malcolm in 1964 publicly revealed that NOI leader Elijah Muhammad had impregnated several of his teenage secretaries, Farrakhan, outraged at what he perceived to be Malcolm’s disloyalty, called him a traitor and denounced him in the NOI newspaper Muhammad Speaks: “Only those who wish to be led to hell, or to their doom, will follow Malcolm. The die is set, and Malcolm shall not escape, especially after such evil, foolish talk about his benefactor; such a man is worthy of death and would have been met with death if it had not been for Muhammad’s confidence in Allah for victory over his enemies.” Ten weeks later, on February 21, 1965, Malcolm X was killed in Harlem’s Audubon Ballroom by three gunmen with ties to NOI.

As recently as 1993, Farrakhan tried to justify Malcolm X’s assassination when he said in a speech, “Was Malcolm your traitor or ours? And if we dealt with [Malcolm] like a nation deals with a traitor, what the hell business is it of yours? A nation has to be able to deal with traitors and cutthroats and turncoats.” In May 1995, however, Farrakhan spoke for the first time in repentant tones about the slaying, and admitted to having “helped create the atmosphere” that led to it. “I may have been complicit in words that I spoke leading up to 21 February,” he said. “I acknowledge that and regret that any word that I have said caused the loss of life of a human being.” Immediately thereafter, however, he named the U.S. government as the real villain that had fomented zeal and bitterness inside NOI’s ranks. 

In 1984 Farrakhan issued another death threat against someone he perceived to be a race traitor. After a black Washington Post reporter named Milton Coleman publicly revealed that presidential candidate Jesse Jackson had referred to Jews as “Hymies” and to New York City as “Hymietown,” Farrakhan told Coleman: “One day soon we will punish you with death.”

Farrakhan also has a long, well-documented history of venom-laced references to the “white devils” and Jewish “bloodsuckers” who purportedly decimate America’s black community from coast to coast. He has referred to Judaism as a “gutter religion,” and to Adolf Hitler as “a great man” — though he later claimed that he had meant only that Hitler was “wickedly great.” He has made innumerable statements depicting whites and Jews as loathsome, racist oppressors of blacks.

In 1997, for example, the Clarion-Ledger reported Farrakhan’s characterization of “the white man” as the “anti-Christ.” In a 1997 Meet The Press interview, Farrakhan stated, “It is not accidental that the black male is in the condition he is in,” and he charged that there was a “conspiracy of our government against the black male.” In August 1997, the New York Amsterdam News quoted Farrakhan stating, “A decree of death has been passed on America. The judgment of God has been rendered and she must be destroyed.” A month later the NOI newspaper The Final Call (formerly called Muhammad Speaks) reported Farrakhan’s assertion that just as African Americans are under a “death decree” from the U.S. government, America is similarly under a “decree of death from God.” “There is no wicked nation in the past that approaches the evil that is practiced in America on a daily basis,” said Farrakhan on another occasion.

In March 2000 the Philadelphia Inquirer quoted Farrakhan saying, “White people are potential humans … they haven’t evolved yet.” At other times, he has referred to whites as “vicious beasts” and “the skunks of the planet.” Additional noteworthy Farrakhan statements include the following:

On numerous occasions, Farrakhan has made alliances with avowed foreign enemies of the United States. In January 1996, for instance, he formed a partnership with Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi, who pledged $1 billion to help Farrakhan develop a Muslim political lobby in the U.S.  According to Libya’s official news agency Jana, Qadhafi announced: “We agreed with Louis Farrakhan and his delegation to mobilize in a legal and legitimate form the oppressed minorities — and at their forefront the blacks, Arab Muslims and Red Indians — for they play an important role in American political life and have a weight in U.S. elections.” The Jana story further stated that Qadhafi and Farrakhan had pledged to fight America from the “inside.”  “Our confrontation with America,” said Qadhafi, “was [previously] like a fight against a fortress from outside, and today [with the NOI alliance] we found a breach to enter into this fortress and confront it.”

This was not Farrakhan’s first friendly encounter with Qadhafi. Eleven years earlier, the Libyan strongman had granted NOI a $5 million interest-free loan, in gratitude for which Farrakhan later visited Libya to personally thank his benefactor. Qadhafi once told a crowd of NOI followers at a Chicago convention that he sought to sponsor an armed black revolution in America. On yet another occasion, Farrakhan and his aides — violating a travel ban imposed on Americans by President Reagan — flew to Tripoli to meet with Qadhafi, who Farrakhan has proudly called “a friend,” “a brother,” and “a fellow struggler in the cause of liberation for our people.”

In 1996 and again the following year, Farrakhan went on “World Friendship Tours” to exchange pleasantries with government leaders in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Sudan — all of which were on the State Department’s list of nations that supported terrorism. Many times during these tours, Farrakhan publicly denounced the United States as “the Great Satan.” Particularly noteworthy was his visit as an honored guest of Sudan’s Islamic fundamentalist government, which had slaughtered a million black Christians and enslaved hundreds of thousands of its black inhabitants.

Before Farrakhan left Iran for Syria in 1996, a Tehran newspaper quoted him saying: “God will destroy America by the hands of the Muslims. … God will not give Japan or Europe the honor of bringing down the United States; this is an honor God will bestow upon Muslims.”

In Baghdad, Farrakhan met with Saddam Hussein and expressed his hope that the U.S. would “halt its mass murder of Iraqis” — a reference to the economic hardships caused by the post-Gulf War sanctions imposed on Iraq.

In February 1998, Farrakhan sent a cordial and supportive letter to Saddam: “Your Excellency, we who have grown up in Islam inside of America understand that the West wants to destroy you, sir, in order to make an example out of your destruction to all strong Muslim leaders. You are a visionary, and they want to destroy your vision! If they are able to bring you down, that will serve as a warning to Brother [Qadhafi] in Libya; to Brothers Hassan Turabi and [President] Omar Bashir in the Sudan; it will mean a setback for the goal of unity [among Muslims].”

In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Farrakhan stated that America had insufficient proof of Osama bin Laden‘s and al-Qaeda‘s culpability. “They [American government officials] have lied before,” he said, “and there’s no guarantee they’re not lying now.”

Appearing on CNN’s Late Edition in 2002, Farrakhan portrayed America’s contemplated attack on Iraq as an unprovoked act of aggression against a regime that posed no tangible threat to the U.S.  “I would feel so much better,” he said, “if the government of the United States of America would not seek to make Saddam Hussein a trophy for the reelection of President Bush. Saddam Hussein is not responsible for the collapse of Enron and thousands of American citizens losing their life savings.” Added Farrakhan: “[S]anctions [are] a weapon of mass destruction [against the Iraqi people]. America is angry with Saddam Hussein because his people love him. And they want to punish the Iraqi people to make the Iraqi people rise up and overthrow Saddam. They [the Iraqis] had a so-called election, a referendum. Ninety-nine percent of the people vote[d] for their man. You can’t get that in America. They love their man.”

On Black Entertainment Television in July 2002, Farrakhan asked, “How is America so righteous, with blood dripping from [its] hands of the peoples of the world? How has America all of a sudden become so righteous that she can now go to Iraq and set that man [Saddam] down?”

In the February 17, 2005 issue of The Final Call, Farrakhan condemned the United States for seeking “to change Islam, to make Islam suitable and non-threatening to Western hegemony over the entire world.”  “[T]he war [against Iraq] is not just against brutal dictators,” he said. “The war, at the root, is against Islam. The government will not admit to that, but I see signs. … I say to you that there’s no way that I, as a Muslim, could countenance my children or grandchildren fighting a war against fellow believers in any part of the world.” 

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina which devastated America’s Gulf Coast in August 2005, Farrakhan accused President Bush of ordering that one of New Orleans’ strategically located levees be dynamited so as to enable the flood waters to kill a maximum number of black people. “I heard from a very reliable source, who saw a 25-foot deep crater under the levee breach,” said Farrakhan “It may have been blown up to destroy the black part of town and keep the white part dry.”

For many years, Farrakhan has ranked among the most influential black figures in America. He draws enormous, standing-room-only crowds of listeners wherever he speaks. An October 1992 lecture he gave in Atlanta actually outdrew a World Series game played there that same night. In 1996 the National Newspaper Publishers Association, which represents 200 black-owned publishers, gave Farrakhan its “Newsmaker of the Year” award — for which one criterion was the demonstration of “a higher level of moral authority.” Farrakhan’s October 16, 1995 “Million Man March” drew several hundred thousand attendees. Though officially billed as a “day of atonement,” a significant portion of the event focused on America’s historical and allegedly continuing assault on black people. “The real evil in America,” Farrakhan said that day, “is the idea that undergirds the setup of the Western world, and that idea is called white supremacy.” 

In 2005 Farrakhan organized the Millions More Movement to mark the tenth anniversary of the Million Man March, and to demand that the U.S. government increase its spending on welfare programs designed to recompense blacks for the suffering that America has historically inflicted on them and their forebears.

Impugning the U.S. government for supporting “the State of Israel on Palestinian lands,” Farrakhan has cultivated a friendly relationship with the leaders of Neturei Karta, a small Jewish organization that opposes Israel’s existence.

Farrakhan has been a mentor and role model to many black radicals, among the most notable being Malik Zulu Shabazz and the late Khalid Abdul Muhammad.

 http://dearbornunderground.blogspot.com/

Friday, February 23, 2007

When it Comes to Role Models, Allah Knows Best

Area Muslims are planning to join hands with renowned Jew-hater and race-baiter Louis Farrakhan.

According to today’s Detroit News, (“Imam accepts Farrakhan’s invitation to give sermon in Detroit today”):

The Islamic Society of North America, which represents orthodox, mostly immigrant Muslims, will join ailing Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan this weekend in Detroit at what is billed as his final major address.

Imam Siraj Wahhaj, a longtime member of the Islamic Society, said he has accepted Farrakhan’s invitation to give a sermon at prayers today, two days before the minister’s Sunday speech at Ford Field, the Islamic Society said from its headquarters in Plainfield, Ind.

The Islamic Society’s participation is significant because mainstream Muslims have considered the Nation heretical. Among their many differences, the Nation has promoted black supremacy, while mainstream Islam teaches racial unity. However, in recent years Farrakhan has adopted more orthodox teachings and has tried to build ties with other Muslims.

It’s no wonder that mainstream Muslims have considered the NOI heretical, in view of the NOI’s other distinctive views that:

· African-Americans are God’s chosen people.
· African-Americans should live separately from whites.
· Allah appeared on Earth in the form of W. Fard Muhammad in 1930.
· They do not believe in war or that they should be forced to participate in wars.

It is also fundamental NOI doctrine that “Yakub, a black scientist, created the white race 6,000 years ago.” I won’t even get into the whole spaceship thing. I did think that was a nice touch how Detroit News writer Gregg Krupa summarizes the differences between the NOI and orthodox Islam as NOI promoting black supremacy, “while mainstream Islam teaches racial unity.” That sounds like Islam in a nutshell to me.

The Islamic Society of North America’s website gave this explanation for cooperating in all of this, (“ISNA ACCEPTS MINISTER FARRAKHAN’S INVITATION”):

Commenting on this historic event, Imam Siraj Wahhaj, a long standing member of ISNA, emphasized that Islam’s mission to humanity “is to call to the path of God, with ‘wisdom and beautiful preaching’.” God makes clear, he said, that He responds to those who take one step toward Him by taking several toward them; and that He is best at distinguishing between those who stray and those who are righteous. He went on to say: “To that end and after taking naseehah (consultation) with Muslim leaders of the Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah in America generally. . .I have chosen to accept the Minister’s invitation to deliver the Khutbat al-Jum’ah (Friday worship sermon). We pray that nothing but good will come from it.”

And Allah knows best.

But I don’t mean to be too hard on Muslims for being ecumenical towards the NOI, because at least they all acknowledge the Koran, and believe that there is no God but Allah. (Although NOI believes the black race gave birth to Allah 6,000 years ago, and He is the mightiest God since creation born after Yakub.)

What is more perplexing to me, and I commented on it earlier in the week, is the swooning that strikes Detroit’s black leaders at the mention of Farrakhan’s name, including nonMuslim, black Christian leaders. For instance, there’s the Rev. Sam Bullock, president of the Council of Baptist Pastors, who appeared at the NOI press conference last week announcing this weekend’s annual NOI convention, saying “we seek to move beyond our theology and embrace our humanity, this event is significant because this is the birthplace of the Nation of Islam.”

Black politicans can’t get enough of the Minister, (all his fans call him “Minister”), like Detroit City Councilwoman JoAnn Watson calling Farrakhan a “role model,” (“After Farrakhan, who will fill void?”), and Councilwoman Monica Conyers giving the NOI credit for the re-election of Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick.

Among role model Farrakhan’s more edifying statements have been a description of Judaism as “a gutter religion”, characterising Christianity as an oppressive faith linked to the slavery of black people and calling Adolf Hitler “great”, although he said later that he had meant “wickedly great“.

After Hurricane Katrina, he also told his followers “levees in New Orleans may have been deliberately ‘blown up’ to kill the city’s black population.”

We’re so lucky to have him.

The Islamic Fifth Column gets its man on the Judiciary Committee

The Islamic Fifth Column gets its man on the Judiciary Committee – Wednesday, February 07, 2007 10:12 AM
Note that the Black Caucus, which is a leftwing extremist group in the House, was responsible for making this happen — an prime example of the unholy alliance in action.  


 


Faith  and politics
By Joel Mowbray
Published February 7,  2007
 
Less  than two weeks after Sen. Barbara Boxer very publicly rebuffed the Council  on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the high-profile Muslim organization  scored a surprising victory courtesy of a different leading
California 
Democrat, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

When  Mrs. Boxer rescinded an award that her office had given to a CAIR  official, she cited the group’s terrorist ties and its inability to  condemn Islamic terrorist organizations. Faced with the same public  record, Mrs. Pelosi weeks afterward decided to place a freshman  congressman who was heavily backed by CAIR on the Judiciary Committee,  which oversees all domestic counterterrorism legislation. 

While CAIR’s influence had nothing to do with  Rep. Keith Ellison earning a seat on Judiciary (it was the doing of the  Congressional Black Caucus, according to several Hill staffers), it is  nonetheless surprising that the Islamic group’s role in raising more than  $50,000 for Mr. Ellison did not dissuade Mrs. Pelosi, particularly in the  wake of Mrs. Boxer’s much-publicized critique. 
So far, Mrs. Pelosi’s endorsement of Mr.  Ellison has not hurt her politically, but there is definitely potential  for future headaches, particularly with key Jewish supporters. 

Mr. Ellison has chosen to align himself very  closely with CAIR. Through two fund raisers, including one held in 
Florida, and campaign contributions that
almost certainly were bundled by  CAIR co-founder Nihad Awad, CAIR helped Mr. Ellison raise more than  $50,000. Shortly after he was elected to Congress, Mr. Ellison delivered  the keynote address at CAIR’s annual conference. 
CAIR’s connection to Mr. Ellison is through  its co-founder, Mr. Awad, whom Sen. Charles Schumer said in a 2003  congressional hearing has “intimate connections with Hamas.” That strong  accusation is supported by significant evidence. At the time CAIR was  founded in 1994, Mr. Awad was a high-ranking executive with the Islamic  Association for
Palestine, an openly anti-Semitic
organization that was  long believed by law enforcement to be a political front for Hamas. A  civil court judge in
Illinois in 2005 confirmed those suspicions when
he  declared that there was “strong evidence that IAP was supporting Hamas.” ….

After Mr.  Ellison stated following his election his desire to serve on the Judiciary  Committee, several key Democrats, most of whom were Jewish, contacted Mrs.  Pelosi’s office to express their concerns about such an appointment.  Though her office never gave a blanket guarantee, at least two of the  callers said that they felt they were given assurances that Mr. Ellison  likely would not win a spot on Judiciary. 

Ironically, a key factor in Mr. Ellison  landing his seat on Judiciary probably was the intense criticism he faced  for using a Koran for his ceremonial swearing-in. Most Democrats felt it  was wrong for conservatives, led by talk-radio host Dennis Prager, to  demand that the Muslim congressman perform his ceremonial swearing-in on  the Christian Bible. In conversations this columnist had with a number of  Democratic congressional staffers at that time, it became clear that the  whole flap had made Mr. Ellison into something Democrats love more than  almost anything else: a victim.

Given a chance  to comment on Mr. Ellison’s appointment or his many connections to CAIR,  Mrs. Pelosi’s office demurred. It is not  difficult to see that Mr. Ellison could put his party in a bind.
As he  becomes more prominent — and assuming he maintains his closeness to CAIR  — he could easily raise the concern of leading Democrats, particularly  Jews. CAIR has refused to condemn as terrorist organizations Hamas and  Hezbollah, groups whose core mission is killing innocent Jews. Yet despite  that, any actions Mrs. Pelosi might take against Mr. Ellison would almost  certainly raise the ire of the powerful Congressional Black Caucus. 


All hope is not lost for Mr. Ellison. He is an  attractive political figure, and his Muslim faith is a net positive in a  party that covets minority support. That said, Mr. Ellison has made a  major mistake in embracing CAIR so closely. He simply can’t join the  mainstream of his party while locking arms with a group that has been  rebuked by leading Democrats such as Mrs. Boxer and Mr. Schumer. 

After winning the seat he wanted on Judiciary,  though, Mr. Ellison probably sees no need to change his ways.  

(http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070206-094819-3591r.htm)

“Expect Conyers and Pelosi to kick open the doors of Congress to Islamists from the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other militant groups”

“Expect Conyers and Pelosi to kick open the doors of Congress to Islamists from the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other militant groups”

As noted here at Jihad Watch before the election.

“John Conyers And The “Expect Conyers and Pelosi to kick open the doors of Congress to Islamists from the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other militant groups”,” from Investor’s Business Daily, with thanks to all who sent this in:

Congress: The likely new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee says he’s just fighting bigotry in leading a Democrat jihad to deny law enforcement key terror-fighting tools. But he is in the pocket of Islamists.John Conyers, son of a leftist Detroit union activist, represents the largest Arab population in the country. His district includes Dearborn, Mich., nicknamed “Dearbornistan” by locals fed up with cultural encroachment and terror fears from a steady influx of Mideast immigrants.

Conyers, who runs an Arabic version of his official Web site, does the bidding of these new constituents and the militant Islamist activists who feed off them. They want to kill the Patriot Act and prevent the FBI from profiling Muslim suspects in terror investigations. They also want to end the use of undisclosed evidence against suspected Arab terrorists in deportation proceedings.

And the 77-year-old Conyers has vowed to deliver those changes for them.

“The policies of the Bush administration have sent a wave of fear through our immigrant communities and targeted our Arab and Muslim neighbors,” he growls.

He’ll soon be in a position to act on his promises. And he has the full backing of the expected speaker of the House. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., wants to criminalize FBI and Customs Service profiling of Muslim terror suspects.

“Since Sept. 11, many Muslim Americans have been subjected to searches at airports and other locations based upon their religion and national origin,” she said. “We must make it illegal.”

Conyers, a lawyer by trade, last decade pushed through a bill to help stop what he called “DWB,” driving while black. He dubs post-9/11 profiling “flying while Muslim.”

Pelosi has also promised Muslims she’ll “correct the Patriot Act,” one of the most valuable tools the FBI has in ferreting out jihadist cells lurking in Muslim communities.

Conyers is one of the top recipients of donations from the Arab-American Leadership PAC. And not surprisingly, he has a long history of pandering to Arab and Muslim voters.

During the first Gulf War, for instance, Conyers fought FBI outreach efforts in the Arab and Muslim community in Detroit that were designed to gather intelligence on potential cells and protect the home front. Conyers and other Detroit-area Democrats at the time, David Bonior and John Dingell, threatened to hold hearings unless the FBI stopped counterterrorism interviews.

The FBI met with them privately to explain the national security benefits of outreach, but could not allay their concerns. In the end, the FBI backed off. Today, Hamas, Hezbollah and the al-Qaida-tied Muslim Brotherhood are all active in the area.

Expect Conyers and Pelosi to kick open the doors of Congress to Islamists from the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other militant groups. They will have unfettered access, even though many of their leaders have been tied to terrorism (some CAIR officials have landed in the big house).

Khamenei calls elections a victory for Iran

Malvo gets life in 6 Maryland jihad killings

Malvo gets life in 6 Maryland jihad killings

malvo008.jpg

And that’s what they were, jihad killings, as Jihad Watch readers knew in late 2003. Above is one of Lee Malvo’s jailhouse drawings. Another says, “I, Lee, will die for the revolution, jihad.” Michelle Malkin posted more last spring.

“Malvo gets life in 6 Md. sniper killings,” by Stephen Manning for Associated Press:

ROCKVILLE, Md. – Convicted sniper Lee Boyd Malvo was sentenced Wednesday to life in prison for six murders in Maryland that were part of a three-week shooting spree that terrorized the Washington area in 2002.The Maryland trial in Montgomery County Circuit Court included Malvo’s chilling insider account of his trip across the country with accomplice and mentor John Allen Muhammad.

In a brief statement in court Wednesday, Malvo apologized for his role in the killings.

“I’m truly sorry, grieved and ashamed for what I’ve done,” said Malvo, his voice breaking.

Malvo, 21, pleaded guilty in October to the murders in Montgomery County, where the series of 13 shootings began and ended in October 2002.

It is unlikely, however, that Malvo will ever serve time in a Maryland prison. He has already been sentenced to life in prison in Virginia for sniper shootings there and was sent to Maryland last year for a new trial on the condition he be returned after his case ended. That could happen within the next several days, said Darren Popkin, Montgomery County’s chief deputy sheriff.

Allowing Ellison to run for office is the exact equivalent of allowing a practicing Nazi to run for office here in the US. What are we thinking

Allowing Ellison to run for office is the exact equivalent of allowing a practicing Nazi to run for office here in the US. What are we thinking?

By Randy Taylor Independent Analyst
rtaylor@homelandsecurityus.com

4 November 2006: “Who is our most dangerous enemy? What is the biggest threat to the United States?”

I get asked these two questions quite a bit.

The answers to both questions are close to the same. We, the United States are our biggest enemy to ourselves right now and we are also our own greatest threat. This is because of the disastrous and self destructive way we are handling the threat of Islam.

We are partitioned in this country into two large groups. Those who are dedicated to the preservation and security of this great nation, realizing what it takes and what great sacrifices must be made and then the other group, those that want what deceivingly appears to be the easiest path, are willing to back down to the threat of Islam and think that if we ignore terror and embrace Islam, that terrorism will magically go away. The latter group is placing this country in a precarious position.

This country is in a serious predicament at this precise moment in history. We are being inundated with an all out assault by Islam on multiple fronts. We are fighting this radical cult-like theology on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan while we face the infiltration of our way of life right here in the United States. We are allowing Islamic political organizations to not only infiltrate law enforcement but to dictate policy to our law enforcement agencies although the greatest threat we face is Islamic terrorism. That’s right folks they dictate policy to the very agencies charged with protecting us.

We are allowing Muslims to run for political office which grants them even more power to bring about the downfall of this country. As Islam infiltrates our judicial, legislative and executive branches these bastions and effective tools of Freedom and Democracy will deteriorate in favor of the very religion that has sworn to bring this great country down.

You need to remember a very important statement by the leader of al Qaeda Osama bin Laden who warned us in Arabic and in our own language that Islam would destroy America using our own laws and freedoms against us. He openly warned us and we still don’t take that simple warning seriously. We act as though there is “Good Islam” and “Bad Islam.” Read the Qu’ran, it is all Islam.

For instance, this idiot Ellison shouldn’t even be on the ballot for one simple reason. You cannot serve the interests of the American people and defend the US Constitution while being a true Muslim and following Islamic doctrine. This country stands for freedom and democracy while Islam demands submission, no freedoms and preaches hate, dissent and murder of the very people he is supposed to serve in office. This is the greatest political anomaly of our present time. It defies logic in every aspect. Allowing Ellison to run for office is the exact equivalent of allowing a practicing Nazi to run for office here in the US. What are we thinking?

You do not have to be a genius or a scholar to look around your world and see that anywhere there is Islam there is death and destruction. Look closely at how disastrous the combination of trying to implement and encourage American values of Freedom and Democracy with Islam, Sunni and Shi’ite into one government. It doesn’t work. It leads to death, destruction, mental and emotional slavery and fear. It has to be one or the other as there is no middle ground. There cannot be a compromise between our upstanding western values and those derogatory beliefs of Islam because they directly conflict with each other.

• We believe in freedom of religion, Islam teaches its followers to refuse to co-exist with other religions

• We believe that the people have a say in the government and the ability to vote, improve and change what they don’t like in the system, Islam states that Sharia law will govern the people and the country

• We as Americans love life, true Muslims desire death for themselves and others

• We believe that races and cultures have a right to exist, Islam calls for the elimination of an entire race of people, the Jewish people

• We believe in the power of negotiations, Islam demands submission

• We treat our women with love and respect with equal rights and privileges, Islam sees them as possessions with no more value than a farm animal

• We allow Muslims to worship in their mosques, in Islamic countries Christian churches are burned, Christians are murdered at will in the street

I can go on and on as to the pitfalls of this Islamic disease. The problem is that we as Americans are allowing this death like cult to “force” its way into our society, into our government and most are not aware of the huge price tag that this country will pay by allowing this to continue. The price tag is death.

Before some jerk emails me and calls me a racist I want to make this real clear to everyone. Before September 11, 2001 I didn’t have a real problem with Islam and Muslims. Since that day when those nineteen Islamic murderers came into our country with a direct assault on our country and our citizens, rejoiced over it, condoned it and wished that more death had been achieved, that is when I took a real issue with Islam and everything related to this worldwide fascist revolution.

Islam’s rhetorical defense of what happened on 9/11 is no defense. We were not in Iraq and Afghanistan on September 11, 2001. The old standby terrorism justification excuse of “The plight of the poor people of Palestine” is pure crap as they bring all their troubles on themselves. The Palestinians have openly stated that they refuse to co-exist with Israel and anything that resembles pursuit of negotiations on that subject is an exercise in futility.

We were buying the Middle Eastern products, we stopped the genocide of Muslim people in Bosnia and many, many decades ago we taught the Muslims countries how to get the oil out of the ground and into the market place so their countries could prosper and we could buy oil. We have fed Muslims, provided medical care to Muslims and provided Muslims with technology so they could become self sufficient and viable countries in the world. We made you.

Even that horse’s ass Osama bin Laden wouldn’t have had his $200,000,000.00 fortune if not for western influence, dollars and technology. His money came from his family’s construction business, which resulted from the oil business which resulted from western technology. He has no justification for his actions and he is a disgrace to his “Allah”.

That is just one of the many hypocrisies of Islam. Islam throughout history has bitten the hand that fed it. So why in the world would anyone want to assist Islam is their quest to destroy our country and why would anyone think that they will not continue to bite the hand that feeds them? They bring absolutely nothing of value to the political structure of our democratic society with their suicidal ways, refusal to co-exist with others and hate for all mankind that isn’t Islam. They have nothing to offer as the dominating force they are trying to be in our country. We as a country have enough of our own problems even as a democratic society without the poison of Sharia law infiltrating the system. There is not one ounce of proof of anything positive that has been offered by Islam to this country to date.

Islam doesn’t ask to be accepted and co-exist, they insist on not only being accepted but they are trying to change our way of life to fit their theology of Nazism.

You want to be a Muslim in my country, that’s fine. Be a Catholic, be a Protestant, Mormon, Buddhist, Hindu or an atheist. Be like others here. Do your thing. Worship your prophets as you will, worship your God. Feel free to start your own churches, drink the kool-aid all together on that last day. But do not try to take over my country because I do not want you, your “religion” or your Sharia law in the dominant position here. We are Americans, we co-exist, we communicate, we make decisions on how we will live. We answer to our God and versions of God in our own ways. We are comprised of Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus, and multiple variations within those religions. We all have one thing in common. We are not conspiring to kill fellow Americans and overthrow the US government as we all have found a beautiful place of coexistence between our religions. That place is the United States of America.

Do it the right way, the peaceful way and fit into our land of opportunity for all man, into our gracious, open society or get out. If you are leaving, today would be good.

Here’s an additional piece of advice. Don’t vote Republican or Democrat.

Vote American.