Showing posts with label Islamists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islamists. Show all posts

Monday, July 28, 2014

Paris's Kristallnacht

Whenever Israel is attacked by terrorist movements and needs to defend itself, "leftist" and Islamist organizations organize anti-Israel protests in Paris. One of the latest took place on July 13.

The event brought together between 10,000 and 30,000 people -- not surprising in a country where "leftist" and Islamist organizations are strong.

The demonstrators shouted hateful and violent slogans against Israel and held Israeli flags on which swastikas replaced the Star of David -- also not surprising. Events organized by "leftists" and by Islamists usually carry such gear.

The demonstrators also shouted purely anti-Semitic slogans; the call for "Death to Jews" was picked up by the crowd. This was the first time since the end of World War II that explicitly anti-Semitic chants were shouted by a large crowd in Paris (During a demonstration in January, protesters shouted, "Jews, France does not belong to you").
Demonstrators shouted, "Hamas will win," in support of the jihadist terrorist organization. This was also the first time that slogans openly favoring a jihadist terrorist organization were shouted by a large crowd in Paris (During earlier demonstrations, protesters shouted "Palestine will win," but did not point to Hamas).

Demonstrators also shouted slogans in favor of a man who had murdered Jewish children: "We are all Mohamed Merah." Merah shot and killed a rabbi and three Jewish children at close range in a schoolyard in Toulouse in 2012; it was the one of the most serious anti-Semitic acts committed in France since the Vichy regime. This was the first time in France that a large crowd proudly identified with a murderer of Jewish children.
The demonstration started in the 18th Arrondissement of Paris (metro station Barbès Rochechouart), close to where Islamic preachers organized street prayers a few months ago; it ended near Place de la Bastille. Dozens of windows of Jewish shops and restaurants along the route were broken and covered with yellow labels saying, "boycott Israel". This was the first time that so many Jewish shops and restaurants were attacked during a demonstration in Paris.

In addition, several hundred protesters armed with iron bars, machetes, axes and firebombs, arriving Place de la Bastille, marched to the nearby Don Isaac Abravanel Synagogue on rue de la Roquette. They shouted, "Let's slay the Jews," "Hitler was right," and "Allahu Akbar".

Only six police officers were on hand, who were quickly overwhelmed. Members of Jewish defense organizations protected the 200 Jews present inside the synagogue. Even after police reinforcements arrived, the synagogue was besieged for nearly two hours. The Jews, prisoners of a potentially lethal horde, were locked inside.


An "anti-Israel" mob attempts to smash through the front gate of the Don Isaac Abravanel Synagogue in Paris, July 13, 2014.
At another nearby synagogue on rue des Tournelles, rioters threw Molotov cocktails and looted the place. When the vandals continued their looting to rue des Rosiers, the heart of the Jewish quarter of Paris, the police struggled to stop them.

This was the first time since World War II that an anti-Semitic pogrom took place in France.

In an attempt to address the distress of the Jewish community, the French Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, denounced anti-Semitism in general terms. He said he would strengthen the protection of "places of worship," synagogues and mosques -- although no mosque was attacked.

Although the government banned the next demonstration, scheduled for July 19, it took place anyway, and soon turned into a riot.

When thousands of protesters gathered again at the Barbès Rochechouart metro station, the presence of significant police forces prevented protesters from crossing Paris. Organized groups then attacked the police by throwing stones, Molotov cocktails and by using iron bars. Shops were looted. Garbage cans were burned. Bus stations, dozens of them, and billboards were destroyed. Protesters came with pickaxes and ripped the pavement on several streets to throw chunks of asphalt.

Demonstrators tried to burn down the largest textile store in Paris, near Barbès Rochechouart, because it carries a Jewish name, Dreyfus-Marché Saint Pierre. Clashes with police near this store were particularly violent.

Witnesses spoke of the atmosphere of a civil war, and photographers spoke of a "French intifada".

The slogans shouted by the rioters were the same as the previous week: "Death to Jews" mingled with "Death to Israel" and "Long live Hamas." Many who threw stones and Molotov cocktails shouted, "Allahu Akbar," just as the attackers of the synagogue on July 13 had done.

Even though there were no synagogues or Jews nearby, and no protester shouted, "Let's slay the Jews" or "Hitler was right," what happened in Paris on July 19 was as frightful as what had happened the week before.

This was also not the first time that a district of a French city was immersed in an atmosphere of civil war. In October 2005, entire neighborhoods in the suburbs of several major cities were set on fire. In 2010, two districts of Grenoble, in southeast France, were on fire for several days. In May 2013, the Trocadéro area in Paris was ransacked, and two months later, the city of Trappes, near Versailles, experienced hours of insurrection. Dozens of cars and shops were burned. The police precinct was attacked and under siege for hours.

The riots this month were, however, the first time that demonstrations resembling a civil war were carried by people who showed an explicit hatred of Jews and who said they identified with jihadi terrorists. This was the first time that riots in France looked like an Islamic uprising.

Although the events of July 13 and 19 had the support of "leftists" organizations, the vast majority of demonstrators and rioters were Muslims. The majority of the women wore Islamic headscarves. Most men wore a keffiyeh, the checkered Arab scarf, and used it to hide their faces the way Islamists do in the Middle East.

Many protesters on July 13 and 19 came with Palestinian flags, but the flags of Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda and Islamic State [IS], also present, were proudly waved.
The day after the riots, July 20, Prime Minister Manuel Valls again denounced the "danger of anti-Semitism". July 20th was also the anniversary of the "Vel d'Hiv Round-up" -- the mass arrest of Jews in Paris in 1942 by the French police under the supervision of the Nazis. But Valls said nothing about the anti-Semitic and jihadist dimension of the riots. Some conservative politicians criticized the lack of firmness of the government. Leaders of the rightist National Front said that the government was responsible for the violence and had undermined "freedom of expression."

At the exact moment Manuel Valls spoke, rioters started to ransack the suburb with the largest Jewish population on the outskirts of Paris: Sarcelles. All the Jewish stores and many cars were wrecked or set on fire. A group shouting "Allahu Akbar" again tried to burn the town's synagogue. Again, most rioters were Muslim. Again, most shouted, "Death to the Jews."

All French politicians are ready to condemn anti-Semitism in general terms (except members of the National Front); none are ready to call the anti-Semitism that is exploding in France today by its name: Islamic anti-Semitism.

All French politicians, left or right (except members of the National Front), have the same attitude about what happened on July 13, 19 and 20. This attitude can be summed up in one sentence, used by the French President, François Hollande: "The Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot import itself into France." No French politician would dare say that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is already present in France, and that, among Muslim populations, Islamic anti-Semitism is inextricably mixed with an absolute hatred of Israel and Jews.

Almost all French politicians adopt an attitude of appeasement toward the enemies of Israel and Jews. They never define Hamas as an Islamic terrorist organization. They close their eyes to the anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish hate speech disseminated by the enemies of Israel in the Middle East, and to the irony that France finances that speech. They act as if they did not see that the hate speech France finances in the Middle East is now spreading throughout France.

The major French media have not said a word about the anti-Semitism and jihadism that permeated the protest of July 13 and the riots of July 19 and 20. All major French television reports of these events presented the protesters and rioters as people who had just wanted to support the "liberation of the Palestinian people". All reports major French television reports on Israel's war against Hamas are made ​​from the point of view of Hamas or the Palestinian Authority. No report speaks of Hamas's genocidal Jew hatred or of the use of Arab women and children as human shields. Journalists from major French media outlets act as if they did not know that by adopting a watered-down vision of the protesters and rioters in France, and by describing the war from the point of view of Hamas or the Palestinian Authority, they are playing a dangerous game that could lead to more pogroms and even civil war.

The attitude of French politicians reflects the sorry state of French society. All the riots that erupted in France during the last decade were the result of minor incidents, but showed that France is on the verge of a large-scale explosion. French politicians want to avoid a large-scale explosion. They are scared and paralyzed.

French politicians also know that France's Muslim population now amounts to 15% of its total population and that radical Islamist organizations are particularly well established. The Union of Islamic Organizations of France (UOIF), the French branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, is the main French Muslim organization; it attracts tens of thousands of people in each of its annual meetings and openly lends political support to Hamas, the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. French politicians do not want a confrontation with the UOIF.

French politicians also know that more than 750 neighborhoods in France are considered "no go zones" by the police, and that the authorities have lost control of them.
They also know that 70% of all inmates in the French prison system are Muslim , and that self-proclaimed imams and gang leaders have taken over many prisons. They know that these prisons have been transformed into recruiting centers for jihadists, and that regaining control of these prisons is an almost impossible task. Mohamed Merah and Mehdi Nemmouche, the Brussels Jewish Museum killer, became jihadists while in French prisons.

French politicians know, as well, that more than 800 French Muslims are being trained in the Islamic State, in Iraq and Syria.

They know that Muslims vote. Eight million Muslims clearly have greater political weight than do four hundred thousand Jews.

The major French media are also scared and paralyzed. Criticizing radical Islam on French television is now almost impossible. Organizations fighting "Islamophobia" are extremely vigilant and extremely well funded.

Defending Israel on French television is also almost impossible. Members of the Israeli government are never interviewed on French television. Representatives of Palestinian and "pro-Palestinian" organizations are regularly invited and can lie without ever being contradicted.

Reports on right-wing anti-Semitism are abundant. Reports on Islamic Jew-hatred are non-existent.

The Global Anti-Semitism Index recently published by the Anti Defamation League shows that 37% of the French population can be considered anti-Semitic. It is likely that the proportion of anti-Semites among French Muslims is far higher.

A poll for the BBC in 2012 showed that 75% of the French have a negative view of Israel. It is likely that the proportion among French Muslims is, again, far higher.
The prevalent sentiment among French Jews is that a page has been turned. The French Jewish philosopher Shmuel Trigano wrote on July 16th that what is happening is a sign that Jews must leave France, fast. "Recent events are likely to play the role that such events have played in the past for the Jews in many countries: a strong symbolic event gives the signal that the Jews have no future in the country that was theirs".
The prevalent sentiment among French people in general was described by a survey published in January 2014: 74% of the French declared themselves "pessimistic" or "very pessimistic" about the future of the country. 63% said they believe that Islam is "not compatible with the values ​​of a democratic society." 78% said they "distrust" all politicians. 77% said they consider that the information provided by the media is "unreliable."

The words of most of the French politicians could not have strengthened the confidence the French have in their politicians.

The behavior of most French journalists could not have increased the credibility the French have in their media.

And the events that took place in Paris on July 13, 19 and 20 could not have made the French less pessimistic and more confident about the compatibility of Islam with the values of democracy.

Most recently, on July 23, an anti-Israeli protest was organized in Paris. This time, the protest was not banned. It brought together 10,000-20,000 people. 15,000 police officers were present. Thirty socialist MPs were present among the protesters. The media said it was a "peaceful protest." People shouted, "Hamas, Jihad, Resistance." Nazi-era anti-Semitic cartoons appeared on large panels. Again, groups of protesters finished their day at the rue des Rosiers and attacked Jewish shops. Some "peaceful protest".

On July 21, Meyer Habib, a MP representing French citizens living in Israel, said that "an atmosphere of Kristallnacht" spreads over the country. Many French Jews agree.


Sunday, August 19, 2007

Islam, Islamism, and America

Understanding the difference between Islamism and Islam is vital to our American culture and vital to our national security.

Roger Gardner has written a very good explanation of this difference on his blog, Verbatim.

. . .Islamism is not a religion. Islam is a religion. Islamism, like all of those other familiar isms -- communism, socialism, fascism, etc. -- is an aggressive political movement. . .

Today I decided to revisit some of the articles we’ve written in the past year about Islam and Islamism . Perhaps our questions and conclusions will stimulate questions of your own?

No More Border Watch - Mexico 2nd Happiest Country in the World! A Gallup poll this summer of more than 1,000 Americans showed that 39 percent were in favor of requiring Muslims in the United States, including American citizens, to carry special identification.

Keith Ellison, Islam, American Sovereignty : Should we Amend the Constitution? Is this an issue of religious freedom, as protected under the constitution, or is this an issue of national tradition and cultural unity?

Boxer Rescinds CAIR Recipient Award . . .According to Newsweek, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), recalled an award she had given to Sacramento activist Basim Elkarra “after learning that he serves as an official with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Islamophobia or the Jihad Against American Society? Ultimately, the decision about whether America becomes Islamophobic lies in the hands of American Muslims.

Anti-Islamofascist Blogger Censored What do we know about the censorship threat from Islamofascists ?

An “Honest” Terrorist Writes: “No Muslim Can Pledge Loyalty to the Constitution” Does our American Constitution, which offers blanket and unquestioning protection of religious freedom, create the very means by which the destruction of American sovereignty can be accomplished?

U.S. Military to Ditch the Red Cross for the Red Crystal Why would the US Military ditch the Red Cross in favor of the new Red Crystal?

Five American universities, including Carnegie Mellon and Georgetown, have opened satellite campuses in Qatar. Is that really a good thing???

Islamification, Christianity and WWIII: Islam’s Subtle Political Maneuvers I have written earlier that our freedom of expression, freedom of equal protection as citizens, and the “wall of separation” between church and state in the United States, as guaranteed by the Constitution and the 1st, 2nd and 14th amendments, is vulnerable to being undermined for one specific reason. Our nation has never attempted to define what constitutes a religion. . .

Illegal Immigration: Protecting the American Dream or America’s Commercial Interests? Why the war against radical, militant Islam will be lost in the halls of Congress and on the air waves as public officials and talking heads slowly erode the will of the American people to press on towards victory.

CAIR, the Flying Imams & 9/11 Flt. 93 Can you remember the chilling cnn.com transcript of 9/11 hijackers praising Allah as they took the flight down?

Let's talk about the children Now that we see the enemy and we see the value they put on life, someone please make Washington politicians understand what we are up against.

King Abdullah parroting the Democrats the occupation by the USA of Iraq is legal and UN sanctioned - more than that, the USA has a legal RESPONSIBILITY to stay in Iraq because of both a UN mandate and the mandate of the duly elected constitutional government of the Republic of Iraq.

Sunni al-Qaeda Split in Iraq? Remember Abu Ghraib, where real atrocties were committed, every day, before U.S. Troops arrived?

Keeping Racism Alive by Eradicating White Privilege We are already seeing the beginnings of the creation of the American Islamic Victims Card, and along with that will come new concessions and special privileges.

America’s Jihad Sympathizers Why is the book, “The Enemy at Home”, published 2007 by Doubleday, causing apoplexy among lefty bloggers?


Other’s talking about Islam today:

The REAL Islam Revealed
This is one hell of a scary video and is worth watching to the very end!

According to Jihad Watch, In the 1960s Sayyid Qutb in Egypt wrote that both capitalism and socialism had failed and that Islam was ready to assume a role of world leadership. Now Khatami explains how this is in full swing.







Related tags: terrorism, religion, politics, muslim, israel, muslims, arabs, islamic

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Stageleft, Right Truth, Walls of the City, Pirate's Cove, Webloggin, Pursuing Holiness, Gone Hollywood, , The Florida Masochist, Wake Up America, Right Truth, and The World According to Carl, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Friday, July 06, 2007

America’s Jihad Sympathizers

Michelle Malkin’s blog today, “In the Mental No-jihad zone,” reminded me that the motivations of America’s jihad sympathizers, who are hell-bent on dragging us all into their cultural suicide schemes, needs a much deeper examination.

Michelle wrote:

Diana West has the must-read column of the day on the pathetic inability of
Westerners to call the war and the warriors who want infidels beheaded what they
are. Too many of our political and military leaders here and across the pond are
stuck, Diana writes, in a “mental no-jihad zone. . .

Stifling dissent is precisely the mission of the likes of CAIR, which has
chosen veteran syndicated columnist and radio commentator Cal Thomas
as its latest target (via WTOP): . . .

I’d settle for keeping the jihad enablers and sympathizers at CAIR out of
White House events. But we can’t even ensure that. Steve
Emerson
reports this morning: . . .”

It looks like the left is winning this political correctness game even as it reaches into the White House. Isn’t it time we really began to understand why the cultural left is so willing to play into the Islamists hands???

Now and then I read a book that is so provocative and so well-documented that I know it’s going into my Hanging Lefties by Their Sorry Words Toolbox. “The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left And It’s Responsibility For 9/11” by Dinesh D’Souza is such a book. Not only does this book have an impressive index, each chapter’s endnotes run into pages providing a treasure trove of sources and quotes by the major lefty political players.

D’Souza has some impressive credentials. This is from his blog:

DINESH D'SOUZA is the Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford
University. Previously he was a domestic policy analyst at the White House. He
is the best-selling author of several books, including Illiberal Education, The End of
Racism
, and What's So Great About America. . .

The book, “The Enemy at Home”, published 2007 by Doubleday, has been causing apoplexy among lefty bloggers and D’Souza has come in for plenty of harsh criticism. If you visit Amazon looking for the book you will first encounter the unfavorable Publisher’s Weekly review.

Conservative pundit D'Souza (Illiberal Education) roots the blame for the
9/11 attacks in the left wing's "aggressive global campaign to undermine the
traditional patriarchal family" in this mostly lucid but unconvincing argument.
Pointing to Hillary Clinton, Britney Spears and Noam Chomsky, he decries those
who have teamed up with Hollywood and the U.N. to foist an irreligious, sexually
licentious, antifamily liberal culture—epitomized by Eve Ensler's play The
Vagina Monologues and gay marriage initiatives—on a Muslim world that rightly
reviles it. By deliberately attacking Islamic values, the left tacitly allies
itself with al- Qaeda in its effort to defeat Bush's war on terror and thus
discredit conservatism at home, he asserts. But D'Souza's claim that Islamic
extremists are inflamed solely by America's music videos and feminists—not its
U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or American support
for Muslim dictators—is too single-minded. . .

This is what D’Souza actually says on the book’s jacket:

In faulting the cultural left, I am not making the absurd accusation that
this group blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I am saying that the
cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the non-profit
sector, and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger
toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world. The Muslims who carried
out the 9/11 attacks were the product of this visceral rage – some of it based
on legitimate concerns, some of it based on wrongful prejudice, but all of it
fueled and encouraged by the cultural left. Thus without the cultural left, 9/11
would not have happened. . .

If you scroll down the Amazon review site you will find a few more favorable reviews such as this excerpt from a review by C. Cotten:

It seems that every reviewer here read an interview, or saw the author on Comedy Central, then rushed to write a review here loaded only with a vague
concept of this book's central themes.

First, it should be noted that the author talks about the motivation behind
the book, that in today's public discourse there is very little focus on the
cultural aspects of America that could be fomenting hate and terrorism against
us. There was a void on the subject which he has filled; as he says, "let the
debate begin."

Now whether you ultimately agree with him or not, this IS a debate worth
having, not just as it impacts our current conflict, but as it informs us as a
nation to take a good hard look in the mirror at times. . .

Permalink:
http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2007/07/americas-jihad-sympathizers.html

Trackback URL:
http://haloscan.com/tb/txwise/3091430262644852343

Tachnorati tags:





Friday, February 16, 2007

Islamists Might be Having a Hate-crime Legislation Field Day

You’ve read the headlines . . “Two Christians in Australia have been indicted for criticizing Islam, and another for criticizing Zionism”. . . What starts out as legislation concerning crimes of violence and bodily injury will always result in more extreme legislation– crimes of verbal violence. When you control free speech the logical consequence is voluntary thought-control, or political correctness to the extreme.

H.R. 254, The David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, introduced by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas), calls for the establishment of a new federal offense for so-called hate crimes. According to Rev. Ted Pike, of the National Prayer Network, “federal police state enforcement of "anti-hate" laws would, as it has in other parts of the world, "lead inexorably to the end of free speech."

The bill is pending in the House Judiciary Committee, and is a streamlined version of earlier proposals that passed in the U.S. House.

So why would the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith be pushing this bill and all hate-crime legislation? Can’t they see the forest for the trees??? Simple answer: Most coddled liberals suffer from extreme myopia, historic amnesia, overinvestment in unfounded causes, the never ending addiction to push for more and more legislation, and the total inability to evaluate the negative and unintended consequences of anything they propose. In other words, liberals want what they want when they want it and let the future be damned! Sounds like most typical teenagers, doesn’t it? How’s that old saying go? Oh yea . . .”When I was young I was a liberal but when I became mature and much wiser I became a conservative.”

H.R. 254, The David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 is a complete fabrication of facts.

Take a look at how it begins . . .

Congress finds that
--the incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem;

Does hate crime really pose a serious national problem???

The bill is an attempt to create a new vast Federal bureaucracy with unlimited power to overrule state law enforcement by bringing Federal control over state and local policing. This bill may allow the Feds to even act preemptively to 'prevent' crime." How can this be done? The bill claims that targeted groups are forced to cross state lines to escape the incidence or risk of violence. But where are the statistics?

Oh, here are the stats - hidden away by the leftist thought police. The FBI’s 2005 Uniform Crime Report shows alleged hate crimes comprise a tiny 1/15 of 1% of all crime in America! A whopping 7,163 incidents in all of the United States!!!

Why not read about this “serious national problem” in the FBI’s own web page? Here’s an excerpt:

The UCR Program collects data about both single-bias and multiple-bias
hate crimes. For each offense type reported, law enforcement must indicate one
bias motivation. A single-bias incident occurs when one or more offense types
within the incident are motivated by the same bias. A multiple-bias incident
occurs when more than one offense type occurs in the incident and at least two
offense types are motivated by a different bias.
In 2005, 12,417 law
enforcement agencies submitted hate crime data to the UCR Program. (See
Number
of Participating Agencies and Population Covered
.)

Of those, 2,037
law enforcement agencies reported the occurrence of 7,163 hate crime
incidents
.
The 7,160 single-bias incidents involved 8,373 offenses,
8,795 victims and 6,800 offenders. The 3 multiple-bias incidents reported in
2005 involved 7 offenses, 9 victims, and 4 offenders.

Here are some comments about the bill from WashingtonWatch.com

Earlier this month, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas) introduced H.R.
254, which calls for the establishment of a new federal offense for so-called
hate crimes. The bill is similar to hate crimes measures passed by the House in
2005 and the Senate in 2004, which would commission a separate federal criminal
prosecution for state offenses tried under its provisions. If convicted, an
offender could face life in prison. . . .

In Britain, two
political activists were indicted, facing 7 years in prison, for describing
Islam as a “wicked faith.”
A filmmaker was threatened with arrest for
using the term “homosexual” rather than “gay.” In Sweden, a pastor faced prison
for reading from the pulpit Scriptures critical of homosexuality. In Holland,
it’s now a “hate crime” to criticize fornicators and adulterers.

In Germany, a Catholic priest faces jail for the “hate crime” of publicly
criticizing abortionists.
In Canada, Australia, and most of Europe, it’s now
a “hate crime” to publicly criticize protected groups including homosexuals,
Muslims, and Jews. Truth is not allowed as evidence in hate crimes trials. All
that matters are the delicate feelings of members of federally protected groups
. . .

Think this can’t happen in America? Think
again. The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, architect of “anti-hate” laws
worldwide, will reintroduce its federal hate bill this winter. ADL says the
purpose of the “Hate Crimes Prevention Act” is to end violent physical hate
crimes. That’s just what ADL told lawmakers in Canada, Britain, Sweden, etc.
Soon after ADL’s hate bill was passed, it broadened through legal precedents to
outlaw “verbal violence” against protected groups. Laws passed to end violent
hate crimes soon criminalized free speech. . .

View the text of the bill.

Read more about how this bill will violate the constitution, and negatively effect free speech at Worldnetdaily.com

Trackposted to Right Pundits, Perri Nelson's Website, third world county, stikNstein... has no mercy, Right Truth, basil's blog, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, Pirate's Cove, The Right Nation, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, and Diva Dish - Weekly Celebrity Gossip Round UP, Outside the Beltway, Rightlinx, The HILL Chronicles, 123beta, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Phastidio.net, Conservative Thoughts, Pursuing Holiness,thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Also trackposted to:

Maggie’s Notebook, The World According to Carl, The Florida Masochist

Permalink for this post: http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2007/02/islamists-might-be-having-hate-crime.html

Trackback for this post: http://haloscan.com/tb/txwise/7908057515753025545

Sunday, February 04, 2007

Our Vulnerable Religious Freedoms

Our greatest National strengths can also be our biggest points of vulnerability. I have written earlier that our freedom of expression, freedom of equal protection as citizens, and the “wall of separation” between church and state in the United States, as guaranteed by the Constitution and the 1st, 2nd and 14th amendments, is vulnerable to being undermined for one specific reason. Our nation has never attempted to define what constitutes a religion.

Today Islamists have succeeded in hijacking Islam from Islamic moderates. The voices of the moderate Muslims calling out and condemning these Islamist terrorists is virtually absent or so highly nuanced as to appear deliberately ambiguous. We must therefore conclude that moderate Muslims have lost or given up control of the religion of Islam. There have been many excuses offered as to why this silence exists, but the end result is a fact. Islam is now controlled by those who wish to establish a world-wide government (Caliphate) under Sharia law.

Islam, once a religion of peace, has become perverted by those Islamists who have turned Islam into a terrorist political movement that is inimical to all secular nations. Unless moderate Muslims speak out Now, and speak out loudly against these Islamist terrorists, we must ask this next question. Should Islam even be considered a religion any longer or should it be considered a dangerous and hostile political movement?

Today, Henry Porter, (The Observer) wrote “Tolerating intolerance is still this country's besetting sin,” as he reflects on the effect of the Islamists call for a few beheadings in Britain.

ISLAMIC terror cells in Britain have been instructed to carry out a series of kidnappings and beheadings of the kind allegedly planned by the nine terrorist suspects arrested in Birmingham last week.

Porter wrote (bold added by me):

I suspect the lack of outrage has a lot to do with the degree of separate development that has taken place in Britain while so many of us were living the multiculturalist dream. Whatever Muslims say, the standards that most British institutions live by simply do not apply to the missionaries of Saudi fundamentalism who, . . .are attempting to poison relations between Muslims, Christians and Jews in Britain and to establish what amounts to a separate community under Sharia law.

. . . Again, I stress the majority of Muslims wish to live peacefully and integrate into British society. This was emphasised by the Policy Exchange report last week which was written by three researchers, two of whom have Muslims backgrounds. 'The majority of Muslims,' says the report, 'feel they have as much, if not more, in common with non-Muslims in Britain as with Muslims abroad.' Nearly two- thirds of Muslims would prefer to send their children to a mixed state school, compared with the 35 per cent who would prefer to use Islamic schools. And well over a third agree that one of the benefits of modern society is the freedom to criticise other people's religions or political views, a much higher proportion than I would ever have guessed.

It is a shrewd and balanced study that needs careful reading. 'By treating Muslims as a homogenous group,' it says, 'the government fails to see the diversity of opinions among Muslims.' So while 84 per cent of Muslims say they have been treated fairly in our society, 75 per cent of young Muslims want women to wear the veil, one in eight expressed some admiration for al-Qaeda and 40 per cent want to live under Sharia law.

Minette Marrin wrote (highlights added by me) “We're far too nice to Muslim extremists

. . . The usual immigrant experience of gradual integration has failed for more than a third of Muslims. All the exhaustive and intrusive efforts of the race relations industry have been counter-productive.

The Policy Exchange report argues that this alienation is largely due to more than 20 years of official multiculturalism. This benighted orthodoxy has emphasised differences and divisions and promoted a sense of grievance that is sometimes almost paranoid. This amounts to full-blown victimhood, whipped up not just by Muslim spokesmen but also by non-Muslim journalists and commentators and human rights activists in the victim industry, who complain, in defiance of the evidence, of growing Islamophobic attacks and persistent police harassment; they make comparisons with Nazi Germany. The mayor of London, no less, called at a recent conference for an end to the “media’s orgy of Islamophobia”.

Why have we been so reluctant to define religion, or more specifically, to define the difference between a religion and a hostile political movement? The following passage is a good reason, but good reasons (or excuses) now pale to the daunting task ahead. We must make every effort to define religion or watch this great national ship go down to the coming Caliphate. Doubters, what part of “Islam is the fastest growing religion in the United States,” don’t you understand?

Is there any way that religion, and the religiousness of people, can be separated from government and the role of people in government? Can religion and government co-exist without crossing over each others' boundaries? What are those boundaries? What exactly is the separation of church and state?

. . .In the end, the 1st Amendment not only prevents the establishment of a national religion, but it also prohibits government aid to any religion, even on an non-preferential basis, as well as protecting the right of the individual to choose to worship, or not, as he or she sees fit.

Jules Crittenden has written “Battlefied Shifts Westward”?
. . .many countries in Europe are on the verge of internal “wars” with Islamic radicals (though many will probably fight them with law enforcement and special anti-terror units rather than predominantly military force). And in fact, I have been long-arguing (most recently, here) that the multiculturalist social philosophy in much of Europe (Britain, Denmark, Germany many other EU countries)—with the hypernationalism (and anti-assimilationist snobbery) of countries like France acting as philosophical outliers—has been laying the groundwork for war from within by Islamists on their host countries. . . .

Here’s why the 1st Amendment just isn’t sufficient!

Let me quote from an earlier article, An “Honest” Terrorist Writes: “No Muslim Can Pledge Loyalty to the Constitution”

Read the words of Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992.

When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some.

I submit that the corollary to Blackmun’s statement might go like this:

(1) When a government fails to define what constitutes a religion it conveys a message to all that any ideology can pass for religion, and that freedom of religious expression supercedes all other freedoms and overrules all duties of government – specifically the primary duty of government to protect its citizens from harm.

(2) When a government fails to define what constitutes a religion, any ideology with intent to destroy the very constitutional protections it enjoys can hide in plain view while actively undermining the very system of government that gives it protection.

In December I suggested a proposed amendment to the Constitution in my article Keith Ellison, Islam, American Sovereignty : Should we Amend the Constitution?

I submit for example: “No person shall hold any office or public Trust under the United States who adheres to or gives allegiance to any religion, ideology, or organization which by word, nature, association, or action has shown intent to undermine the sovereignty of these United States!”

Let me assure the politically sensitive accommodators, the complacent dreamers, the religiously plural, the historically illiterate, the morally relative, the inane multiculturalists, and the useful idiots on the left, that once enough “peace-loving” Islamists masquerading as moderate Muslims gain a foot-hold in our nation’s state legislatures and congress, changes WILL come to our laws – and it won’t be pretty. It will be Sharia!

Trackposted to Wake Up America, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, stikNstein... has no mercy, basil's blog, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Cao's Blog, Dumb Ox Daily News, Adam's Blog, Pursuing Holiness, and Gone Hollywood, Right Pundits, Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Maggie's Notebook, basil's blog, and OTB Sports, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Islamic law Invades Church of England School!

Here is just one more sign of the stealthy war being waged in the west by the Islamists.

A shocking report has revealed that pupils at a Church of England school have been eating Muslim meals for up to 17 years due to a council ruling. . . . Islamic law insists on halal meat, produced by slashing an animal’s neck with a single cut. Animals are not stunned beforehand.Parents are furious at the revelation. One said: “I have nothing against halal meat - especially for religious reasons - but my daughter is Christian not Muslim.

Read the rest of the story, “Church of England School Has Served Muslim Meals for Years, Report Finds".

Links to this story:
Jihad Watch
Follow faultlineusa on Twitter