Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
Hat tip to Atlas Shrugs
Atlas Shrugs has posted a fascinating audiotape of a conversation between Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and radio host Mark Sommer in June 2006. The discussion was caught on tape on Sommer's radio show, "A World of Possibilities". It begins at the conclusion of the interview when both speakers assumed the mic was off.
It was not.
The tape runs about 13 minutes, but is well worth it. It gives an insight into Rauf's true agenda. Listen carefully to Rauf's analogies with football.
Let's cut beyond the soft-spoken style of Rauf's words and analyze them carefully. First of all, if this man is a "bridge-builder", whose mission in life is to foster peace and friendship between Islam and the non-Muslim world, then football is a strange analogy to use. What grand strategy is involved in a sincere effort in making friends? What "plays" are needed? Rauf talks about offense and defense. Everybody knows that offenses and defenses are constantly trying to outwit each other with their plays. Everybody knows that the objective in football is victory over the other side.
What possible analogy can be made between building bridges, making friendships and "plays"? What are some of the plays we see in football; the safety blitz, the reverse, double-reverse, statue of liberty, option play, hook and ladder, draw play, etc. All designed to fool the other side, right?
"But wait a minute, Fouse. How do you know that Rauf wasn't talking about soccer?"
Same thing. Soccer has plays and strategies even if we Americans don't understand them. Besides, if he was talking about soccer, what is the reference to sending in a particular player (like President Obama) for a particular play? No, Rauf is talking about American football.
You see, Rauf is talking about deception here. Football is among other things, a game of deception and strategy.
"Take what you can get."
What this tells me is that Mr Rauf is another deceiver, a man who poses as a moderate, a friend, but a man whose eventual goal is a world under Islam. He knows he won't live to see it, of course, but to men like Rauf, it is a long term project which can be accomplished in the long term without bloodshed.
"Give up on Israel."
Of course. In Rauf's vision, the US must abandon Israel eventually. He talks about an eventual accord between Israel and the Palestinians, but it is just another step in the process to the eventual disappearance of the Jewish state.
"Recognize Hamas." Yes, recognize a terrorist organization that categorically rejects any idea of negotiating with the Jewish state.
What Rauf is practicing is nothing more than deception with the West (Taqiyya), making the West think that reconciliation and friendship is the goal, when it is conquest-albeit in a peaceful manner, unlike the bin Ladens of the world. The goal is America as an Islamic state under shariah law, which Rauf has pretty much acknowledged in his comments about America becoming "shariah compliant".
And what is Madeline Albright's "useful idiot" role in all this, pray tell?
And to refer to the presidents of the US, UK and Malaysia as "players sent into a game for a particular play?" That kind of reminds me of when the Steelers had "Slash" Kordell Stewart, who would come in for a play or two and run a double-reverse, option pass or something like that.
Taqiyya or just a "useful idiot" option play?
Building bridges is not a strategy that involves deception and taking what you can get at the moment. It is a sincere, open attempt to live side by side in peace, respecting the other's right to exist as they are. It is not football or even soccer or chess. Football, on the other hand, is something entirely different. Who was it, Vince Lombardi, who said, "There is no substitute for victory"?
This man is no bridge builder.
Post of the week: Confronting Ignorance About Islam’s Political and Theocratic Utopia
A great article here by Dymphna from Gates Of Vienna. The two folks at Gates Of Vienna, Baron Bodissey and Dymphna are two of the most intelligent, kind people I have ever gotten to 'know' in my 50 plus years of life. Both of them know European history, the arts, literature, and are consummate students of what the threats are to this country, Europe and beyond. The perils of islam and sharia law are well known to both of these individuals. What they do is of critical importance to the Counter Jihad movement. They do their best to educate us and expose islam for what it truly is. A plan to establish a complete and total global islamic caliphate.
This is the last post of the day/night and it is quite long but as per my habit, I am posting the complete article here. The link to the original article can be found at the end and you may want to go there to read some excellent comments from the fine readers who follow Gates Of Vienna.
Confronting Ignorance About Islam’s Political and Theocratic Utopia
By Dymphna
John Guardiano “confront[s]…the Right’s anti-Islam ‘extremists’” in this recent essay on the Frum Forum. If you check his bio, there is no indication Mr. Guardiano has any particular expertise about Islam. Having served as a Marine in Iraq might give one some perspective, but it hardly makes him an Islamic scholar.
Unfortunately this lack is obvious in the arguments Mr. Guardiano assembles against the purported extremists who attack Islam’s foundational supremacist doctrines. His essay never moves past the superficial talking points doled out by the Muslim Brotherhood to the useful idiots in America. That reason alone would mark this piece as a giant FAIL in the same way that similar screeds are rejected.
What Mr. Guardiano does not address, cannot address, is the central argument which most of the Counterjihad uses against this fifth column marching through our culture:
- - - - - - - - -
1. The foundation of Islam is built on an Islamically defined “justice”.
2. This Islamic version of justice is enacted via the tenets of Sharia Law.
3. Sharia Law is Allah’s will for the world’s submission to Islam. Inviolable and unchangeable, it is not and never will be a “living document”, nor will it vary much, at least not among the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence.
4. The foundational Shariah Laws on which Islam rests are in direct opposition to most of the Articles in the American Constitution.
5. No “melding” of the two versions of jurisprudence is possible, nor would such a fusion ever be considered desirable by Islamic theologians.
6. The ultimate goal of Sharia Law is the world-wide Caliphate.
Comprehension of those points, including the actual contents of Sharia Law (and its special definitions of common words), the meaning of the Ummah and the Caliphate, the five pillars, the three duties, etc., is essential to any cogent discussion of the opposition of the Counterjihad to Islam in the U.S.
The American Constitution is central to our vision of what is meant by the United States of America. That does not hold true for Islam, even American Islam, though there are many folks like Mr. Guardiano who haven’t drilled down past the pleasant façade to the reality of Islamically-ordered relationships.
Perhaps many of the people Mr. Guardiano criticizes in his essay can be faulted for their lack of precise language in addressing our deep concerns about the challenge Islam represents to us and to Western culture in general. However, the learning curve on this issue is a steep one, as Mr. Guardiano’s essay itself demonstrates only too well. Thus, if we speak less than precisely, this doesn’t take away from the truth of the matter: sharia is inimical to the American Constitution and to the Western culture from which it arose.
The semantic confusion so apparent in the quotes Mr. Guardiano uses is intentionally caused by the Muslim Brotherhood. Their rulebook dictates provocation, smoke and mirrors, and deflection — that whole bag of tricks known as taqiyya and kitman. Duplicity acts as a spanner in the spokes of honest dialogue; the longer the Muslim Brotherhood can poke at semantics the more chaos they can wreak among the ranks of their opponents. This chaos in turn generates further opportunities to create divisions among those whose natural inclination otherwise would be to work together against a common enemy. This is a clever, efficient strategy; it will be addressed in more detail later.
Let us grant that some of the criticisms Mr. Guardiano levels are valid. However — and this is a large “but” — let us stipulate that the words he objects to are simply awkward formulations by people who face a steep learning curve. We are dealing with foreign invaders who have more than a thousand years of deceptive practices behind them.
In no case prior to this one has Islam ever invaded and conquered by peaceful means. It would not be possible to do so now were not the West so fragmented and riven with fierce conflict over its own raison d’être. As Benjamin Franklin so wearily warned: if we cannot hang together, we shall surely hang separately. Now, as then, that is not a figurative turn of phrase. One has only to look at a few pictures of the millions of dead who perished at the hands of Islam to know quite well what fate has in store for us…or is it to be for our grandchildren? Our great-grandchildren?
No matter: The Muslim Brotherhood is patient and it works for long-term victory. Their goal is simply the Caliphate, that utopian vision of a whole world subjugated in dhimmified peace and living under Sharia Law. Given the fact Muslims kill one another off in greater numbers than they kill infidels, this is an unrealistic vision indeed.
Mr. Guardiano marshals his instances of the ways in which the “Islamophobes” offend:
…unfortunately, when it comes to Islam, many conservatives are at risk of conforming to the left-wing stereotype. Consider, for example, the Washington Examiner’s recent headline, “Muslims, not Americans, are religious bigots.” Substitute any other minority group for Muslims and consider the sensibility that the headline then conveys.
“Blacks, not Americans, are religious bigots.” Or: “Jews, not Americans, are religious bigots.” How about: “Hispanics, not Americans, are religious bigots”?
Just to make certain there is an agreement on the definition of “bigot”, here’s what the Free Online Dictionary says:
a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race…
[from Old French: name applied contemptuously to the Normans by the French, of obscure origin]
Provided we’re in agreement on terminology, let’s move on to a common categorical error made by Mr. Guardiano: comparing so-called religious minorities with other smaller groupings of people. This only serves to confuse the issue. Blacks and Hispanics are not religious minorities, they are ethnic groups (of a sort). Only some Jews would consider themselves a religion. Like Muslims and Mexicans, they come in many varieties.
Because we extremists are extremely concerned with laws rather than religious beliefs, our annoyance at some of these groups Mr. Guardiano chose as examples is based on our ‘faith’ in the concept of the rule of law. We believe in the primacy of the obligations which liberty imposes, not the entitlements or rights which it may bestow. In that respect, we share a common feature with Islam — i.e., a belief in one basic Law which underlies the rest of them. Our Constitutional laws are founded on liberty. Sharia Law is based on submission. Can there possibly be a more fundamental difference than the existential chasm lying between liberty and submission?
But back to Mr. Guardiano’s minority groups. Leave aside his categorical error of confusing religions and ethnicities (or, as some members of those groups would prefer, “races”), let’s unpack his propositions and deal with each one of them as they deserve to be: separately and at length.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
First we have this imaginary proposal:
1. “Blacks, not Americans, are religious bigots.”
Let’s proceed inductively. Ask most of the edgier blacks if anyone besides Whitey can be a bigot. The honest ones will tell you straight up: blacks cannot be bigots, not ever. If they can only ever be Victims, who, then, is the default Villain in their mythology?
I walked out of the last racism “workshop” I ever attended because its whole program was based on this malicious proposition. Sorry, dude, but someone else will have to volunteer for your villain role. I’m not ever (willingly) going to be a prop in someone else’s drama. The awful truth is that this idea may be the single most condescending lie to emerge from the fever swamps of racial hatred in many generations. A true racist couldn’t have picked a better dictum to impose on any group to insure its self-fulfilling failure.
Such pernicious claptrap functions with machine-like inexorability: it generates an eternal sense of grievance, establishes a need for “Victimology” studies in academic ghettoes, and institutes racially based set-asides. Worst of all, it puts competent blacks forever one-down in their own eyes. By design or by default this spiteful propaganda is killing our black underclass; it poisons even middle and upper class blacks. One has only to look at the bitter attitudes of our President and his wife to see the damage. And you can bet they are passing on this sad propaganda to their children.
Or how about the demand for reparations which arose in the wake of the Equal Rights Amendment? Again, even our purported post racial president succumbs to this delusional thinking. There are audio tapes of his reflections on the flaws in the Constitution and of the failure of the Equal Rights Amendment to pay those who fought to attain it, not to mention payment owed to all the descendants of those who suffered under slavery. That is one tar baby not even Solomon could apportion fairly. The whole notion of reparations is just another self-generating grievance machine designed to generate failure and a sense of scarcity.
If Obama’s statements above are too far in the past (2001), then let us observe his knee-jerk reverse racism last summer in the case of the Cambridge policeman versus Obama’s “good friend”, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates. The latter is a prime example of a member of the educated elite who has raised his deep, instinctive grievances from the pathology of characterological flaws (which is where they belong) to a professional level of academic expertise. These faux-justice “issues” have morphed into aspects of his identity, not to mention fattening his bank account and assuring his tenure.
President Obama’s message to the American people regarding the arrest of Dr. Gates was needlessly inflammatory; it was also factually and ethically wrong. As a purported legal scholar, his lecture to us was precipitate and unprofessional. Notwithstanding his own rise to the pinnacle of success (at least in American heroic terms), Obama demonstrated the sad fact that his feet remain mired in those muddy, miserable resentments he ought to have outgrown. As our president his reactive anger fouled the atmosphere in the public square. Obama still owes America an apology for that mess, one he created all by himself. An honest broker would have made sure to be seen cleaning it up, but we gave up on ever witnessing such integrity as we watched that fatuous, limp-wristed beer summit. At least some of us were embarrassed for him, especially when the camera caught Mr. Obama walking away from Dr. Gates while the Cambridge policeman was left to assist Obama's “good friend” down the stairs.
But that’s so 2009. Instead, we could wander through this year’s summer camp for racists being held by the New Black Panthers and the NAACP, both of them exposed while wearing their racist pants. But the whole exercise was wash-rinse-repeat, so why bother? These incidents are drearily predictable by now.
Just as we must endure white bigots, we also have to put up with the disgruntled black bigots who see the whole of their life experience through the prism of race. Both groups are as pitiable as they are banal. The rest of us will continue to refuse to be defined by their hatreds, but we won’t pretend the hatreds aren’t there or that they don’t drive important decisions among black-only groups like the (liberals only) Congressional Black Caucus.
What a shame that the potential for good is turned into searching for Whitey under the bed, ever vigilant against the imagined power of evil whites to determine (read “limit”) the existence of blacks.
Arguing with the New Black Panthers or the NAACP is an exercise in futility. People cannot be reasoned out of beliefs which Reason had little part in forming. Professional race mongers make money at their calling. The rest of us — black and white and all the colors in-between — can get on with living while the pros gnash their teeth in the outer darkness where dwell those other outmoded True Believers, say, the Flat Earth Society and The Feminists.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Let’s return to Mr. Guardiano’s reductio ad absurdum argument about the minorities he thinks we wouldn’t speak against. After blacks, he moves on to this:
“Jews, not Americans, are religious bigots.”
Remember, our author thinks that conservatives (or right wing folks, however they define themselves) would never say something like that.
Well, sir, you may think this is a third rail, but you’re wrong. Even we, ardent Israelophiles that we are, recognize Israel as a democratic theocracy, or, if you prefer, a theocratic democracy. They are proof that such a system can work if the overarching world view for everyone who adheres to the system remains in synch.
In Israel, Jews have rights which non-Jews are stipulated ahead of time not to possess. Even Jews living outside the boundaries of Israel have those rights. Yes, Israel is meticulous in exempting non-Jews from the burdens Jewish citizens bear, but non-Jews in Israel can feel the difference. Some are wise and simply shrug it off as “that’s how things are; I choose to live here anyway”. Others are more sullen about the fact of their diminished status. But you won’t find them leaving. No, I don’t understand why this second group would stay.
If Islam could only learn how a functional democratic theocracy operates, the world would be a more peaceful place. But many adherents of the various factions of Islam have banded together to attempt to annihilate the only democracy in the Middle East. Israel is successful, functional and creative. It has a Western culture that thrives in that otherwise misery-ridden desert. Sure, some of the Arabs are petro-wealthy but how does that translate for the average Arab in the Middle East?
Fifteen percent of Israel’s residents are Muslims. How many Jews reside in neighboring Islamic countries? And how much of the terrorism and death in Israel comes from Islam? How much of it comes from other religions or regions?
That said, many Americans do indeed think Jews are bigoted because…well, because they claim an exceptionalism for Jewish people. Funny, we Americans like our own exceptionalism — except for those who don’t like it and think we ought to spend the rest of our existence apologizing for our audacity. Obama, Clinton and Carter are all about apologizing to the rest of the world for our grievous sins. Not their own personal offenses, mind you. No, their narrative is devoted to expounding upon the shameful history of the shameful people who elected them.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Finally, Mr. Guardiano suggests another group which is supposed to be untouchable.
How about: “Hispanics, not Americans, arereligious bigots”?
Yes, how about some of them, indeed.
Let’s start with The Council of La Raza. Any group self-labeled as “The Race” is what, if not essentially ‘racist’? Any group, Hispanic or otherwise, which adopts such a supremacist attitude is bigoted. Which is okay, as long as those definitions aren’t required reading for the rest of us, or as long as the Mexican flag doesn’t replace the American flag on U.S. soil. La Raza, which received a nice hefty sum from Bill Gates, is bigoted. So are the folks behind the utopian fantasy, Aztlan.
Or perhaps this group of young idealists?
Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA), one of the most anti-American groups in the country, which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its push to carve a racist nation out of the American West.
“Chicano is our identity; it defines who we are as people. It rejects the notion that we…should assimilate into the Anglo-American melting pot…Aztlan was the legendary homeland of the Aztecas … It became synonymous with the vast territories of the Southwest, brutally stolen from a Mexican people marginalized and betrayed by the hostile custodians of the Manifest Destiny.” (Statement on University of Oregon MEChA Website, Jan. 3, 2006)
[…]
We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlan. For La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada.”
Nada yourself, children.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
There is much more to examine in Mr. Guardiano’s essay, particularly his misunderstanding of Sharia Law and his facile comparisons between Islam and Judaism or Islam and Christianity, not to mention his gloss on Islamic democracy. Unfortunately, fatigue prevents any further examination of his claims. I’m plumb tuckered out. However, note some of the things he says:
Yet, it’s curious: Few of the anti-Islamic militants ever articulate a program for dealing with this omnipresent and insidious terrorist threat.
Oh, but we do “articulate a program”, sir. You just haven’t been paying attention.
Next time around, we’ll look at his misrepresentations of Islam and his lack of understanding about some conservatives’ “articulated program” against the tenets of Islam. The adumbrations of such a program are already present in this post. In Part II we’ll spell them out (if fatigue doesn’t interfere).
Meanwhile, has anyone asked Mr. Guardiano about the American laws which were enacted against the Mormon practice of polygamy?
Does he think we ought to rescind those laws?
Do the laws violate Mormons’ religious freedoms?
Were we bigoted when we enacted those laws?
Are we bigoted when we continue to enforce them?
Is bigotry in the eye of the beholder?
Hat Tip: Diana West
NOTA BENE: The subjects covered here often bring folks to the comment section who are not familiar with our policies. Please remember the ground rules regarding commenting (or re-read them). If anyone flouts these guidelines they’ll be deleted. If enough people do so, the comments for this post will be closed. Deleting commentary is energy better spent elsewhere.
Original article can be found here
This is the last post of the day/night and it is quite long but as per my habit, I am posting the complete article here. The link to the original article can be found at the end and you may want to go there to read some excellent comments from the fine readers who follow Gates Of Vienna.
By Dymphna
John Guardiano “confront[s]…the Right’s anti-Islam ‘extremists’” in this recent essay on the Frum Forum. If you check his bio, there is no indication Mr. Guardiano has any particular expertise about Islam. Having served as a Marine in Iraq might give one some perspective, but it hardly makes him an Islamic scholar.
Unfortunately this lack is obvious in the arguments Mr. Guardiano assembles against the purported extremists who attack Islam’s foundational supremacist doctrines. His essay never moves past the superficial talking points doled out by the Muslim Brotherhood to the useful idiots in America. That reason alone would mark this piece as a giant FAIL in the same way that similar screeds are rejected.
What Mr. Guardiano does not address, cannot address, is the central argument which most of the Counterjihad uses against this fifth column marching through our culture:
- - - - - - - - -
1. The foundation of Islam is built on an Islamically defined “justice”.
2. This Islamic version of justice is enacted via the tenets of Sharia Law.
3. Sharia Law is Allah’s will for the world’s submission to Islam. Inviolable and unchangeable, it is not and never will be a “living document”, nor will it vary much, at least not among the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence.
4. The foundational Shariah Laws on which Islam rests are in direct opposition to most of the Articles in the American Constitution.
5. No “melding” of the two versions of jurisprudence is possible, nor would such a fusion ever be considered desirable by Islamic theologians.
6. The ultimate goal of Sharia Law is the world-wide Caliphate.
Comprehension of those points, including the actual contents of Sharia Law (and its special definitions of common words), the meaning of the Ummah and the Caliphate, the five pillars, the three duties, etc., is essential to any cogent discussion of the opposition of the Counterjihad to Islam in the U.S.
The American Constitution is central to our vision of what is meant by the United States of America. That does not hold true for Islam, even American Islam, though there are many folks like Mr. Guardiano who haven’t drilled down past the pleasant façade to the reality of Islamically-ordered relationships.
Perhaps many of the people Mr. Guardiano criticizes in his essay can be faulted for their lack of precise language in addressing our deep concerns about the challenge Islam represents to us and to Western culture in general. However, the learning curve on this issue is a steep one, as Mr. Guardiano’s essay itself demonstrates only too well. Thus, if we speak less than precisely, this doesn’t take away from the truth of the matter: sharia is inimical to the American Constitution and to the Western culture from which it arose.
The semantic confusion so apparent in the quotes Mr. Guardiano uses is intentionally caused by the Muslim Brotherhood. Their rulebook dictates provocation, smoke and mirrors, and deflection — that whole bag of tricks known as taqiyya and kitman. Duplicity acts as a spanner in the spokes of honest dialogue; the longer the Muslim Brotherhood can poke at semantics the more chaos they can wreak among the ranks of their opponents. This chaos in turn generates further opportunities to create divisions among those whose natural inclination otherwise would be to work together against a common enemy. This is a clever, efficient strategy; it will be addressed in more detail later.
Let us grant that some of the criticisms Mr. Guardiano levels are valid. However — and this is a large “but” — let us stipulate that the words he objects to are simply awkward formulations by people who face a steep learning curve. We are dealing with foreign invaders who have more than a thousand years of deceptive practices behind them.
In no case prior to this one has Islam ever invaded and conquered by peaceful means. It would not be possible to do so now were not the West so fragmented and riven with fierce conflict over its own raison d’être. As Benjamin Franklin so wearily warned: if we cannot hang together, we shall surely hang separately. Now, as then, that is not a figurative turn of phrase. One has only to look at a few pictures of the millions of dead who perished at the hands of Islam to know quite well what fate has in store for us…or is it to be for our grandchildren? Our great-grandchildren?
No matter: The Muslim Brotherhood is patient and it works for long-term victory. Their goal is simply the Caliphate, that utopian vision of a whole world subjugated in dhimmified peace and living under Sharia Law. Given the fact Muslims kill one another off in greater numbers than they kill infidels, this is an unrealistic vision indeed.
Mr. Guardiano marshals his instances of the ways in which the “Islamophobes” offend:
…unfortunately, when it comes to Islam, many conservatives are at risk of conforming to the left-wing stereotype. Consider, for example, the Washington Examiner’s recent headline, “Muslims, not Americans, are religious bigots.” Substitute any other minority group for Muslims and consider the sensibility that the headline then conveys.
“Blacks, not Americans, are religious bigots.” Or: “Jews, not Americans, are religious bigots.” How about: “Hispanics, not Americans, are religious bigots”?
Just to make certain there is an agreement on the definition of “bigot”, here’s what the Free Online Dictionary says:
a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race…
[from Old French: name applied contemptuously to the Normans by the French, of obscure origin]
Provided we’re in agreement on terminology, let’s move on to a common categorical error made by Mr. Guardiano: comparing so-called religious minorities with other smaller groupings of people. This only serves to confuse the issue. Blacks and Hispanics are not religious minorities, they are ethnic groups (of a sort). Only some Jews would consider themselves a religion. Like Muslims and Mexicans, they come in many varieties.
Because we extremists are extremely concerned with laws rather than religious beliefs, our annoyance at some of these groups Mr. Guardiano chose as examples is based on our ‘faith’ in the concept of the rule of law. We believe in the primacy of the obligations which liberty imposes, not the entitlements or rights which it may bestow. In that respect, we share a common feature with Islam — i.e., a belief in one basic Law which underlies the rest of them. Our Constitutional laws are founded on liberty. Sharia Law is based on submission. Can there possibly be a more fundamental difference than the existential chasm lying between liberty and submission?
But back to Mr. Guardiano’s minority groups. Leave aside his categorical error of confusing religions and ethnicities (or, as some members of those groups would prefer, “races”), let’s unpack his propositions and deal with each one of them as they deserve to be: separately and at length.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
First we have this imaginary proposal:
1. “Blacks, not Americans, are
Let’s proceed inductively. Ask most of the edgier blacks if anyone besides Whitey can be a bigot. The honest ones will tell you straight up: blacks cannot be bigots, not ever. If they can only ever be Victims, who, then, is the default Villain in their mythology?
I walked out of the last racism “workshop” I ever attended because its whole program was based on this malicious proposition. Sorry, dude, but someone else will have to volunteer for your villain role. I’m not ever (willingly) going to be a prop in someone else’s drama. The awful truth is that this idea may be the single most condescending lie to emerge from the fever swamps of racial hatred in many generations. A true racist couldn’t have picked a better dictum to impose on any group to insure its self-fulfilling failure.
Such pernicious claptrap functions with machine-like inexorability: it generates an eternal sense of grievance, establishes a need for “Victimology” studies in academic ghettoes, and institutes racially based set-asides. Worst of all, it puts competent blacks forever one-down in their own eyes. By design or by default this spiteful propaganda is killing our black underclass; it poisons even middle and upper class blacks. One has only to look at the bitter attitudes of our President and his wife to see the damage. And you can bet they are passing on this sad propaganda to their children.
Or how about the demand for reparations which arose in the wake of the Equal Rights Amendment? Again, even our purported post racial president succumbs to this delusional thinking. There are audio tapes of his reflections on the flaws in the Constitution and of the failure of the Equal Rights Amendment to pay those who fought to attain it, not to mention payment owed to all the descendants of those who suffered under slavery. That is one tar baby not even Solomon could apportion fairly. The whole notion of reparations is just another self-generating grievance machine designed to generate failure and a sense of scarcity.
If Obama’s statements above are too far in the past (2001), then let us observe his knee-jerk reverse racism last summer in the case of the Cambridge policeman versus Obama’s “good friend”, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates. The latter is a prime example of a member of the educated elite who has raised his deep, instinctive grievances from the pathology of characterological flaws (which is where they belong) to a professional level of academic expertise. These faux-justice “issues” have morphed into aspects of his identity, not to mention fattening his bank account and assuring his tenure.
President Obama’s message to the American people regarding the arrest of Dr. Gates was needlessly inflammatory; it was also factually and ethically wrong. As a purported legal scholar, his lecture to us was precipitate and unprofessional. Notwithstanding his own rise to the pinnacle of success (at least in American heroic terms), Obama demonstrated the sad fact that his feet remain mired in those muddy, miserable resentments he ought to have outgrown. As our president his reactive anger fouled the atmosphere in the public square. Obama still owes America an apology for that mess, one he created all by himself. An honest broker would have made sure to be seen cleaning it up, but we gave up on ever witnessing such integrity as we watched that fatuous, limp-wristed beer summit. At least some of us were embarrassed for him, especially when the camera caught Mr. Obama walking away from Dr. Gates while the Cambridge policeman was left to assist Obama's “good friend” down the stairs.
But that’s so 2009. Instead, we could wander through this year’s summer camp for racists being held by the New Black Panthers and the NAACP, both of them exposed while wearing their racist pants. But the whole exercise was wash-rinse-repeat, so why bother? These incidents are drearily predictable by now.
Just as we must endure white bigots, we also have to put up with the disgruntled black bigots who see the whole of their life experience through the prism of race. Both groups are as pitiable as they are banal. The rest of us will continue to refuse to be defined by their hatreds, but we won’t pretend the hatreds aren’t there or that they don’t drive important decisions among black-only groups like the (liberals only) Congressional Black Caucus.
What a shame that the potential for good is turned into searching for Whitey under the bed, ever vigilant against the imagined power of evil whites to determine (read “limit”) the existence of blacks.
Arguing with the New Black Panthers or the NAACP is an exercise in futility. People cannot be reasoned out of beliefs which Reason had little part in forming. Professional race mongers make money at their calling. The rest of us — black and white and all the colors in-between — can get on with living while the pros gnash their teeth in the outer darkness where dwell those other outmoded True Believers, say, the Flat Earth Society and The Feminists.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Let’s return to Mr. Guardiano’s reductio ad absurdum argument about the minorities he thinks we wouldn’t speak against. After blacks, he moves on to this:
“Jews, not Americans, are religious bigots.”
Remember, our author thinks that conservatives (or right wing folks, however they define themselves) would never say something like that.
Well, sir, you may think this is a third rail, but you’re wrong. Even we, ardent Israelophiles that we are, recognize Israel as a democratic theocracy, or, if you prefer, a theocratic democracy. They are proof that such a system can work if the overarching world view for everyone who adheres to the system remains in synch.
In Israel, Jews have rights which non-Jews are stipulated ahead of time not to possess. Even Jews living outside the boundaries of Israel have those rights. Yes, Israel is meticulous in exempting non-Jews from the burdens Jewish citizens bear, but non-Jews in Israel can feel the difference. Some are wise and simply shrug it off as “that’s how things are; I choose to live here anyway”. Others are more sullen about the fact of their diminished status. But you won’t find them leaving. No, I don’t understand why this second group would stay.
If Islam could only learn how a functional democratic theocracy operates, the world would be a more peaceful place. But many adherents of the various factions of Islam have banded together to attempt to annihilate the only democracy in the Middle East. Israel is successful, functional and creative. It has a Western culture that thrives in that otherwise misery-ridden desert. Sure, some of the Arabs are petro-wealthy but how does that translate for the average Arab in the Middle East?
Fifteen percent of Israel’s residents are Muslims. How many Jews reside in neighboring Islamic countries? And how much of the terrorism and death in Israel comes from Islam? How much of it comes from other religions or regions?
That said, many Americans do indeed think Jews are bigoted because…well, because they claim an exceptionalism for Jewish people. Funny, we Americans like our own exceptionalism — except for those who don’t like it and think we ought to spend the rest of our existence apologizing for our audacity. Obama, Clinton and Carter are all about apologizing to the rest of the world for our grievous sins. Not their own personal offenses, mind you. No, their narrative is devoted to expounding upon the shameful history of the shameful people who elected them.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Finally, Mr. Guardiano suggests another group which is supposed to be untouchable.
How about: “Hispanics, not Americans, are
Yes, how about some of them, indeed.
Let’s start with The Council of La Raza. Any group self-labeled as “The Race” is what, if not essentially ‘racist’? Any group, Hispanic or otherwise, which adopts such a supremacist attitude is bigoted. Which is okay, as long as those definitions aren’t required reading for the rest of us, or as long as the Mexican flag doesn’t replace the American flag on U.S. soil. La Raza, which received a nice hefty sum from Bill Gates, is bigoted. So are the folks behind the utopian fantasy, Aztlan.
Or perhaps this group of young idealists?
Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA), one of the most anti-American groups in the country, which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its push to carve a racist nation out of the American West.
“Chicano is our identity; it defines who we are as people. It rejects the notion that we…should assimilate into the Anglo-American melting pot…Aztlan was the legendary homeland of the Aztecas … It became synonymous with the vast territories of the Southwest, brutally stolen from a Mexican people marginalized and betrayed by the hostile custodians of the Manifest Destiny.” (Statement on University of Oregon MEChA Website, Jan. 3, 2006)
[…]
We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlan. For La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada.”
Nada yourself, children.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
There is much more to examine in Mr. Guardiano’s essay, particularly his misunderstanding of Sharia Law and his facile comparisons between Islam and Judaism or Islam and Christianity, not to mention his gloss on Islamic democracy. Unfortunately, fatigue prevents any further examination of his claims. I’m plumb tuckered out. However, note some of the things he says:
Yet, it’s curious: Few of the anti-Islamic militants ever articulate a program for dealing with this omnipresent and insidious terrorist threat.
Oh, but we do “articulate a program”, sir. You just haven’t been paying attention.
Next time around, we’ll look at his misrepresentations of Islam and his lack of understanding about some conservatives’ “articulated program” against the tenets of Islam. The adumbrations of such a program are already present in this post. In Part II we’ll spell them out (if fatigue doesn’t interfere).
Meanwhile, has anyone asked Mr. Guardiano about the American laws which were enacted against the Mormon practice of polygamy?
Does he think we ought to rescind those laws?
Do the laws violate Mormons’ religious freedoms?
Were we bigoted when we enacted those laws?
Are we bigoted when we continue to enforce them?
Is bigotry in the eye of the beholder?
Hat Tip: Diana West
NOTA BENE: The subjects covered here often bring folks to the comment section who are not familiar with our policies. Please remember the ground rules regarding commenting (or re-read them). If anyone flouts these guidelines they’ll be deleted. If enough people do so, the comments for this post will be closed. Deleting commentary is energy better spent elsewhere.
Original article can be found here
Environazis want to ban lead from bullets and fishing weights
My disdain for the environmentalists grows worse with each report, petition or suit that is filed, costing this country jobs, and much more. I am all for saving some old growth forests, cleaning up our water, air and soil but these far left environazis keep on taking one little piece after another. We cannot even drill, dam, or mine anymore, it seems. The seeds that were planted in the late 1950s and during the 1960s, 1970s have sprouted into evil organizations, lobbyists and domestic terrorist groups like Earth First!
Now comes this petition to ban lead in bullets and fishing weights. The two groups that submitted this petition state they are not anti-fishing or anti-hunting. Yeah, sure, and I am liberal who voted for the mullah in the White House, wants open borders, amnesty and all 2nd amendment rights made against the law. This is another attempt by this administration to strip away out 2nd amendment rights. I live about 15 miles away from the Nosler Manufacturing Company. Nosler produces some of the best ammunition and guns in the world. After hearing about this they went on record against these petitions and warned that they would result in lost jobs, increased costs for ammunition and guns. As to the petitions themselves? There has been no direct scientific evidence that lead from bullets and fishing weights is causing an environmental problem anywhere. From Chattanoogan.com. They want to take our guns away, and the demosocialistacrats will do this any way they can.
Groups Petition EPA to Remove Lead from Hunting, Fishing
A coalition of groups lead by the American Bird Conservancy (ABC) and the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) has petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to ban "Lead Shot, Bullets and Fishing Sinkers" under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Their formal petition gives the EPA 90 days to decide whether or not to ban the "manufacture, professing and distribution in commerce of lead shot, bullets and fishing sinkers." The petition says that while the government has implemented regulations to reduce exposure of human beings to lead in a variety of applications, lead ammunition and lost lead fishing tackle are "uncontrolled and lead remains widely encountered and distributed in the environment from these sources." The petition lists "significant" amounts of lead that end up in aquatic environments from lost or discarded fishing tackle, including lures, sinkers, lead core fishing line, downrigger cannonballs, weights, and a variety of fishing traps and nets that employ the use of lead.
With the wide variety of non-lead, nontoxic replacements for fishing tackle and firearms projectiles, the petition asks that the EPA mandate the removal of lead from those applications.
In a teleconference regarding their petition yesterday, representatives from the two groups stressed that their petition was not anti-hunting or fishing. Rather, they characterized their action as purely environmental.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation has taken exception with that characterization, calling the petition another assault on traditional ammo and fishing tackle.
You can read the petition to the EPA in its entirety by clicking here.
Original article can be found here
Now comes this petition to ban lead in bullets and fishing weights. The two groups that submitted this petition state they are not anti-fishing or anti-hunting. Yeah, sure, and I am liberal who voted for the mullah in the White House, wants open borders, amnesty and all 2nd amendment rights made against the law. This is another attempt by this administration to strip away out 2nd amendment rights. I live about 15 miles away from the Nosler Manufacturing Company. Nosler produces some of the best ammunition and guns in the world. After hearing about this they went on record against these petitions and warned that they would result in lost jobs, increased costs for ammunition and guns. As to the petitions themselves? There has been no direct scientific evidence that lead from bullets and fishing weights is causing an environmental problem anywhere. From Chattanoogan.com. They want to take our guns away, and the demosocialistacrats will do this any way they can.
A coalition of groups lead by the American Bird Conservancy (ABC) and the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) has petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to ban "Lead Shot, Bullets and Fishing Sinkers" under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Their formal petition gives the EPA 90 days to decide whether or not to ban the "manufacture, professing and distribution in commerce of lead shot, bullets and fishing sinkers." The petition says that while the government has implemented regulations to reduce exposure of human beings to lead in a variety of applications, lead ammunition and lost lead fishing tackle are "uncontrolled and lead remains widely encountered and distributed in the environment from these sources." The petition lists "significant" amounts of lead that end up in aquatic environments from lost or discarded fishing tackle, including lures, sinkers, lead core fishing line, downrigger cannonballs, weights, and a variety of fishing traps and nets that employ the use of lead.
With the wide variety of non-lead, nontoxic replacements for fishing tackle and firearms projectiles, the petition asks that the EPA mandate the removal of lead from those applications.
In a teleconference regarding their petition yesterday, representatives from the two groups stressed that their petition was not anti-hunting or fishing. Rather, they characterized their action as purely environmental.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation has taken exception with that characterization, calling the petition another assault on traditional ammo and fishing tackle.
You can read the petition to the EPA in its entirety by clicking here.
Original article can be found here
Bloated Universities
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
The below study by the Goldwater Institute was passed on by a friend, and since I work at a university (part-time), it is of interest to me. It concerns the bloated bureaucracy of US universities and explores the reasons.
http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/4941
Now I am just a humble part-time teacher at the University of California at Irvine, but it sure looks to me that the Goldwater Institute is on to something. University of California campuses are stuffed with chancellors, vice chancellors, deans, asst. deans, and so on. At UCI, we have a vice chancellor retiring this month and nobody knows who is going to replace him-if anybody.
Here's an anecdote; Several years ago, a department at a UC campus blew a couple of hundred grand on some useless software program. To make up the money lost, they had to lay off ten full-time instructors. (Two of them never came back.)
That reminds me; Remember that important job that Michelle Obama had at the University of Chicago Hospital way back when hubby was a rising politician in Illinois?
Remember that huge raise she got when hubby became a US Senator? In 2005, she went from Executive Director of Community Affairs to Vice President of Community and External Affairs (a promotion). Her salary went from $121,910 to $316,962 (which was reduced as she converted to part-time in 2007 due to her husband's presidential aspirations).
(Source: Fact Check).
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/michelle-obamas-salary/
"That's a big f----' deal!"
In January 2009, she resigned. And who was chosen as her replacement in this vital position when she left? Well, nobody. The office was reorganized upon her departure.
http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/2009/20090109-obama.html
But for all you UC Santa Cruz Community Studies majors, there is good news. The cost of all this is mostly covered by government subsidies.
fousesquawk
The below study by the Goldwater Institute was passed on by a friend, and since I work at a university (part-time), it is of interest to me. It concerns the bloated bureaucracy of US universities and explores the reasons.
http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/4941
Now I am just a humble part-time teacher at the University of California at Irvine, but it sure looks to me that the Goldwater Institute is on to something. University of California campuses are stuffed with chancellors, vice chancellors, deans, asst. deans, and so on. At UCI, we have a vice chancellor retiring this month and nobody knows who is going to replace him-if anybody.
Here's an anecdote; Several years ago, a department at a UC campus blew a couple of hundred grand on some useless software program. To make up the money lost, they had to lay off ten full-time instructors. (Two of them never came back.)
That reminds me; Remember that important job that Michelle Obama had at the University of Chicago Hospital way back when hubby was a rising politician in Illinois?
Remember that huge raise she got when hubby became a US Senator? In 2005, she went from Executive Director of Community Affairs to Vice President of Community and External Affairs (a promotion). Her salary went from $121,910 to $316,962 (which was reduced as she converted to part-time in 2007 due to her husband's presidential aspirations).
(Source: Fact Check).
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/michelle-obamas-salary/
"That's a big f----' deal!"
In January 2009, she resigned. And who was chosen as her replacement in this vital position when she left? Well, nobody. The office was reorganized upon her departure.
http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/2009/20090109-obama.html
But for all you UC Santa Cruz Community Studies majors, there is good news. The cost of all this is mostly covered by government subsidies.
islamic stupidity on parade: banning ads for pet products in Iran.
Labels:
Fun with Islam,
Hadith,
Qur'an
No doubt this is one of the dumbest, most idiotic fatwas I have read about in quite some time. I know dogs are not well accepted in many islamic countries and they are not held in high esteem in the qur'an and other islamic teachings. As AJ is the editor here at Patriot's Corner(his picture is on the upper left hand side of the blog page), he was quite upset when I read this article to him from the LA Times. As a typical dog, AJ loves any pet ad that has to do with dog food, treats etc. Leave to the ass backward mullahs and clerics of Iran to come up with this one. I really like the statement about how we in the West treat our dogs better than our wives or kids.
"In June, Shirazi issued a fatwa against keeping dogs as pets, although that ruling was not made into law. At the time, Shirazi slammed dog owners for "blindly imitating the West," which, he said, would result in "evil outcomes.
Many people in the West love their dogs more than their wives and children," he said.
The fatwa cites Islamic tradition, which dictates dogs are unclean based on testimonies from the followers of the prophet Mohammad known as hadith.
OK, so you tell me about what this ding dong said. Seems to me that in the islamic world there is a severe problem with how many husbands treat their wives and kids. Beating them, raping them, humiliating them. We know the drill and history that is still alive and well in the muslim world. That is not to say we are perfect here in the West. Plus AJ reminds me that many dogs are quite a bit more intelligent than many people. That is quite true. Woof, it is time for a walk! From the LA Times.
IRAN: Pet-product advertising banned as dog owners come under fire
Iranian authorities are cracking down, but this time their target isn't political dissidents or drug traffickers. It's dogs.
Or rather, pets in general. This week, Ayatollah Nasser Makkarem Shirazi, a powerful cleric, issued a fatwa that was later passed into law banning any advertisements about pets or alluding to the buying, selling or keeping of pets, according to the Mehr news agency.
The fatwa was issued in response to a question by the country's Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, which serves as Iran's censor.
The ministry's Advertisement and Information Dissemination Office vowed to crack down on ads promoting pet foods, especially for cats and dogs.
In June, Shirazi issued a fatwa against keeping dogs as pets, although that ruling was not made into law. At the time, Shirazi slammed dog owners for "blindly imitating the West," which, he said, would result in "evil outcomes."
"Many people in the West love their dogs more than their wives and children," he said.
The fatwa cites Islamic tradition, which dictates dogs are unclean based on testimonies from the followers of the prophet Mohammad known as hadith.
Keeping dogs as pets has become fashionable among Iranians in recent years, especially among well-to-do urban families. Although pet dogs are not technically illegal, walking a dog in a public place like a park can earn the owner a hefty fine.
A report on Shirazi's fatwa against pet dogs that appeared in the Abu Dhabi-based National newspaper speculated that the crackdown on pets may have more to do with class politics than Islamic law. The ruling conservative party has traditionally championed the working class while painting opposition activists as frivolous, corrupt cosmopolitans.
“The authorities can’t stop people from buying expensive cars or clothes and jewelery,” an unnamed analyst in Tehran told the paper. “But they can prevent them from displaying their wealth by keeping pet dogs on the grounds that they are unclean.”
But rather than discourage people from buying dogs, one pet-shop owner reported an increase in the sale of small dogs that are easy to hide.
-- Meris Lutz in Beirut
Original article can be found here
"In June, Shirazi issued a fatwa against keeping dogs as pets, although that ruling was not made into law. At the time, Shirazi slammed dog owners for "blindly imitating the West," which, he said, would result in "evil outcomes.
Many people in the West love their dogs more than their wives and children," he said.
The fatwa cites Islamic tradition, which dictates dogs are unclean based on testimonies from the followers of the prophet Mohammad known as hadith.
OK, so you tell me about what this ding dong said. Seems to me that in the islamic world there is a severe problem with how many husbands treat their wives and kids. Beating them, raping them, humiliating them. We know the drill and history that is still alive and well in the muslim world. That is not to say we are perfect here in the West. Plus AJ reminds me that many dogs are quite a bit more intelligent than many people. That is quite true. Woof, it is time for a walk! From the LA Times.
Iranian authorities are cracking down, but this time their target isn't political dissidents or drug traffickers. It's dogs.
Or rather, pets in general. This week, Ayatollah Nasser Makkarem Shirazi, a powerful cleric, issued a fatwa that was later passed into law banning any advertisements about pets or alluding to the buying, selling or keeping of pets, according to the Mehr news agency.
The fatwa was issued in response to a question by the country's Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, which serves as Iran's censor.
The ministry's Advertisement and Information Dissemination Office vowed to crack down on ads promoting pet foods, especially for cats and dogs.
In June, Shirazi issued a fatwa against keeping dogs as pets, although that ruling was not made into law. At the time, Shirazi slammed dog owners for "blindly imitating the West," which, he said, would result in "evil outcomes."
"Many people in the West love their dogs more than their wives and children," he said.
The fatwa cites Islamic tradition, which dictates dogs are unclean based on testimonies from the followers of the prophet Mohammad known as hadith.
Keeping dogs as pets has become fashionable among Iranians in recent years, especially among well-to-do urban families. Although pet dogs are not technically illegal, walking a dog in a public place like a park can earn the owner a hefty fine.
A report on Shirazi's fatwa against pet dogs that appeared in the Abu Dhabi-based National newspaper speculated that the crackdown on pets may have more to do with class politics than Islamic law. The ruling conservative party has traditionally championed the working class while painting opposition activists as frivolous, corrupt cosmopolitans.
“The authorities can’t stop people from buying expensive cars or clothes and jewelery,” an unnamed analyst in Tehran told the paper. “But they can prevent them from displaying their wealth by keeping pet dogs on the grounds that they are unclean.”
But rather than discourage people from buying dogs, one pet-shop owner reported an increase in the sale of small dogs that are easy to hide.
-- Meris Lutz in Beirut
Original article can be found here
White washing islam continued: High school 'test' loves islam, slams Christianity.
Labels:
evil Christianity,
Global Islamic Subversion,
islamic subversion in our education system,
Three toxic stews of western society,
White washing isalm
This is a timely article if I have ever read one. Since the topic of how islam is USUALLY portrayed in a glowing, all warm and fuzzy light by the MSM, here is another perfect example of how islam has corrupted our entire society. Welcome to more on white washing islam. Our education system has been cleverly and subversively attacked by islam and sharia law. This 'test' that was given to these high school students just shows the pits and problems of excess of the three toxic stews of the West. You know them well; diversity, multiculturalism and political correctness. Take note of the one teacher who comments but is afraid to give their name. Why would that be? Is this individual afraid of union or staff retaliation for speaking out against the 'balance' of this test? Are there some SEIU goons hanging about, ready to bust some kneecaps? I would not be surprised. Is this what we want in our schools? Change starts with our votes in NOvember. This is from the New York Post.
HS test 'slams' Christianity, lauds Islam
By YOAV GONEN Education Reporter
State testmakers played favorites when quizzing high-schoolers on world religions -- giving Islam and Buddhism the kid-gloves treatment while socking it to Christianity, critics say.
Teachers complain that the reading selections from the Regents exam in global history and geography given last week featured glowing passages pertaining to Muslim society but much more critical essay excerpts on the subject of Christianity.
"There should have been a little balance in there," said one Brooklyn teacher who administered the exam but did not want to be identified.
RELIGIOUSLY ‘CORRECT’: A new Regents exam has glowing descriptions of Islam’s past (left), but is less forgiving when it comes to the history of Christianity (right).
"To me, this was offensive because it's just so inappropriate and the timing of it was piss-poor," he added, referring to the debate over the plan to build a mosque near Ground Zero.
The most troubling passage came from Daniel Roselle's "A World History: A Cultural Approach," observers said.
The passage reads: "Wherever they went, the Moslems [sic] brought with them their love of art, beauty and learning. From about the eighth to the eleventh century, their culture was superior in many ways to that of western Christendom."
Meanwhile, an excerpt listing the common procedures used by Christian friars to introduce the religion in Latin America stated that "idols, temples and other material evidences of paganism [were] destroyed," and "Christian buildings [were] often constructed on sites of destroyed native temples" -- and built with free Indian labor, to boot.
"I can see why some people might see these questions as skewed," said Mark MacWilliams, a religious-studies professor at St. Lawrence University in upstate Canton. "Why does the exam seem to have only documents that portray Islam as a religion of peace, civilization and refinement, while it includes documents about Christianity that show it was anything but peaceful in the Spanish conquest of the Americas?"
At the same time, MacWilliams criticized the presentation of Hernando Cortes' conquest of Mexico -- which he said portrayed him as a "choirboy" rather than a "conquistador."
"It's quite a whitewash," he said.
Some other religious-studies experts contacted by The Post said they didn't see what the fuss was all about.
"[The] selections seem about equal in terms of being historically/culturally focused, all relatively positive about the contributions made by each religion as it was introduced into various societies," wrote Barbara Sproul, an associate professor of religion at Hunter College in Manhattan.
Yet Michael Dobkowski, chair of Religious Studies at Hobart and William Smith Colleges in upstate Geneva, asserted that it was only Christianity for which both positive and negative aspects were highlighted.
"Some [essays] suggest a kind of Christian triumphalism and the desire to convert the other that is not present in the treatment of Islam," he said. "My impression is that there is certainly a divergence of approaches and impressions that should not appear in a Regents exam of this caliber."
State education officials said that every effort had been made to present accurate historical information through the excerpts.
They said the questions had been developed over a four-year period and require students to use their own knowledge of social studies to produce answers.
They added that they weren't aware of any complaints about the exam.
The Muslim reading:
* “Wherever they went, the Moslems [sic] brought with them their love of art, beauty and learning. From about the eighth to the eleventh century, their culture was superior in many ways to that of western Christendom.
* “Some of the finest centers of Moslem life were established in Spain. In Cordova, the streets were solidly paved, while at the same time in Paris people waded ankle-deep in mud after a rain. Cordovan public lamps lighted roads for as far as ten miles; yet seven hundred years later there was still not a single public lamp in London!”
Source: Daniel Roselle, A World History: A Cultural Approach
The Christian reading:
Common Procedures used by Friars in Converting Areas in Spanish America:
* “Idols, temples and other material evidences of paganism destroyed.”
* “Christian buildings often constructed on sites of destroyed native temples in order to symbolize and emphasize the substitution of one religion by the other.”
* “Indians supplied construction labor without receiving payment.”
* “In a converted community, services and fiestas were regularly held in the church building.”
Source: Based on information from Charles Gibson, Spain in America
Additional reporting by Chuck Bennett
Original article can be found here
 |
RELIGIOUSLY ‘CORRECT’: A new Regents exam has glowing descriptions of Islam’s past (left) , but is less forgiving when it comes to the history of Christianity (right). |
By YOAV GONEN Education Reporter
State testmakers played favorites when quizzing high-schoolers on world religions -- giving Islam and Buddhism the kid-gloves treatment while socking it to Christianity, critics say.
Teachers complain that the reading selections from the Regents exam in global history and geography given last week featured glowing passages pertaining to Muslim society but much more critical essay excerpts on the subject of Christianity.
"There should have been a little balance in there," said one Brooklyn teacher who administered the exam but did not want to be identified.
RELIGIOUSLY ‘CORRECT’: A new Regents exam has glowing descriptions of Islam’s past (left), but is less forgiving when it comes to the history of Christianity (right).
"To me, this was offensive because it's just so inappropriate and the timing of it was piss-poor," he added, referring to the debate over the plan to build a mosque near Ground Zero.
The most troubling passage came from Daniel Roselle's "A World History: A Cultural Approach," observers said.
The passage reads: "Wherever they went, the Moslems [sic] brought with them their love of art, beauty and learning. From about the eighth to the eleventh century, their culture was superior in many ways to that of western Christendom."
Meanwhile, an excerpt listing the common procedures used by Christian friars to introduce the religion in Latin America stated that "idols, temples and other material evidences of paganism [were] destroyed," and "Christian buildings [were] often constructed on sites of destroyed native temples" -- and built with free Indian labor, to boot.
"I can see why some people might see these questions as skewed," said Mark MacWilliams, a religious-studies professor at St. Lawrence University in upstate Canton. "Why does the exam seem to have only documents that portray Islam as a religion of peace, civilization and refinement, while it includes documents about Christianity that show it was anything but peaceful in the Spanish conquest of the Americas?"
At the same time, MacWilliams criticized the presentation of Hernando Cortes' conquest of Mexico -- which he said portrayed him as a "choirboy" rather than a "conquistador."
"It's quite a whitewash," he said.
Some other religious-studies experts contacted by The Post said they didn't see what the fuss was all about.
"[The] selections seem about equal in terms of being historically/culturally focused, all relatively positive about the contributions made by each religion as it was introduced into various societies," wrote Barbara Sproul, an associate professor of religion at Hunter College in Manhattan.
Yet Michael Dobkowski, chair of Religious Studies at Hobart and William Smith Colleges in upstate Geneva, asserted that it was only Christianity for which both positive and negative aspects were highlighted.
"Some [essays] suggest a kind of Christian triumphalism and the desire to convert the other that is not present in the treatment of Islam," he said. "My impression is that there is certainly a divergence of approaches and impressions that should not appear in a Regents exam of this caliber."
State education officials said that every effort had been made to present accurate historical information through the excerpts.
They said the questions had been developed over a four-year period and require students to use their own knowledge of social studies to produce answers.
They added that they weren't aware of any complaints about the exam.
The Muslim reading:
* “Wherever they went, the Moslems [sic] brought with them their love of art, beauty and learning. From about the eighth to the eleventh century, their culture was superior in many ways to that of western Christendom.
* “Some of the finest centers of Moslem life were established in Spain. In Cordova, the streets were solidly paved, while at the same time in Paris people waded ankle-deep in mud after a rain. Cordovan public lamps lighted roads for as far as ten miles; yet seven hundred years later there was still not a single public lamp in London!”
Source: Daniel Roselle, A World History: A Cultural Approach
The Christian reading:
Common Procedures used by Friars in Converting Areas in Spanish America:
* “Idols, temples and other material evidences of paganism destroyed.”
* “Christian buildings often constructed on sites of destroyed native temples in order to symbolize and emphasize the substitution of one religion by the other.”
* “Indians supplied construction labor without receiving payment.”
* “In a converted community, services and fiestas were regularly held in the church building.”
Source: Based on information from Charles Gibson, Spain in America
Additional reporting by Chuck Bennett
Original article can be found here
Our tax dollars hard at work supporting the sale of Feisal Abdul Rauf's book, What's Right With Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West.
Labels:
Feisal Abdul Rauf's book,
Mosque at Ground Zero,
What's Right With Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West.
Well, this is not a complete shock to me. The State Dept. might as well be called 'The State Union of Islamic and Sharia Law development Dept.' It is bad enough the islamist sympathizing State Dept. has sent this bum out on his third trip to bash and villefy the United States. We should not be deluded into thinking these are not fund raising trips for that new victory mosque, um I mean mosque at Ground Zero. This is from Jason Mattera at Human Events.
Tax dollars for Ground Zero Imam
By Jason Mattera
Unbelievable. You're not going to guess what our tax dollars are subsidizing. Actually, in this ObamaNation, maybe you will guess it. It turns out that you and I are funding the State Department to purchase and distribute copies of Feisal Abdul Rauf's book, What's Right With Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West.
Rauf is the imam behind the Ground Zero mosque and is the same imam who won't condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization; the same imam who said on “60 Minutes” that America was an "accessory" to September 11; and, as we reported at HUMAN EVENTS, the same imam who told a college audience overseas that the United States is worse than al Qaeda.
Yep, that dude. And not only has the State Department anointed him as our ad hoc ambassador to the Muslim world, but now they are acting as his personal Barnes & Noble to boot. Good grief! Buried in a recent New York Times article on Imam Rauf's global hopscotch, the paper casually referenced that our government buys and hands out his tome in an effort "to lecture about tolerance" and pursue "interfaith dialogue" with Islamic nations.
Only in the left's strange world does it make sense to support Imam Rauf as a goodwill spokesman for the United States while he's busy trashing the United States. But that aside, did the bureaucrats at the State Department ever take the time to read Rauf's What's Right with Islam? If so, they'll have to justify why they're promoting a book that faults America for stirring up conflict with Muslims, brags that America is "Sharia compliant," and makes excuses for suicide bombings.
Researchers at the American Center for Law and Justice combed through Rauf's 2004 book and found alarming passages. In the Orwellian-named chapter “What's Right with America,” Rauf goes on to—you guessed it—blame America. He writes: "If there is any quarrel Muslims have with America, it is that the United States does not always live up to its own ideal of ethics and values." In the same chapter, Rauf has a section called “America: A Sharia-Compliant State” wherein he contends that the "American political structure is Sharia compliant," especially if it begins to allow "religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws."
As if that weren't bad enough, our bud Rauf goes on to rationalize suicide bombings by blaming societal roots and not the warped Islamic fanatics themselves. Quoth the imam: "The most widely accepted view today in psychoanalysis is that suicide is most often a form of 'displacement.'… the individual inflicts upon himself the result of the frustration and anger caused by the perceived unraveling of the social fabric of his world."
Sounds exactly like the kind of guy best to represent American interests abroad, no? If you disagree, you're probably an Islamophobic racist!
Original article can be found here
Tax dollars for Ground Zero Imam
By Jason Mattera
Unbelievable. You're not going to guess what our tax dollars are subsidizing. Actually, in this ObamaNation, maybe you will guess it. It turns out that you and I are funding the State Department to purchase and distribute copies of Feisal Abdul Rauf's book, What's Right With Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West.
Rauf is the imam behind the Ground Zero mosque and is the same imam who won't condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization; the same imam who said on “60 Minutes” that America was an "accessory" to September 11; and, as we reported at HUMAN EVENTS, the same imam who told a college audience overseas that the United States is worse than al Qaeda.
Yep, that dude. And not only has the State Department anointed him as our ad hoc ambassador to the Muslim world, but now they are acting as his personal Barnes & Noble to boot. Good grief! Buried in a recent New York Times article on Imam Rauf's global hopscotch, the paper casually referenced that our government buys and hands out his tome in an effort "to lecture about tolerance" and pursue "interfaith dialogue" with Islamic nations.
Only in the left's strange world does it make sense to support Imam Rauf as a goodwill spokesman for the United States while he's busy trashing the United States. But that aside, did the bureaucrats at the State Department ever take the time to read Rauf's What's Right with Islam? If so, they'll have to justify why they're promoting a book that faults America for stirring up conflict with Muslims, brags that America is "Sharia compliant," and makes excuses for suicide bombings.
Researchers at the American Center for Law and Justice combed through Rauf's 2004 book and found alarming passages. In the Orwellian-named chapter “What's Right with America,” Rauf goes on to—you guessed it—blame America. He writes: "If there is any quarrel Muslims have with America, it is that the United States does not always live up to its own ideal of ethics and values." In the same chapter, Rauf has a section called “America: A Sharia-Compliant State” wherein he contends that the "American political structure is Sharia compliant," especially if it begins to allow "religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws."
As if that weren't bad enough, our bud Rauf goes on to rationalize suicide bombings by blaming societal roots and not the warped Islamic fanatics themselves. Quoth the imam: "The most widely accepted view today in psychoanalysis is that suicide is most often a form of 'displacement.'… the individual inflicts upon himself the result of the frustration and anger caused by the perceived unraveling of the social fabric of his world."
Sounds exactly like the kind of guy best to represent American interests abroad, no? If you disagree, you're probably an Islamophobic racist!
Original article can be found here
82 Year old Holocaust survivor get cursed out by liberal hose bag.
Labels:
Here is one for you,
Land of libtards
This is how it ususally goes. They yell, scream, get in your space and cannot have a peaceful discussion or talk about the issue. The libtard doing all the yelling? Well he would have been worth getting a night in jail over. Really a piece of you know what.
Update on "A perfect example of white washing islam."
Labels:
taqiyya for beginners,
White washing islam
In a very recent post I posted an article by Vijay Kumar in regard to an article that had been written about islam. My post was "A perfect example of white washing islam" and it included Vijay's response to the article in the newspaper. The individual mentioned in this article posted several comments asking ME to take down my post, almost begging me to do so. I said I would consider doing so but stated nothing more. Why this individual asked me and sent her comments here rather than to Mr.Kumar, is not what I would have done and not how I would have handled this. I would have gone right to the source if I had issues with someone. Vijay Kumar wrote a beautiful response to this individual and I am posting this second article by Vijay here. Vijay Kumar answers all challenges posed by this individual, point by point and backs each and every one of them up. As I have mentioned before, I wish Vijay Kumar was running for office here in my home state. This is a man who gets it about islam, sharia law. He refuses to back down or take a dhimmi stupid seat on the islam express to sharia law and a global islamic caliphate. I also happen to be on the same page with Mr. Kumar as far as his other positions. Call me what you want and it is not about hatred for muslims, not at all. It is about islam, sharia law and the complete and total threat to our Republic from islam.
I have never said anything bad about this individual on a personal level and I do not plan on doing so. My issues are with islam, sharia law and how it is portrayed in the MSM, including the newspaper article that started all this. I am sick and tired of islam getting a free pass and being made out to be something that it is not. I have personally been attacked through comments, emails, phone calls, letters, on a few sites for my stand on islam and sharia law. Those who know me through here or personally know how I feel about these issues, the attacks,the threats from islam and sharia law that we, as a country are facing.
So here is my answer and it is no. I suggest this individual take any further issues they may have with all of this directly with Vijay Kumar. Whether I publish any further comments from this individual remains to be seen. I like Vijay Kumar and will continue to support him. If you have a problem with that then I guess that is YOUR problem. islam and sharia law are what this is all about and that is a problem I cannot be silent about.
Lena Khan Comes Back (Sort Of) For More
By Vijay Kumar
Lena Khan has posted a reply of sorts to my earlier blog article "Lena Khan is a source for the Muslim Brotherhood"—but she didn't post it here on my blog. She posted to another blog that had reposted my article.
I'm not sure why she didn't want to confront me directly, and only wanted to talk about me to someone else, but to be entirely fair to her, I'm going to post her response here, and reply to it, point-by-point. Her post is indented and in italics:
Everyone has the freedom for their views, but it is unfortunate that people just go off of information without checking it. Thus far, I have found dozens of supposed statements from Islam that Vijay Kumar has cited, which are not from Muslim sources and Muslims deem to be fabricated.
I've been hearing this same kind of dodge for decades. It elicits a yawn. Note that she admits that I have cited my statements, and though she claims to have found "dozens" that are somehow flawed, she doesn't cite a single one. I don't wonder why.
Further, the thing I can speak on most in this article is the lies therein. I have never received any money from MAS, and I challenge Mr. Kumar to prove it.
The problem, Ms. Khan, is that I never once said you received money from MAS. The word "money" never once appears anywhere in my article. I said, accurately and correctly—as you admit below—that you received funding from MAS. There is a distinct difference between "money" and "funding," recognized in every dictionary and in the law. If you don't know the difference, that's your problem, not mine. I suggest you look up the difference before you start making accusations like the following:
Instead, he has just made up lies, and has no information to prove it.
Publicly impugning my integrity with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of your statements is an adventurous thing to do, Ms. Khan.
I could provide even all my bank accounts for the past few years, and he would find nothing from MAS. In fact, MAS once gave me a check, which I returned and never cashed.
Thank you for confessing that you accepted a check from MAS, which is a form of funding, exactly as defined by Black's Law Dictionary: "A sum of money or other liquid assets set apart for a specific purpose." Whether you cashed it or not is immaterial. A check is a draft, an order to the bank, an "unconditional promise to pay." What you did or didn't do with it doesn't alter the fact that you accepted a form of funding from MAS—exactly as I wrote that you did.
In fact, it's not entirely unusual in "seeding" a project to get an agreed source of funding solely as a selling point to entice more funding—then to return the base amount once it's served its purpose. It's still funding.
You can pretend all the "arms length" purity from MAS you want to pretend by the fact of not having cashed their check, but I don't think anyone reading this is stupid or naive enough to believe that any organization like MAS—which is a non-profit corporation organized under section 501(c)(3) of the United States tax code—just spontaneously writes a check to someone with whom they have no relationship or common interest. And you accepted the check, didn't you.
Freedom of speech is a principle here, but we are also a nation of honor, where we don't just take lies as truth and at least have the good sense to form our opinions off of accurate information.
Good. You've given the accurate information: you had a relationship with MAS in which they wrote you a check, and you accepted their check. But it goes even deeper than that, doesn't it?
I wonder why you don't mention that an Associate Producer on one of your films, "A Land Called Paradise," was Murad Aldin Amayreh. Is it because Amayreh himself helped set up the MAS Media Foundation (MMF) between 2006 and 2008? That's right on his own bio page.
If Vijay did his research he would also know that I did not ever work for MAS, and the fact that MAS has one of my films listed on their pages was incorrect since I did not take their money.
If you had done your research you'd know that the MAS Media Foundation—which your friend Amayreh helped establish—has not one, but two of your films on its "Videos" page, under the heading, "MMF GRANT VIDEOS." Here's a screen shot that proves it:
So here's the problem now as I see it: you've just accused the MAS Media Foundation—a division of the 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation called the Muslim American Society—of grant fraud, since they are publicly promoting two of your films as having been funded by MMF grants, and you insist that your films weren't funded by them. That's an ugly allegation to make against your friends, Ms. Khan. Have you reported this to IRS?
This article is libel, and yet people spread it around like fact.
Are you talking about your article?
One with decency, after knowing that these claims were not substantiated, would either substantiate them themselves or have the courtesy to take them down.
I just substantiated my claims completely. Now you can demonstrate your courtesy by apologizing for calling me a liar.
This sort of honor and dignity is what is American, not spreading falsehoods.
Thanks for the civics lesson.
Now that you're done lecturing us all on "honor and dignity," would you care to comment on your friend Murad Aldin Amayreh's "friends" pages, which include links to "Jews Exposed" (a.k.a. Israel has no right to exist), glorifications of Hamas and Hitler and Hezbollah, and a page that labels America and Israel as "terrorists"?
Do you agree with those sentiments, Ms. Khan?
Vijay Kumar
Original article can be found here
I have never said anything bad about this individual on a personal level and I do not plan on doing so. My issues are with islam, sharia law and how it is portrayed in the MSM, including the newspaper article that started all this. I am sick and tired of islam getting a free pass and being made out to be something that it is not. I have personally been attacked through comments, emails, phone calls, letters, on a few sites for my stand on islam and sharia law. Those who know me through here or personally know how I feel about these issues, the attacks,the threats from islam and sharia law that we, as a country are facing.
So here is my answer and it is no. I suggest this individual take any further issues they may have with all of this directly with Vijay Kumar. Whether I publish any further comments from this individual remains to be seen. I like Vijay Kumar and will continue to support him. If you have a problem with that then I guess that is YOUR problem. islam and sharia law are what this is all about and that is a problem I cannot be silent about.
Lena Khan Comes Back (Sort Of) For More
By Vijay Kumar
Lena Khan has posted a reply of sorts to my earlier blog article "Lena Khan is a source for the Muslim Brotherhood"—but she didn't post it here on my blog. She posted to another blog that had reposted my article.
I'm not sure why she didn't want to confront me directly, and only wanted to talk about me to someone else, but to be entirely fair to her, I'm going to post her response here, and reply to it, point-by-point. Her post is indented and in italics:
Everyone has the freedom for their views, but it is unfortunate that people just go off of information without checking it. Thus far, I have found dozens of supposed statements from Islam that Vijay Kumar has cited, which are not from Muslim sources and Muslims deem to be fabricated.
I've been hearing this same kind of dodge for decades. It elicits a yawn. Note that she admits that I have cited my statements, and though she claims to have found "dozens" that are somehow flawed, she doesn't cite a single one. I don't wonder why.
Further, the thing I can speak on most in this article is the lies therein. I have never received any money from MAS, and I challenge Mr. Kumar to prove it.
The problem, Ms. Khan, is that I never once said you received money from MAS. The word "money" never once appears anywhere in my article. I said, accurately and correctly—as you admit below—that you received funding from MAS. There is a distinct difference between "money" and "funding," recognized in every dictionary and in the law. If you don't know the difference, that's your problem, not mine. I suggest you look up the difference before you start making accusations like the following:
Instead, he has just made up lies, and has no information to prove it.
Publicly impugning my integrity with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of your statements is an adventurous thing to do, Ms. Khan.
I could provide even all my bank accounts for the past few years, and he would find nothing from MAS. In fact, MAS once gave me a check, which I returned and never cashed.
Thank you for confessing that you accepted a check from MAS, which is a form of funding, exactly as defined by Black's Law Dictionary: "A sum of money or other liquid assets set apart for a specific purpose." Whether you cashed it or not is immaterial. A check is a draft, an order to the bank, an "unconditional promise to pay." What you did or didn't do with it doesn't alter the fact that you accepted a form of funding from MAS—exactly as I wrote that you did.
In fact, it's not entirely unusual in "seeding" a project to get an agreed source of funding solely as a selling point to entice more funding—then to return the base amount once it's served its purpose. It's still funding.
You can pretend all the "arms length" purity from MAS you want to pretend by the fact of not having cashed their check, but I don't think anyone reading this is stupid or naive enough to believe that any organization like MAS—which is a non-profit corporation organized under section 501(c)(3) of the United States tax code—just spontaneously writes a check to someone with whom they have no relationship or common interest. And you accepted the check, didn't you.
Freedom of speech is a principle here, but we are also a nation of honor, where we don't just take lies as truth and at least have the good sense to form our opinions off of accurate information.
Good. You've given the accurate information: you had a relationship with MAS in which they wrote you a check, and you accepted their check. But it goes even deeper than that, doesn't it?
I wonder why you don't mention that an Associate Producer on one of your films, "A Land Called Paradise," was Murad Aldin Amayreh. Is it because Amayreh himself helped set up the MAS Media Foundation (MMF) between 2006 and 2008? That's right on his own bio page.
If Vijay did his research he would also know that I did not ever work for MAS, and the fact that MAS has one of my films listed on their pages was incorrect since I did not take their money.
If you had done your research you'd know that the MAS Media Foundation—which your friend Amayreh helped establish—has not one, but two of your films on its "Videos" page, under the heading, "MMF GRANT VIDEOS." Here's a screen shot that proves it:
So here's the problem now as I see it: you've just accused the MAS Media Foundation—a division of the 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation called the Muslim American Society—of grant fraud, since they are publicly promoting two of your films as having been funded by MMF grants, and you insist that your films weren't funded by them. That's an ugly allegation to make against your friends, Ms. Khan. Have you reported this to IRS?
This article is libel, and yet people spread it around like fact.
Are you talking about your article?
One with decency, after knowing that these claims were not substantiated, would either substantiate them themselves or have the courtesy to take them down.
I just substantiated my claims completely. Now you can demonstrate your courtesy by apologizing for calling me a liar.
This sort of honor and dignity is what is American, not spreading falsehoods.
Thanks for the civics lesson.
Now that you're done lecturing us all on "honor and dignity," would you care to comment on your friend Murad Aldin Amayreh's "friends" pages, which include links to "Jews Exposed" (a.k.a. Israel has no right to exist), glorifications of Hamas and Hitler and Hezbollah, and a page that labels America and Israel as "terrorists"?
Do you agree with those sentiments, Ms. Khan?
Vijay Kumar
Original article can be found here
Some simple facts about is obama a muslim?
This breaks it down and it should be very clear that obama is a muslim. Under islamic/qur'anic law if one is born of a muslim father then he or she is a muslim.
"As the son of a Muslim father, Obama is a Muslim, period. It doesn’t matter what Obama says, under Islamic law his mother’s Christian background is irrelevant. Unlike Christianity which requires a conversion and baptism, in Islam you become a Muslim by birth." From The Western Center For Journalism.
Is Obama a Muslim?
The Obama press office is in full damage-control mode after Obama’s comments to a Muslim religious iftar dinner held at the White House. Obama was direct and clear: “[A]s President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan.”
Obama was referencing the controversial mosque proposed near Ground Zero in lower Manhattan. Barack Obama and Mahmoud al-Zahar (the co-founder of Hamas) and our enemies abroad are in total agreement. The Ground Zero Victory Mosque must be built.
For centuries the leaders of Islam have built mosques to celebrate military victories and conquests. Why would they stop now?
That is why we are not surprised by a new poll finding 24 percent of all Americans believe Obama is a Muslim. Minutes after Time magazine released the poll, the White House sent spokesman Bill Burton out to tell the media, “The president is obviously a Christian. He prays every day.”
Interesting. Don’t Muslims also pray every day?
What makes nearly a quarter of the population believe Obama is Muslim? We believe it is because Americans understand Christianity and Islam much better than the elites in journalism.
Every time Obama articulates his religious beliefs, they are patently far outside the Christian mainstream. Remember Obama’s membership in Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ? When Obama joined Trinity he promised to uphold that church’s “Black Value System.” This declaration is where members affirm their commitment to God, the “black community,” the “black family,” and the “black work ethic” in addition to disavowing “the pursuit of ‘middle-classness.’” They believe the “competitive” nature of white “entrapment of black middle-classness” will cheat blacks of their African identity while keeping them “captive” to white culture.
“I believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change,” Obama claims. Not only that, Obama openly says he questions “the idolatry of the free market” because of his faith.
That doesn’t actually sound Christian, sounds more Marxist to us.
Where is the need for redemption from sin? Where is the devotion to Christ and His teachings?
Obama refuses to attend the National Prayer Breakfast but we often see him meeting with — and celebrating — the enemies of Christianity and the traditional values it extols.
A full 75 percent of Americans self-identify as Christians, yet Obama insists, “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation.” Yet he has also falsely claimed America is “one of the largest Muslim nations in the world.”
And what about traditional values as expounded by the Bible?
Obama wants gay marriage. He supports abortion on demand. He is sending tax dollars abroad to perform abortions and he worked to secure payments for abortion in his new healthcare plan.
He nominated to the Supreme Court two women who are known as supporters of gay marriage and abortion.
And Americans also understand Islam. Like Christianity, Islam is an exclusive faith. Meaning they both believe that they are the only path to God.
As the son of a Muslim father, Obama is a Muslim, period. It doesn’t matter what Obama says, under Islamic law his mother’s Christian background is irrelevant. Unlike Christianity which requires a conversion and baptism, in Islam you become a Muslim by birth.
Oh, and by the way, Obama has never taken the time to be baptized as a Christian.
Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, Floyd Reports
Original article can be found here
"As the son of a Muslim father, Obama is a Muslim, period. It doesn’t matter what Obama says, under Islamic law his mother’s Christian background is irrelevant. Unlike Christianity which requires a conversion and baptism, in Islam you become a Muslim by birth." From The Western Center For Journalism.
The Obama press office is in full damage-control mode after Obama’s comments to a Muslim religious iftar dinner held at the White House. Obama was direct and clear: “[A]s President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan.”
Obama was referencing the controversial mosque proposed near Ground Zero in lower Manhattan. Barack Obama and Mahmoud al-Zahar (the co-founder of Hamas) and our enemies abroad are in total agreement. The Ground Zero Victory Mosque must be built.
For centuries the leaders of Islam have built mosques to celebrate military victories and conquests. Why would they stop now?
That is why we are not surprised by a new poll finding 24 percent of all Americans believe Obama is a Muslim. Minutes after Time magazine released the poll, the White House sent spokesman Bill Burton out to tell the media, “The president is obviously a Christian. He prays every day.”
Interesting. Don’t Muslims also pray every day?
What makes nearly a quarter of the population believe Obama is Muslim? We believe it is because Americans understand Christianity and Islam much better than the elites in journalism.
Every time Obama articulates his religious beliefs, they are patently far outside the Christian mainstream. Remember Obama’s membership in Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ? When Obama joined Trinity he promised to uphold that church’s “Black Value System.” This declaration is where members affirm their commitment to God, the “black community,” the “black family,” and the “black work ethic” in addition to disavowing “the pursuit of ‘middle-classness.’” They believe the “competitive” nature of white “entrapment of black middle-classness” will cheat blacks of their African identity while keeping them “captive” to white culture.
“I believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change,” Obama claims. Not only that, Obama openly says he questions “the idolatry of the free market” because of his faith.
That doesn’t actually sound Christian, sounds more Marxist to us.
Where is the need for redemption from sin? Where is the devotion to Christ and His teachings?
Obama refuses to attend the National Prayer Breakfast but we often see him meeting with — and celebrating — the enemies of Christianity and the traditional values it extols.
A full 75 percent of Americans self-identify as Christians, yet Obama insists, “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation.” Yet he has also falsely claimed America is “one of the largest Muslim nations in the world.”
And what about traditional values as expounded by the Bible?
Obama wants gay marriage. He supports abortion on demand. He is sending tax dollars abroad to perform abortions and he worked to secure payments for abortion in his new healthcare plan.
He nominated to the Supreme Court two women who are known as supporters of gay marriage and abortion.
And Americans also understand Islam. Like Christianity, Islam is an exclusive faith. Meaning they both believe that they are the only path to God.
As the son of a Muslim father, Obama is a Muslim, period. It doesn’t matter what Obama says, under Islamic law his mother’s Christian background is irrelevant. Unlike Christianity which requires a conversion and baptism, in Islam you become a Muslim by birth.
Oh, and by the way, Obama has never taken the time to be baptized as a Christian.
Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, Floyd Reports
Original article can be found here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
