Da Nile
There often things you hear that, while you’d love to think that they’re true, you don’t allow yourself the luxury of believing. Sometimes they’re plain silly, and sometimes it’s uphill in a politically correct sense. But sometimes events follow such an interesting and distinct course that those apparent frivolities return to your mind and coalesce. And when they do, they’re not so silly any longer.
Let’s begin here (where we will return later)
White House Quietly Courts Muslims in U.S.
When President Obama took the stage in Cairo last June, promising a new relationship with the Islamic world, Muslims in America wondered only half-jokingly whether the overture included them
and this is key:
After all, Mr. Obama had kept his distance during the campaign, never visiting an American mosque and describing the false claim that he was Muslim as a “smear” on his Web site.
OK, now on to the list:
1/21/2009
The president, a Christian whose father was a Muslim, deflected an urban legend during the campaign that he too was a Muslim.
1/18/2009
Obama will be sworn in as president with his full Muslim-sounding name of Barack Hussein Obama, in keeping with White House tradition.
1/27/2009
Obama reaches out to Muslim world on TV
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama gave his first formal television interview as president to an Arabic cable TV network, saying that when it comes to Middle East matters “all too often the United States starts by dictating.”
June 2, 2009
Obama Says U.S. Could Be Seen as a Muslim Country, Too
“And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world,” Mr. Obama said.
June 4, 2009
Obama in Egypt reaches out to Muslim world…
At Egypt’s Cairo University, Obama quoted from the Quran as he expounded on Islam’s glories and rights, the legitimate rights of Israel and the Palestinians, Iranian nuclear aspirations, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, women’s rights, economic development, and religious rights and democracy in the Muslim world.
Obama seeks ‘new beginning’ in Muslim world
CAIRO — Invoking the Quran and his rarely used middle name, Barack Hussein Obama declared Thursday that America has a common cause with Islam
August 4, 2009
Obama Administration Reaches Out to Muslims Worldwide
Washington — President Obama has said he seeks a new beginning with Muslims worldwide “based upon mutual interest and mutual respect” and also “based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition.”
Novermber 17, 2009
Obama ‘Reaches Out’ by Naming ‘Devout’ Muslims to Security Posts
U.S. President Barack Obama continues to “reach out to Muslims” by appointing them to key security posts amid charges he wrongly ignored internal Muslim terror. One recent appointee was harshly criticized for appearing on a British-based television station whose host is a member of a radical Muslim group.
Aril 15, 2010
Obama administration reaches out to Muslims
* The Obama administration is revising national security guidelines that strip references to “Islamic radicalism” and other terms deemed inflammatory to Muslims.
* Officials reversed three-month-old guidelines that singled out passengers on flights arriving from 13 Muslim countries, and Cuba, for mandatory screening.
* Controversial scholar Tariq Ramadan entered the U.S. for the first time in six years after being barred by the Bush administration.
* The Obama administration has dispatched American Nobel Prize winners to advise Muslim scientists, economists and other professionals on how to improve their research and better manage their institutions.
* At the end of this month, the U.S. government will host some 500 mainly Muslim business people for intensive seminars on entrepreneurship.
April 18, 2010
White House Quietly Courts Muslims in U.S.
Muslim and Arab-American advocates have participated in policy discussions and received briefings from top White House aides and other officials on health care legislation, foreign policy, the economy, immigration and national security. They have met privately with a senior White House adviser, Valerie Jarrett, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to discuss civil liberties concerns and counterterrorism strategy.
Then finally, this- July 2, 2010
Obama tasks NASA with new mission- making Muslim nations feel good
When I became the NASA Administrator – before I became the NASA Administrator – he charged me with three things: One was that he wanted me to re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, that he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with predominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.”
During the Presidential campaign both the White House and the press promptly attacked anyone who even hinted of Barack Obama’s Muslim background.
Remember, during Obama’s campaign, I and others were excoriated for using his middle name. We were accused of implying he was a crypto-Muslim. We could not discuss his background, his Islamic schooling, his ties to Islam. However, I have meticulously documented his Muslim background in my soon-to-be-released book, The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America.
Anyone daring to question The One got it:
One year ago in June 2008, Floyd produced a television ad which asked the simple question, “Was Barack Obama ever a Muslim?” The Obama campaign came unglued. It earned Floyd prominent placement on a special Obama Web site called “Fight the Smears.”
The news media jumped on the bandwagon. Newsweek reported: “Barack Obama has never been Muslim and never practiced Islam. But rumors about his religion intended to frighten some voters persist, and they mostly return to one point of fact: his name.” The Boston Globe wrote: “Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ. His Kenyan paternal grandfather and Indonesian stepfather were Muslim, but he attended secular and Catholic schools and was never a practicing Muslim.”
The attacks on Floyd grew personal; Chris Matthews, on MSNBC, all but called Floyd a racist, saying, “This guy hides under a rock every couple generations, shows up again with another ad against a black candidate.” (There never was a black nominee to do ads against before Obama, but facts are not important to Matthews.) Obama even blamed Floyd for breaking his pledge to use public financing for his campaign saying, “527s pop up pretty quickly and have enormous influence and we’ve seen them — there was an ad, one in South Dakota by Floyd Brown I think where it took a speech that I had made extolling faith and made it seem as if I had said that America was a Muslim nation.”
But once Obama was elected, his Muslim background took the stage:
In Cairo, Egypt in his highly anticipated speech to the Muslim world Barack Obama quoted the Quran as commanding, “Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.” He then said he shared that conviction, as “rooted in my own experience.”
So now we return to where we started:
After all, Mr. Obama had kept his distance during the campaign, never visiting an American mosque and describing the false claim that he was Muslim as a “smear” on his Web site.
The Presidential election of 2008 would likely have had a very different result had Obama extolled his Muslim background. It would have been interesting had Obama promised he would bend over backwards for Muslim countries. You want to dismiss the “stealth” aspect of all of this except for the most recent event. That was the clincher. The retasking of a Federal agency for the purpose of massaging the self-esteem of Muslim nations is dramatic. Krauthammer called it “childish” but it’s worse than that. It’s as though all of the worst fears are coming to pass.
The masthead of the agency says:
NASA’s mission is to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.
But not any longer. Now the NASA mission is to “reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with predominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.”
Would Obama have been elected had he been honest and told Americans that he planned to shut down the manned space program and use its budget to make Muslim countries feel good? Would he have been elected had he told America that it could be considered to be a “Muslim” nation? Would he have been elected had he promised that he planned to install “devout Muslims” in high level national security positions ?
I think not. I think this country elected the most dishonest man ever to sit in the White House. Of course they will be those who dismiss this opinion. But who among them would have told you that Obama would turn NASA into a Muslim nation nurture center? What’s next? Will Obama order the Department of Education to focus only on the importance of Muslim nations? Really-how far away is that possibility?
Cloward-Piven isn’t looking so far-fetched either.
Da Nile ain’t just a river in Egypt.
Pingback: Obama’s Stealth Islamification of America [Reader Post] « ~ The GUNNY "G" BLOG & E-MAIL ~
Pingback: The Patriot's Flag » Eligibility and Credibility
*badda dump*
Judging by the growing Islamophobia that seems to be gripping a good number of Americans, that may well be true. However, he’s behaving as politicians do, exploiting whatever in his background will serve him to score political brownie points. It’s what John Kerry did in regards to his military service, highlighting virtues that will gain him votes, moving the spotlight away from that which will lose him votes.
In, and of itself, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with saying a person’s full name. In the manner in which right-wingers wished to highlight, underline, embolden, emphasize the “HUSSEIN” in Barack HUSSEIN Obama, it was a smear, suggesting that Obama is a Muslim, as though there were something inherently wrong with that.
Is it part of his background? Yes. But he is not a practicing (closet) Muslim, in the religious sense. Today, as president, when he places emphasis on his Muslim roots, he is over-emphasizing and exaggerating the claim in order to connect with the audience he is speaking to.
Much about Obama isn’t that he’s some stealth Muslim out to “Islamisize” America. He’s typical of the liberal progressive who value multiculturalism and equality over American exceptionalism and assimilation. He’s no different than many in the Democratic Party who wish to “reach out” an olive branch to the Muslim world and appease anti-Americanism abroad, apologizing for America’s past actions of “aggression and imperialism” and “unilateralism”- especially during the previous 8 years.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Obama’s Stealth Islamification of America [Reader Post] -- Topsy.com
Radical Islamists, btw, hate his guts. Especially the jihadis. You know the ones who we are actually at war with? I’ve had one jihadi-wannabe send me personal messages about our “House Negro president”. And if they accept the idea that Obama was once a Muslim, then they see him as a Muslim apostate and traitor.
And as someone who perpetuates the wars abroad, who’s increased Predator drone attacks in Pakistan, Obama’s popularity amongst Muslims is down, not up.
By Dita Alangkara, AP
REUTERS/Gurcan Ozturk
So did George W. Bush.
THE MOST DANGEROUS PERSON on the PLANET
Bush did not transform Federal agencies for the purpose of nurturing Muslim nations.
No, but right in the aftermath of 9/11, he was there praying and visiting mosques, reassuring Muslims that anti-Muslim bigotry and hatred will not be tolerated. And he stressed this point, over and over again, throughout his presidency, that this was not a war against Islam; that Islam is a “religion of peace” (much to the consternation of many a conservative and anti-PC card-carrier); that this was a war against Islamic terrorism, which threatens us all, not to be confused with a war against Islam.
And what I was responding to was the emboldened part of the blockquote: Quoting directly from the Koran.
Bush did the same in speeches reaching out to the Muslim world.
YOU know, SARAH PALIN had mentioned something about it, and when she did, I remember looking on a clooseup at JOHN MCAIN, and he was looking straight at the audience in a silent stare
possibly would have meant something like this” it’s true beleive it”.
TOO many did not and the MEDIA did not, or did’nt want to beleive it
but we know now, that SARAH PALIN told everyone and she told the truth, and SHE would again tell the truth if she is given the podium again, BUT now we would beleive her words.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Not sure what you are referring to. Would you happen to be able to find a link to a video that expresses your point?
This incident stood out to me:
Obama remains popular amongst many voters, while his job performance has been tanking. Politically, I think attacking his character, for the most part (and I’m as guilty of it as many of you here- and it’s not to say things in his character don’t deserve honest criticism), is not as effective as attacking his policies. I think more energy should be devoted to the latter if you want to influence voters other than the conservative amen chorus who are already “in the bag” against all things Obama.
WORDSMITH: where did I attack JOHN? and you have all the links you can get yourself. BUT I dont get any links, it was in my memory, and he was sitting beside, letting SARAH PALIN make her speech, and when she mentioned about it ,I happen to focus on him looking staight at audience, and the words he did not say but i said it could have meant . ON the contrary OF attack, and you should appologyse.
bees, I did not accuse you of attacking McCain. I was merely asking for clarification of your point and a reference so I can know exactly what situation you are referring to.
DrJ, I’m not sure I get your entire post. The “islamification” of America because he wants NASA to “reach out” to Muslims? Look, I think his use of NASA as a diplomatic ambassador is as much marlarky and ill-thought gunk as the next guy. But it’s rather a leap to assume that’s “islamification” of the nation. He didn’t say NASA would cater *only* to Muslims.
But since he’s left that agency unfunded to most traditional space exploration tasks, even shuttle maintenance runs, we now have to depend upon other nations to do what we easily could do ourselves… with the right POTUS and Congress.
Nor has he “transformed” NASA *solely* for the purpose of nurturing Muslims. They are worthless as a space agency at this time, save for their tasks of robotics, aeronautical design for lower atmosphere vehicles, and what space and solar exploration they can do with feet on Mother Earth. Can’t exactly close them, right? So he’s decided he’s going to use them for inspiring kids (that’s okay, they always have), improving int’l relations (again, he’s made it so we can’t do anything alone anymore), and “reaching out to Muslims”. Not *only* to Muslims.
So most of what you cite is simply political pandering… not “islamification”. Probably looking to the ME money for funding, who knows. Doesn’t matter how much he panders. He’s been doing that since the POTUS campaign started, and even the Muslims he’s trying to cater to can’t stand him. It’s a losing, and embarrassing proposition.
Can’t stand the man’s policies myself, but even I won’t suggest that he’s trying to implement Shariah as part of our laws, which is what true “islamification” of this nation would be.
MATA: hi, I was thinking, COULD it be that the government and the leader, are showing more and more, that by cutting here and there all in major big expanses, MILITARY NASA, and
CARRIER SHIP orders, and other. are taking thoses moneys for their own agenda who is aim at countrys of OBAMA’s choice ,passing the AMERICANS prioritys, like taking here to spend it overthere, be it BRAZIL and others like muslims countrys also. it seems to become so obvious
for the eye to notice. bye
We need to take control of the government out of liberals’ hands this Nov. Yes, it sucks that NASA would become yet another liberal fallacy factory, but clearly Obama isn’t going to use it, or anything else, in our nation’s interest. Point out the tragedy, and when the anger or sadness has registered on the public, get right back to stabbing liberalism in the heart.
Conservatives, especially Republicans, need to push issues of Islam, race, and gender off our plates as quickly as possible, and continually focus on the political and financial destruction of our nation. As a shrewd man once said, “it’s the economy, stupid”. It’s the economy and all the horrendous policies that hamper it and the joblessness that accompanies it.
It’s bad enough we have to deal with the immigration issue, which provides liberals with opportunities to characterize us as racist xenophobes. That’s a national security issue as well as an economic issue, and they are on the wrong side of it. But Muslim outreach, at least until radicals get reached out to, is not a security issue, and hostility to it can easily be used against us. We can’t afford to lose any votes because some mushy moderates get offended over nonessential matters. The liberal media still sways the electorate to some degree and we have to deprive them of their lifeblood. Instead of worrying the bone of Muslim outreach, let’s go right back to what the health care bill or the financial legislation is going to do, and what threats accompany cap and trade and comprehensive immigration reform. Liberals aren’t good at defending their own man-made disasters, so let’s keep dragging them back to it and rubbing their noses in it.
Bees, I do agree that Obama’s increase of domestic welfare spending – offset by cuts in our national independence for security, energy and space – are indeed making us more dependent upon other nations. But it’s not just Muslim nations, nor intended to throw our dependence solely upon those nations. We’ve always had a certain degree of that Muslim dependence with our ME oil dependence, and our fragile alliances with Lebanon, Egypt, UAE, Kuwait, Pakistan, Jordan etal. Using the school of thought presented here, in context of your argument, every POTUS has been engaging in “islamification” of America for decades. In fact, you can go way back to the 70s when steel mills started closing, making us more dependent upon anyone who could sell us steel cheaper than we could manufacture it ourselves…. followed by textiles, followed by….
@Nellie:
And it’s the economy that the Administration just would not prefer to talk about.
Couldn’t have said it better myself, Nellie.
Pingback: Obama’s Stealth Islamification of America [Reader Post] « CWN – Conservative Watch News
I’m no longer open to buying the argument that Obama is only pandering for votes.
“First and foremost” is pretty close.
This is not what he promised during the campaign. And it’s not simply NASA, but rather the whole of his fiber.
How can you argue this while telling me that Bush did what Obama is doing? And what policy is really different from Bush other than the Obama mouth moving?
Then apologia is not going to be a successful policy.
I’ve been a forever NASA fan. I think reordering of priorities would have been proper. Not too long ago the Big Dumb Rocket plan was proposed and it should have been pursued. We should have a re-usable space taxi along the lines of the Dyna Soar project.
http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/dynasoar.html
Notice the shape.
This could be placed on the Atlas V and returned to Cape Kennedy and landed and serviced as was the shuttle but far, far easier. Now that moron has made us entirely dependent on the Russians.
Like I said…
We’re going to disagree here. I feel you are seeing elements and not the big picture. As I noted in my post, I debated this internally for a long time but this transformation of NASA is obscene and in my mind it’s the final straw.
Barack Obama is a liar. He is deceitful. But he’s not stupid.
I think you might ask yourselves why someone would engage in policies which you yourselves say won’t work.
Stealth? What stealth?
There has been no stealth.
The program began when he was immaculated. Excuse my fingers, I mean at his inauguration.
He has proceeded to falsify our view of Islam from the beginning of his royal reign.
There is no stealth. It has been, instead, the boiling of the frog by turning the heat up slowly.
The Qu’ran, for instance, is explicit on the role assigned by Allah, the Great, the Merciful, to females. But do we hear any protest from the feminists? Of course not. They are not to be educated. They are not allowed out of their homes without being placed in a burial shroud, accompanied by a male relative. The value of their testimony is half that of a man.
The Qu’ran is explicit on the treatment to be accorded to those who do not follow Islam. They are to be killed or subjugated. Do we hear any protest about the denial of fundamental freedom of worship in Islamic nations? The World Council of Churches is silent.
The followers of Wahab have re-defined martyr to mean anyone who acts foolishly by committing ritual suicide while taking the lives of others (especially other worshipers of Allah). How’s that again? Islam goes to war against Islam? The Sunni and Shi’ite factions have still not resolved an early quarrel about the role of Mohammed’s grandson.
Let there be no doubt. We are on course to become a Sharia nation, under an Imam named Obama, who will establish and maintain a dictatorship of the proletariat, with liberty and freedom for none.
You thought Zimbabwe was bad. Just wait.
MATHMAN: thank you for bringning what many think but wont tell. bye
I’d say that’s obvious, DrJohn. However when you are no longer “open”, then what you tout as your ability to see the “big picture” is distorted. So while you suggest I am only seeing elements, I suggest it is you who is distorting what is real.
Let’s use, for example, the birther site who picked up on your post. They added their own little introduction. However it’s not clear to someone who hasn’t seen the version here whether or not that is part of you post. Frankly, it blends right in with the rest of your rhetoric of “islamification”, indistinguishable from the content you provide.
Here’s how it reads
Then, example #2… i.e. @mathman:
So let me ask you this. Is this post of yours attempting to state, in a more kindly way, that Obama wants to bring “Islamic Law” to the US? Is that your “big picture” view? Is that how you wished it to be perceived by the reading public at large?
As far as the rest of your comments above, you seem to be running on the assumption that if anyone doesn’t agree with you, they agree with Obama. There’s that “no longer open” attitude again.
Obama is pandering. Kiss-azz policies, which is what he’s done since becoming a politician (his henchmen do the dirty work…), is how he works. It doesn’t matter we can see his pandering doesn’t work, he’s still going to do it because that’s who he is. I say have at it… the more he panders, the more he isolates our allies, and his enemies laugh in his face. This is all good for a one term Obama.
Oh yes, his agenda has never been stealth… well, maybe it was “stealth” to you, but I’d say most of us knew what Obama’s plans were from the time he declared in Jan 2007. He is doing all which he promised as quickly as possible…. health care, government expansion, a DOJ with “social justice” modeled on affirmative action. Affirmative action foreign policy. This is a surprise to you? You think it’s “stealth”?
Which then answers your final question: “I think you might ask yourselves why someone would engage in policies which you yourselves say won’t work.” I would think it would be obvious to you by now. Obama’s quest is to transform America into a more “socially just” Euro welfare state. And he, with the help of Pelosi and Reid, is well on his way to doing that. Perhaps irrereversibly so.
Obama, much like Bush, doesn’t pay attention to negative polls if he believes he’s right. So he first engages in attempts to disarm the dissent with charm and speeches, then he turns to the more thuggish Alinsky methods when that doesn’t work. But he never pulls back from his stated course of “remaking” America into a social welfare state.
This, however, is a gargantuan leap from your purported headline of “islamification”, based on your examples of his pandering.
So how about you answer the above question INRE exactly what you are trying to say. Do you, or do you not believe that Obama is trying to put the US under Shariah law?
All I have to say is that people need to look at the recent European history regarding Muslims and their ‘assimilation’ into European societies. England makes for a great example of what you get when you ‘pander’ to the Islamic religion, in the effort to “just get along”, you allow them to change your basic societal laws. Sharia law is commonplace in England in the Muslim communities, and in many cases, supplants the accepted English law in certain neighborhoods. The same is true of some French quarters, particularly in Paris itself, where there are some areas that the Paris police will not go to for fear of retaliation, even in instances of simply upholding the existing law. In those areas, Sharia law is in effect, and anyone not of the Muslim faith is considered an ‘outsider’ and at the very least, verbally harassed, and in some cases, physically assaulted, all for making the mistake of entering Muslim ‘territory’.
I have stronger feelings than most on the current situation of Muslims and their ‘religion’, much of it stemming from reading historical pieces on Islam, it’s founding, and the historical events in it’s history. Suffice it to say, I cringe when I hear someone describe Islam as a ‘religion of peace’.
Does it even matter whether 0 is Islamifying this nation through pandering or stealth? The destructive end result is the same. Frankly, in light of the rapidly emboldened and chaotic pace of the Islamification of Europe, it is safe to assume that “stealth” is the operative word. We are at a point where we simply do not have the luxury of naivete or extending “the benefit of the doubt”. What we know about Islamification is that it relies on incrementalization—the “boiling frog” approach mentioned in an earlier post—and an astute and calculated use of our legal system and misappropriation of “civil rights” in order to prop up Islamic encroachment. Whether Obama is Muslim in the strictly religious sense is entirely moot when we realize that Islam is an entirely self-contained social/religio-political system…one branch does not exist without any of the others.
Tory, I think it matters as to whether Obama is actually “islamifying” this nation, as suggested. That entails actually implementing some sort of recognition of Shariah as law of the land. Other than that, it’s just diplomatic rhetoric that has been over espoused by previous admins as well, this “outreach” bit. None of the instances cited by Drjohn have come even close to suggesting the US will adopt Shariah law as any part of our legal system. Nor would most of America stand for that, should the attempt be made. That’s an event we cross when it rises to the surface.
Until then, suggesting that’s what is on the POTUS platter just portrays conservatives as something a little less crazy and conspiratorial as the birthers. This kind of stuff will impale any conservative comeback into power. As Nellie sagely points out, it’s great fodder for the lib/progs to represent conservatives as anti-Muslim, racist and conspiratorial during a very important midterm election.
Second, it can only be “stealth” to those who have not listened to this man and his past/current statements. Most of us have been well aware of his pandering to the jihad government enemies over the years. All of his cow towing has resulted in nothing but half hearted support for our allies (which they recognize and are critical of), and the disdain by our enemies for this POTUS. I hope he continues to pander, because it will accomplish nothing but make him look the naive fool he is.
A journey of a thosand miles begins with a single step.
When’s the last time you were in England, Mata? My friends over there have told me repeatedly over the last decade and a half that sharia law could never take hold there.
But it is.
It makes no sense for Obama to “pander” if it’s not getting him any votes or any good will. Therefore there has to be another reason for him doing these things. He’s come out of the Muslim closet following the election. There is a reason he wants Islam to assert itself in government and for our tax money to be used to massage the egos of Muslim nations.
So I respectfully disagree.
Wow. Keeping two rovers operating for more than five years on Mars is quite some “save for.” So is a spacecraft flying 39,000 miles per hour just leaving the known solar system after departing this world 30 years ago and still talking to us. So is a glimpse of a moon that looks more like our world than we imagined if you could forget that the atmosphere is methane.
They’re not worthless because of their own faults. They’re astonishingly talented people. Forking over control of manned space flight to the Russians and the Chinese is stupid. It was time to make the taxi. And it is easily within our reach.
Drjohn, you are leaping to bizarre assumptions yet again. I happen to be a huge fan of NASA, and often wander thru their site and photo galleries for pure pleasure. Modern NASA tasks are easily found on their website, and include:
Let me parse my statement for you, so you don’t misunderstand. NASA is now useless for space exploration as a single national entity because it’s funding for the next generation Orion shuttle replacement is questionable. Under the Bush NASA plan, current shuttles were to be retired this year (which Obama is still doing) and replaced with the Orion/Constellation craft. NASA actually received ARRA/stimulus funds to advance the development. But then, April of this year, Obama announced cancellation of the Constellation program and a new directive for the Orion project. But funding and specifics were vague. This results in potential NASA job loss of 11,500 people. So far Obama’s killing more jobs than “creating or saving” them. A legitimate attack front for the election.
Now we have the NASA director, echoing Obama’s assertation that the US can no longer explore above the earth’s low atmosphere without int’l assistance. Perhaps what he has done is rendered anything but NASA’s other tasks as impotent with funding cancellations.
As I said, can’t exactly close them down since they do perform other satellite monitoring tasks, as well as robotic exploration. However I also said that their space exploration (manned, I should have specified), as it exists right now, is virtually useless without, as Obama/Bolden aver, int’l help.
So for you to portray my comment as some sort of slam at NASA in general is an utter misinterpretation. Whether that’s you filling in the blanks, or me not making it more abundantly clear, I don’t know. But I certainly hope this clears it up.
Drjohn, we are not England, nor are Americans as easy to roll over as the English. As I said, we’re pretty much a nation that wouldn’t have tolerance for Shariah as part of our legal system. Altho Shariah already exists in the lending world with Shariah compliant loans available. “islamification” in your book? Well, that’s not the doing of Obama.
I agree it makes no sense for Obama to pander. You assume he does for the purpose, I glean from your responses, of implementing Shariah as part of this nation. Yet you offer no citations that back that up, save a bunch of lip services making nice with Islamic nations.
I assume he does this azz kissing because he always wants to be portrayed as the diplomat, ergo opposite of perceived unilateral Bush, no matter how much it makes him look like an idiot. He did state that he would sit down with our enemies… sometimes with preconditions, other times without – throughout his campaign and continued thru his Presidency. How can you be surprised, or how can this be “stealth” when it was quite openly a campaign promise?
You can respectfully disagree, as well as I. My observation is you’re dancing on the edge of conspiracy theories that paints us as lunatics. I’d say that the birther added commentary, as he/she interpreted your reader post, combined with mathmans pronouncement that we were marching towards a Shariah nation, pretty much confirms that is how your post is interpreted. Since I’ve asked my very direct question – do you believe Obama is trying to implement Shariah law in the US – I’ve only gotten nuanced responses. But they all point to a “yes”. And this prediction, based on nothing more than what you’ve provided, is not going to be helpful to the conservative movement as a whole.
But hang, it’s your 1st Amendment right to state your predictions, just as it’s the birthers’ right to keep talking up their theories.
Sorry, Mata. I am at 33,000 feet over Georgia. I guess it’s the altitude keeping me from reading your mind and making me leap to “bizarre assumptions.”
My bad.
Not a problem. Flying is no pleasure these days. But the view ought to be great…
MataH, I don’t necessarily think that Islamification, stealth or otherwise, is contingent upon some element of overt Shariah being readily identified and institutionalized into our code of law. We are, I think, still at the stage where the frog is not boiled but is sweating profusely. If you will, the Ground Zero (Cordoba House) mosque, whose Imam is an explicit advocate of shariah in America, can be looked at as the deliberate second step following the comparatively tentative yet successful first step of demanding foot baths, separate gym and pool facilities or hours for men and women, refusal to handle pork products, taxi-drivers refusing transport to customers assisted by seeing-eye dogs, ID photos for hijab-wearing women,Halal menus in schools, etc.,—all small scale and to the feckless, seemingly innocuous when cloaked under the the guise of “religious expression”. Now, we have Cordoba House, a looming taunt by Islam to American and Western values, which will likely be permitted by virtue of “law fare”—jihad through exploitation of our laws. Is Obama directly and profoundly responsible for this encroachment? No…but from all appearances, he is a complicit enabler at best, or an advocate of taqqiya, at worst. His serial deference to Islam clearly marks him as a master of either malignant ineptitude or of something smoothly and cooly deliberate; either way, his actions are insidious.
Like you I am hopeful—yet not confident—that America would soundly and vocally reject any overt imposition of sharia. But then, I remember who voted for Obama while ignoring his tutelage under Jeremiah Wright, his jarring comments about the need to “fundamentally transform” this country, his utter lack of experience in administering anything except his own campaign, etc. Hence the lack of confidence.
Because of that, I have to agree with your assessment that the most effective, expedient way to hobble Obama and his enablers in Congress is to focus on the more politically safe issues of policies and using the irrefetutable data to prove his policy failures. I also agree that his fawning deference to Muslim entities makes him a laughingstock to those he most seeks to impress and patronize…but damned if I’m not worried that someone exploits that weakness before we can rein him in.
We aren’t?
Did we or did we not just elect a lying charlatan for President?
TORY: I agree but is’n it more cautious if there is an advance backup plan in case some decide not to wait because of emergency to important. and who would be the one to trigger that plan also is questionable. bye
LOL! Well, we (but not me, Kemosabi) did elect a lying charlatan. But then, the English don’t have a President. And they are far more wussy at bucking the system than this nation. Witness the Minutemen, AZ and other states, 20 states suing Obama over healthcare, and the tea party. When’s the last time you saw such a grassroots movement in the UK?
When they started accepting sharia.
And now I’m on my way to New Orleans. Hope there are some fried oysters still cookin’ at Drago’s….
DR.JOHN: hi, AM I to beleive that on 31 you are answering yourself?. BECAUSE I thought I was the only one doing that. bye
IT could be the ALTTITUDE
Perhaps you can tell us what constitutes “islamification” in the scope of your ideas, Tory.
INRE the Ground Zero mosque… interesting you bring that up since that caused quite the uproar in FA familia spirited debate not too long ago. However everyone that casually says “just build it elsewhere” hasn’t figured out that the trend to ban, or severely harass mosque and their included cultural centers, has been increasing post 911. TN is battling mosques in their state… any location. Boston is royally PO’d about the mosque being built there. In 2008, a senior Church of England member wanted an outright ban on mosques in Britain in fears of becoming “…an Islamic state”. In 2007, Austria’s governor of Carinthia was attempting to ban them in his province. And as of May 2008, a more than hefty amount of Euro nations i.e. Italy, France, Britan and Switzerland, were all raising a ruckus for mosque building.
And oh, BTW, the cultural centers only have a prayer room for worship and prayer, and the rest is community amentities for all local residents.
All this begs the question when you say build it elsewhere. Just where would that be?
So it’s far from just being about Ground Zero? You haven’t been looking around, Tory. The “fear” and hyperbole of “becoming an Islamic state” is an emotional virus sweeping the globe. As for us, the day the US prohibits the building of mosques is the same day the US will also be able to prohibit the building of any religious house of worship. Our freedom and Constitution is a one size fits all brand, when it comes to freedom of religion.
So unlike you and a few others, who believe Obama’s “islamifying” the US, I suggest that too many of you have now succumbed to Islamaphobia, and are willing to yield serious unalienable rights in order to pacify that fear. The global jihad movement will be happy to take that discrimination to the bank of support.
@bees
It was sort of rhetorical….
I’m with Dr. John. I’m also one of the “birther” nuts. Although I’m not sure the place of birth is necessarily a factor… consider that the Constitution specifically mentions that “dual citizenship” is a factor that obfuscates “natural born”, and in fact Obama is a dual citizen by virtue of his father who was an English citizen, and in all probability, by virtue of his Indonesian father who adopted him. In fact, he would not have been permitted to attend the Indonesian schools, had he not been a citizen of Indonesia. Additionally, at the time he was with his mother and step-father in Indonesia, neither the USA nor Indonesia tolerated a dual citizenship status, so his parents would have been required to relinquish his USA citizenship. Now…if he did nothing to exercise his Indonesian citizenship after reaching his majority, that would be moot, but two questions arise: his possible use of an Indonesian passport to go to Pakistan in ’81, and a question about the fact that he returned to Indonesia to work on his auto-biography. That wouldn’t be of any interest, except that apparently visas are limited to a certain period of time – three months, I think – and he stayed there much longer. Maybe he had his visa extended – but no mention of it is made. Imo, it’s possible that no mention was made because he didn’t have a visa – he was a citizen. Don’t know how to prove that though.
I really hope that if the GOP wins the House, someone will actually research the issue and put the entire thing to rest – one way or the other.
OH yeah…and really – consider taquiyah. It’s a terribly insidious concept.
Drj, the anti-Muslim protests in England don’t even come close in numbers to the tea party movement here. Nor have they continued on to battle it. In fact, from most of the protests I had read about in that time, the pro groups were about as large as the anti groups. And once it went into place, they all sauntered back into the local pub. Not so here. States filing lawsuits against health care, tea parties still going strong.
Nope….England can’t come close to touching the wrath of Americans who feel wronged by government. And that’s a good thing.
BTW, saw a report on famous oyster places in NO. They are still serving them, getting them from the Texas waters. Toss a few oyster shots back for me, please.
There you go again, Mata, leaping to bizarre assumptions!
What I said was that Islamism was the grass roots movement I saw in the UK.
And will do!
Did you know that Connecticut is home to a boatload of oyster farms? They grow Bluepoints here.
Actually, right now it’s there, not here.
DR>JOHN: give them our best wishes and concerned, bye
RHETORIC? that’s what I tell myself when I talk to me.
Well now, you didn’t make that any more plain than I made my NASA comment, apparently. I asked you when you saw Brits in an uproar over proposed government policy with grass roots. And you simply said “when they started accepting Shariah”. Now you say that means the grass roots movements were in favor of it, instead of against it? WTF? LOL
Like I said, no one does the 1st amendment better than US citizens. And I like that about us.
@bees
LOL! And I will!
I was trying to talk like you and you’re my idol.
Come on, no brown nosing, guy. LOL I see what we have here is “a failure to communicate”….
DR.JOHN: WHILE I’m on your back, I could not resist this one: IS IT HERE or THERE?.
@bees
Yes!
MATA: IT’S strange that the subject always bring some burning responses it almost make you think of
as hot as hell. bye
@MataHarley:
Let’s throw in there the push by Sarkozy to follow Belgium’s example and ban face veils. He calls them “oppressive” to women. But that should be up to Muslim women to decide. Those who willingly wear hijabs (i.e., “modest” dress) and burqas (not the ones forced to do so by males) might tell you that when a woman is covered, men are forced to judge by personality and character rather than by appearance. It is by choice that they cover up to hide their physical traits from non-family members who might have indecent thoughts. These women will insist that they feel more liberated. Not less.
Burqas are worn by a minority of Muslim women, btw. And the hijab could be anything from a head dress and facial covering to a simple head scarf. Use of makeup varies. A Muslim woman in Indonesia might don a hijab when she is about to pray, then take it back off right after. Islamic practices are VARIED. Even fundamentalists and jihadi whackos don’t agree on Sharia, hadiths, and what the Koran allows and does not allow. Even Islamic scholars debate and disagree. Sunnis regard Shiites with disgust and vice versa. Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri allowed their children to listen to music and play video games…how does that go over with the Taliban’s interpretation of Sharia?
Us right-wingers have this cartoon impression of Muslim tradition and Islamic practice as some monolithic religious culture, arrogantly telling Muslims we know their faith better than they know their faith.
I have a French-American Muslim friend who tells me it’s mostly those who are recent converts to Islam who try to be more “traditional”/strict adherents than those born into it. Yet I believe she and those like her represent some of the more mainstream Muslims out there. Not the wahhabi loonies who epitomizes every right-winger’s boogieman Islamic
radicalnormal. She wears makeup, GAP clothing (modestly dressed), listens to American music and goes to the movies, dances, etc. like any other typical American youth. And she attends mosque and considers herself Islamic. She may not know her faith like we all know her faith (i.e., the Robert Spencerian politically incorrect “Islami is not a religion of peace” outlook), but who’s to stop her from practicing her faith as a religion of peace, if that’s indeed what she is practicing? It may not be Islam as you and I may think of it. But it is her Islam, as she knows and practices it.When we wail about “Where are the moderates?!”, when “moderates” like her are standing there before us, we then tell them, “No, you’re not a moderate; you don’t exist. There can be no moderates in Islam. You’re the radical; you’re the apostate for not wanting to live under universal sharia, kill or convert Christian infidels (she’s never tried to convert anyone in her life, to my knowledge), for not hating Jews as ‘pigs’, for not knowing what taqqiyah is (a shi’ite practice)….” and so on.
@DrJohn:
Stepping off a cliff and taking the whole conservative movement down with it can begin with just one.
@DrJohn:
I’m not quite understanding your question. Can you rephrase or clarify for me? Thanks.
Not at all. Not to the jihadis. Not to the Muslim world.
The president’s got a high IQ; but a lot of intellectuals lack smarts and wisdom.
No, Mata, I never said to build the mosque ( aka the warm, fuzzy, “cultural center”) elsewhere; I’d prefer it not be built, since in the dark, enlightened murk of my alleged “Islamophobia”, I recognize that Islam tends to use religion only as window dressing. I also described some examples of Islamification in my earlier reply. These do not quailfy as some nebulous phobia…it’s happening here. We do know that “stealth” in Islam relies on repackaging the obvious into something more palatable and yet poisonous. It may be politically incorrect but mosques/”cultural centers” can be accurately described as political teaching centers more so than respites for spiritual enlightenment…rebranding a mosque as a “cultural center” only highlights the need for doublespeak when discussing Islam. There’s no emotional virus of Islamophobia, Mata. “Islamophobia” is one of the cruder tools in the toolbox brought out when the facts aren’t sharp enough to do the job. And… the unfortunately and hopefully unintended gloating, “gotcha” tone of your acknowledgment of the failsafe protection calculatedly extracted by the ilk of Shariah-advocating imam of the Cordoba “Cultural Center” starkly highlights my point that our own laws are being used against us as part of the practice of “law-fare”—one of the non-violent tenets of jihad. Containing the concept of Sharia under the auspices of religion is vital to it gaining a foothold.
ilovebees…Sorry for the lack of clarity in my comments;while I agreed that the political candidates would probably find their campaigns more effective for the goal of getting elected to focus on the more pragmatic, easily remedied failures of policy, we, you,I…the ordinary but substantial meat and potatoes of America can and are finding that social networking sites are very effective in conveying previously unknown facts to our friends and peers, and they, in turn, to theirs. The “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…then it IS a duck” formula for getting the facts out resonates with most Americans, and you can bet that the upcoming elections are going to be subject to far more common-sense, gut reaction than an intellectually tortured scrutiny. So, to cop Obama’s ludicrous campaign slogan…”We are the back-up plan that we’ve been looking for”! Knowledge is power.
So, Tory… if you don’t want the mosque built elsewhere, which many in our past debates have suggested as the “solution”, do I assume you don’t want mosques built anywhere? And yet you deny any sliver of Islamaphobia? If you don’t see what’s going on around the world, with the attempts to bar mosques in places that are not “sacred” like 911′s site, then you are surely practicing tunnel vision. There’s no “islamification” going on in this nation. Only heightened Islamaphobia, which I’ve documented. What have you provided?
Have no idea of what “failsafe protection calculatedly extracted by the ilk of Shariah-advocating imam of the Cordob “Cultural Center” you are talking about. Are you discussing zoning laws and regulations? These are the only laws being used “against us”. Gasp…. kinda remarkable you believe that property owners who practice an unpopular religion should be subject to the punishment for violating our laws, but not enjoy the benefits when the law is on their side. Be careful where you tread.
The NY neighborhood has had their chance to protest, and in light of no legal argument, other than pure emotions, the planners had no choice but to honor our laws. Why do you think Geller and ilk are strively mightly to intervene by getting the building designated as a landmark? They need another of our laws to halt what they want built. If they succeed, then I would be just as ecstatic that rule of law prevailed for them, as it does for the Cordoba mosque. Nothing about this for me has anything to do with an opinion on the mosque itself. Every bit of it has to do with equal application of the law. Period.
*Snicker* Sounds like the Islamic boogeymen aren’t the only ones engaged in “lawfare”.
TORY: I can almost feel the emotion that it will produce all along the road to sucsess, it will escalate to a grand masterfull and inimaginable cry of releif from an AMERICA recovering her
SUPERPOWER which will resonate through all the world to see, and rejoice with: there will be non stop party all over and prayers which will be heard by all, with churchbells sounds for day long
to hear by everyone. and GOD will bless AMERICA
again. AND the braves will come back
“strively mightly???”
Someone’s getting a little overwrought!
@Tory: Your points are sound. Don’t let up!
MIKE AMERICA: I’LL do better next time: I dont understand your words, so I thought , I’LL
answer in case if it was address to me. bye
@ilovebeeswarzone: It’s not you Bees. It’s from Comment #53.
I was reading yesterday, on the side here,”conservative blog advertising” that in one of CAROLINES STATES[I forgot south or north the link is gone today] there was a minister that was denyed making a speech giving the name of JESUS in it; he challenge the person and was told that he will never be ask again to say a prayer, because the name of JESUS might offend some people
this is very offending for the CHRISTIANS of AMERICA.
Mata, I stated my preference that the mosque not be built. Period. Zoning laws and local building regulations are almost immaterial to this situation, in the larger sense, but bravo to Geller, at el., who have decided to play the game under the opponents’ rules. The laws the “cultural center” builders are misappropriating are the Federal laws regarding freedom to worship. and the morphing of the project’s purpose from house of worship to “cultural center” is a legal game to counter legitimate charges that the mosque is funded and supported by groups associated with terror groups,i.e., the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, etc. The imam’s open support for Shariah—a legal code that is incompatible morally and legally with our Constitution—somewhat mirrors his counterpart’s at the Roxbury mosque who openly calls for his subjects ( for lack of a better word) to ‘pick up the gun and the sword’ and who openly supports area terror suspects Aafia Siddiqui and Tarek Mehanna. The Islamic perception of separation of church and state is marvelously,er, fluid, isn’t it?
Now, Mata, I ask you…what pressing need is there for Muslims to build a “cultural center” a mere 600 feet from Ground Zero? Why would someone forcefully impose such a facility on a community that is overwhelmingly and rightfully repulsed by the conveyed symbolism—particularly to the global Islamic community— of dominance and conquest? What does the significance of the groundbreaking date of 9/11/2011 say to you? What significance does the name “Cordoba” convey? Let me guess…all purely random coincidences? Now, tell me who is most likely snickering at the ease with which one can misappropriate “freedom” to paradoxically subvert our freedom?
Now, you can throw out the tired old “Islamophobic” misnomer to anyone who challenges your notion of the glorious enlightened superiority you seem to revel in, up there in the stratosphere of an unadulterated, purified intellectual objectivity that is, in marvelous irony, so far above the clouds that the view is largely obscured and the air is too thin, and you can ignore the examples of Islamification—or in Newspeak, “Islamophobia”..but consider what a phobia is. “Irrational fear”, yes? One could as easily assert that a steadfast denial of history, patterns, facts is phobic, in its own right?There is no variant of Islam that operates outside of Shariah. None. Shariah is a legal/political/social system that is not optional for an adherent of Islam. Jihad, similarly, is a common denominator among every branch of Islam. It is, at its core, a monument to totalitarianism, as it places strictures on even the seeming banalities of washing and personal hygiene.
I will leave the pursuit of the pleasures of self-congratulatory back-patting to you, as well as the self-proclaimed ecstasy over the legal challenges of what you seem to hold as equally valid stances. My pursuits are far more base and dark…the protection of my family, now and in the future, and the continued existence of America as a strong republic and our stature as the “last great hope”.
Bees…
Here you go…
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/09/pastor-yanked-capitol-jesus-prayer/
@Bees
Just another example of political correctness run wild!
suek: hi, thank you,bye
DID I read sometimes ago, there was a big community of muslims in that STATE, and if they favor them over CHRISTIANS : THAT means, it’s getting real bad, 2 person in GOVERMENT disallowed a representant of THE LORD JESUS ,BELOVED SON OF GOD , being shy away from prayer.
Responses to Tory, Mike’sA’s hero…
Hate to break this to you, but our rule of law is everyone’s rules in this country. Nice that you consider them “immaterial”. I wish you whiny opponents on your next property development venture, and then you may get a clue. And oh, BTW, zoning and regulations are local government in this case, not federal. Can you spell clueless? The only thing federal is their tax exempt status, and possibly building codes applicable where state codes are not.
Secondly, how one wants to develop their property, within the scope of it’s zoning, is a choice that can either be approved, or not, according to local comprehensive planning regulations. And if you wish to accuse the mosque of getting funding by terror groups, I suggest you start putting your links and proof where your cyber mouth is. They have not tied the mosque funding to terror groups. You are parroting speculation by the Islamophobic bunch, sans proof.
nah… no Islamaphobia there. But rest content you are part of a herd. I don’t have to drag out a “misnomer” because you are aptly demonstrating your Islamaphobia all on your own. No mosques, anywhere, period. nah… no Islamphobia. Do you even listen to yourself? You don’t want any mosque built because you don’t believe Muslims have that right.
None of my business. It’s not my ‘hood, and it’s not my property. If they run thru the legal channels and it’s befitting the zoning code, who am I to deny them because “I’m offended”. And yes, I am, in case you want to know. But I’m not so offended that I’m willing to demand inequal application of our laws. When that happens, it will be done to me. How about I tell you that you can’t build a house on that great view lot of yours because you have lousy taste in architecture, and you’ll block my own view? If the prior owner of that lot recorded a view easement before you purchased it, you couldn’t. No view easement, you can do what you want. But then, maybe I can get the county or city to declare your lot pristine natural parkland, and strip you of all your rights. Why would I do that? Because I don’t like you. No other reasons needed, according to you.
“Islamification” is not defined by allowing mosques to be built. I guess your idea of the US Constitution is freedom of religion, but no houses of worship allowed if you are Muslim. Nor is “islamification” Obama’s pandering. Is it Native Americanization if I reach out to the native tribes? Or is that acceptable to you because they aren’t Muslims?
Islamification is when the US is changing our rule of law or judicial system in order to accommodate to any particular religion. We are not doing that. However you, Geller and the rest are advocating for just that…. in a negative way. One set of laws for Muslims, another for the rest of America. You got a weird perception of this nation, bubba.
And speaking of “glorious enlightened superiority”, it is you who happens to be dancing on the edge of childish droning simply because I don’t see things your way. I don’t “pat myself on the back” because I hold a particular opinion. I happen to argue rule of law. You argue emotions. You apparently take delight in your hypocritical self righteousness. So I guess you’d better be looking in the mirror when you decide to be hurdling accusations, Tory. I do, however get a real belly laugh at your unmitigated ignorance of the US tort system.
TORY: hi, YOU have to understand something very important,: THIS subject is as hot as fire itself
and many of us get burned at it’s point of view: MATA is the excellent MODERATER as also AUTHOR and we all respect her and her profound knowledce of the LAW, in every shape or form:
I agree that winning with the law is whithout EMOTIONS, but with legals raws arguments
and SHE is the only one I know who can bring legals truths to any problems;
and her clients must be saving a lot of money, because SHE does’nt pretend , or delay, no,
SHE goes right to the point, and we all like her as with MATA we know where we stand on issues she want to tackle, no hidden agenda. bye
Mata, you are sadly intent in distorting what I am saying, and I must wonder you are expending so much energy in evading, twisting, and distorting? Would your point not be more credibly and expediently made through some reliance on facts, instead of the tired reliance on mischaracterizations? Thus far, you have established through fiat, apparently, that I am a whiny member of a childishly Islamophobic self-righteous herd, with the only rationale for that being that you said so. So—POOF!!—it is so. I went through that stage with my kids and I am rather unmoved by it now. Sorry, you can continue to use words and descriptors like that, which have all the argumentative firepower of a mushy, overcooked noodle, and continue to assert that you can spell words like “clueless”, etc., in lieu of real argument. The zoning laws are immaterial in the sense that the bigger issue is in smacking down the building through challenging that mosque’s classification as a religious institution. Islam, again, is not like any other “religion”; the Koran is a political coda with little to nothing to recommend it in the form of spirituality. The imams function as political figures; think of them as mayors or burgomasters of their little outposts. So, now, we’re not quite talking inequal application of the law as it relates to religious structures. Nuances.
““Islamification” is not defined by allowing mosques to be built”‘. You are the only one, to my observation, that has struggled to manipulate the entire definition into that one small sentence, before, again solely by fiat, asserting what the real and immovable definition is. What was that word you asked if I could spell? Just sayin’…but you are quite correct to that small extent; building mosques is but the most obvious physical manifestation of Islamification, and mention of mosques was made in deference to your request to show examples of Islamification. You, after making that request then rather inexplicably and virulently dismissed all of the more subtle myriad increments through which Islamification is encroaching in America, and the even more culturally devastating ways in which it has already established itself in Europe. Be careful with all that twisting, you could pull a ligament. Seems to me your self-espoused and repetitiously touted devotion to objectivity and the rule of law is precipitating a rather oddly out-of-place tone of petulance that belies pure objectivity. Would you be averse to practicing a bit of introspection to understand why you are torturing logic and law in order to justify what many—most??—Americans recognize viscerally, if not intellectually, as a Trojan horse that would be better left outside the gates of Vienna?
Islamophobia? Or is it that what I—and so many others— know about the structure of Islam exceeds the parameters of political correctness?
And, dear…I’m not a “bubba”, whatever that is, as you neglected to define that for the clue deficient herd. Bubbette, perhaps? I forgive you though, because “Tory” is one of those troublesomely androgynous names…but I’m a chick.
A phobia is an irrational fear, and thus Islamophobia is an irrational far of Isalm. There is nothing irrational about fearing Isalm since we know that its fundamental tenets include world domination. Islamorejection is a much more useful term, connoting the fact that we reject Islam, we reject what it stand for, we reject its right to exist within our nation because it seeks to overthrow our nation, and we insist on the removal of all Muslims from our nation as a simple security measure for the country. Islam is every bit a political movement masquerading as a religion. It is more dangerous than communism.
It seems clear that Obama is working to bring Islam to the US in many of the things that he has done. His refusal to allow a proper investigation into the shootings at Fort Hood show him covering for a fellow Muslim. His insistence on refusing to call the war on terror Islamic terrorism is another example. When you refuse to call something by its proper name, you cannot possible deal properly with it. His insistence on absurd Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan and the idea of a medal for Courageous Restraint show an utterly absurd approach to prosecuting that war, one that is intent on giving the war to the Muslim terrorists with a total disregard for Christian lives lost. His even mentioning social welfare work for the Muslim world in his charge to NASA is absolutely inappropriate. NASA is supposed to be a science and technology agency, not assigned to pamper any ethnic or religious group and to make any such assignment was absolutely beyond the pale.
Only the willfully blind will insist that Obama is not trying to accommodate the Muslims at every opportunity.
So did communism. So does the progressive critter that walks the halls of our Congress. However our “rejecting it’s right to exist within our nation” is contrary to everything the founding fathers stood for, short of a treasonous act, or reason for legal deportation as adjudicated in our courts.
So I suggest you take another gander at our Constitution.
Tory, you’re yet another embarrassment to our Constitutional principles… i.e. “…Islam, again, is not like any other “religion”. I’m sorry but who died and made you a founding father… er mother? Ergo, what gives you the right to alter “freedom of religion” into “freedom of religion, except Islam”. Your emotional arguments are the reason I have a lot of male friends who insist the downfall of the Republic was when they gave the vote to women. The mosque – the prayer room part – as part of the cultural center is not circumventing the law anymore than a church who has an attached rec room or private school. If the zoning permits that activity, it’s permitted. Simple as that. The only federal repercussions is what percentage of their reported income may, or may not, be considered tax exempt.
You guys are a real hoot. You’re willing to tear our Constitition to shreds if it doesn’t allow you to set up a different set of laws and standards for Muslims. And you call yourselves educated or conservative?
TORY: hi, YOU are so well written, and as the time bring all clooser to the fall season, it will be harder to contain the passion and the exaltation that many will feel more and more, and
we will be encline to debate what we see wrong doing, and there is always diffrent views on it
depending on many factors playing in it; i think it’s totaly normal to happen too, : i like to read your comments also, hope you keep it going. bye
Mata, think about what you just wrote…”but our rule of law is everyone’s rules in this country.” Yep, but first extricate yourself from the fixation on local zoning ordinances, which are, BTW, highly malleable and mutable in many communities. Variances, anyone? More power to the marvelous Pam Geller for sticking her neck out to challenge this architectural middle finger to American sentiment. However, you’re not breaking any news to me, nor would there be any need to; you rather laboriously took my statement out of its context, in which I explicitly wrote “LOCAL building regulations”. In view of that, what would lead you to suggest that I somehow believe the aforementioned regulations are Federal directives? Perhaps you missed that while mentally compiling that list-of-things-to-call-people-whose-viewpoints-can’t-be-beaten-into-submission-through-churlish-invective?
Furthermore, again explicitly, I qualified my use of the term “immaterial” with “almost”; significant nuance there because it ackowledges that the laws are there on the books. But, neglecting that qualifier—again—completely changes the meaning of my statement.
Links? Pertaining to what? They can be of dubious value, don’t you think? For instance, you listed several links previously that were rather conspicuously devoid of the entire realm of facts; for example, the story regarding the Boston mosque failed to elaborate on the documented association with Hamas and the American arms of the Muslim Brotherhood. Terrorist organizations, dontcha know. Rather a critical laxity of objectivity. I also feel rather confident that any substantiating sources will be the impetus of yet another round of Tourette-like “Islamophobe!”
Speaking of which…do you feel confident enough in your knowledge of Islam to continue with predictable repetition to mischaracterize all criticism as “phobic”? What do you know of Shariah? Is it inextricable from any school of Islamic practice? What do you know of the critical concept of abrogation in undersanding the Quran? What strictly spiritual practices characterize Islam? What do you know of the Islamic symbolism in the location of its mosques? I’ve asked this one before, however since it went entirely ignored, it merits being asked again…what is the political significance of Cordoba in Islam, and specifically to the proposed NYC structure? Would you continue to be comfortable in your amusement with “unmitigated ignorance”? This is one of those pot-meet-kettle moments, I believe.
And dear me, I’m not a “bubba”, whatever that is. A “bubbette” maybe…I’m a chick.
@ Mata #70
I am pretty familiar with the Constitution, but thank you for your concern.
I still think it is proper to reject the right of Islam to exist in the US because Muslims are, a priori, disloyal to the USA. They are, by definition, traitors, and have no place in American society.
Any group that openly espouses world domination is clearly not loyal to the USA because the USA has never, ever been about world domination. Admittedly there are others who are disloyal to the US who are not nearly so obvious about it, but to make such a clear statement that you belong to a group that has world domination as its goal makes you clearly disloyal to the US.
You might say, “but they are willing to swear loyalty oaths, such as when they join the US military” (I suppose they do), but we know that lying is a standard part of Islam. The sworn word of a Muslim is absolutely worthless, as taught by their own scriptures.
It is for this reason that I say that they have no place in the USA. Their loyalty is not with us.
Your are too kind, Bee!
Mata, you in all seriousness believe that communism is compatible with the wishes of the founding fathers? The rejection of totalitarianism in all its forms was the precise catalyst for the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights. You’d be well served to take more than a mere gander at any of the founding documents. It may be bizarrely entertaining to play fast and loose with the facts of our history, but it is sadly ruinous to credibility.
As to who died and made me a “founding father/mother”, I’m rather too young to have inherited that mantle from the originals, but since you rather paradoxically assume that apparently divine and exclusive knowledge of their intentions, one might quite logically ask that question of you, mightn’t they?
I haven’t altered the definition of religion in relation to Islam; it is Islam that does not fulfill the definition of religion. Carelessly parse my words and statements to your heart’s content; happily, that has no effect on my statements. You have constructed a bit of incorrigible dichotomy here, though; you feel free to rather groundlessly rebuke me for “emotional arguments”—a delightfully charming phrase to cover your seeming displeasure with pesky facts—, while embracing some unabashedly emotional rhetoric to rebuke me.
Is there some reason why you are leaning over so spectacularly backwards to justify giving traction to Islamification here? Your male friends’ perception of women is embarrassingly misogynistic; in fact, rather in sync with the more deplorable aspects of Islam that we’ve been discussing. But women do have the vote and that’s the rule of law, in spite of their reticence about equality. right?
Tory, really you must slow down in your speed reading. Talk about careless parsing. So far everything you accuse me of is the image of your commentary. I didn’t say communism was compatible with the founding fathers. DrD said that it’s “proper” to “reject its right to exist within our nation because it seeks to overthrow our nation…”
My response to DrD was that communism also sought to overthrow our nation. We did not do, as DrD suggest not so subtlely we do, “..insist on the removal of all Muslims from our nation as a simple security measure for the country.”
BTW, DrD, the definition of “phobia” is not exclusive to “irrational”. You will find it also relates in grammar to both “illogical” and “exaggerated”…. both of which is in serious high gear here.
Mata, you think then that concern about Islam is illogical and exaggerated? Have you checked to see what is happening in Sweden, the UK, France, and elsewhere in Europe? They are well on the way to being totally overrun with Muslims.
One of the things that has been observed repeatedly is that when the number of Muslims is small, they work within the legal structures of the host society and demand their “rights.” When they reach approximately 5 to 6% of the total population, they begin to demand special rights, total control of certain geographic areas that they now claim, etc. The just expands and expands. This process is well underway across Europe. Their understanding is that once they acquire a piece of land, even the lot for a house, it belongs to Islam for all eternity and can never be returned to the rest of America. They will begin to demand that ordinary Americans be excluded from their areas, that the police not enter their areas, that no dogs be allowed in their streets, etc. And then they will demand sharia courts, ostensibly just for their own people, but that too will enlarge and grow.
There is nothing at all illogical or exaggerated about extreme concern over Islam. If you have not been following what is happening in Europe, I recommend that you read Gates of Vienna blog for a good start.
DrD, you are preaching to the choir. My old Sea2Sea blog archives back since before 911, as well as lots of my old stuff here in FA in the past couple of years is filled with the dangers of Muslim populations not assimilating. Why it is you have to ignore my protests to your argument? They have nothing to do with my own feelings about Islam. But they have everything to do with *your* feelings about Islam and the Constitution.
Let me be as clear about this as I can for the final time, and then I’ll leave you and Tory together to figure out a way to expel all Muslims and mosques together, okay?
1: Yes, I find the 911 mosque location choice tasteless
2: No, I don’t believe the increasing trend to want to ban mosques is American in principle
3: No, I do not support creating one law for Muslims and another law for the rest
4: I don’t like Islam as a personal choice. I don’t respect the religion as a personal choice. But I’ll be damned if I shred the Constitution because of those reasons. Equal application of law, freedom of religion… you know, all that stuff.
5: And yes, I think your kneejerk reaction toward all Muslims because of your fear/ “concern” are illogical/exaggerated …. whatever – take your pick. It is also contrary to everything the founders intended in allowing the freedom of religion… including those you don’t like.
Tory… sigh… You’re not getting any better at this, girl
You use lots of big words and construct pretty little sentences. Too bad they are jam packed with half truths and complete miscomprehensive about most everything about zoning. Variances, my dear, are a government waiver granted to allow something not currently allowed by the zoning regulations. They are usually done to avoid a soft eminent domain type result for the property owner… i.e. a regulatory taking. So you now want a variance to reverse what IS legally allowed.
Brilliant.
Secondly, I did not overlook, miss or ignore your “almost immaterial”. Laws are not “almost immaterial”. Not unless you are a member of a jury, and decide to practice jury nullification. It’s not a “well yeah, that’s the law, but I don’t like it so it’s not important” moment. Rule of law is *always* relevant.
Speaking of devoid, where are your facts? Were those “associations” a documented trail of money, which would be illegal? Or was it they knew someone? Perhaps the Boston article left out what you say because those associations were “immaterial” since they did not constitute any illegal activity. Well, how about we kick out Obama because we know he associates with Louis Farrakan, Jones and Wright? That’s an “association”.
Look, you’re a newbie here, kid. My suggestion is that you do some digging around in archives and you’ll find ample criticism, and information imparted by me on the global Islamic jihad movement for at least a decade. The difference between you and I is I reserve my harsh criticism for the global Islamic Jihad movement. You blanket yours across anyone of that religion. I know the difference. You don’t want to see any difference.
I don’t need lectures from a self enamored new commenter who doesn’t bother to even get to know the community and their individuals by reading some prior comments. And in my case, it’s even easier since there’s an entire author archive at your fingertips here… and elsewhere.
[Well hey, I disagree too but I'm just a newbie.
I've been an FA fan for a long time, but am neither a seasoned political scholar nor a frequent FA contributor. So there's my disclaimer. 
]
I don’t think that I’m an ‘Islamaphobe’ but I do see many problems with catering to this ‘religion’. As has already been pointed out, there are several Islamic beliefs that dictate legal and political action more than religious perspective. Those mandates make it difficult for me to accept it as a true religion. It is my understanding that many scholars of Islam agree that Shariah violates the entire principle of the religion. But just as many (if not more) feel that Shariah is crucial to the practice. When we offer our refuge and religious tolerance to Muslims, which school of thought are we fostering?
If the argument here is for the same law to be applied equally to all parties, then wouldn’t the practice of Shariah law be a direct violation of that concept? I don’t feel an obligation to foster a religion that believes it has a duty to ignore and/or contradict our laws. When it comes to certain interpretations of Islam, I feel that what I am expected to offer is not religious freedom and tolerance, but freedom of rebellion against the founding ideals of this country.
I understand the difference between Islam and extremist Jihad concepts. What I fail to see at the present time is how we are to distinguish one from the other, at least at the onset. How do we know which ‘cultural centers’ are merely gathering to worship in a common faith, and which are political indoctrinations to violence and treason? I feel like two very different ideas can be readily disguised as a different book with the same cover, and yes, that scares me. I understand that there are fringes of every faith, but I am not familiar with one that so clearly advocates violence and domination or poses such a threat to the country we hold so dear. I also don’t understand why followers of a peaceful and just religion would allow themselves to be associated with some of the other interpretations of Islam and that troubles me. I don’t feel that there’s a way to accommodate the peaceful Muslims without facilitating the violent believers.
The discrepancies between the the prevailing schools of Islam are huge. The fact that these variations exist, that is often hard to distinguish one from the other, and the threat that the more militant interpretations pose is enough for me to fear it. I suppose if the question of Islam in the US will leave me tossing and turning at night, I would rather be wrestling with a crisis of Constitution and conscience than one of the safety of my children and my country. Personally, I see it not as a phobia, but an intense drive to protect what I love.
RICH WHEELER: LONG TIME NO SEE: I absolutly reject thoses words coming from you being from the LEFT, which are “FAR RIGHT FRENZY” specialy on this POST, which bring the rightfully concerns of very well read peoples, who are
respected for their views; you call them “FAR RIGHT” okay for your decision to conclude it:
BUT THE perception they have is real to them and many more, their sense of protection for their own family is there specialy for their children who need their guidances even more when they are
left with a crowd in school or universite where some are breeding hate and element of propagande to educate young minds fragile and observing those with a judgement not yet ready to deal with it. SO, yes the FAR RIGHT play an important role in being the eyes of the common people, going to their every day routine of their life be it insignificantly doing nothing or
too busy to think outside of their every day scedule.
MATA: hi, LET me sayTHIS: YOU are like a LIGHTNING ROD, to keep almost all the posters in
check to prevent us to go beyong what the law would be applicable for what is said, wished,
and sugjested, and envisionned, by us: I have to say, here on this POST, it is a huge position you
put yourself in, as a MODERATOR, and AUTHOR, as we make it hard for you to not reveal your own emotions, but to stick with the LAW in your responses: I and many at THIS blog FA,
are APPRECIATIVE of thoses efforts to keep us UNIFIED, as WE will need to be, IF we want to change the wrong we see, in NOVEMBER. that is the END to ACHIVE VICTORY.
Mata, your view of the Constitution seems to be that it is a suicide pact, one in which we must continue to remain blindfolded until our enemies kill us. That is not what our founders intended at all. It is not a suicide pact.
I don’t wish to shred the Constitution either, so stop the false accusations. That is simply in the category of name calling. I want to see our republic preserved in the face of an enemy that does not play by our rules in any sense of the word at all. Specifically, (1) he calls a political agenda a religion, and (2) he makes lying and deception a virtue.
Neither of these things were considered by the founding fathers of this country who were honorable men and would never have given a thought to doing either of those things. They were completely out of the realm of possibility, so they did not make any attempt to provide for them. Today, we must take the Constitution that they wrote in the 18th century and make it work in the face of a new, different situation. We can, but we cannot do so if we are blind.
Mata, please respond to what I have said with out the name calling, without the personal insults such as “kneejerk” etc. I am surprised to hear such disgraceful comments from you; I would have expected you to stay on the topic and refrain from the personal attacks.
@Dr.D:
Or perhaps need glasses so we don’t “kill” those who aren’t our enemies.
So, is Islam itself the enemy, Dr. D?
This is wonderful! Let’s just update these signs, shall we:
I’m sure these fine, patriotic Americans also felt they were doing right by this nation. Saw nothing at all damaging that conflicted with our values and Constitution.
I recall in the earlier “Grand Mosque” argument threads, some of y’all (Hey, Mike! Care to weigh back in?) driving the Pearl Harbor-Shinto shrine (re: “Flawed”) analogy.
@Wordsmith said : “Hey, Mike! Care to weigh back in?) driving the Pearl Harbor-Shinto shrine (re: “Flawed”) analogy.”
I don’t really care to weigh in.
Your flawed straw man Islamophobia argument, which you now take to new heights with old photos about the Japs, is so deeply discredited it’s not worth mentioning.
But I see you are busy digging the hole deeper without any help from me.
Well, at least sanity continues to reign in some corners at F.A.
How very disappointing to find this level of immaturity at FA. I have come to think that I would find better, more constructive thought here, rather than simple one-upsmanship, but that seems to have fallen apart here. There is no interest in addressing the problem, only in mocking the speaker.
There is no point to continuing the discussion. Good bye.
The Constitution ought to be interpreted in such a way as to keep the country going. That was surely the intent of the founding fathers; not to either make scrupulous literal interpretations that end up being self defeating, nor to be totally ditched every time new conditions arise. In other words, retain balance and individual freedoms as a principle, and the details of accomplishment can be modified. Considering the difference in the world since it was written, it’s doing quite well.
But not as well as the Bible and its transcendent motifs of the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, which apply to both Judaism and Christianity, and are implicit in Buddhism, Confucianism and other religions. How about Islam? It is a mass of contradictions because of its basic schism of authority and because opinions contradictory to the Ten Commandments/Golden Rule are allowed to have equal weight. For instance: Thou shalt not bear false witness. (no lying, period) vs. the principle of Taqqiya: It is not only good but required to lie if you think you are being threatened about religion. Once lying is allowed for any reason, there can never be full trust. Likewise, Thou shalt not kill. (period) vs. Kill all those who do not believe in a certain way(which contradicts another semi rule, only God gets to judge who are the true believers).
When all (or at least 80%) of Islam rejects everything in their canon that contradicts the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, I will trust them. Until then, the whole edifice is enabled to do the work of the Devil equally as the work of God, and it can’t be otherwise, they have compromised the basis of religion, not just Judeo-Christian, but any. They have put in loopholes that allow an argument for any action they care to take. And Dr. D. is therefore right; in small numbers they behave. But in large numbers, they want the things of Caesar’s and of God’s both; and only their Caesar/Caliph, and only their God. Have you ever thought about how many times Jahweh is described as loving and caring about people? How about Allah? I think I’ve seen enough to conclude that the best thing I can say about Islam (taking Martin Luther’s advice about false witness) is that it is seriously flawed in its structure and message.
WORDSMITH: HI, I was looking at your pictures, and it occur to me to say THIS: WHEN you see your loved one ,be it ,CHIDREN, FATHER, BROTHERs and SISTER, and mother, and others like friends and relatives, go and fight to death or enjurys till the end of their still young lifes, and
come back to resume life in their cherish country: WHAT else can we expect for them to do.
BLAME the ennemy and their sames for what they fought for and endure for the FREEDOM
of their owns loved one, which is legitime. bye
“You use lots of big words and construct pretty little sentences. Too bad they are jam packed with half truths and complete miscomprehensive about most everything about zoning.”
Mata, permit my “self-enamored” self to point out that you may want to make at least a halfhearted attempt to emulate me, in this regard. Ahem. A well-constructed, i.e., “pretty”, sentence tends to enable one to make a point and convey an opinion without resorting to the seventh-grade sophistry and mudslinging that are apparently your preferred devices to evade actual discussion of the issue. Perhaps you’ll loosen your bite on the zoning issue when you realize at some point, that I never mischaracterized the scope and definition of zoning laws and variances, so if you want to repeatedly exert the energy to stoke the flames of an issue that never existed…have at it, but it’ll be a solo exercise.
” I didn’t say communism was compatible with the founding fathers. DrD said that it’s “proper” to “reject its right to exist within our nation because it seeks to overthrow our nation…”
In attempting to dress down DrD, you asserted quite explicitly, albeit erroneously, that any such rejection was “contrary” to the intents of the founding fathers. Overtly and implicitly, you are admitting compatibility to their intentions, particularly since you seem averse to considering any gray area. Odd, given your seeming sympathy with your male friends’ belief that equal rights should be, well, unequal.
Dr D’s definition of “phobia” is contextually correct and relevant. One almost suspects that the sudden tortured broadening of the definition to include the grainier notions of “exaggeration” and “illogical” is a backhanded apology for the rampant and thoughtless use of the term “Islamophobe” in response to any criticism of Islam.
“Newbie” or not… doesn’t mitigate the validity and veracity of the points I’ve made, but it makes for a comfortable evasion of the more uncomfortable elements of discussion, doesn’t it?
Wordsmith…predictably tired tactic with the pictures; perhaps you’d care to elaborate on the context of those sentiments as they relate to World War 2? Perhaps, as well, you’d feel comfortable posting some pictures culled from Islamic rallies and protests on American soil against both America and Jews?
This is funny sutff
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/07/07/nasa-logo-makeovers-new-arabic-sensitivity-administration/
@Tory: You keep at them Tory…. We need more “newbies” like you!
Surely Mata and Wordsmith can make their points without resorting to snide remarks. After all, I thought I had the copyright on that? But at least I only direct that attitude at liberals!
@drjohn: Good find john!
WIN or LOSE, AN ARGUMENT amongs same party, always leave a sour taste in my mouth,
I have learned to compromise or back up instead of losing a compatriote: we are debating with passion and determination to put our point across because this point is so important for us, so much that we feel treathen as long as we live with it. SO the best way is to fix it according to the possibility to do it with the tools we have, AND because we need to be united behind a leader which
the people have’nt decided WHO, YET. bye to all who are ready to fight for FREEDOM.
Islam is religion. Islam is politics. They two are not separable.
There is no “Islam.” There are a thousand “Islams” each with its own interpretations. The problem for us is that we really never know which one is in front of us.
Once before this country extended its kindnesses to 20 Muslim men who appeared to blend into society until one sunny and fateful day. The courtesies of this country were used against it.
How do you know who’s planning again? Does anyone doubt that something is going on somewhere in this country right now?
And yet some of you argue that reasonable caution and skepticism is unreasonable, xenophobic and racist and we all ought to let bygones be bygones. Maybe we should dismantle all of TSA as well. It seems we’re all just imagining a threat.
I agree with Mike. We can disagree without the condescension.
@ Wordsmith #83
I really do need to add one comment about these pictures that you have posted here.
I have not seen those pictures previously, but I have not doubt that they were made somewhere in the US, probably on the West Coast, during WW II. I am also pretty certain that you are too young to have lived through at time of actual, declared war, such as WW II.
You are scandalized by those anti-Japanese pictures. To your modern, PC conscience that is not allowable because it is judging a class of people, even some of whom may be American citizens, by their appearance. Oh, the horror!
First, it represents the Constitutionally protected right to freedom of association. These people are saying that they do not want to associate with people of Japanese appearance, ancestry, whatever. Similar things are done today by all manner of minority groups and nobody raises an eyebrow. It is only when White people express a desire to be by themselves that this is considered wrong. The double standard here is really glaring.
Secondly, and more importantly, I think it an understanding of the times and the meaning of the pictures in those times. At that time, Japan was definitely, unquestionably, the enemy of the US. They had attacked us at Pearl Harbor, and we were fighting them all over the Pacific. There were grim battles being fought to conquer each tiny island in the Pacific. The Japanese were formidable enemies, and they were killing our people wholesale in brutal ways. Word was getting back about what they had done in China in the late 1930′s and that did not sit well with Americans. Anyone who had ties to Japan, including Japanese Americans, was suspect. Many Japanese Americans had maintained strong connections with Japan prior to the war and those connections made them particularly suspect at this time. So, horror of horror, many of them were interned. In the same way, members of the German-American Bund were suspect and watched very carefully.
We look back from our arm chairs today and many make harsh judgments about the decisions made at that time. Words like “violation of civil rights” and “shredding the Constitution” get bandied about. It is easy from our comfort today to forget that the real operative words from that time were “survival of the nation.” It is only because they did what they did to assure that the US survived that we have the luxury to sit around and criticize today.
So, go ahead an mock those “ignorant,evil white people,” “those benighted, bigoted people” in your photographs. But, please, do remember why you do not have to speak Japanese or German unless you choose to do so.
Dr John, I hope you don’t mind me piggybacking a bit on your already well-documented original article. The following relates to the “Muslim outreach”, established as a priority for NASA…
One more tributary of Da Nile.
It also opens up questions as to how a Federal agency, which could now be headed up by Oprah Winfrey, is permitted to “reach out” to a “religion”, which have been assured, ad nauseum, in one of “peace”. Certainly, that explains NASA’s outreach to the Amish…
Now, we can listen through the painfully deafening silence for the ACLU, et al., to have hysterically litigious vapors over the interjection of religion into goverment policy.
Here’s something to ponder:
Which would you prefer ?
More illegal immigrants, most of which are Mexican, which means a vast majority are Catholic ?…and not likely to convert.
(which just might be the stumbling block to any significant level of Islamafication here in the states…)
Or
The Muslim communites multiplying, getting a serious foothold, and becoming a Big problem ?
SBSmith: I dont there is any choice to make, none of either. bye
I agree; interesting thought, but nonetheless, I don’t think that there has to be a strict “either/or” proposition. There is a paradox, though, in that Mexican’s Roman Catholicism would lead one to think that their vote would align with the more tradtionally conservative values of the GOP, but the data indicates that this demographic still trends Democratic…so actually, bad news for voting out the progressive Dems who are enabling Islamification. When you look at that way, it’s a lose/lose proposition.
>>Mexican’s Roman Catholicism would lead one to think that their vote would align with the more tradtionally conservative values of the GOP, but the data indicates that this demographic still trends Democratic…>>
What you say is true, but it ignores the factor of uneducated workers who are in positions usually organized by SEIU. They don’t really read/write English well, and are ignorant of the issues which are probably not clarified to them in a way that you and I would recognize as the GOP positions.
In other words, yes they’re voting, but they have no idea what they’re actually voting for. Also remember “Patrone” is a spanish term…! They understand _that_ concept quite well.
By the way…
Not exactly on topic, but I don’t know where to put it….
I heard the other day that Meg Davis’ campaign ads that are in written in Spanish say that she is _against_ the Arizona SB1070, and _against_ Prop 187 in California (in principle, since it was struck down). This is directly opposite to what she is saying in her English campaigning – does anyone know anything about this???
Christians are worried about Mosque building because they don’t want the competition;)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-7-2010/wish-you-weren-t-here?xrs=synd_facebook
@Mike’s America #84:
No, Mike. Let’s talk about this. Why is it a “strawman”? When mathman writes: Let there be no doubt. We are on course to become a Sharia nation, under an Imam named Obama, what is the correct perspective that I should take from this, Mike?
Since the old photos about “Japs” is “so deeply discredited”, and since you did “weigh in” here, anyway, please indulge me and explain why “it’s not worth mentioning”. I’d like to know where I erred in bringing the comparison.
Yup. If it weren’t for Mata or myself “weighing in” with our two cents, some might actually think we conservatives are living up to the MSM charge of bigotry, racism, and intolerance.
@Dr.D:
Dr. D, understand that some of the more barbed points comes out of exasperation from being down this road repeatedly in the past. In a sense, I may be talking past you, and for that I apologize. But those on your side of this argument constantly do the same thing, here and elsewhere, speaking as though Mata or myself are newbies to Islamic horror stories and lunacy and PC-pushers rather than speaking to us specifically as individuals who have arrived at a different place than some of you; or, as I see in Mata’s case, her having to repeat herself over and over again because it doesn’t seem like people are understanding her from a legal perspective.
There’s a history of debating here that is being carried over from previous threads.
Examples here and here.
@Tory:
First, you have to accept the premise that Imam Rauf supports Islamic terrorism. If he shares the same goals of “dominance and conquest” through violent means that the jihad movement has, then it would be a “thumbing in the eye” of Americans by having an Islamic cultural center in the heart of Ground Zero. However, if their goal is to actually “thumb their nose” at Islamic terrorists, then regardless of whether it is a bad idea and insensitive or not, can we not at least acknowledge the motive to be maybe misguided rather than devious?
Islamic jihadis and Islamic non-jihadis may both romanticize past Islamic greatness with differing perspectives. So what?
@Tory:
So…um…no mosques? Anywhere in the States?
If the mosques aren’t funding and supporting Islamic terror, you’re still against?
“Islamification” or “Islamophobia”…what’s the difference? I think you mentioned “newspeak” earlier in regards to the latter term…but isn’t the converse just as true, making the former term more palatable to your conscience of not being labeled an “Islamophobe”?
I think vigilance is called for; but “Islamification alarmists” (i.e., more pc for you than “Islamophobe”?) are dangerously close to crossing a line, imo.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
I have no problem with killing the enemy; nor in some sense, “demonizing” the enemy (“Nips”, “Japs”) to make the killing easier in war. But I do have a problem with a failure in correctly identifying the enemy.
So were Japanese-Americans Americans first, or aligned with Japan?
@Tory:
Been there, done all that. So what was it you were harrumphing about a moment ago, regarding the “newbie” label?
Yet Mata and I are the condescending, insulting ones here? Okay. I’m fine with that.
@Mike’s America:
Why should you have all the fun? I decided to plagiarize from your playbook.
Mike, you know I’m with you when it comes to arguing with liberals. But you yourself have argued with fellow conservatives when you believe they are hurting the conservative movement. You and I are on the same page when it comes to the conservatives who threaten to vote third party or sit out an election.
Joining the amen chorus of conservative voices on FA is easy. Going against the grain and rubbing your conservative allies the wrong way isn’t fun, but I think the debate is sometimes healthy and necessary.
Especially when you believe your side is wrong on a couple of points.
@drjohn:
Part of the problem here does overreach into the realm of “phobia”. So, when we don’t hear enough vocal condemnation of Islamic whackos by Muslims, we cry, “Where are the moderates? Why aren’t they speaking out?” When decent Muslims do speak out and tell us they oppose Islamic terror and say all the wonderful things we want “moderates” to be saying, we then give the suspicious stare and say, “Must be taqiyya…”
And that says……what exactly about the 1.5 billion practicing Muslims in the world?
No, Dr. John, that’s not what I’m saying. This, in part, is why Mata may get a bit snippity and come across to y’all as snide; or I may feel exasperated.
Do you honestly believe we’re saying “don’t be cautious”; don’t be skeptical? That there’s only an “imagined threat”?!
@Dr.D at ninety-three:
Waitaminute…didn’t you just end comment #92 with, “let’s do without the condescension”?
I’m not complaining; just not seeing why y’all are acting like Mata or myself “started it” (maybe we did), or are the only ones engaged in it.
Anyway, you’re right. I am too young to have lived through that time. But I’m living through this time, right now. And on conservative blogs, I see people on “my side of the political aisle” making blanket statements against practitioners of Islam that I feel are based on educated bigotry.
You might be missing the point I’m making with posting those photos. And I’m probably on your side regarding race issues.
1)In a previous debate in a previous thread (or two), others were making an analogical comparison between the Ground Zero and Pearl Harbor, and whether or not we’d tolerate a Shinto Shrine at the latter anymore than we should tolerate a “mosque” at the former.
2)I really don’t have a problem with bigots who may own a private business hanging signs that say “no Mexicans wanted”, “no fat chicks allowed”, “no short people needed here”, etc. People should have the freedom to be idiots, assholes, and racists.
The point is, it’s still bigotry and racism that drove the signage.
Tory, are you listening? Keep in mind that when Dr. D writes this, and Mata calls you a “newbie”, this is what she’s driving at about “not knowing us” and drawing assumptions.
@Dr.D:
A related point which I made repeatedly to Gaffa in this post. He never got it; but I’m with you on this.
WORDSMITH: hi, I can see YOU where focusing to be the one to hit the 100th number:
I was trying also to do it; BUT I have to say that you surely hit it with a grand way of expressing
thoses views, that it’s so easy to loose the prime focus while we get to comment on hot subjects like YOU all AUTHORS bring to us, AS you all capture our interest on your many POST:
IT show that we are all a good groups eager to take big chunk in the food YOU all AUTHORS serve at the table which we are gracefully invited to share:
I would have been hurt if you would have not address to my name along with the others:
I will conclude that you will have to be more present from now on while MATA takes her time out
because we will continue to debate, and our blood will continue to get hot at times;
SO we’ll look for your comments, when we get ready to break the dishes and the table.
thank you for the wisdom talk. bye
@Wordsmith
The post you gave up on? lol
I think that’s a lazy excuse for the mistakes and the abuses of the past. Of course we have a different view now – but history isn’t always a march towards more progressive (small p) values. And how do we remove ourselves from our armchairs? So we can’t criticise the past now unless we have a time machine?
Do we excuse the Nazi’s because they didn’t know any better – and things were different then? Lol. One way to look through the window of the past is to look at the writing of the time – and see what opposition there was against percieved norms. Slavery was hotly debated at the time. Surely it wouldn’t take much of a deep Christian thinker who cherished their freedom that to own other people and forcibly make them work was wrong. To own and break up families – even separate children from their mothers in some case – was wrong then as it is now. I pretty sure those slaves would of felt pain and loss as keenly as if that had happened today.
I don’t have a problem with mosques. Just another brain-washing centre along with churches. For those who disagree with Sharia Law – I wonder if they also disagree with Jewish Courts (Beth Din) which operate in the UK and US? There are no legalised beheadings etc in UK as part of Sharia Law! I would rather there was no Sharia Law or Beth Din – as justice should be secular – with one size fits all. I wish there was no state funded Christian, Jewish or Muslim schools either – teaching myths to children – forced to listen to such tripe under the guise of ‘culture’.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7233040.stm
It says you can’t tell who’s who. And we too get exasperated.
@GaffaUK:
This is exactly what I referred to. I might as well ram my head repeatedly against the nearest brick wall. There’s nothing to add that hasn’t already been said repeatedly in that other thread. If you don’t “get it”, you don’t get it.
Uh….yeah? And in the Christian world of Britain and the U.S., the first real anti-slavery movement was begun. Didn’t begin 1600-1800 yrs earlier. Well, actually it did…but the process took a while, didn’t it?
Jesus Christ, Gaffa…..
Lol right back at’cha!
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Nope. I’ve been slowing down on the blogging and don’t plan anytime soon to write more or comment more than I’ve already stepped into.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Yes, bees, that was my goal all along.
I can now abandon this post and leave y’all with the last word.
@DrJohn:
Well, I guess profiling is a waste of time, then. They’re all guilty. Just convict and condemn 1.5 billion and let God sort ‘em out.
WORDSMITH: NO NO NO and no, we wont let you get away from your responsability to moderate this groups of HARD HEADS, just think of us a bit instead of yourself; BEING selfish wont solve your problems, and running away either, we need you here or we will cut your paycheck. bye
It is disingenuously muddying the waters by interjecting the irrelevant, seemingly mandatory, snidely intellectually dishonest jab at Christianity and its perceived overarching dogma of hypocrisy and bigotry; it’s not clear why some continue to believe that some abuses or misapplications of theological dogma are a basis from which to sweepingly dismiss a religion and or its proponents as a whole. Tit for tat doesn’t really cut it. Poor Mother Teresa of Calcutta…a life’s work for nought, having labored under the auspices of institutionalized bigotry and groupthink. Similarly, your comments about American slavery betray a deep ignorance of the moral and pragmatic debates over both the practice of slavery itself and how best to remedy an institution that was, for obvious reasons, problematic on so many levels. It also betrays an ignorance or a willful omission of the reality involving the vital sway Islamic traders and tribal heads held in the slave trade. Also ignored is the fact that tribunals, Beth Din, et al., function as arbitration venues ultimately subservient to civil law and whose scope is limited to matters of spiritual and comparatively mundane civil issues. The same can not be said of Shariah, neither in theory nor in practice, as civil law is held as subservient to civil law. The fact that there is no such thing as “legalized” beheadings is entirely irrelevant ( nor is that strictly true under interpretation of Shariah); there is no such thing as “legalized” burglary, rape, murder, arson, in civil law yet they all occur with dismaying frequency.
To accurately compare Beth Din courts, or even Roman Catholic tribunals, to Sharia courts would also involve acknowledging the patently disparate differences between the Judeo-Christian systems, which are primarily spiritual and independent of any codified legal system such as is essential to Islam…faithful practice of Islam is contingent upon affirming Sharia.
The good imam heading the infamous Ground Zero “cultural center” is on record as affirming his affinity with “fundamental” Islam and explicitly condones his wish for Shariah. The funding for this “cultural center”, intended, we are told, to engender a good feeling in and from the local community, is, thus far, primarily or completely through unnamed foreign sources. Connecting the dots in regard to funding again, as in the Roxbury facility, points to a series of donations and transactions tracing back to various affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Now a global population of 1.2 to 1.5 billion Muslims, a full 10% of whom candidly support militant jihad…over 100 million Muslims, not operating under the doctrine of taqiyya, openly acknowledge militant jihad (read as “terrorism”). Global jihad is ostensibly reprehensible, but it couldn’t. wouldn’t,hasn’t ever extended domestically…has it?
@Wordsmith:
Sigh,
.
I know you are busy, busy, just letting you know you are missed while away and appreciated while here. Loved your vacation e-mail, thanks for sharing!
I”d like to clarify an error I made in my previous post…the editing window is glitchy and jumpy and I couldn’t seem to capture and correct the phrase I wrote that rather makes no sense! I intended to say that Shariah dictates the subservience of civil law to it. Sorry for the confusion and possible headscratching…
@Wordsmith
Oh yes I get why certain people and organisations like the Texas schools Board want to rewrite and dumb history down. In that particular case they want to rename the Slave Trade to The Atlantic Triangular Trade. They are too uncomfortable with the past and want to paper over the crack with revisions from their armchair. Why be an apologist for evil?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history
The US and Britain getting lauded over banning slavery is like BP getting lauded when and if they finally plug all the oil pumping out into the Gulf of Mexico. If you make a mess – clear it up. And because so and so – also did it doesn’t make it a valid excuse for the inhumane treatment of fellow human beings.
@Tory
Nope – I’m being serious here. Christians are being hypocrites in a lot of the issues wrapped up in the panic against muslims. Just look at the history of Christianity & Islam and look at the Bible as well as the Koran – both books incite and encourage acts of violence against others. Fortunately thanks to such things as the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the seperation of Church and State, democracy and the rise of secularism in the West – the worst aspects of Christianity have been contained. What the islamic world (a religion centuries younger than Christianity) desperately needs is a similar process so the vast majority of peaceful muslims can continue to practise their faith whilst the radical nutters are isolated.
As for Mother Teresa? http://www.slate.com/id/2090083
Yes slavery was ‘problematic’. Interesting word you use. Why not use ‘rephrensible’ as you do when refering to jihad? Was slavery problematic because Southerners wanted labour on the cheap and didn’t care for the ‘unalienable’ rights of others? I’m not ignorant of the islamic slave traders – but you don’t care for tit-for-tat and then use that yourself! lol.
So where in the UK is Sharia Law not subservient to civil law? As far as I can see (and I’m not from the jewish or islamic community) the Sharia Law and Beth Din in the UK both deal with the same relatively mundane matters. Sharia Law is more eye catching because people associate it in how it is carried out in the Middle East. My point with beheadings – is that is accepted in other countries with Sharia Law but not in the UK. As I say – I would rather both were banned – wouldn’t you?
GAFFA UK: ON your99, the CHRISTIANS could easyly have come with the idea of building a church, but out of RESPECT not COMPETITION, refrained because of so many who belong to many
DIFFRENT religions from all over the globe ,where mourning their loved ones and will
continiue to do so for generations to come, as so much blood was spilled from thoses terrorists
criminals. that is why, there should’nt be nothing connected cloose or far with the terrible disaster
of 9/11, nothing should be built,that will be connecting by association their minds with the actions of the criminals. IN the NAME of DECENCY and RESPECT for fellow AMERICANS and other
who where from other COUNTRYS,
@Ilovesbees
If you are refering to Ground Zero then I agree – I don’t believe a Mosque should be built there as that would be insensitive and unnecessary. But for other areas in the world including the US where there are religious communities – then I don’t see why they can’t build their places of worship.
GAFFA UK: yes this is specificly for GROUND ZERO. the other argument are another story to debate on a diffrent post, yes, one thing at the time. bye
GAFFA UK: one more thought, we must not forget that, there where no protest from the muslims in AMERICA no protest from the ImANS in AMERICA against 9/11, nor the buiding of that MOSQUE.
no news of protestation against the Mosque, they are all for it?. who say otherwise?. bye
@ilovebeeswarzone #109 and Missy #111: Thanks for the kind words. I’m not intentionally trying to shirk my blogging “responsibilities”; but I’ve been rather on the decline for sometime in terms of keeping up with the reading and the researching; and have almost all but abandoned commenting and protracted debates. Just other priorities in life are taking center stage. I know you yourself, Missy, have been busy.
@Tory #110:
As I asked in the older thread,
Tory continues:
I haven’t followed the latest developments on this story (nor read Mike’s recent post today), but last we left off, Mata did her own snooping and it looks like the associations are being stretched by agenda-driven opponents to the building of the Ground Zero mosque. It smacks more of believing in what you want to believe and shaping/distorting/stretching the facts to connect the dots you hope are there.
@GaffaUK #113:
Oh, please…lol. Liberals have been indoctrinating us for decades with distortions on American history. I’m not happy with religious, “rightwing” slant; but it’s a step up from the Zinnish self-loathing version of American history.
Naw, you still don’t get it. You really don’t, Gaffa. You think you do, but every time you repeat yourself, you reveal that you’re just not capable of getting past ‘stuck on stupid”.
Where else in the world before Britain and the U.S. do you see evidence of any anti-slavery movement? They deserve unique credit, not unique blame for starting the movement. Setting that record straight doesn’t diminish the guilt of participation. But in a world that had only known slavery as a well-established institution, it was first Christian evangelicals, and then the whole western hemisphere that began questioning and recognizing the evils of slavery.
@ilovebeeswarzone #117:
bees, there were and have been Muslim demonstrations against Islamic terrorism after 9/11. And Dr. Jasser and his group are Muslims opposed to the building of the Ground Zero “mosque”.
@Wordsmith
Beyond your boorish & dull cliche of an insult – maybe you could actually educate yourself and realise that Britain and the US were not unique in being anti slavery – in freeing slaves nor making slavery illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manumission
Ashoka banned slavery in India over TWO THOUSAND years before emancipation of slaves in the US. He wasn’t american or british or christian. lol
So let’s see if you get ‘stuck on stupid’ in denying what you claim is patent nonsense!
@Ilovebees
Incorrect – you’ll find the thread regarding the mosque specially for GROUND ZERO below
http://www.floppingaces.net/2010/07/13/just-say-no-to-ground-zero-mosque/
@GaffaUK:
Heh, already was aware that pockets of individuals here and there throughout world history have been anti-slavery; but the first real anti-slavery movement that was the catalyst for worldwide opposition to an institution that had been accepted as “normal” for centuries throughout the 4 corners of the globe didn’t happen until Britain and the U.S., who actively sought to not only end it in their territories, but to end it all over the world.
And my insults are not boorish & dull cliche.
@GaffaUK:
Thanks for bringing this one up. Am not familiar with it and will eagerly look into it more.
It seems that Ashoka’s ban was not able to extend outside India. He forgot to tell everybody else.
Hmmm….Manufactured history?