8 Jul

Obama’s Stealth Islamification of America [Reader Post]

                                       

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

Obama’s Muslim outreach

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 reaches out to Muslims

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.

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in Anti-Americanism, Barack Obama, Ground Zero "Mosque", Islam, Politics and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Thursday, July 8th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
| 1,542 views

135 Responses to Obama’s Stealth Islamification of America [Reader Post]

  1. Tory says: 101

    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.

    ReplyReply
  2. suek says: 102

    >>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???

    ReplyReply
  3. GaffaUK says: 103

    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

    ReplyReply
  4. Wordsmith says: 104

    @Mike’s America #84:

    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.

    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.

    Well, at least sanity continues to reign in some corners at F.A.

    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:

    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.

    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:

    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?

    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?

    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?

    Islamic jihadis and Islamic non-jihadis may both romanticize past Islamic greatness with differing perspectives. So what?

    @Tory:

    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.

    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”?

    Islamophobia? Or is it that what I—and so many others— know about the structure of Islam exceeds the parameters of political correctness?

    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:

    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.

    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:

    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?

    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:

    Surely Mata and Wordsmith can make their points without resorting to snide remarks. After all, I thought I had the copyright on that?

    Why should you have all the fun? I decided to plagiarize from your playbook.

    But at least I only direct that attitude at liberals!

    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:

    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.

    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…”

    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.

    And that says……what exactly about the 1.5 billion practicing Muslims in the world?

    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.

    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:

    @ 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!

    Waitaminute…didn’t you just end comment #92 with, “let’s do without the condescension”? :wink: 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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    ReplyReply
  5. Wordsmith says: 105

    @Dr.D:

    We look back from our arm chairs today and many make harsh judgments about the decisions made at that time

    A related point which I made repeatedly to Gaffa in this post. He never got it; but I’m with you on this.

    ReplyReply
  6. 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 :roll:

    ReplyReply
  7. GaffaUK says: 107

    @Wordsmith

    The post you gave up on? lol

    We look back from our arm chairs today and many make harsh judgments about the decisions made at that time

    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

    ReplyReply
  8. DrJohn says: 108

    And that says……what exactly about the 1.5 billion practicing Muslims in the world?

    It says you can’t tell who’s who. And we too get exasperated.

    ReplyReply
  9. Wordsmith says: 109

    @GaffaUK:

    @Wordsmith

    The post you gave up on? lol

    We look back from our arm chairs today and many make harsh judgments about the decisions made at that time

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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….. :roll: Lol right back at’cha!

    ReplyReply
  10. Wordsmith says: 110

    @ilovebeeswarzone:

    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,

    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.

    ReplyReply
  11. Wordsmith says: 111

    @ilovebeeswarzone:

    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,

    Yes, bees, that was my goal all along. :lol:

    I can now abandon this post and leave y’all with the last word. :mrgreen:

    ReplyReply
  12. Wordsmith says: 112

    @DrJohn:

    And that says……what exactly about the 1.5 billion practicing Muslims in the world?

    It says you can’t tell who’s who. And we too get exasperated.

    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.

    ReplyReply
  13. 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 :roll:

    ReplyReply
  14. Tory says: 114

    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?

    ReplyReply
  15. Missy says: 115

    @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! :wink:

    ReplyReply
  16. Tory says: 116

    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…

    ReplyReply
  17. GaffaUK says: 117

    @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?

    ReplyReply
  18. 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,

    ReplyReply
  19. GaffaUK says: 119

    @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.

    ReplyReply
  20. 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

    ReplyReply
  21. 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

    ReplyReply
  22. Wordsmith says: 122

    @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:

    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.

    As I asked in the older thread,

    Rauf’s ideas on Sharia- are they the same ones held by salafis, wahhabis, the Taliban, and other “radical” fundamentalists? Or is his version more of the “new agey” “Islam is a religion of peace” ilk? I don’t know. Is it relevant to the argument against the “mosque” at Ground Zero what kind of Sharia he believes in?

    Tory continues:

    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.

    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 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

    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.

    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.

    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:

    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

    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”.

    ReplyReply
  23. GaffaUK says: 123

    @Wordsmith

    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.

    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!

    ReplyReply
  24. GaffaUK says: 124

    @Ilovebees

    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

    Incorrect – you’ll find the thread regarding the mosque specially for GROUND ZERO below :-D

    http://www.floppingaces.net/2010/07/13/just-say-no-to-ground-zero-mosque/

    ReplyReply
  25. Wordsmith says: 125

    @GaffaUK:

    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.

    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. :(

    ReplyReply
  26. Wordsmith says: 126

    @GaffaUK:

    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

    Thanks for bringing this one up. Am not familiar with it and will eagerly look into it more.

    ReplyReply
  27. Dr.D says: 127

    It seems that Ashoka’s ban was not able to extend outside India. He forgot to tell everybody else.

    ReplyReply
  28. Wordsmith says: 128

    Hmmm….Manufactured history?

    Three Brits arrive in South Asia in the 18th century–get some rudimentary knowledge of Pali and Sanskrit and within a few weeks of their arrival they conjure up “Ashoka” the greatest king that ever was!

    For Hundreds of years no Bharati had ever mentioned Ashoka, nor written about him. All of a sudden three White men describe Ashoka and he now is represented on the Bharati flag, currency notes and what not.

    A clear case of manufactured history—

    In order for Ashoka to exist–there must be historical references to his rule–either by historians of his time or Greek invaders who intermingled with the society, and impacted South Asia dramatically. The Hellenic influences were the genesis of The Gandhara Civilization. Amazingly the Greek, great historians from the Homer days–never mention King Ashoka or any corruption of his name. Neither do any Bharati historians list Ashoka by name.

    Historians are curious to find out where the connection between the mythical figure and Sir James Princep’s narrative. There is no record of a Lankan priest describing anything to the British linguist.

    ReplyReply
  29. @Wordsmith:

    Uh, Word, Gaffer’s info came from Wikipedia….it’s unimpeachable.

    ReplyReply
  30. GaffaUK says: 130

    @Wordsmith

    You can debate whether Ashoka existed or not – but you will also have to disprove that all the below are (wikipedia) myths as well… all which happened before the US made slavery illegal across it’s land – some independent of Britain’s efforts to end slavery worldwide (Interesting how you let the US – and independence country – ride the tailcoats of British efforts to end slavery…lol)

    Question…

    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.

    1117 Slavery abolished in Iceland
    1315 Louis X, king of France, publishes a decree proclaiming that “France” signifies freedom and that any slave setting foot on the French ground should be freed
    1335 Sweden (including Finland at the time) makes slavery illegal.
    1416 Republic of Ragusa (modern day Dubrovnik; Croatia) abolished slavery and slave trading
    1588 Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth abolishes slavery
    1683 The Spanish crown abolishes slavery in Chile
    1723 Russia abolishes slavery
    1761, 12 February, Portugal abolishes slavery in mainland Portugal and in Portuguese possessions in India through a decree by the Marquis of Pombal.
    1777 Slavery abolished in Madeira, Portugal
    1783 Russia abolishes slavery in Crimean Khanate
    1783 Bukovina: Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor issued an order abolishing slavery on 19 June 1783 in Czernowitz
    1792 Denmark-Norway declares transatlantic slave trade illegal after 1802 (though slavery continues to 1848)
    1794 French First Republic abolishes slavery
    1803 Denmark-Norway abolishes transatlantic slave trade on 1 January 1803
    1804 Haiti declares independence and abolishes slavery
    1807 Abolition in Prussia, Germany The Stein-Hardenberg Reforms.
    1810 Mexico: Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla declared slavery abolished, but it wasn’t official until Independence War finished
    1811 Spain abolishes slavery at home and in all colonies except Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Santo Domingo
    1813 Argentina: the Asamblea del Año XIII declares the Freedom of wombs, setting the sons of slaves free.
    1814 Dutch outlaw slave trade
    1815 Congress of Vienna. 8 Victorious powers declared their opposition to slavery
    1816 Serfdom abolished in Estonia.
    1817 Serfdom abolished in Courland.
    1818 France and Netherlands abolish slave trading
    1819 Treaty between Britain and Netherlands to abolish slave trade
    1819 Serfdom abolished in Livonia.
    1821 Gran Colombia (Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, Panama) declares free the sons and daughters born to slave mothers, sets up program for compensated emancipation
    1822 Greece abolishes slavery
    1823 Chile abolishes slavery
    1824 The Federal Republic of Central America abolishes slavery.
    1829 Mexico officially abolishes slavery
    1830 The first Constitution of Uruguay declares the abolition of slavery.
    1831 Bolivia abolishes slavery
    1836 Portugal abolishes transatlantic slave trade
    1846 Tunisia abolishes slavery
    1847 Sweden abolishes slavery
    1848 Denmark abolishes slavery
    1848 Slavery abolished in all French and Danish colonies
    1848 France founds Gabon for settlement of emancipated slaves.
    1851 New Granada (Colombia) abolishes slavery
    1852 The Hawaiian Kingdom abolishes kauwa system of serfdom
    1853 Argentina abolishes slavery when promulgating the 1853 Constitution
    1854 Peru abolishes slavery
    1854 Venezuela abolishes slavery
    1855 Moldavia abolishes slavery.
    1856 Wallachia abolishes slaver
    1861 Russia frees its serfs in the Emancipation reform of 1861.
    1862 Cuba abolishes slave trade
    1863 Slavery abolished in Dutch colonies.

    then….

    1863 United States: Emancipation Proclamation declares those slaves in Confederate-controlled areas to be freed. Most slaves in “border states” are freed by state action; separate law frees the slaves in Washington, D.C.

    1865 United States abolishes slavery with the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; about 40,000 remaining slaves are affected.

    So efforts to end slavery from around 1787-1863 were largely driven by the British who even paid other countries to end slavery. But even then – the British were not UNIQUE in this. Slavery had been banned in other places before and during this time. It can be argued that the British had a unique position as the first truly global power with enough might at that time to make a impact globally against slavery. Whilst the US had people within who were part of the anti-slavery movement – the US was sluggish in getting rid of slavery on its own turf.

    ReplyReply
  31. Wordsmith says: 131

    @GaffaUK:

    You can debate whether Ashoka existed or not –

    I singled it because that was your baby, dude. YOU brought it to the fore. And I politely thanked you, because I was unfamiliar with it and wanted to look into it more. lol

    but you will also have to disprove that all the below are (wikipedia) myths as well… all which happened before the US made slavery illegal across it’s land – some independent of Britain’s efforts to end slavery worldwide (Interesting how you let the US – and independence country – ride the tailcoats of British efforts to end slavery…lol)

    Yah, and perhaps I should have clarified a bit more accurately in my original comment that it wasn’t until the U.S. and British movement that there was a real global effort to end the slave trade and slavery itself as an institution around the world. lol

    Your own wiki link states:

    It should be noted that many of these changes were reversed in practice over the succeeding centuries.

    Gaffa writes:

    So efforts to end slavery from around 1787-1863 were largely driven by the British who even paid other countries to end slavery. But even then – the British were not UNIQUE in this. Slavery had been banned in other places before and during this time. It can be argued that the British had a unique position as the first truly global power with enough might at that time to make a impact globally against slavery.

    That’s a fair point that I’ll concede. However, there were localized anti-slavery laws and sentiments even before our Declaration.

    For instance, as early as 1646, the Puritan founders of New England believed that slavery was an offense to God.

    The General Court of Massachusetts condemned the stealing of two African natives from their village to the New World when magistrates there found out about it. They ordered the two slaves to be returned back to their village. 2 yrs after that, Rhode Island passed legislation calling for “any slaves brought within the liberties of this Colonie” be set free after ten years “as the manner is with the English servants.”

    Whilst the US had people within who were part of the anti-slavery movement – the US was sluggish in getting rid of slavery on its own turf.

    You forget how young the U.S. is, as a nation.

    So, if in

    AD 9 In China, Emperor Wang Mang usurps the throne, abolishes slave trading (although not slavery),

    ,

    it’s not a trump on American exceptionalism when America wasn’t even around in AD 9. China, however, was around for how long, prior…..? And did what exactly on behalf of pushing an anti-slavery movement forward?

    “Sluggish”? Lol

    ReplyReply
  32. WORDSMITH: you mentionned that very important quote” dont forget how young the US was”
    THAT makes a good way to compare the ages of countrys to assess, how long
    it took each to ban slavery; SO USA stand In a very no1 as to how fast they realize the value of human been, and decide as a NEW NATION to not participate.
    THE good old USA, already shaping into that TOLERANCE you see here at FA

    ReplyReply
  33. Pingback: About that “Monument to Mohammed”….

  34. Pingback: Refudiating the Islamophobes

  35. Johnson says: 133

    @Wordsmith:

    Ya, the whole reaction to the Japanese Americans during the War was over the top…..and now we are doing pretty much the same thing only we have swung all the way to the other side.

    This time we are just sticking our heads in the sand and thinking “happy thoughts”. Sorry but that is no more intelligent than those old pictures you posted.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>