It would seem now that Islam and the Human Rights Council is legitimately associated with the violations of free speech.
Muslim countries have been pressing for a United Nations Human Rights Council resolution calling on nations around the world to pass laws criminalizing the alleged “defamation” of religion – specifically Islam. This week the Council passed the resolution.
A simple majority of 23 members of the 47-nation Human Rights Council voted in favor of the resolution. Eleven mostly Western nations opposed it and 13 countries abstained. "It is individuals who have rights and not religions," said Canadian diplomat Terry Cormier. Canada's criticism was echoed by European Union countries, all of which voted against the proposal.
"Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism," the resolution said. It would seem now that Islam and the Human Rights Council is legitimately associated with the violations of free speech.
The United States did not vote on the resolution because it is not a member of the council. The Bush administration announced it was virtually giving up on the body and would participate in debates only if absolutely necessary because of the council's anti-Israel statements and its failure to act on abuses in Sudan and elsewhere.
The proposal by Pakistan had drawn strong criticism from free-speech campaigners and liberal democracies. The resolution urges states to provide "protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general."
Muslim nations have argued that religions, in particular Islam, must be shielded from criticism in the media and other areas of public life. They cited cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad as an example of unacceptable free speech.
But the "laws" or cannons of one religion should not be binding on people of other faiths, nor even upon those within the faith who disagree. In many cases, however, Muslim Shura, a form of social rules backed up by, in many cases, Sharia Law, forces other Muslims to adhere to the wishes of the community. http://www.alhewar.com/SadekShura.htm
India, which normally votes along with the council's majority of developing nations, abstained in protest at the fact that Islam was the only religion specifically named as deserving protection.
Efforts by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) have paid off in getting such a resolution passed – and we can count on the OIC to continue its global campaign to criminalize free speech that allegedly “defames” Islam.
Wilders thinks cutting off the heads of unbelievers is a bad thing; Islamofascists think it a good thing.
Monday I wrote how the New World Order, if it exists, isn't what we once thought it might be; that instead it consisted of governments' capitulation to Muslim sharia law.
Now, we hear about elected Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, who flew to London after being invited to show his documentary "Fitna" in Britain’s House of Lords, was "escorted by two plain-clothed guards across the tarmac to the border agency office [who] were holding Wilders so tightly, one of Wilders’ personal bodyguards asked them to relax their grips."
Why? The UK is now deeply entrenched in takaful, (shariah compliant finance,) which means Islamists not only have demonstrations, riots and terrorism with which to threaten the Brits. They also have the power of money.
They were protesting and there were those in the British government who were afraid that Wilders’ visit would set off Muslim rioting or, worse yet, terrorist attacks.
As ACT for America has pointed out many times, "Britain has shown us the path we cannot take if we want to roll back the rising tide of the supremacist ideology known as Islamofascism. Every capitulation emboldens and empowers the Islamists, who predictably ratchet up their demands.
"Concerned Brits, far too many of whom have been silent during the past 30 years as Islamist demands and British appeasement have escalated, are no doubt wondering today what has happened to their country – and if there’s still time to win it back.
"Ironically, it was the great British statesman Edmund Burke who stated 'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.'"
A Muslim, Lord Nazir Ahmed, and other Muslim leaders had vigorously protested Wilders’ visit, causing an initial invitation to be rescinded. It was reported that Ahmed had even threatened to mobilize 10,000 fellow Muslims to block Wilders from entering Westminster, a report Ahmed now denies.
Wilders short film called Fitna (Struggle), argues "in a powerful rhetorical way a causative connection between certain verses in the Koran and brutal acts of modern terrorism. At least some Moslems (sic) have taken it to be correct, differing from Wilders only in their moral evaluation of the injunctions that they have both found in them. He thinks cutting off the heads of unbelievers is a bad thing, they think it a good thing. [emphasis added] [condensed from FrontPageMagazine.com]
"Baron Ahmed, who was born in Pakistan and raised in Britain, forgetting he is part of a liberal democratic system that cherishes freedom of expression and association, reacted with familiar jihadi-style tactics to Wilders’ announced appearance. Along with his threat to mobilize 10,000 demonstrators to block Wilders’ path [at the airport], it was reported Ahmed also intended to sue the member [Lord Pearson] who had invited the Dutch politician.
"And while the British elites and media may have wanted to keep the British people in the dark regarding the scale of this debacle, Ahmed had no qualms about publicising it. Labelling it what it truly is, Ahmed told Pakistani media outlets that the British parliament’s retreat was 'a victory for the Muslim community.'"[condensed]
No society or culture – including ours – is exempt from the truth of Burke’s words. If the travesty of what has happened in Britain can occur there, it can occur anywhere – including here – unless informed men and women of conscience and concern choose to act.
Don't think sharia isn't coming to the U.S. Muzzammil Hassan, founder of Bridges TV, is charged with murder in the beheading of his wife, Aasiya Hassan in Orchard Park, New York. http://www.buffalonews.com/437/story/578644.html
But the effrontery of someone beheading his wife, then being charged only with second-degree murder, is the least bizarre part of this case: Hassan founded Bridges TV in 2004 to combat the negative perceptions of Muslims that he thought were dominating the mainstream media, after his 7-months pregnant wife Aasiya said she didn’t want her kids growing up in the sort of environment that was anti-Muslim, an environment that apparently couldn't tell the differences between Islamic culture and Islamofascism. It was Aasiya's idea to create the TV network.
However, "Bridges TV from the beginning had ties to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case, and Islamicity.com, which retails rabid anti-Semitic literature. In 2006 Arab News reported that Hassan was trying to raise money for the network from Saudi investors. Aasiya Hassan apparently had raised Muzzammil’s ire by filing for divorce." [condensed]
It amazes me how people often know so little about the world in which they live. That is not to say that what I think I know about it is always correct. I've learned sometimes that I was wrong.
But when someone, even someone young, asks this sort of question, it terrifies me to think that it is the reason we have headed so far down the paths of nationalism and socialism. Someone asked:
"Did American (USA) society just come to be or was its creation...a conspiracy (but either good or bad- i don't know what word to use). What I'm trying to ask is, was it planned? Who's trying to control us!? Some kind of secret order?"
We all wonder about "control." We hear stories, about how J. Edgar Hoover had the "dirt" on everyone who was someone and used it to control them. We all have heard about the New World Order and if we believe in it, each of us has our theory of what it means and who's behind it. First we thought it was Ronald Reagan, but even Bill Clinton was caught up in it according to some accounts.
If there is a "new world order," it isn't what we though it was twenty years ago. It now seems as if this new order is western governments caving in to Muslim Sharia. It isn't the Islam in this order that scares me; it's the Sharia.
Britain has been caving for years, its courts allowing limited Sharia to operate in the UK. There is a least one member of the House of the Lords who is not only Muslim, (again, no problem so far as I care,) but he is also an Islamicist, and if Britania isn't careful, it will fall like Lebanon, except there won't be any war to accomplish it. Britain will go quietly into the night, and it is already turning off the lights on its own heritage dating from before the Magna Charta, heritage that finds freedom for the people where it was only the light at the end of the tunnel.
Now it has tunnel-vision, and the light of Western freedom is retreating.
But the answer to the opening question goes something like this:
The truth? No one is trying to control us but the politicians, and what they do is transparent enough if you read the laws they pass.You were born with individual sovereignty, said the founders.
"Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day; " http://www.friesian.com/ellis.htm
Another word for this type of sovereignty is "unalienable rights." THAT was the "conspiracy" that constructed our way of life. Unfortunately, the Founders didn't see the future coming, and left so many holes in the Constitution that it is basically worthless today.
But you can get back some of your sovereignty by supporting your states in their effort to force to the Fed govt to respect the 10th Amendment. The Tenth Amendment Newly Ascending
It won't be easy to regain your personal, individual, unalienable sovereignty, but it can be done because the 10th Amendment does exist, and it cannot be ignored--except by efforts such as the Patriot Act that declare the safety of the nation to be more important than its own laws which protect its own citizens.
In Britain, it may be harder. There is no hard, written Constitution except precedent, which, under the right leadership, may be able to pull England out of the clutches of the clerics who are Islamicists. Lord Ahmed is a repugnant individual in association, character and morality who has threatened jihad on the House of Lords. "The Pakistani Press is jubliant, and [ ] is praising Allah for delivering ‘a victory for the Muslim community’." Creeping Jihad at Harvard & VA; Your Town Next?
But don't think Sharia isn't coming to a U.S. location near you soon. Muzzammil Hassan, founder of Bridges TV, is charged with murder in the beheading of his wife, Aasiya Hassan in Orchard Park, New York. http://www.buffalonews.com/437/story/578644.html
"A cautionary tale is unfolding in the Netherlands this week about how dangerous those can be: proving that such tools in the hands of the powerful enable them to silence the powerless and crush dissent, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ordered that Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch Parliament and maker of the notorious film "Fitna", be prosecuted for 'incitement to hatred and discrimination based on his statements in various media about moslims [sic] and their belief. In addition, the Court of Appeal considers criminal prosecution obvious for the insult of Islamic worshippers because of the comparisons made by Wilders of the Islam [sic] with the nazism.'
"The action against Wilders is taking place against the backdrop of the 57-government Organization of the Islamic Conference’s efforts at the United Nations to silence speech that they deem critical of Islam -- including 'defamation of Islam' that goes under the 'pretext' of 'freedom of expression, counter terrorism or national security.'
"If they succeed in doing this, Europeans and Americans will be rendered mute, and thus defenseless, in the face of the advancing jihad and attempt to impose Sharia on the West -- in fact, one of the key elements of the laws for dhimmis,non-Muslims subjugated under Islamic rule, is that they are never critical of Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur’an. Thus this initiative not only aids the advance of Sharia in the West, but is itself an element of that advance." Jailed for an Insult?
"It will be interesting to see how much attention the news media pays to this story. It will be even more revealing to see if anyone in the media investigates why [Hassan] chose beheading as a means to murder his wife. Will the media look into what the Qur’an and Hadith say about beheading enemies? Will the media look into the relationship between honor killings, beheadings, and shariah law? Will the media investigate this man’s background, and how he worked to raise money in Saudi Arabia for his television station?
The New World Order under Islamicism does not believe in individual sovereignty as defined by the 10 Amendment and Western laws that protect wives from being the property of their husbands, and who can be beheaded on the whim of a religious idea.
When there are Muslims in America who have publicly spoken out against Jihad, why was Ingrid Mattson chosen for this interfaith prayer service?
Today, Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), will deliver a prayer at the National Prayer Service, invited by President Obama. It is sufficiently problematic that ISNA, the organization of which Ingrid Mattson is president, was designated an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial (which produced guilty verdicts on 108 counts). Mattson’s words and views beg the question: When there are Muslims in America who have publicly spoken out against Jihad, against shariah law, and against ISNA, why was Ingrid Mattson chosen for this interfaith prayer service?
In her own words:
"[C]onsider the role of American Muslims in the [specific] context of world events following the terrorist attacks of September 11th. I will acknowledge that since Muslim leadership must be responsive to events, this question cannot be answered completely in isolation of specific circumstances. The appropriate response will necessarily depend on the nature of the threat. At the same time, I will stress that any truly appropriate response must be firmly rooted in faith. [ ] People of faith have a certain kind of solidarity with others of their faith community that transcends the basic rights and duties of citizenship."
She did not author this in an article titled "Stopping Our Muslim Extremist Brothers." Instead, it was titled Stopping Oppression: an Islamic Obligation. Guess what "oppression" she meant.
In a reasoned "translation" of Mattson's words: the "role" of American Muslims must be judged in a "context" of events that happened after 9/11; cannot be judged "in isolation of specific circumstances; and must be rooted in faith with other Muslims, a faith that takes no note of the rights and duties of being Americans first. Instead, American Muslims "role" must be in solidarity with others of their "faith community."
Forget that American Jews, Catholics, Coptics, Hindus, atheists, Southern Babtists and others came together in a solidarity that specifically transcended their own congregational communities. Instead, they came together in the brotherhood and spirit that comes with having our rights and citizenship guaranteed.
"The true values of America are those which we decide to embrace as our own [because] the American Constitution, like foundational religious texts, can be read in many different ways."
Again, to translate: Muslims can pick and choose which American values to call "true" and then may decided to embrace only those, because they can read anything into the Constitution they wish.
She is wrong when she says the Constitution can be read in many different ways. There are only two ways: Originalism, and non-Originalism which covers everything the Founding Fathers wrote were not the intentions of that document and does not cover most of the things they wrote were the specific intentions of that document. Justifications for following non-Originalism are usually for the purposes of pragmatism, which obviously would serve the Muslim community as it picked-and-chose only the parts of the law they found served the ideas of Sharia, of Shura, of takaful insurance, or of anything else associated with Islam; but specifically nothing that does not serve Allah.
Mattson denies the existence of terrorist cells in the United States: "There's a prejudgment, a collective judgment of Muslims, and a suspicion that well 'you may appear nice, but we know there are sleeper cells of Americans,' which of course is not true. There aren't any sleeper cells.[emphasis added]
Mattson defends Wahhabism. All unbelievers (i.e. Muslims who do not accept the teachings of 'Abd ul-Wahhab, as well as Christians, &c.) were to be put to death. Immediate entrance into Paradise was promised to his soldiers who fell in battle, and it is said that each soldier was provided with a written order from Wahhab to the gate-keeper of heaven to admit him forthwith.Wahhabi
"This is not a sect. It is the name of a reform movement that began 200 years ago to rid Islamic societies of cultural practices and rigid interpretation that had acquired over the centuries. It really was analogous to the European protestant reformation." Center for Security Policy (Research Brief)
Forget that shura is cultural practices and sharia is a rigid and merciless practice of Muslim justice.
When there are Muslims in America who have publicly spoken out against Jihad, against shariah law, and against ISNA, why was Ingrid Mattson chosen for this interfaith prayer service?
We are living in very dangerous times for American freedom. It does not come primarily from overt acts of terrorism, such as 9/11. It comes from "stealth jihad", the practice of getting the federal government to either approve of sharia practices in America, like Takaful insurance, or to ignore the practice of forcing sharia principles in the workplace, as Islamacists did at a meat processing plant.
Christians should be worried because they have not had as much progress as Muslims, in their own endeavor of breaking down the walls of the separation of church and state, to get the government to either approve of, or to ignore, the practice of Christian principles. The U.S. wouldn't want to make the Muslims angry, would it, at this time in history, so the living Constitution, rather than the original Constitution, twists the Supreme Law to accomodate them.
Because the secularity of the Constitutional rights of America are not being protected by whatever particular authorities have the power to do so, such as the court system or Congress or State Attorneys General, there is a power vacuum between the People, who deserve justice, and the powers-that-be who are not willing--or who claim to be unable--to stop such Constitutional erosion.
The Constitution has eroded measurably since the end of the Civil War, and no one seems willing or able to stand up and say so. Just the opposite is happening: we have Amendments to State's Constitutions that have the sole purpose of denying rights, and we have a new incoming President who is running full-steam-ahead with the Marxist economic football under his arm.
But these are things Americans have lived with for decades or more, watching the Constitution being torn down from inside the country. We deal with it, though obviously not effectively because the erosion is like that on a mountain side with constant rain upon it and little protection from trees and undergrowth. The Constitution is going to landslide if the rain is not stopped.
Stealth jihad, however, is something new, and something the American people will not stand for--once they realize the severity of the situation. In the vacuum of official worry over sharia-compliance under the Constitution, Americans will soon come to find that sharia Muslims have powers which the Constitution can not give to Christians, Jews, atheists, and others, and that is the power to enforce their beliefs on society where ever justice fails society.
"Take special note of the shariah-compliant supervisory board at AIG," warns Act for America. "Muhammed Imran Usmani is the son and disciple of Muhammed Taki Usmani. The elder Usmani is a 'who’s who' in the Islamist world and an outspoken proponent of aggressive jihad. For example, he has issued numerous fatwas (religious rulings) that provide material support for terrorism.
"The danger of American financial institutions getting in bed with well-known advocates of jihad and terrorism should be obvious to anyone who takes even a cursory look. It was Lenin who stated 'The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.'"
In this case we are not selling the jihadists the rope; we are condeding that they have a right to make us give them rope at our own expense. We concede their right to the rope because we are unwilling to admit that we need to take an Originalist view of the Constitution. To take such a view would cause irreparable harm to the socialism and the anti-individualism already rampant in this country.
But here is the point of this piece: in the vacuum of official power to uphold the Constitition and the Supreme Court rulings on Originalism, such as the acceptance of Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state," some Americans are going to fill that vacuum with guns and bombs, and they will use them on any Muslim targets they see.
These Americans will be seen as "domestic terrorists," by officialdom, but they will be seen as heros by the Originalists and libertarians and conservatives and others who understand that stealth jihadism is just as insidious and evil as the things we are fighting against in the "war on terror," in our two wars are, in our efforts at Homeland Security.
The problem is, no one in officialdom is securing the homeland against legal attacks on our Constitution from within our own borders. That is partly what is stealthy about this form of jihadism; the sharia-believing Muslims don't have to use bombs against us. They can use against us our own ignorance of how much Constitutional integrity we have already lost, our stupidity, and our compassion to be fair.
Something will have to give, and if officialdom in America does not stop the sharia erosion of the separation of church and state, then some Americans are going to see that guns and bombs will, at the least, stop the jihadists--and possibly the officials--who are converting Americans into virtual Muslims by forcing us to accept that those officials are going to protect sharia Muslims as they have never protected any other form of religious practice in this country.
I would be the first to applaud those who use the guns and bombs against sharia. Those people would be the real heros, not people like me who sit behind a computer screen and tell the rest of America how far we are falling.
But it would be a wasted effort to use guns and bombs, which is why I won't do it myself. It would be wasted because officialdom is hell-bent on twisting the Constitution to their own egalitarian purposes, from the new President on down, and backward for fifteen decades.
A little domestic terrorism is only going to create domestic terrorists. Officialdom will not protect them, and they will be the losers, not the sharia Muslims.
Chairman of Sharia Lawyers Brands Christmas "Evil"
As you read the
short article, ask yourself what the “establishment media” would be saying today if the “Chairman of the Society of Christian Lawyers” had publicly proclaimed that Ramadan is “evil,” and a “pathway to hellfire.” Remember, the Muslim lawyer [Choudary] who branded Christmas “evil” is not just any Muslim, but the Chairman of the Society of Muslim lawyers. Note also that he is the Principal Lecturer at the London School of Shariah and “a follower of the Islamist militant leader Omar Bakri Mohammed.”
These are the kinds of people American financial institutions are affiliating with when they offer shariah-compliant financial products. [emphasis added]
According to Politico.com, Vice President Dick Cheney lobbied Republican senators to support the bailout of auto companies, arguing that it would be “Herbert Hoover time” in the absence of government intervention.
Cheney is right, but for the wrong reasons. To the extent that it is “Herbert Hoover time,” it is because the current administration has repeated many of the mistakes that were made by President Hoover. There was a huge expansion in the burden of government spending under Hoover, up 47 percent in just four years. There’s been an equally huge increase in government spending under Bush. Hoover dramatically increased government intervention with everything from schemes to prop up wages to protectionism. Bush’s intervention takes a different form, with mistakes such as steel tariffs, Sarbanes-Oxley, and bailouts.
Hoover’s legacy is statism. Bush’s legacy is statism. The only unanswered question is whether Obama will be the new Roosevelt — i.e., someone who compounds the damage caused by his predecessor with further expansions in the burden of government. from Cato At Liberty
The LAST Thing We Need
According to the American Policy Center, the United States is only
of obliterating what is left of our government's policy of protecting individual rights:
A public policy organization has issued an urgent alert stating affirmative votes are needed from only two more states before a Constitutional Convention could be assembled in which "today's corrupt politicians and judges" could formally change the U.S. Constitution's "'problematic' provisions to reflect the philosophical and social mores of our contemporary society." [bold added, link dropped by Gus Van Horn]
The message is, unfortunately, made to look ridiculous by its messenger, which warns not only of the legitimate threats to freedom of speech this could unleash, but also pretends that we do not (and should not) have separation of church and state. I would not want conservative theocrats holding such a convention any more than I would the socialists now in power.
Alan Sullivan, who notes that the left is suddenly talking about pushing for this in Ohio,
comments that -- surprise! -- certain elements of the conservative movement helped push us to this brink some time ago: "[T]he Reagan-era drive to launch a new constitutional convention ... began with a revolt by disgruntled deficit hawks, who were horrified by Cold War deficits, and failed to get a balanced-budget amendment through Congress."
Let us hope that this does not occur, so that we can profit by this object lesson in substituting the point of a government gun for rational persuasion. The ultimate problem lies not with Congress, but with a public that is all too happy to accept trinkets in the form of welfare state programs from the government in exchange for little pieces of its freedom.What were those fools thinking? That Congress would fail to find a way around their amendment if it was passed? Or that a nation that elected such a Congress in the first place would outdo the Founding Fathers as authors of a constitution?-- CAV from Gus Van Horn
[Note: This is a cut-and-paste from Wayne Besen.com, author of the blog Truth Wins Out, from Dec. 9, 2008, and author of the book Anything But Straight. Click on the title below to take you to the Times advertisement described in the Besen column.
[I reprint this in full, because gay marriage is not a "special privilege" separate from straight marriage. The individual sovereignty envisioned by the Founding Fathers and which is part and parcel of the Academy's metaphysical naturalist doctrine, is not served by the denial of civil rights through Constitutional amendments. Marriage is marriage, and it is not, as the hypocrites claim, for the sake of the children. It is for the sake of not having sex outside the sanctity of marriage, something devout believers take as sin--just as they take homosexuality to be sin.
[But if they really believe it is for the sake of the children, then why are gay and lesbian couples with children denied marriage? The hypocrites are causing their parents to have sex outside the sanctity of marriage, not to mention denying the children--and the spouse--the justice of the same legal protections as the hypocrites and their children receive.]
In a breathtaking display of lies and hypocrisy, a group of anti-gay culture warriors and long-time Mormon bashers placed a full page ad in the New York Times pretending to be both victims of alleged homosexual "mobs" and staunch defenders of the Latter Day Saints (Mormons).
Both claims are absurd and a cruel attempt for the victimizers to claim the mantle of the victimhood - which is a manipulative and cynical political ploy.The dishonest Times ad essentially claimed that violent mobs of gay protesters were attacking the Mormon Church and its followers in the aftermath of California voters narrowly approving Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in that state. They even launched a website
www.NoMobVeto.org. (It seems they forget that they put basic human rights up for a vote, which is essentially mob rule)
This Times ad is full of blatant lies - much like the immoral television ads attacking same-sex families during the Prop. 8 campaign. The fact is, the vast majority of the rallies across America were peaceful. Considering gay families just got stripped of their basic rights by deception and deceit, the protests were remarkably tame. If any other group had been subject to such humiliation through a multi-million dollar smear operation, there would likely have been riots in the streets - not the fake "violence" conjured in the bogus Times ad.
The anti-gay organizations and individuals who sponsored this "Big Lie" ad are trying to pull off a remarkable feat: They are both crying wolf, while being the wolf in sheep's clothing. The degree of chutzpah is remarkable and eye-popping.Consider that a few of the unctuous signers of the ad, convicted felon Chuck Colson, Prison Fellowship; Rich Cizik, The National Association of Evangelicals; and William Donohue, The Catholic League are now pretending to love Mormons. In the ad they wrote:
"The violence and intimidation being directed against the LDS or 'Mormon' church and other religious organizations - and even against individual religious believers - simply because they supported Proposition 8 is an outrage that must stop."The ad ended with the following propaganda:
"Furthermore, beginning today, we commit ourselves to opposing and publicly shaming anyone who resorts to the rhetoric of anti-religious bigotry - against any faith, on any side of any cause, for any reason."Well, that is good news. The authors of this hypocritical ad can start by spotlighting themselves:
"Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular." -- Bill Donohue, Catholic League
"Mormonism either affirms historic Christianity, or it doesn't. Since it doesn't, it can't call itself Christianity -- a fact that all the good will and public relations in Utah can't change." -- Chuck Colson, Prison Fellowship Ministries [Note: Colson, you will remember, was one of Nixon's henchmen during Watergate, along with G. Gordon Liddy, who now does TV commercial for "gold."]
"While Mormons share some beliefs with Christians, they are not Christians." -- Chuck Colson, Prison Fellowship Ministries
"Most evangelicals still regard Mormonism as a cult." -- Rich Cizik, National Association of Evangelicals
I really do hope this group shines a light of shame on those who promote religious bigotry - but they better be wearing very dark sun glasses when this occurs, as the glare from the light may be quite blinding. It appears that the only thing these men have in common with Mormons, or any other religion that they don't agree with, is an uncommon passion for anti-gay discrimination. To watch these hypocrites act as the great defenders of the LDS church, and religion in general, is beyond laughable.
If this were not bad enough, Pat Boone compared Proposition 8 protests to terrorist attacks on Mumbai in a column for World Net Daily titled, "Hate is hate, in India or America. Boone wrote, "Have you not seen the awful similarity between what happened in Mumbai and what's happening right now in our cities?"In his op-ed, Boone also wrote, "What troubles me so deeply, and should trouble all thinking Americans, is that there is a real, unbroken line between the jihadist savagery in Mumbai and the hedonistic, irresponsible, blindly selfish goals and tactics of our homegrown sexual jihadists." I'm not sure if Boone noticed, but it was religious extremism that was responsible for the attacks in India.
If these so-called people of faith have confidence in their beliefs, why must they resort to lying in the name of the Lord? For whatever they gain in smearing the gay community, it seems their religion loses twice as much in terms of credibility and respectability. I have no problem if these people have a cross to bear, but why must this so often be synonymous with bearing false witness?
Last month the Treasury Department hosted a forum designed to educate government and private sector attendees on the Islamic finance market. On Dec. 5, the Academy Blogger reported "how Shariah-compliant finance is establishing a foothold in American financial and insurance markets [through, firstly, AIG]. As we all know, AIG is the recipient of a massive government bailout (translation: our tax dollars)." [see
Today, we report to you the UK Financial Times story that “Saudi Arabia’s top cleric” has called for “Muslim countries to renounce capitalism and form an Islamic economic bloc that adopts interest-free finance.” Apart from the fact that shariah “interest-free finance” is frequently disingenuous (in that the financial investments are often structured to provide a profit but the profit is not called “interest”), the pronouncement from Grand Mufti Abdelaziz Al al-Sheikh is but another reminder of the growing threat of “cultural jihad” to the West. Remember, one of the world’s leading authorities on shariah-compliant finance has termed it “jihad with money.”
The American Thinker ran an article, " Top ten reasons why sharia is bad for all societies," Dec 10. In part it said: "Traditional Muslims who understand the Quran and the hadith believe that sharia (Islamic law) expresses the highest and best goals for all societies. It is the will of Allah.
"But is Islam just in its laws that Muhammad himself practiced and invented?
"No one should be fooled into believing that these harsh and excessive laws were invented in the fevered imagination of extremists who came long after Muhammad. These harsh and excessive laws come directly from the founder of Islam in his Quran and in his example in the hadith.
"...it must be pointed out that these harsh laws are not (or should not be) imposed outside of an Islamic court of law. Careful legal hurdles must be passed before the punishments are carried out. However, even in that case, it will become clear to anyone who thinks clearly that these punishments and policies are excessive by their very nature, and excess is never just, as Aristotle taught us in his Nicomachean Ethics."
The article below ran on December 2nd in the online “Insurance Journal,” and illustrates how Shariah-compliant finance is establishing a foothold in American financial and insurance markets. As we all know, AIG is the recipient of a massive government bailout (translation: our tax dollars). Take special note of the shariah-compliant supervisory board. Muhammed Imran Usmani is the son and disciple of Muhammed Taki Usmani. The elder Usmani is a “who’s who” in the Islamist world and an outspoken proponent of aggressive jihad. For example, he has issued numerous fatwas (religious rulings) that provide material support for terrorism. The danger of American financial institutions getting in bed with well-known advocates of jihad and terrorism should be obvious to anyone who takes even a cursory look. It was Lenin who stated “The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”
In their thirst for capital and profits, the same corporate geniuses who gave us the sub-prime meltdown are going Lenin one better. At least the capitalists in Lenin’s day didn’t put him on their advisory boards and give him control over where money can be invested. So as we connect the dots we see that (1) our tax dollars are being used to bail out a huge insurance conglomerate that (2) is now offering shariah-compliant insurance that (3) is under the direction of an advisory board that includes the son and disciple of one of the world’s leading advocates of Islamic terrorism. In 2009 we are going to need the help of every one of our members to start putting the brakes on this insanity.
AIG Offers First Takaful Homeowners Insurance Product for U.S.
"Phillip Berg has filed a suit in Federal court. [Denver Dem Convention: Clinton Supporter Files to Disqualify Obama] The suit was against Barack Obama and the Democrat National Committee. It asked the court to force Obama to prove he was an American citizen. If you are Obama, what do you do?
"A. Provide the court with the three documents in question and go back to shaking hands, making promises and smiling for the cameras. B. Provide images of one of the documents to a friendly website to post, but not to the judge. C. Ignore the judge, then make a motion to dismiss the case, in lieu of providing the proof. D. In the meantime, quietly, post a notice at your website, FighttheSmears.com that you had dual citizenship with Kenya. E. Hire the top gun attorney from the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to fight the case. F. File a Joint Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery Pending a Decision on the Motion to Dismiss (which was) filed on 09/24/08, thereby putting the matter off until–hopefully–after the election.
I highlighted the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) because of the tough, disciplined, and principled arguments made against it for years by ACT! for America and others including many Senators and Congressmen and Women--because Obama's attorney works for a domestic terrorist organization. http://www.actforamerica.org/
"[T]he Islamway website originally operated from Canada until a series of articles was published by National Post reporter Stewart Bell just days before 9/11 exposing that the website published an 'invitation to jihad' and provided instructions on how to train at terrorist camps run by Al-Qaeda. Islamway was defended by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which published several action alerts and press releases decrying the newspaper’s “tabloid journalism” and promoting Islamophobia, directing its supporters to besiege the paper’s editors to complain of the supposedly “anti-Muslim” bias of the reporter. The National Post reportedly received death threats during CAIR’s protest (again, which occurred less than two weeks before 9/11). The Royal Canadian Mounted Police initiated an investigation at the request of B’nai B’rith Canada, but the website relocated to the US, prompting authorities there to drop their inquiry." [emphasis added]http://www.actforamerica.org/index.php/learn/recent-news/268-mainstream-us-islamic-websites-and-terror-
"'CAIR: Names Will Always Hurt You;' The Investigative Project on Terrorism is among those who are critical of new guidelines discouraging the use of terms like "Islamist" ...
"In March 2008, it was reported that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was continuing their efforts to 'train' American FBI agents."
"'CAIR Gets Failing Grades at Running Ohio Charter'; Schools Taxpayers finance religious extremism and academic failure. by Patrick Poole The Ohio ...
"When the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was founded, the HAMAS network leaders in the US turned to one of its own, Anisa And El Fattah/Caroline F. Keeble to serve as one of its founding board members. Her two mentors and former employers, HAMAS chief Mousa Abu Marzook and Abdurahman Alamoudi, have respectively been designated a terrorist and convicted of terrorist support. Thus, she is quite familiar with both the overt and more subtle methods of cultural terrorism." [all quotes above from http://www.actforamerica.org/index.php/component/search/CAIR?ordering=newest&searchphrase=all&limit=30 morefrom the Academy Blogger
Act! for America's very-outfront spokeswoman is Brigitte Gabriel. "Ms. Gabriel is a former news anchor for “World News”, the Arabic evening news broadcast for Middle East Television seen throughout Israel, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. She covered the Israeli withdrawal from Central Lebanon, the Israeli Security Zone and the Palestinian uprising in the West Bank and Gaza. Her work was international in scope, bringing her in contact with world figures such as Margaret Thatcher, George H. Bush Sr., Itshak Rabin, Shimon Perez and Ariel Sharon." http://www.actforamerica.org/index.php/learn/about-ms-gabriel [for a complete list of Act! articlesAct! on CAIR ]
But Act! is not the only organization taking note of CAIR's radicalism in the U.S.
"Let there be no doubt that the Council on American-Islamic Relations is a terrorist supporting front organization that is partially funded by terrorists, founded by terrorists, and that CAIR wishes nothing more than the implementation of Sharia Law in America." Anti-CAIR http://www.anti-cair-net.org/
U.S. Rep. Bill Shuster: "Time and again [CAIR] has shown itself to be nothing more than an apologist for groups bent on the destruction of Israel and Islamic domination over the West."
Anti-CAIR says they "are a group of concerned Americans dedicated to eliminating the Islamist terrorist threat to the United States Constitution. "We believe that the Council on American-Islamic Relations, (CAIR), is a clear and present danger to our Constitution and our way of life. We will continue to expose CAIR's involvement in supporting Islamist terrorists, terrorist-sponsoring organizations and groups in the United States. (Founded April 2003)"
And this is the group that Obama has hired to defend him?
Note:I will be the featured speaker at the Center For Inquiry (CFI) meeting, October 16, 2008, in Portage, Michigan. The topic is "Atheism as a 'Religion' Protected by Courts According to the Establishment Clause" CEC
