Only An Animal Can Do This!

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle


What kind of an animal is capable of aligning his gun sight with the face of a friggin 9 year old girl and pulling the trigger?  Asks a reader of the Jerusalem Post.  I have no answer for this man.  Not when one realizes that the shooter was an Muslim.

A 9-year-old Israeli girl has been shot and seriously injured in Psagot, near Ramallah on Saturday night.

The IDF's Binyamin Division has entered the area with large forces to search for the gunman.

"We're attempting to establish whether this was a sniper or a terrorist who entered Psagot," a senior army source said.

The girl was evacuated from the scene in serious condition but conscious, to Shaare Tzedek Hospital in Jerusalem.

West Bank police said the girl had been playing in the yard of her house when she was hit by a shot to the upper body.

The spokesman for Psagot, David Tzviel, said that they know for a fact that the shooter infiltrated the settlement, and that the girl was not shot by a sniper. He said he based this on the testimony of the girl, who told rescue personnel that she saw the man who shot her enter her yard, come up onto the balcony and shoot her.

He added that the settlement is still on lock-down, and that residents have not been told they can leave their houses yet.

Tzviel said that an emergency siren was sounded in the settlement to alert residents of the danger, and that at the moment IDF troops and the settlement emergency response team are still searching for the shooter.

SOURCE

Only an animal shoots at children.  The reason the Arabs don't shoot at soldiers is that the soldiers shoot back, but children don't.

My prayers go out to this precious child (name is being withheld) and her family.  May she recover fully!

Holy Land Foundation Guilty on 108 Counts of Terrorism Financing!

The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, which was once the largest Muslim charity in the U.S., has been found guilty of funneling millions of dollars to the Palestinian militant group Hamas.

The group and five of its former leaders have been found guilty of 108 charges of terrorism financing.

According to the Associated Press, it took the government 15 years and two trials to finally bring down the Holy Land Foundation. The guilty verdict was rendered yesterday in Dallas, Texas. The Texas headquarters of the former foundation was based in nearby Richardson, Texas.

Last year the judge declared a mistrial when jurors were deadlocked over most of the counts after 19 days of deliberations.

Following the verdict, U.S. Attorney Richard Roper said:

"United States citizens have spoken in this case, and said with a resounding verdict of guilty that we will not tolerate those who choose to finance terrorism."

Since the 1990’s the Holy Land Foundation has been suspected of funneling money to Hamas by “bankrolling social programs run by Hamas.” AP reports that the foundation was accused of sending more than $12 million to Hamas, which was designated by the U.S. as a terrorist organization in 1995.

The convicted leaders face lengthy prison sentences, and “some could be locked away for life.”

The convictions range from supporting a terrorist organization to money laundering, which carry sentences up to 15 or 20 years on each count. . . Holy Land itself was convicted of all 32 counts. It will also be required to forfeit about $12.4 million to the government.

The Holy Land defense attorneys say that they will appeal the verdict, and their supporters accuse the government of “politicizing the case as part of its war on terrorism.”

The Dallas Morning News reports that Muhammad Salah, a Palestinian-born Illinois businessman told Israeli agents in 1993 that “Holy Land was the chief fundraising arm of the then-6-year-old Islamic Resistance Movement, better known as Hamas — which sponsored suicide bombings targeting Israelis in protest of their occupation of Palestine.”

Investigators also learned that Mousa Abu Marzook, who was at the time the head of Hamas, helped to start the Holy Land Foundation with “hundreds of thousands of dollars in seed money”.

He also was married to a cousin of Ghassan Elashi, Holy Land’s board chairman and one of its founders.

The Dallas Morning News investigated the Holy Land Foundation over a period of time and was the target of organized protests.

Muslim groups were outraged and denied the links. They organized protests at the newspaper’s downtown Dallas offices. Meanwhile, investigators were learning that Holy Land was flying in militant clerics, many with Hamas ties, to headline U.S. fundraisers. Those gatherings often featured calls for violent jihad, or holy war, against Israelis.

The Dallas Morning News also reported that in 1997 InfoCom, a Richardson-based Internet service provider with financial ties to Marzook and conveniently located right across the street from the Holy Land Foundation, tried to set up an Iraqi domain name. InfoCom was also doing business with Syria and Libya in violation of U.S. export laws. A federal terrorism task force finally shut the company down in on September 5, 2001 - six days before 9/11.

JBlog Me

Technorati Tags: The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development,Muslim,Palestinian,Hamas,terrorism,Israeli,Israel,Dallas,Texas

His Teachers Confirmed Obama Was a Registered Muslim

It really shouldn’t matter to Americans that Barry Soetoro (aka: Barack Obama) was once registered as a Muslim when he was a mere child living in Indonesia. So why is his campaign still going out of its way to dispel the truth??? Perhaps it’s because radical Muslims believe that “once a Muslim always a Muslim,” and that spells “OBAMA IS A BIG SECURITY RISK.” Not that any radical Muslims would ever conceive of doing harm to an American president who has disavowed his Muslim faith and converted to Christianity.

I actually discovered this heart-warming account of Obama’s time as a registered Muslim while living in Indonesia from a link on the Roman Catholics for Obama 08 web page. And I quote . . .

“As his own campaign website and numerous media reports outline, Barack Obama is a committed Christian. He attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago and, for the record, has never been a Muslim. . .”

Really??? Perhaps the good Catholics for Obama need to check their links more carefully?

Here’s the excerpt from Paul Watson’s March 16, 2007 report in the LA Times I found by using that link.

Islam an unknown factor in Obama bid

. . .Obama's four years as a child in Indonesia underscore how dramatically his background differs from that of past presidential hopefuls, most of whom spent little, if any, time in other countries. No one knows how voters will react to a candidate with an early exposure to Islam, a religion that remains foreign to many Americans. His former Roman Catholic and Muslim teachers, along with two people who were identified by Obama's grade-school teacher as childhood friends, say Obama was registered by his family as a Muslim at both of the schools he attended. . . .

That registration meant that during the third and fourth grades, Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion class.

The childhood friends say Obama sometimes went to Friday prayers at the local mosque. "We prayed but not really seriously, just following actions done by older people in the mosque. But as kids, we loved to meet our friends and went to the mosque together and played," said Zulfin Adi, who describes himself as among Obama's closest childhood friends.

The campaign's national press secretary, Bill Burton, said Wednesday that the friends were recalling events "that are 40 years old and subject to four decades of other information." Obama's younger sister, Maya Soetoro, said in a statement released by the campaign that the family attended the mosque only "for big communal events," not every Friday . . .

In his autobiography, Dreams From My Father, Obama briefly mentions Koranic study and describes his public school, which accepted students of all religions, as "a Muslim school."

"In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during Koranic studies," Obama wrote. "My mother wasn't overly concerned. 'Be respectful,' she'd say. In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I would close my eyes, then peek around the room. Nothing happened. No angels descended. Just a parched old nun and 30 brown children, muttering words."

Obama was born in Honolulu. When he was 2, his father, Barack Obama Sr., a Kenyan, and his Kansas-born mother, Ann Dunham, separated and later divorced. Dunham later married Lolo Soetoro, who was a Muslim. In 1967, the family moved to Jakarta, where Obama lived from ages 6 to 10. People there knew him as Barry Soetoro.

Adi said he often visited the Soetoro family at their home, a small flat-roofed bungalow at 16 Haji Ramli St. Today, he runs an Internet cafe and purified water business from the same small Jakarta house where he grew up near Obama.

Theirs was a middle-class neighborhood, but Haji Ramli Street was a dirt lane where Obama used to while away the hours kicking a soccer ball. In the long rainy season, it turned to thick, mucky soup; Obama and his friends wore plastic bags over their shoes to walk though it, said Adi, who at 46 is the same age as Obama.

Neighborhood Muslims worshiped in a nearby house, which has since been replaced by a larger mosque. Sometimes, when the muezzin sounded the call to prayer, Lolo and Barry would walk to the makeshift mosque together, Adi said.

His mother often went to the church, but Barry was Muslim. He went to the mosque," Adi said. "I remember him wearing a sarong."

In her statement, Obama's sister, who was born after the family moved to Indonesia, said: "My father saw Islam as a way to connect with the community. He never went to prayer services except for big communal events. I am absolutely certain that my father did not go to services every Friday. He was not religious."

In 1968, Obama began first grade at St. Francis Assisi Foundation School, just around the corner from his home.

The Catholic elementary school had opened the previous year and wanted to enroll as many students as possible, so it welcomed children of any religion, said Israella Dharmawan, 63, his first-grade teacher.

"At that time, Barry was also praying in a Catholic way, but Barry was Muslim," Dharmawan said in Obama's old classroom, where she still teaches 39 years later. "He was registered as a Muslim because his father, Lolo Soetoro, was Muslim."

Like all pupils, Obama had to pray before and after each class, and cross himself in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Dharmawan said.

After St. Francis, Obama completed third and fourth grades in what is now called Model Primary School Menteng 1 in central Jakarta. Opened by Indonesia's former Dutch colonial rulers, the public school screens for the best students with writing tests and interviews. Several of its students have gone on to join Indonesia's elite.

Bugs have eaten Obama's file in the school's archive, said Vice Principal Hardi Priyono. But two of his teachers, former Vice Principal Tine Hahiyari and third-grade teacher Effendi, said they remember clearly that at this school, too, he was registered as a Muslim, which determined what class he attended during weekly religion lessons.

"Muslim students were taught by a Muslim teacher, and Christian students were taught by a Christian teacher," said Effendi, who, like many Indonesians, uses only one name.

Obama spent most his spare time hanging out with Adi and other friends at the home of Yunaldi Askiar, a classmate. They used to play a kind of fencing game using sticks, kick a ball up and down the narrow dirt lanes or go swimming in the river behind the school, said Askiar, 42, a car mechanic.

Obama was taller and better dressed than most kids in classes where shoes and socks were still luxuries, so he stood out from the start. As an African-American, and the only foreigner, he suffered racial taunts and teasing but never turned to violence. . .

Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/bal-te.obama16mar16,1,7181735,full.story?cset=true&ctrack=3&coll=la-headlines-nation

Th above account from the LA Times has been constantly disputed as false by the Obama camp , but here's Danial Pipes January 7, 2008 response in Confirmed: Barack Obama Practiced Islam

. . . It raises questions about two details in the Los Angeles Times account (the accuracy of the Catholic school's registration form and the reliability of Zulfan Adi as a source on Obama). But on the larger issue of Obama's religious practices during his Jakarta years, it confirms the Times account. Note in particular three excerpts from Barker's article:

"Interviews with dozens of former classmates, teachers, neighbors and friends show that Obama was not a regular practicing Muslim when he was in Indonesia" – implying he was an irregularly practicing Muslim.

"Obama occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers, a few neighbors said" – confirming that he did pray in the mosque.

"Obama's 3rd-grade teacher at the Catholic school, who lived near the family [said that] ‘Rarely, Barry went to the mosque with Lolo'" – confirming that Obama attended mosque services.

All this matters, for if Obama once was a Muslim, he is now what Islamic law calls a murtadd (apostate), an ex-Muslim converted to another religion who must be executed. Were he elected president of the United States, this status, clearly, would have large potential implications for his relationship with the Muslim world.

In sum: Obama was an irregularly practicing Muslim who rarely or occasionally prayed with his step-father in a mosque. This precisely substantiates my statement that he "for some years had a reasonably Muslim upbringing under the auspices of his Indonesian step-father."

Therefore, what MMfA calls the "Obama-Muslim falsehood" is in fact confirmed by both articles as truthful and accurate.

Calling this a falsehood is in itself a falsehood.

Source: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5354

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Rosemary's Thoughts, Maggie's Notebook, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, Shadowscope, third world county, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

More deceptions from Muslim advisor regarding Flight 93 mosque

Mecca oriented crescent at the center of the Flight 93 Memorial. He said that since it does not point quite exactly to Mecca (it is off by 1.8°) it can't be considered a proper mihrab (the central feature around which every mosque is built).

Liar. Many of the most famous mihrabs face as much as 20 or 30 degrees off of Mecca.

Here is another Rabbat deception:

Mosques are never in the shape of a crescent or a circle. This defeats the purpose of lining up the worshipers parallel to the Qibla wall (Mecca orientation), which usually translates into a rectangular shape, or sometimes a square. [From the White Paper released by the Memorial Project in August 2007.]

It is true that most mosques are rectangular, the more clearly to mark the direction to Mecca, but this is certainly not a requirement, given that the two most religiously significant sites in Islam are round mosques. Significant site #1 is the Sacred Mosque in Mecca:



Second most significant is the Mosque of Omar, also called the Dome of the Rock, on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, from which point Muhammad supposedly ascended into heaven:



Perhaps because of the prominence of these precedents, a small but significant number of mosques around the world follow the round model.

There is the Tun Abdul Aziz mosque built in Malaysia in 1975, referred to colloquially as the "Masjid Bulat," or "round mosque."

There is the new 5,000 person Arafat Mosque in Nigeria, which the architect claims is "the only round mosque in Africa," but he is wrong. Another round mosque, Al Nileen, sits at the confluence of Blue and White Nile rivers in Khartoum:


[From Google Earth. Look up "alnileen mosque".]

Africa is also home to some older round mosques. Here is a round mosque from the Ivory coast. Similar mosques have also been found in Sierra Leone.

Here is a modern Russian mosque, laid out in shape of an eight point star.

There is even a famous round mosque right in the heart of the EU, at the round mosque in Kuwait, a round mosque in Kadavu India, and probably many more.

At the Islamic architecture website Archnet, a Muslim architect (not a native English writer) explains the problem with round mosques:

… a circular mosque can not function well because a mousqe should have an oriantation to kibla and as we all know that a circle does not have an orientation, How can we know the kibla wall if it is a circle ?

This problem does not afflict Paul Murdoch's mosque design for the Flight 93 memorial because Murdoch's giant crescent does create an orientation. Face into the crescent to face Mecca, just as with a smaller size mihrab.

Geometrically, Murdoch's Crescent of Embrace is just a gigantic Islamic prayer rug:



A Muslim prayer rug is a comments to the Park Service do not even pretend to be objective. He lists "talking points" in defense of the crescent design without ever even pretending to weigh the merits of the case against the design.

Most obviously, Rabbat never considers the almost exact Mecca orientation of the giant crescent as a grounds for concern, but limits his remarks to possible excuses for not worrying about this obviously worrisome fact. The same for all of his other talking points. He only even considers ways to absolve the crescent design.

In short, Rabbat is as overtly biased as he could possibly be, yet the Park Service has no qualms about this overt bias. Rabbat gives them the excuses for unconcern that they want and they eagerly embrace him. The Park Service investigation into warnings of an enemy plot was a total fraud.

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:

cultural left
leftists
Muslim
Islamists
jihad

Virginia Tech Minute-by-Minute Updates

Latest Update: 4:40 PM CST

Gunman's name not yet released.

Death toll rises to 33

BLACKSBURG, Va. - A gunman opened fire in a Virginia Tech dorm and then, two hours later, shot up a classroom across campus Monday, killing 32 people in the deadliest shooting rampage in U.S. history. The gunman committed suicide, bringing the death toll to 33.

Wounded student describes gunman. “Asian man in his twenties. Maroon hat. Black coat.”

See AP videos

The shootings at Virginia Tech are the latest - and worst - in a long history of gun violence at U.S. schools and universities.

The previous most deadly incident occurred in 1966, when Charles Whitman, a university student in Austin, Texas, killed 16 people, most from a vantage point atop the college clock tower.

Speculation mounting:

See College Times Breaking News (Chronoligical updates, Map of shootings, and photo gallery)

Tom Bridge of DC Metblogs

See this video

Interesting speculation:
Tragedy at Virginia Tech; Quick, Blame Pakis . . .

Here's an excerpt:

. . .The Virginia Tech campus has a very large Muslim community, many of which are from Pakistan (per terrorism investigator Bill Warner). . .

Pakis are considered “Asian.”

* There were 2 attacks at least half a mile apart.

* There have been at least two bomb threats to this campus in the last two weeks.

How could there be only one shooter—who was able to go a half mile away to commit a second set of shootings? Were there two and was this a coordinated terrorist attack?

So who is the shooter? What is the shooter’s nationality? What is the shooter’s religion? Waiting to find out. And wondering why the police and media are referring to the shooter as “Asian” and not by specific nationality.

If I were Asian, I’d be legitimately upset with this broad generalization of the mass murderer’s identity.

Why am I speculating that the “Asian” gunman is a Pakistani Muslim? Because law enforcement and the media strangely won’t tell us more specifically who the gunman is. Why?
And the ass-covering finale:

Even if it does not turn out that the shooter is Muslim, this is a demonstration to Muslim jihadists all over that it is extremely easy to shoot and kill multiple American college students.

Permalink:
http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2007/04/virginia-tech-minute-by-minute-updates.html

Trackback URL:
http://haloscan.com/tb/txwise/2433908592554031985

Tags: america, school shootings, virginia tech

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.

An “Honest” Terrorist Writes: “No Muslim Can Pledge Loyalty to the Constitution”

The Keith Ellison swearing-in controversy continues to rage. The focus of this controversy should not be about which holy book should or should not be used, or if and when any book should be used, but rather it should focus upon questioning the adequacy of our American Constitution (specifically the two clauses of the First Amendment concerning the relationship of government to religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause). 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?

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

Read closely the words of deported terrorist linked Dr. Jaafar Sheikh Idris

Islam cannot be separated from the state because it guides Muslims through every detail of running the state and their lives. Muslims have no choice but to reject secularism for it excludes the laws of God. . . . No Muslim could become president in a secular regime, for in order to pledge loyalty to the constitution, a Muslim would have to abandon part of his belief and embrace the belief of secularism — which is practically another religion. For Muslims, the word 'religion' does not only refer to a collection of beliefs and rituals, it refers to a way of life which includes all values, behaviors, and details of living.

Here’s the bio on the deported Dr. Jaafar Sheikh Idris:
Former professor and director of the Research Center at the Institute of Islamic & Arab Sciences
Jaafar Sheikh Idris was a professor of Islamic Studies and the director of the Research Center at the Institute of Islamic & Arab Sciences (IIAS) in Fairfax, Virginia. The IIAS wasa nonprofit educational institution affiliated with the Wahhabist al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Idris was also the president of American Open University in Alexandria, Virginia. Idris was deported in January 2004, along with 15 others affiliated with the IIAS, during a massive crackdown on Saudi extremism within the United States. He also founded the Islamic Foundation of America.
The IIAS was shut down by federal authorities on July 1, 2004 because of its links to terrorism.

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.

Read What is a Religion?

Here’s an excerpt:

If it is unconstitutional to establish a religion, then it might sometimes be important to determine whether something is a "religion" for Establishment Clause purposes. For example, Malnak v Yogi (3rd Cir.) considered whether SCI/TM (scientific creative intelligence/transcendental meditation), offered as an elective course in New Jersey public schools, was a religion. If so, offering such a course--even on an elective basis--might be unconstitutional. Those challenging the course produced evidence that instructors told students that "creative intelligence is the basis of all growth" and that getting in touch with this intelligence through mantras is the way to "oneness with the underlying reality of the universe." They also pointed out that students received personal mantras in puja ceremonies that include chanting and ritual. On the other hand, supporters of the course showed that SCI/TM put forward no absolute moral code, had no organized clergy or observed holidays, and had no ceremonies for passages such as marriage and funerals. Is SCI/TM a religion? Judge Adams of the Third Circuit applied these three criteria before answering the question in the affirmative:
1. A religion deals with issues of ultimate concern; with what makes life worth living; with basic attitudes toward fundamental problems of human existence.

2. A religion presents a comprehensive set of ideas--usually as "truth," not just theory.

3. A religion generally has surface signs (such as clergy, observed holidays, and ritual) that can be analogized to well-recognized religions.

Unfortunately our constitution was not designed to deal with a religion that is also a system of laws (Sharia) as well as a system of government that is inimical to the American Constitution.

Read: The Saudi Arabian Legal and Social Structure is Examined

Excerpt:
By way of the Establishment Clause, the United States has built a system that inherently creates a certain degree of separation between religion and state.47 This degree of separation should not be taken for granted. For example, countries operating under Shar'ia, or Islamic Law, have little to no separation between religion and state, leaving most Islamic nations under a theocratic type of government.48 In order to make a valid comparison of the different degrees of separation and the role it plays in society, a basic understanding of the Islamic legal and social structure must be achieved.

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

Here’s an excerpt:

Perhaps it’s time for a constitutional amendment?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 us all begin to discuss this issue!

Today's "Someday We'll Laugh" Open Trackback

Trackposted to Is It Just Me?, Perri Nelson's Website, The Random Yak, Don Surber, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Pet's Garden Blog, Rightwing Guy, Outside the Beltway, Faultline USA, The HILL Chronicles, third world county, Wake Up America, stikNstein... has no mercy, Pirate's Cove, Dumb Ox News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Permalink: An “Honest” Terrorist Writes: “No Muslim Can Pledge Loyalty to the Constitution”

http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2007/01/honest-terrorist-writes-no-muslim-can.html

Trackback URL:

http://haloscan.com/tb/txwise/949305242336885084