headerphoto


U.S. Muslim Congressman Declares: Borders Will Be 'Irrelevant'

by Aaron Klein: A so-called spiritual conference at which Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., called for the U.S. border to become an "irrelevancy" was led by a slew of extremists, including a Marxist who reportedly compared the tea-party movement to Hitler.

Conference speakers include radicals with deep ties to President Obama.

Yesterday, TheBlaze.com, founded by Fox News host Glenn Beck, posted a video from a conference led by theNetwork of Spiritual Progressives, or NSP, in which Ellison, the first Muslim member of Congress, declared to about 400 attendees that "God willing," the U.S. border will become irrelevant.

Stated Ellison: "No security policy position can be premised on military might. ...The way it works is we are a country guided by ideals of equity, generosity and engagement in our relations with other nations and those philosophical ideals create safe borders … and, God willing, one day the border will become an irrelevancy."

Ellison continued, "And you know, the fact is, it's time for us to answer a critical question, and that is how are we going to shape a progressive foreign policy agenda that provides a platform for the U.S. government in the 21st century."

WND has learned the conference was led by a slew of extremists who have had close relationships with Obama. One of the main speakers was avowed Marxist Michael Lerner, editor of the pro-Palestinian Tikkun Magazine. Lerner has been accused of using the magazine to justify Palestinian terror and has written articles in which he suggested the 9/11 attacks were a response to U.S. policies.

According to an account of the conference by Baltimore Sun columnist Marta Mossburg, who attended the two-day event, Lerner compared tea party activists to Hitler at least five times.

Mossburg wrote that Lerner used the conference to bolster support for Obama. "We're here to support Obama. …We're here to help him to be the Obama Americans thought they elected," she quoted Lerner as saying. Lerner said Obama attended Tikkun meetings in Chicago and used to read the magazine, according to conversations he had with Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Lerner identifies himself as an ordained rabbi. However, as Discover the Networks notes, Lerner received a controversial private rabbinic ordination by "Jewish Renewal" rabbis, whose ordinations are recognized only by those within the Jewish Renewal community and the out of mainstream Reconstructionist Judaism.

Orthodox Judaism, the Reform movement's Central Conference of American Rabbis, and the Conservative movement's Rabbinical Assembly all consider such ordinations invalid. Lerner was an activist in the 1960s anti-war movement, the Students for a Democratic Society, from which the Weather Underground domestic terrorist organization splintered. Meanwhile, a co-chair of the Network of Spiritual Progressives conference at which Ellison made his remarks is Princeton professor Cornel West, an avowed Marxist and honorary member of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Obama named West, whom he has called a personal friend, to the Black Advisory Council of his presidential campaign. West was a key point man between Obama's campaign and the black community. West served as an adviser on Louis Farrakhan's Million Man March and is a self-described personal friend of the Nation of Islam leader. West authored two books on race with Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., who was at the center of the controversy last year in which Obama criticized Gates' treatment by police outside his home after a report of a burglary.

Another speaker at the Network of Spiritual Progressives event was Heather Booth, founder of the Midwest Academy, which teaches the community organizing tactics of radical Saul Alinsky. WND was first to report that the Woods Fund, a Chicago nonprofit on which Obama served as paid director alongside Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers, provided funding to Midwest Academy.

WND also broke the story that the executive director of Midwest Academy was part of the team that developed and delivered a group of volunteers for President Obama's 2008 campaign.

Also, in August 1998, Obama participated with Booth in a panel discussion following the opening performance in Chicago of the play "The Love Song of Saul Alinsky," a work described by the Chicago Sun-Times as "bringing to life one of America's greatest community organizers."

Ellison's entry into Congress drew attention when he posed with his hand on a Quran instead of a Bible after taking his oath of office in January 2007. His campaign was bolstered by the work of staff members of the controversial Council on American-Islamic Relations.

As WND reported last year, Ellison defended CAIR when members of Congress sought to investigate whether CAIR was placing interns with members of strategic security committees, as revealed in the book "Muslim Mafia" by Dave Gaubatz and Paul Sperry. Ellison read a statement in Congress criticizing the call for an investigation.

"The idea that we should investigate Muslim interns as spies is a blow to the very principle of religious freedom that our founding fathers cherished so dearly," Ellison said. "If anything, we should be encouraging all Americans to engage in the U.S. political process; to take part in, and to contribute to, the great democratic experiment that is America," he said.

U.S. prosecutors, however, believe CAIR, while claiming to be a civil-rights group, is actually a front group for Hamas and other terrorists. The Justice Department stated in September 2007 during its prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation in Dallas – the largest terror-financing case in history – that CAIR "has been identified by the government at trial as a participant in an ongoing and ultimately unlawful conspiracy to support a designated terrorist organization, a conspiracy from which CAIR never withdrew."

Tags: Keith Ellison, Democrat, Minnesota, US House, representative, Muslim, borders, irrelevant, CAIR, illegal aliens H/T Blogs for Borders.

Daily Catch Videos for 12-25-2010: Jihad Bells, Hating the White man in Oklahoma City

Here are the videos for today.

Merry Christmas to all of you, and I do mean to all of you.

If wishing you a Merry Christmas offends you, then you probably should not be here.




Hatred of of White people on display in Oklahoma City.




A group of radical black Muslims(?) held an anti-Christmas anti white-man rally today at the Oklahoma City bus terminal.

The radicals screamed:

“God hates Christmas!… God hates Christmas! God hates America and is going to destroy it… The white man changed the truth of God into a lie. We’re out here because we love you.”

They attacked whites, Christians, gays… It was an all-inclusive hate fest:

From the video:

Some of the greatest hits from this video:

“God hates Christmas.”

“The white man has set up laws where the faggots and lesbians have rights, and parades.”

“The white man is against nature, and we prove that out of scripture.”

“The white man is in power now because he is a thief and a murderer.”

“God hates America, and he will destroy it.”

“The white man has never taught you about God. He lied, and told you he was God.”

** Any help in identifying this hate group would be much appreciated.

Hat tip: Jim Hoft and Gateway Pundit.

Penn State Covers its Indoctrinators

Gary Fouse, fousesquawk
                                                     Norman Finkelstein- boob

Ward Churchill - boob "Power to the people!" (Yes, that's a quote.)

Penn State University has attracted the attention of David Horowitz and the National Association of Scholars by revising its code on what professors can and can't say in the classroom. In essence, they have cleared the way for their radical leftist professors to engage in all the propaganda they want to in class, even if it has nothing to do with the subject material.

http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?Doc_Id=1699

1987 version:
It is not the function of a faculty member in a democracy to indoctrinate his/her students with ready-made conclusions on controversial subjects. The faculty member is expected to train students to think for themselves, and to provide them access to those materials which they need if they are to think intelligently. Hence, in giving instruction upon controversial matters the faculty member is expected be of a fair and judicial mind, and to set forth justly, without supersession or innuendo, the divergent opinions of other investigators.

No faculty member may claim as a right the privilege of discussing in the classroom controversial topics outside his/her own field of study. The faculty member is normally bound not to take advantage of his/her position by introducing into the classroom provocative discussions of irrelevant subjects not within the field of his/her study.

2010 version:
Faculty members are expected to educate students to think for themselves, and to facilitate access to relevant materials which they need to form their own opinions. Faculty members are expected to present information fairly, and to set forth justly divergent opinions that arise out of scholarly methodology and professionalism.

This, of course, is a national problem. Students, especially in the Humanities, are being taught what their professors think about the world no matter how outrageous. And don't think that it is all being balanced out by conservative professors spouting their views in class. For one thing, there are few conservative professors in our universities. Most are too busy making a living in the real world. Those that do enter the Halls of Ivy generally find they are as welcome as the proverbial skunk at the garden party. (I entered after retiring from the government-as a part-time teacher.)

At UCI, where I teach, the Humanities Department is much smaller than most big universities since there is so much emphasis on the physical sciences, pre-med and engineering. Yet, we had an incident recently where a women's studies professor reportedly made it a practice to go off on regular rants against Israel causing one Jewish student to drop the class.

I myself in teaching English to foreign students make it a rule not to give my personal views on issues. If a controversial issue were to arise, I allow the students to express their views freely on these topics. When asked what my own view is, I generally tell them not to worry about what I think-rather work out their own opinions. I regard any professor who feels it is necessary to shove his or her opinions down students throats and not respect differing opinions from their students as being unprofessional.

At campus speaking events or seminars, however, that is different. In these venues, opinions are what matters, and I have chosen to become active in one particular issue (which my readers are well aware of).

This is not a matter of whether teachers have the right of free speech. They do. That said, they should perhaps keep in mind that as the saying goes, opinions are like ass----s; everybody has one. The fact that a professor has more wisdom because of his/her extensive education and research does not hold water as far as I am concerned. Most of these pin-heads have little to no actual life experience to bring into the classroom. They have gone from BS/BA to Masters to PHD to teaching. By the time they get that phd, they have been educated out of the last ounce of common sense they were born with.

You want examples? How about Norman Finkelstein, Ward Churchill, William Ayres, Bernadine Dorhn, Noam Chomsky...the list could go on forever. Fortunately, Finkelstein and Churchill now do their preaching from a soapbox instead of a classroom because their wacky scholarship was proven to be just that.

The sad thing is that it is our children who are being cheated out of a quality education. In many cases, they get drawn into useless programs like ethnic studies, women's studies, gay, lesbian, trans-gender studies, community studies, history of consciousness, you name it. When they graduate with that piece of paper, they are equipped to do nothing but teach it to the next generation of students.

And to repeat that famous phrase, how does all that teach young students to think for themselves? According to the academics, it means that they don't have to accept what their government, their parents, their elders or their churches teach them-just accept what your misfit professor, who likely despises convention and his/her own country, teaches them.

Just look at what is coming out of our universities for the past several years. These young folks can cite you chapter and verse about all the dark chapters and mistakes in our country's history, gay issues, feministt issues, corporate evils, and on and on. Can they tell you what the capital of Poland is? Probably not. Can they tell you the exact years of World Wars I and II? Probably not. Can they tell you who our presidents were during those wars? Probably not. Can they speak a complete sentence without using the word, "like" at least twice? Probably not.

Perhaps, at this point in my rant I should concede that I am not talking about all teachers nor am I talking about all students. I am talking about trends. The basic truth is that American education, while known to have become deficient at the secondary level, is also dangerously over-rated at the university level. Inferior teachers, who teach their opinions, make inferior students, who make inferior graduates. Our children, at least if they are studying in the Humanities, are not getting the education their parents think they are paying for.

Daily Catch Videos for 12-24-2010




What Drives Islam to be the Religion of War

"He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist." Koran 61:9

This isn't a new article, but if anyone happened to miss it the first time, I strongly suggest reading it now. For the very least, it helps put a lot of thoughts into place - something that Daniel Greenfield excels at.

Why is Islam constantly a source of war, violence and discord? The problem simply enough is theological, because to its followers the validity of Islam is directly connected to its physical supremacy. As followers of the purported "final revelation" to mankind, Muslims not only have the obligation to conquer and subjugate the rest of the world, their religion is only meaningful to the extent that they can carry on the work begun by Mohammed.

Since Islam derives meaning primarily from physical supremacy, war becomes an act of faith. To believe in Islam, is to have faith that it must and will conquer and subjugate the entire world. And to be a true Muslim, one must feel called to aid in that global conquest, whether it is by providing money and resources to the Jihadists or to be a Jihadist yourself. Because Islam is expressed in physical supremacy, violence against non-Muslims become the essence of religion. And anything that suggests Islam is not absolutely superior touches on Islamic insecurities as blasphemy...




Read the full article at Sultan Knish

Surprise! White House says Polar Bears not endangered

"The Obama administration is sticking with a George W. Bush-era decision to deny polar bears endangered species status...
FWS Director Rowan Gould said the 2008 'threatened' listing was made 'following careful analysis of the best scientific information, as required by the ESA.'
FWS is 'confident it was and is the appropriate status,' Gould said."




Read the full article, on American Thinker.

‘Christmas is evil’: Muslim group launches poster campaign against festive period

A nasty campiagn against Christmas and when one gets right down to it, Christians.
I have made the image of the poster a bit larger in the post below. If muslims think this will bring converts to islam the they have another thing coming.

"Fanatics from a banned Islamic hate group have launched a nationwide poster campaign denouncing Christmas as evil.

Organizers plan to put up thousands of placards around the UK claiming the season of goodwill is responsible for rape, teenage pregnancies, abortion, promiscuity, crime and pedophilia.

They hope the campaign will help ‘destroy Christmas’ in this country and lead to Britons converting to Islam instead."




Trolling for converts to islam
By Daily Mail Reporter


Fanatics from a banned Islamic hate group have launched a nationwide poster campaign denouncing Christmas as evil.

Organisers plan to put up thousands of placards around the UK claiming the season of goodwill is responsible for rape, teenage pregnancies, abortion, promiscuity, crime and paedophilia.

The poster that has appeared in the Tower Hamlets area hitting out at the festive period



Labour MP and anti racist campaigner Jim Fitzpatrick branded the posters ‘extremely offensive’ and demanded they were immediately ripped down.

The placards, which have already appeared in parts of London, feature an apparently festive scene with an image of the Star of Bethlehem over a Christmas tree.

But under a banner announcing ‘the evils of Christmas’ it features a message mocking the song the 12 Days of Christmas.

It reads: ‘On the first day of Christmas my true love gave to me an STD (sexually transmitted disease).

‘On the second day debt, on the third rape, the fourth teenage pregnancies and then there was abortion.’

According to the posters, Christmas is also to responsible for paganism, domestic violence, homelessness, vandalism, alcohol and drugs.

Another offence of Christmas, it proclaims, is ‘claiming God has a son’.

The bottom of the poster declares: ‘In Islam we are protected from all of these evils. We have marriage, family, honour, dignity, security, rights for man, woman and child.’

The campaign’s organiser is 27-year-old Abu Rumaysah, who once called for Sharia Law in Britain at a press conference held by hate preacher leader Anjem Choudary, the leader of militant group Islam4UK.

Former Home Secretary Alan Johnson banned Islam4UK group earlier this year, making it a criminal offence to be a member, after it threatened to protest at Wootton Bassett, the town where Britain honours its war dead.

Mr Rumaysah told the Mail that he was unconcerned about offending Christians.

He said: ‘Christmas is a lie and as Muslims it is our duty to attack it.

‘But our main attack is on the fruits of Christmas, things like alcohol abuse and promiscuity that increase during Christmas and all the other evils these lead to such as abortion, domestic violence and crime.

‘We hope that out campaign will make people realise that Islam is the only way to avoid this and convert.’

Mr Rumaysah, who said his campaign was not linked to any group, boasted that the posters would be put up in cities around the country, including London, Birmingham and Cardiff.

The campaign was highlighted by volunteers from a charity which distributes food and presents to pensioners and the lonely at Christmas.

Sister Christine Frost, founder of the East London Neighbours in Poplar charity, said: ‘The more posters I saw, the more angry I got.

‘Someone is stirring hatred which leaves the road open to revenge attacks or petrol bombs through letter-boxes.

‘I told the Mayor we are all scared.

‘If we said such things about Muslims, we’d all be hanging from lamp-posts.

‘The posters appear to be professionally printed’.

Poplar and Limehouse MP Mr Fitzpatrick said: ‘These posters are extremely offensive and have upset a lot of people – that’s why we jumped on it and asked the council to remove them.

‘Sister Christine is rooted in the community and doesn’t take offence lightly.

‘But these hate posters really upset her. Christmas is close to her belief.’

A Met Police spokesman said they had received complaints and were investigating.

Tower Hamlets mayor Lutfur Rahman said the posters had ‘upset and antagonised many residents’.

He added: ‘The messages on these posters are offensive and do not reflect the views of the Council or the vast majority of residents.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340794/Muslim-group-launches-poster-hate-campaign-festive-period.html#ixzz18uWQ7Tgs
This entry was posted in England, Islam in Europe, War on Christians.

They hope the campaign will help ‘destroy Christmas’ in this country and lead to Britons converting to Islam instead.

Hat tip: Vlad Tepes

Christmas trees 'make non-Christians feel excluded'

"We're not suggesting 'no Christmas' or 'no Christmas displays at all,' but in contexts where we really do value respecting and including diversity in terms of religion, the safest option is not to have these kinds of displays.

"I understand why it might feel threatening to people.

"But I think if people do care about making a whole range of different kinds of people feel included and respected, then we can make some small changes that would go a long way toward creating a more multicultural or inclusive society."

-----------

Oh really?

Maybe the results these 'scientists' obtained are from years of excessive political
correctness, diversity and multiculturalism, what I call the three toxic stews of the West. Over the last several decades these toxic stews have done more damage to our society and the moral foundations of the United States. By making everyone, every group, every 'religion, every ethnicity, every 'gender' feel special, included and respected, we have contributed greatly to our own demise. When the experts, scientists, politicians etc. make 'non-Christians feel more secure, it always comes at a cost to some other group or religion. Notice how hardly anyone seems to mention this? In this case if we 'remove' Christmas trees then what about how the Christians feel? Full article is below. From the Telegraph.co.uk.




Christmas trees 'make non-Christians feel excluded'

Christmas trees should be removed from public places to avoid making non-Christians feel “excluded”, scientists have suggested.

Researchers at Simon Fraser University in Canada, found non-Christians feel less self-assured and have fewer positive feelings if a Christmas tree was in the room.

The scientists conducted the study using 77 Christians and 57 non-believers, including Buddhists and Sikhs.

The participants did not know the survey was about Christmas, and were asked to fill in questions about themselves both when a 12-inch Christmas tree was in the room and when it was not.

"Non-celebrators" reported fewer positive feelings and less self-assurance in the Christmas room. Christians were mostly cheered by the tree.

Christians, however, did report feeling more guilt when a tree was in the room, which, claim the researchers, suggests the holidays can be stressful.

Michael Schmitt, a social psychologist behind the research, decided to carry out the study after controversy over whether Christmas should be celebrated in public in case it offends non-Christians.

He said: "Simply having this 12-inch Christmas tree in the room with them made them feel less included in the university as a whole, which to me is a pretty powerful effect from one 12-inch Christmas tree in one psychology lab.

"I don't think it's really going to undermine anyone's experience of Christmas to tone it down.

"We're not suggesting 'no Christmas' or 'no Christmas displays at all,' but in contexts where we really do value respecting and including diversity in terms of religion, the safest option is not to have these kinds of displays.

"I understand why it might feel threatening to people.

"But I think if people do care about making a whole range of different kinds of people feel included and respected, then we can make some small changes that would go a long way toward creating a more multicultural or inclusive society."

The researchers published their results in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.

Objective islam, subjective islam: From Political Islam

An excellent article by Bill Warner from Political Islam.

"The problem is that no one knows there is objective knowledge about Islam. Everybody has been lied to by the media, the schools, the religious leaders and all those who listen to opinions of experts and do not know a single objective fact about Islam, i.e. doctrine. We have a choice: learn about the Koran and Mohammed or be the fools listening to a good lie told by "experts".




Objective Islam, Subjective Islam
By Bill Warner

You can sort the written and spoken words about Islam into two categories--negative and apologist. Closer observation shows that the negative camp and the apologist camp use different logic, as well as come to different conclusions.

An easy way to see this is to go to a reporting source on the web such as a newspaper that has an article about Islam. Read the comments. The negative comments tend to be more based on ideas taken from the Islamic source material from the Koran and Mohammed. Or they quote a jihadi, a poll or a historical fact.

The apologist comments tend to quote a Muslim friend or establishment expert and attack those who criticize Islam. Critics are called bigots, neo-Nazis, Islamophobes or some other cruel name. In essence, having negative comments or judgments about Islam is labeled as evil. The term hate speech is even bantered about. The critic of Islam is a failed sinner who is shamed and morally condemned. It is all very personal and very much about feelings.

A good apologist will have a second attack on the problem of, "Is Islam good or bad"? Islam must be supported by something besides an attack on the person. There must be with some facts about Islam from other apologists, mainly Muslim scholars and academic types. These experts are authorities who can deliver judgment from on high. But, many times they don’t have facts, only opinions.

If you are to base your arguments on what some expert says, then what "expert" do you ask? What imam or what professor? If you quote a Jew-hating Saudi imam found on MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute) you fail the criteria of the expert the apologist needs, because the "expert" must be a moderate, at all costs. So that fire breathing Palestinian jihadi just won’t do.

If you turn to Google, you can wind up at sites like ReligionLink, a website for reporters. This looks very official, very authoritative; surely you can trust them, but if you are knowledgeable, there are organizations on the site that are associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, such as ISNA, which should raise a flag to the knowing.

It is interesting to take the ReligionLink site as an example of how the Islamic information war works. Go to what seems like a very solid choice of experts recommended on the site: a Naval Academy professor, Dr. Brannon Wheeler. Get his advice on Sharia law and when you line up what he says against what the current Muslim Brotherhood position on Sharia in America today, they match exactly. Dr. Wheeler says that Sharia is vague, not really law, an old idea, very adaptable and no country really follows Sharia. Move along, there is nothing to see here, says the apologist professor peddling the Muslim Brotherhood line.

The facts are that as far as the Kafirs is concerned, the Sharia is very clear. It is also unimportant that Sharia is not an exact analog to our laws. So far as being an old idea, the Koran and the Sunna are even older and held to be absolutely true. It is true that no nation uses the Sharia for 100% of its rule, but the law is so ruinous to women and Kafirs that any application of Sharia is not humane. And all 57 of the Islamic countries use it to some degree.

If you cannot trust a Naval Academy professor of Islamic Studies, then how do you evaluate the source of information? How can we know the true nature of Islam? Are there actual facts that nail everything down?

Islam is supremely logical. Every Muslim agrees that Islam is the doctrine found in the Koran and the Sunna of Mohammed. (Mohammed is the perfect Muslim and his words and actions have been recorded in detail.) All of Islam is founded on Allah and the pattern of Mohammed. Allah is found in the Koran and Mohammed is found in the Hadith (the Traditions of Mohammed) and the Sira (his biography). All of the doctrine of Islam is found in the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith (the Trilogy). If it is in the Trilogy, it is Islam by definition.

The Trilogy is not only an objective source of Islamic doctrine, but it is also the measure of all statements about Islam. We have an objective measure of experts. We don’t need to see what institute gave them the authority to speak as an expert. We need to compare their comments to what is in the Trilogy. If the comment agrees with Mohammed, it is true. If it disagrees with the Trilogy, then it is false.

The question is: why even ask the experts? Why not ask Mohammed and Allah and quote them? Quote the doctrine. Skip the experts and find an objective answer.

The beauty of objective Islam is that you get the same answer no matter who does the work. The subjective method gives any answer you want. So you ask the expert who gives the answer you want. Subjective Islam is garbage Islam. Objective Islam is Islam.

The problem is that no one knows there is objective knowledge about Islam. Everybody has been lied to by the media, the schools, the religious leaders and all those who listen to opinions of experts and do not know a single objective fact about Islam, i.e. doctrine. We have a choice: learn about the Koran and Mohammed or be the fools listening to a good lie told by "experts".

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam


Original article is here.

Daily Catch Videos for 12-23-2010

Pig made from ice offends muslims in Sweden.





In support of the EDL




obama's top 'intelligence chief' proves himself an idiot.