Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Jihadists in New York?

Probably.  This behavior smacks of stealth jihad and creeping sharia.  I am glad I do not live in Manhattan.  You will be too after this.  Read it all and go to the link to see more pictures.

This is not the first time Muslims have taken over streets

New York City and the Coming of Manhattanistan

On any Friday afternoon at the corner of 42nd and
Madison Ave
you can expect to sit in traffic for up to two hours.  Nothing will move and your taxi ride to the airport will be much more expensive.  As bad as traffic is in Manhattan on a good day Friday afternoon is the pinnacle of that bad definition “rush hour”.  No one rushes, and the reason has nothing to do with cars. 
   On any given Friday at 42nd and Madison Ave there are hundreds of Muslims gathered, laying out prayer rugs, facing Mecca with butts up and praying the Friday prayer.  Nothing matters to this bunch except the absolute need to disrupt traffic in the name of Allah.  They not only take the streets but also the sidewalks and any other area they can get to.  The right of Muslims to practice Islam in blatant disregard of the rights of others speaks volumes on the tolerance and bridge-building so lovingly spoken about by imam Rauf of the ground zero mosque/community center and others who support the “Cordoba Initiative.”
   What is most disturbing about this gathering of law-breakers is the fact that law enforcement has done nothing to stop this egregious violation of city, and no doubt state and federal law.  No mounted NYC police pushing them out of the intersection, no bullhorns commanding them to vacate the area, no traffic cops keeping the mechanical flow moving or any attempt to curtail their activity.  This behavior is not even an isolated incident, it has been happening for months not only at 42nd but other locations as well. 
   Imagine if Christians one day decided to take over an intersection in the middle of Manhattan, put up a pulpit and began preaching to the assembled crowd.  What if the local Rabbi and synagogue felt it necessary to use this street, every Saturday to deliver the Talmud.  How about a gaggle of Mennonites or Amish, polluting the streets with horse droppings and preaching the gospel according to Jesus.  They would be there less than the time it takes to hard boil an egg.  The hijacking of a major street for the purpose of practicing ones religion, and law enforcement looking the other way violates the basic tenets of American constitutional law. 
    Muslims claim that they must take to the streets as they have no more room in their mosques.  There is not one example of any other religion conquering an intersection in order to pray under the guise of “no more room.”  When the church becomes full you build bigger.  The number of available properties in New York right now provides for a buyers market, they could easily find and purchase for cheap the space they need rather than tying up traffic and demanding special treatment and rights.
   The trend of Islam and Muslims to demand and expect special accommodations grows, and capitulation to those demands is on the rise.  Deflecting awareness to this behavior occurs with accusations of Islamophobia, racism, hate-mongering and anti-Muslim hatred.  These cries shut down any honest discussion about the reasons behind this traffic jihad and paint anyone opposing their actions as less than worthless.  In Islam this deflection is called kitman and is part and parcel of fundamental Islamic ideology.
   In Muslim countries a non-Muslim is expected to follow Muslim norms.  With this praying in the streets in disregard of others it would appear that Muslims are demanding that in this non-Muslim country, we Americans must conform to Muslim norms.  Is this what we really want?
   The disappointment at local officials by the residents and workers in the areas that Muslims take over for Friday prayer is rising and the anger is palpable.  Mayor Bloomberg has said nothing about it and only recently has the press reported on it, even though it has been happening for months.  New York City, always known for being gritty, tough and loud is losing that label.  Where are the tough guys, the guys you could count on to do the right thing when the chips were down?  New Yorkers, how does it feel to know your police have no spine and your politicians no guts?
   Welcome to Manhattanistan.

UPDATE-as originally reported this gathering was happening every Friday.  Evidentally this is not accurate.  The gathering is a once a year deal which happens during the Muslim Parade, held around the end of September.  They supposedly have a permit to block the street.  If so then police are within the law to NOT intervene.  This update changes the parameters under which this prayer gathering occurs but does not change the way Islam is defined today, nor how some Muslims practice it.  As legal as this is it does not show the positive, bridge-building, tolerant aspects of Islam so desperately claimed by those who demand Islam be seen as the "religion of peace".  There are no Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Druid, Zoroastrian or any other faiths blocking streets in the name of their God.  Only Islam demands this type of treatment. Updated 9-29-10

Monday, September 27, 2010

These are not Charlton Hestons Ten Commandments

As if we didn't know the MSM has an agenda and will not print that with which they disagree, here is proof they are manipulating the information we get for their own end.

Moses would be spinning in his grave over this.

Read it all, and go to the link in the article.

The Ten Commandments of Media Censorship

Edward R Murrow, renowned journalist, reporter and commentator knew the power of the press and what it was capable of stirring within the public psyche.  His belief in unbiased, truthful news coverage enabled generations of Americans to understand the world and what part they played in it.  I would imagine, then that his membership card from the Society of Professional Journalists would have been torn up and disposed of after this “diversity directive” was issued.
The Society of Professional Journalists( is a long-time, respected organization devoted to journalistic excellence.  Since 1909 they have been the voice of journalists and the media here in the US, guiding writers, pundits and news outlets in the correct ways of telling the news.  On Oct 6th, 2001 a new diversity guideline was issued, giving reporters the rules on writing about the murders at the WTC by Islamic jihadists.  Here, in “10 Commandment” form are those new rules.

1.          Thou shalt not show Muslims or Islam in any light that shines on their negatives: “Portray Muslims, Arabs and Middle Eastern and South Asian Americans in the richness of their diverse experiences.”
2.          Thou shalt not photograph Muslims by themselves: “Seek out people from a variety of ethnic and religious backgrounds when photographing Americans mourning those lost in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.
Seek out people from a variety of ethnic and religious backgrounds when photographing rescue and other public service workers and military personnel.”
3.          Thou shalt not show Muslims wearing anything that would identify them as Muslim: “Avoid conveying the impression that all Arab Americans and Muslims wear traditional clothing. Use photos and features to demystify veils, turbans and other cultural articles and customs.
4.          Thou shall include bias opinion in stories about the struggle with jihadists: “Seek out and include Arabs and Arab Americans, Muslims, South Asians and men and women of Middle Eastern descent in all stories about the war, not just those about Arab and Muslim communities or racial profiling.
5.          Thou shall treat the murder victims of Islamic doctrine the same as those few suffering from simple harrassment: “Cover the victims of harassment, murder and other hate crimes as thoroughly as you cover the victims of overt terrorist attacks.
6.          Thou shall portray those of middle eastern/ Arab descent as anything but possible jihadists: “Make an extra effort to include olive-complexioned and darker men and women, Sikhs, Muslims and devout religious people of all types in arts, business, society columns and all other news and feature coverage, not just stories about the crisis.
7.          Thou shalt not refer to Islam or Muslims as dangerous unless thou makes a moral equivalent: “When writing about terrorism, remember to include white supremacist, radical anti-abortionists and other groups with a history of such activity.
8.          Thou shalt not use words which, despite being used by jihadists themselves are believed to be hurtful or insulting: “Avoid using word combinations such as "Islamic terrorist" or "Muslim extremist" that are misleading because they link whole religions to criminal activity. Be specific: Alternate choices…include "Al Qaeda terrorists" or, to describe the broad range of groups involved in Islamic politics, "political Islamists." Do not use religious characterizations as shorthand when geographic, political, socioeconomic or other distinctions might be more accurate.
9.          Thou shalt not use the word “jihad” as it is hurtful and besides, our definition of jihad is much more peaceful: “Avoid using terms such as "jihad" unless you are certain of their precise meaning and include the context when they are used in quotations. The basic meaning of "jihad" is to exert oneself for the good of Islam and to better oneself.
10.      Thou shall give up all semblance of unbiased reporting and let the subject of the story edit what they don’t like: “Ask men and women from within targeted communities to review your coverage and make suggestions.

Mr Murrows words sum up this travesty of American journalism, “We cannot make good news out of bad practice.”  This is bad news out of even worse practice and we, the American public are being led by the nose to the abattoir.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Sharia and you

Newt Gingrich has been in the news lately, being his usual politically incorrect self and angering all those apologists for the worlds largest "religion of peace".  He speaks correctly about sharia, although his grasp is still a bit fuzzy.  Here you will find one of many examples of creeping sharia and stealth jihad through our children.

Sharia: Coming to a town near you.

   Newt Gingrich makes no bones about his views.  His stance on ObamaCare, the economy, foreign relations and the American spirit could not be any clearer, and for his views on sharia and Islam he again takes some heat. 
   Is Newt correct in his opinion of sharia?  He states that “Stealth jihadists use political, cultural, societal, religious, intellectual tools; violent jihadists use violence…but in fact they’re both seeking to impose the same end state, which is to replace Western civilization with a radical imposition of sharia.”  Where would he come up with such a fantasy, an albatross of accusations hung on the necks of all good Muslims and how could he be such an Islamophobe?
    The pundit condemnations have been coming in like salvos from the guns of the USS Missouri.  Nickolas Kristof, Eugene Robinson, John Stewart and all the rest are having a field day ripping new ones for Newt, gleefully pointing out how mean and nasty and hateful and anti-Muslim he is.  They dismiss his remarks out of hand, offering no proof Newt lies other than their own importance within the media.  It might behoove John, Nick, Eugene and the rest of the nabobs to do just a bit of looking, and they will find Newt is not the loon they want him to be .
         Sharia is the all-encompassing legal codec governing all aspects of Muslim life: social, business, legal, family, political.  There is no separating the white from the yolk; church and state within Islam and sharia are inseperable.  Despite what Islamic apologists say, sharia demands stoning to death, amputation of hands and feet, hanging or beheading for homosexuals and public flogging among other punishments.  All aspects of sharia are totally incompatible with the constitution and western values and law.  So how would it be possible for something as foreign as sharia to become the dominant legal system in the US as Newt warns us?  Let’s look at sharia courts and the rights of women in a divorce for the example.
    In US divorce court everything is divided up equally.  Contentious debate and sleazy lawyers’ aside the courts usually are pretty fair in the distribution of assets.  Women are equally and legally entitled to half.  In sharia law a woman is only worth half that of a man, both in what they are entitled to in a divorce but also in their testimony.  Their voice is worth half that of a man’s testimony in any court proceeding.  Therefore anything a woman says on behalf of her divorce, in a sharia court will be given only half the weight than that of her soon to be ex-husband.  This is a blatant violation of the constitution and all state law.  How does this fit in with the principals which guides our laws?
   Sharia courts are but one method of getting Islamic norms into mainstream American society.  Some compare sharia courts with the Jewish rabbinical beit din courts now operating in the US, claiming that like these Jewish tribunals sharia courts will merely lessen the burden on regular civil courts and act as a arbitrator of minor business, divorce and family disputes.  On first glance this seems a good idea but looking at how sharia courts have behaved in Canada and England that glance becomes less than rose-colored.
    Sharia is just a part of the Islamic narrative, a chunk of the overall doctrine driving Islam and Muslims.  The installation of sharia courts comes as a harbinger of  further Islamic inroads into politics and social structuring.  To put a perspective on the idea of sharia law in the West let’s read what one Muslim advocacy group says about Islam in America.  In 1998 Omar M. Ahmad, leader of the Council on American Islamic Relations said,  “Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran (sharia). . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."  Since the Qur’an is the basis for sharia law it is obvious what CAIR is advocating. 
    With the largest Muslim advocacy group in the US saying they want Islam to dominate America it would appear Newt is correct when he spoke at the American Enterprise Institute last July and said the sharia menace is part of a wider campaign to impose Islam across the US.
   When Newt Gingrich says Islam is trying to dominate the US he is called an Islamophobe and hatemonger yet when the leader of CAIR says the exact same thing he is dismissed.  Let’s not ignore the reality of sharia law in the US.  Stop it before it starts.     

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

A Simple Test

From a friend and confidant, this is really great.  Have your friends take it to see just how much the Muslim apologist they are.

Thanks, Billy Rojas.

No Profiling Please, Absolutely No Profiling!  Pause a moment, reflect
back, and take the following multiple choice test. These  events are actual
events from history. They really happened! Do you remember?  HERE'S THE

1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by:
a. Superman
b. Jay Leno
c. Harry Potter 
d. A Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17  and 40

2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were  kidnapped and massacred
by: a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages  of 17 and 40.

3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over  by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages  of 17 and 40.

4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were  kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages  of 17 and 40.

5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was  blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages  of 17 and 40.

6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was  hijacked and a 70 year old
passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in  his wheelchair by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davey Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages  of 17 and 40.

7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at  Athens, and a US Navy diver was
murdered by:
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindbergh
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages  of 17 and 40.

8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed  by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages  of 17 and 40.

9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the  first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages  of 17 and 40.

10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and  Tanzania were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from  Wild Bill's women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages  of 17 and 40.

11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two  were used as missiles to
take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining  two, one crashed
into the US
Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed  by the passengers.
Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and  Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages  of 17 and 40.

12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in  Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages  of 17 and 40.

13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped  and murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages  of 17 and 40.

No, I really don't see a pattern here to  justify profiling, do you? So, to
ensure we Americans never offend anyone,  particularly fanatics intent on
killing us, airport security screeners will no  longer be allowed to profile
certain people. They must conduct random searches  of 80-year-old women,
little kids, airline pilots with proper identification,  secret agents who are
members of the President's security detail, 85-year old  Congressmen with
metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe  Foss, but leave
Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40 alone lest they be  guilty of

Let's send this to as many people as we can!

Foot note:
Fort Hood Texas ......another Muslim 39 year old  killed 13 people and
30 some odd others... Does this fit the  profile!



The Summit of All Fears

The four main Muslim advocacy groups in the US have just come out in favor of the ground zero mosque.  Do you know who these groups are and what they stand for?

Read and learn...

Sunday, Sept 20th, in New York City the four largest American Muslim advocacy groups got together for a summit on Islamophobia, intolerance and anti-Muslim backlash in the wake of the ground zero mosque controversy.  The groups are: Islamic Society of North America, Islamic Circle of North America, the Muslim Alliance of North America and the Council on American-Islamic Relations.  Most Americans do not know who these groups are or what they advocate.  Maybe it is time to learn more.
    Established in 1981 the ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) and created by the MSA (Muslim Student Association) the ISNA is funded by Saudi money and is the largest proponent of Wahhabi doctrine in the US.  One of the creators of the ISNA was Sami Al-Arian, now serving time for funneling money to jihadist groups, including Hamas.  The ISNA holds up to 80% of all mosque mortgages in the US, virtually assuring the  fundamental Wahhabi doctrine is the dominant narrative in these mosques.
Steve Emerson, founder of the Investigative Project on Terrorism says the ISNA “is a radical group hiding under a false veneer of moderation”.  The ISNA conventions have hosted fundamental Islamists who incite hatred and promote violence.  PLO official and  Al-Qaeda supporter Yusuf Al-Qaradhawi was an invited speaker and they have held fundraisers for jihadists in order to secure the release from jail Hamas leader Mousa Marzook. The ISNA also publishes a bi-monthly magazine called “Islamic Horizions” that often supports and champions fundamental Islamic doctrine.
The Islamic Circle of North America was founded in 1968 as a grass roots Muslim advocacy group.  In December 2009 at their annual convention (With the MAS, Muslim American Society) in Chicago the ICNA called for Islam to be “clean and clear of all extremism”.  The reality, as reported by Abe Foxman and the ADL was that the meeting provided support for anti-Israel and anti-American views.  Mr Foxman finished with “No legitimate blueprint for change can emerge from a convention permeated by messages conveying hatred of Jews, the denial of Israel's right to exist and the idea that the U.S. is at war with Islam."
   The ADL and other Islamic watchdog groups have been monitoring the ICNA for years.  According to Steven Emerson’s Investigative Project, at ICNA’s Annual Conference in 2001, ICNA president Zulfiqar Ali Shah led the crowd in a chant of “our way, our way, is jihad, jihad.”

   One of his predecessors as ICNA president, Muhammad Yunus, wrote in 1991 that “the ultimate purpose of Jihad is to establish an Islamic system of government…all over the world and to bring about a world Islamic revolution, because the message of Islam is for all mankind.”
The Islamic Circle of North America has been named in "a list of our organizations and the organizations of our friends" by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is bent on waging "a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."
The Muslim Alliance of North America is currently led by Ihsan Bagby, associate professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Kentucky and board member of both Council on American-Islamic Relations(CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America.  As a devout Islamic fundamentalist Ihsan Bagby states, “Ultimately we [Muslims] can never be full citizens of this country [the U.S.], because there is no way we can be fully committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country.”

   Lastly there is CAIR.  An unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation money-for-Hamas trial their leader in 1998 said,  “Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth." 
  CAIR communications spokesman Ibrahim Hooper has stated, “I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.” 
   All four of these groups are on the Muslim Brotherhoods list of “friends” in the United States and all four have come out in united support for the ground zero mosque/community center.  Are we to hear a clear condemnation from imam Rauf and the proponents of the mosque of these groups or will there be, once again silence?
  I hear crickets. 

Sunday, September 19, 2010

American schoolchildren and Islamic inculcation

From Act4America, of which you can join here comes this very disturbing story and video of 6th graders being converted to Islam.  OK, mayube the students didn't say the shahada but for all intent and purpose the video implies these kids are being inculcated by Islamic falsehoods.  Our schools are rapidly becoming platforms for Islamic indoctrination and this is proof that our schools are broken, our educators are broken and the stealth jihad is happening to our kids.  Don't let this happen to your little ones, ask questions at your schools, demand to see the textbooks and hold accountable those who purport to want to help your kid by taking to task anything which looks suspicious at the school.

Here is the whole story.

May God help us all if we fail our children.

Saturday, September 18, 2010

More free speech death in Seattle

There are many things that are Haram, or forbidden in Islam: dogs, beer, levis, laughing, Driving if your a woman, many things you cannot do because Muhammad did not do them.  One of those is draw any depiction of people, especially Muhammad or Allah.  Therefore it is not surprising that
Molly Norris, cartoonist in Seattle would now have to disappear because she dared to draw Muhammad, and encourage others to do the same.

Fatwa issued, life over.  Thank you Islam.

The Death of Free Speech in Seattle

Earlier this year, a cartoonist named Molly Norris decided to create "Draw Muhammad Day" in response to the Islamic agitation over similar cartoons, particularly the drawing of Muhammad with a bomb on his head by Dutch cartoonist Kurt Westergaard.  She wanted to point out the stupidity of calling for the death of cartoonists by encouraging everyone to draw, thus deflating the cries for revenge.  She was immediately threatened and so she shut down her facebook page and apologized publicly.  That would be the end of the story, right?
   No it wasn't.  As of today, Sept 15, 2010 she is no longer Molly Norris.  Anwar Al-Awlaki, the American-born imam who is linked to  jihadist activity in the United States, including the Fort Hood jihad assassin, the Christmas underwear jihad bomber, and even 9/11, has issued a fatwa calling for her death.  In response, the FBI has her "going ghost", a nice little moniker for giving up your life as you knew it and taking to hiding for the rest of your life.  She has effectively disappeared, her life as Molly Norris done, and all due to Islamic doctrine which demands death for anyone who "insults" Islam. 
   Her witness protection program is, unfortunately not paid for by the government so she must pony up whatever it takes to maintain her ghost status, a departure from virtually all other witness protection plans where it is the feds who pay the cost to keep these people who put their lives on the line alive and well.  Why is her situation so different that she is forced to provide for her own security where others are not?
   Another question this situation begs: where is Obama on Molly’s free speech rights, the first amendment and what it means to protect the absolute right to speak ones mind?  As James Taranto points out in a recent podcast through his work with the Wall Street Journal "Last month, speaking to a mostly Muslim audience at the White House, the president strongly defended the right of another imam held up as a moderate to build a mosque adjacent to Ground Zero. Now Molly Norris, an American citizen, is forced into hiding because she exercised her right to free speech. Will President Obama say a word on her behalf? Does he believe in the First Amendment for anyone other than Muslims?"  For the moment the White House is silent and as the days pass with no word from Obama the appearance of capitulation to Muslim sensibilities over an Americans guaranteed right seems more plausible.
   Molly Norris as a cartoonist sees the world with a different view, thus her humorous, throw-away line when responding to the fact that now she will have to always look over her shoulder when outdoors "Well, at least it'll keep me from being so self-involved!  Her comment about this being a similar situation to having cancer: it might basically be nothing, it might be urgent and serious, it might go away and never return, or it might pop up again when she least expects it rings of optimism and rationality yet when it comes to a Islamic fatwa issued by a most devoted jihadist, Anwar Al-Awlaki one needs a more pragmatic approach.  Al-Awlaki tells Muslims that Ms Norris ""should be taken as a prime target of assassination" and there are plenty of Muslims who take his word as law and will try to execute his order. 
   To be as safe as possible Molly Norris needs to understand that her fourth choice with this "cancer", popping up when least expected will probably end up being the most likely to happen.  Those today under Islamic death fatwas: Geert Wilders, Ayyan Hirsi Ali, Robert Spencer, Salman Rushdi and others all must live with constant security, both for their personal and public life.  They understand that at any time they can be attacked, and possibly killed by those practitioners of the "religion of peace".
   First they came for the cartoonists, and I said nothing.  Then they came for the pundits, and I said nothing.  Then they came for the reader, and there was no one willing to speak for me.
Anyone?  Hello!?  Anobody?  

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Free Expression and Derek Fenton: Not in New Jersey

New Jersey, home of the mafia and now home of creeping sharia.  Derek Fenton is a victim and the NJTransit the new dhimmi.

Read it all.

Free Expression and Derek Fenton

The spectre of creeping sharia, which virtually all the MSM and a good number of Americans refuse to acknowledge has reared its ugly head again, this time in New Jersey.  The New Jersey Transit Authority has decided that not insulting Muslims is more important than supporting the first amendment to the constitution. 
   The firing of Derek Fenton because he exercised his right to free speech, on his own time but in a way which was seen as offensive by Muslims and his employer is frightening and should concern all of us..  This is, unfortunately all too common as Islamic doctrine vis-à-vis sharia creates an atmosphere of fear, profound enough where ordinarily rational people act in an irrational way.
   11 years of service down the drain for Derek Fenton, all because he set fire to the Qur'an.  11 years of dedication to the state of New Jersey and the district he lived in reduced to insignificance when he decided, as any American can, to protest a volatile issue: the ground zero mosque. 
   It may indeed be odious, his burning of a book revered by hundreds of millions but that is his right: to be odious.  He has the absolute right to do what he did as it is not illegal in America to burn a book.  The American flag can be set afire as a means of protest, that right has been upheld by the Supreme Court.  Is it insulting, disrespectful and just plain dumb to do?  Yes but there is nothing which stops one from being dumb. 
   When questioned about his flaming Qur'an and why he set the blaze, he replied "This is America" and as a loyal American he was "exercising his right to protest".  His protest and burning took place at 51Park Place, the site of the proposed mosque/community center.  No doubt this choice also contributed to his exposure in the press and the attention of his employer.  Nevertheless his actions, although legal got him a free trip by the police out of the area and into the station where he was questioned and released. 
   Think about that for a minute, I’ll wait.  He wasn't given a ticket for illegal burning, although he could have been.  He wasn't shoo'ed away with the admonishment to not do that again.  No, he was taken away by police and questioned because he was assumed to be in danger.  He was "ushered" out of the area and out of sight of those protesters who were supporters of the mosque/community center.  Mr. Fenton was perceived as a threat to order, a person who was stirring the Islamic pot by his Qur'an burning and therefore deserving of police "protection" so as not to inflame the crowd.
   There is something fundamentally wrong when law enforcement looks at the potential perpetrators of violence as the victims and the one expressing his right to free speech as an aggressor.  Mr Fenton, by taking action to express a particular point of view, has the absolute right to do so, and be protected when he does.  That means doing everything possible to ensure his free speech is allowed and any attempts to shut the speech disallowed. 
   Mr Fenton’s employer, New Jersey Transit, or NJTransit as they are more commonly known is a company which believes in all those warm and fuzzy catch-phrases: tolerance, diversity, multiculturalism, inclusion, those words which make it seem the company is so much more than a collection of cubicles.  Yet in its rainbow-stained wisdom NJTransit decides that "Mr. Fenton's public actions violated New Jersey Transit's code of ethics...(therefore)NJ Transit conclude(s) that Mr. Fenton violated his trust as a state employee and therefore [he] was dismissed." 
   It would appear that NJTransit prohibits the expression of free speech that offends.  His violation of the code of ethics and trust as a state employee came as a result of his exercising his free speech rights, rights which even NJTransit cannot ignore.
   Not everyone agrees with NJT's decision.  Mr. Fenton’s neighbor, Jacqui Marquez said "Good for him for burning the Koran...everybody's entitled to their opinion ... by firing him, they're sending a message that there's no freedom of speech. They're completely wrong for doing this....".  As simple as that, she puts it in a nutshell easily understood. 
   Chris Dunn of the New York Civil Liberties Union sees a very serious problem if Mr. Fenton did the burning on his own time.  Well, I would hope so as I would not want to think my tax dollars are not only going to those "supervisors" which always seem to outnumber real workers 3to1 but to those state workers who use those dollars to burn a Qur'an. If he did do this on his time NJTransit may have violated his free speech rights, says the NYCLU.  Further investigation will reveal if that is true, and what action Mr. Fenton may have against NJTRansit.
   NJTransit should, instead of castigating Mr. Fenton for his possible insulting behavior be supporting his right to protest and speak his mind.  The company has every right to tell him his actions were stupid and not what they would support but the duty to uphold the constitution should be the number one priority.
   Imagine if we here in Oregon and the NW were no longer able to protest about our trees, or our rivers, our mountains and lakes, our air and our leaders.  Imagine if every time you wanted to put free speech ahead of political correctness someone was offended enough to get you fired.  If we do not stand and protect freedom of expression, no matter how distressing it may be we will surly lose it.  Derek Fenton did, just ask him.

Monday, September 13, 2010

This Way to the Great Egress!

Pastor Jones and his threat to burn Qur'ans brought a lot of press to his little enclave.  He is effectively excoriated and marginalized yet, for some noble reason I see a silver lining in all this.

Follow me here...

P.T.Barnum and the Great Egress, Pt 2

Well now it’s official. The Rev. Terry Jones of Florida has announced that his plan to burn Qur’ans was all a ruse to expose Muslims as liars and Islam for the evil religion it is. In the finest tradition of circus performance art he deftly manipulated his audience into believing they were seeing something that wasn’t there.

P.T. Barnum had, as one of his exhibits a dark tent, almost completely black inside and with a sign at the entrance; This Way to the Great Egress! A quarter got you into this tent, and as you stood in the dark the barkers voice would be heard,, extolling you, the sucke…paying customer to see what was not there, a great egress. When finally convinced there was something there, the people would then shuffle out the exit and into the daylight OUTSIDE the circus. The rubes were forced to buy another entry ticket, for another 25 cents to get back in. It turns out egress is just another word for exit.

Barnum was right, people are basically ignorant and don’t want to see what’s there, but are easily led to believe what is not there. Pastor Jones must have studied under Barnum to be able to pull off his “Great Egress” dog and pony show.

Now the pastor is under fire for fooling the press and misleading them by claiming he would burn Qur’ans and then backing off. Claiming he spoke to the ground zero mosque imam(or at least his second) and had received guarantees the mosque would be moved if he stopped the planned Qur’an burning sent the press off on a nirvanic quest. Not for one minute did anyone ever question the motives of the pastor; it was assumed he was an Islamophobe, racist, hatemonger and worst of all, a bigot who is a Christian pastor!

The clamor from all strata of society accusing this man of everything from inciting riots to eating kittens reduced the dialogue to no more than name-calling, accusations and violence which left some people dead. The very idea that anyone would burn a book, especially one as holy as the Qur’an is an anathema to the ideals and beliefs Americans hold dear. This pastor, who dares to set fire to a religious book, should himself be lit aflame instead of the Qur’an.

Yet is the pastor the devil incarnate, released to do battle against the evil Islamic jinn or just some nutjob doing what he feels is the best way to inform the world of Islamic duplicity? The latter is the odds-on bet in light of the fact that pastor Jones said to Carl Quintanilla on the NBC Today show the Thursday before 9-11 “"Even though we have not burned one Quran, we have gotten over 100 death threats…(our aim was) to expose that there is an element of Islam that is very dangerous and very radical."

His conclusion was that "…we have definitely accomplished that mission."

Most would agree that his method of accomplishing that mission fell short of being fair play. Yet the result; that there is an element of Islam which hates us and will lie to promote the Islamic agenda cannot be ignored. Ever the optimist, the good reverend says that he hopes his actions will enable him to meet with imam Rauf and speak of things interfaith and build a few bridges while convincing him that moving the mosque is in the imam’s best interest. It may be time for a reality check pastor, and ask yourself if there really can be honest dialogue from the people who, as you say lied to you.

Even as he publicly announced he has no intention of burning the Qur’an ever, Muslim outrage at just the mere mention of setting a match to the word of Allah erupted across Islamic lands and people died due to what amounts to a rumor. Was there an outcry of anger at those committing murder in the name of Allah because of the implied insult? Imam Rauf, in an interview for the BBC on Sept 12th issued another veiled threat that if the mosque is moved or prevented from being built a “disaster” would befall America, that it would “strengthen radicals” and that the expression of free speech guaranteed by article one of the constitution would anger our already angry enemies and increase “…the possibility of terrorist acts against America and American interests," both here and abroad.

Lets see if we can understand this: America is responsible for Muslims self-control. We are on notice that the increased animosity and anger from the Muslim community is because we took away their ability to practice self-restraint. I must say I did not know we in the west had that kind of power over how Muslims behave.

Support the pastors right to free speech, condemn him for poor communication skills but most of all, accept the results of his scheme and start asking critical questions about Muslim actions and Islamic ideals.

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Islamic Extortion Racket at Ground Zero

Here we go again.  Imam Rauf, the paragon of Islamic tolerance and chorus-master for the Kumbayya Choir inserts foot farther into mouth.....but the world still sleeps.  His latest, from CNN Larry King Live  on Wed, Sept 8 follows the path of threats, blame and intolerance.

Here is my reply.


Build it and There will be no “Exploding Anger” From Muslims

Sat, Sept 11, 2010

In the old gangster movies one of the main ploys of the suits was to employ what’s called a “protection racket”. They would go to a business and offer them insurance against accidents like fire and theft or burglary. For a small fee they would make sure there would be no trouble. When the business owner would ask who would cause such damage to his property that he would need this insurance protection the answer was always the same and always chilling. “Us”.

The latest statement from imam Feisal Abdul Rauf reads as if taken from the Godfather playbook. When asked on CNN Larry King Live on Wed, Sept 8 what could happen if the mosque isn’t built at its planned location Rauf said that “anger will explode in the Muslim world.” which will lead to “something which could really become very, very, very dangerous

indeed.” Is this an offer we shouldn’t refuse?

These words, from a man who has consistently used platitudes such as bridge-building, interfaith dialogue and tolerance are a veiled threat, one which is clear we Americans should heed, and fast. It is a narrative of implied violence. Imam Rauf would, no doubt not engage in direct destruction but he seems to want his audience to understand that if Americans don’t heel to his dogma and get on board the mosque bus he can’t be responsible for the carnage Muslims might bestow on his behalf.

Like the Godfather who sits in his palace, dolling out favors and contracts while immune to any fallout over the words spoken, imam Rauf sees himself as untouchable.

As a pious and caring man, Rauf claims that if he knew that this development would cause so much pain he wouldn’t have done it to begin with. Yet in December of 2009 before his partners began trying to unsay his words his wife and himself publicly stated that the location was exactly what they wanted, that it was a divine gift, a blessing to be at ground zero. Which is it, imam Rauf? You can’t have it both ways. It is either a mistake or a blessing but it would appear the imam wants his mosque and his cake too.

It is well past time for the imam to step up and be the tolerant, bridge builder he claims he is and stand by his platitudes. Donald Trump offered to but the property at 25% above market value, with the proviso that Rauf move the mosque at least 5 blocks from ground zero. Mosque supporters found this less than acceptable and refused the Dons offer. So much for imam Raufs belief in moving the mosque if it causes pain and standing by his own words from last December.

Will there be an uptick in violence if the mosque is moved to 5 blocks, or more away? The anger of the Islamic world over our claimed intolerance and Islamophobia will not be assuaged by moving the mosque, it will merely deepen as Muslims are told, and believe that no matter what, America is at war with Islam. This is a paradigm created by Islam and Muslims which begets more attacks from those who are at war with America, and see the destruction of the US as the only way for Muslims to be free to practice the “religion of peace”.

Imam Raufs commentary on CNN does nothing to bridge the gap growing between Islam and the west and further drives a wedge between those wanting more dialogue and those who want nothing more than to throw the Molotov cocktail through the window of your business. The peace and acceptance which is so desperately demanded by Rauf smacks of nothing more than the extortionists demand for “protection money”. Americans are worried about the threat of stealth jihad and creeping sharia and the demands of Rauf and his ilk are not much more than “it’s my way….or else”.

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Are we really Islamophobic?

I was thinking recently which can be dangerous on why we are called Islamophobic when it is Muslims we are alleged to be hateful against.  This may clear that question up a bit.


Islamophobia VS Muslimophobia?

Phobia: an irrational or unfounded fear of that which we don’t understand. Many of us have phobias of things we don’t understand. We are scared of the monster under the bed, the dentist, spiders and snakes but are any of these truly things we don’t understand or merely remnants of prehistoric genetic programming? Whatever the reason humans are programmed to stand off whenever we smell fishiness. Islamophobia, as the label of shame applied to questioners of Islam and Muslims reeks of fish and is incorrect as it mis-identifies who the claimed victims are.

When the label “Islamophobia” is applied it is assumed that those on whom the label is given are fearful of Islam. At the same time those doing the excoriating always mention it is Muslims who are the targets of hate-mongering, threats, physical attacks and myriad hate crimes. There have been three incidences recently against Muslims: arson on a mosque in Tennessee, the attack of a Muslim cabbie by a loon and the burning of Qur’ans by a church and its rabid pastor. None of these constitute Islamophobia and the stabbing of the cabbie is, at most a hate crime. Burning anything to make a point, especially books is no more than stupidity with a match.

If there was such a thing as Islamophobia it would manifest itself in ugly ways: Attacking worshippers leaving a mosque, burning to the ground standing mosques with people inside, stopping and beating anyone who looks middle eastern, calls for Islam to be banned as a spiritual practice, rounding up and questioning Muslims and Arabic appearing people and other most egregious acts. We don’t do such things because we are pluralistic and tolerant. Islamophobia does not apply in any sense, especially since we know nothing about Islam and therefore cannot have an irrational fear of that which we are unfamiliar.

According to those who continue to call anyone questioning the ground zero mosque/community center as anti-Muslim, bigot, hate-monger or intolerant, it is a fear of Muslims, not Islam which drives the vitriol. Those who oppose the mosque/community center are accused of hating Muslims and yet are called Islamophobes when in reality the correct term to use should be Muslimophobe.

Can Americans be Islamophobic? The answer is no simply because we have not done anything to know of Islam, it’s tenets or doctrine, or even its holy book, the Qur’an. How many Americans have read the Qur’an as opposed to those who have read the Bible? There are no hard numbers to refer to, although with 89% of the population claiming they believe in some kind of God and half the population professed Christian (159M) an educated guess would be somewhere near 10%. Those who have read the Bible would be at least 50% given the numbers of believers. Does this mean that 10% of the population are Islamophobes and 50% are Christianophobes? If that’s the case then we should be more worried about those evil believers in Christ than those Islamists who call for sharia law and the destruction of Israel and the west on a regular basis.

We in America are Muslimophobes in that we are afraid of what we have not been able to understand. Muslims as a whole have not taken the task to heart to show, through deeds and words that Islam and Muslims are not what it they are perceived by many to be. When Muslims say they are insulted by any questioning of their religion in any form, that creates fear. When Muslims say they want peace but do nothing to mitigate the doctrine which creates war Americans feel apprehension. When prominent Muslims claim they want to build bridges and then refuse to engage in religious dialogue the atmosphere of distrust becomes thicker. We see Muslims as the creator of unknown panic and that will not abate until open, honest dialogue occurs within the Islamic community and non-Muslims.

Americans pride themselves on honest examination of the aspects of the human condition. Islam does not allow any in-depth analysis by non-Muslims and Muslims do not allow anyone to delve into their faith-based hate. No discussions means no understanding.

Muslims define Islam and if there is any phobia to be had it should be directed at those who make it virtually impossible to make sense of the ins and outs of the worlds third largest religion.

Muslimophobia is the new paradigm.

Sunday, September 5, 2010

More Questions on the GZ Mosque Money

Once again the NY Post comes to the rescue with detailed information on some very questionable dealings in regards to the purchase and sale of 45-51 Park Place.  Ask yourself this:  why would someone sell a piece of prime Manhattan real estate for 4.8M when they had been offered 18M previously?  Once again, more  mystery by those supporting the mosque.

Read it all here:

CAIR and the Fradycat Syndrome

As we edge closer to 9-11 Muslim groups are worrying that we, Americans are going to start rounding them up and tossing them into the hoosgow.  All, or mostly all of this fear is whipped up by CAIR, that front for the Muslim Brotherhood in America and cunsummate spin artist.  Is there rampant Islamopgobia?  Are Muslims justified in their fear?  Can we get a burqa in any colors other than black and blue?  These and other burning questions can be answered below......

Islamophobia: Self-Created Victimization

The Tired Cries of the Un-nuanced

With the end of Ramadan occurring on Sept 11th, Muslims across the US are concerned about rising Islamophobia and increasing hate crimes against them. Is this fear based in reality, or is it a created scare done to increase perceived victimization? Let’s examine the current trends on hate crimes and see, from the numbers who is the real victim.

The FBI just released its hate crime stats for 2008. It is interesting to see that out of a total of 1,519 single-bias crimes against religion, 1,013 were against Jews and only 105 against Muslims. This trend has held steady since 9-11, although right after the WTC attack, anti-Muslim backlash was at a high of 58 by the end of 2001. The latest numbers are higher, yet still well below bias crimes against Jews. FBI stats since 9-11 show a disproportionate number of hate crimes perpetrated against Jews and Israel with Islam and Muslims always at the end of the list.

2009 looks to be about the same, and 2010 as well. Listening to CAIR(an un-indicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial) and other Islamic advocacy groups one would believe that mobs of angry Americans wielding torches and pitchforks are rounding up Muslims and “wishing them into the cornfield”. Nothing could be further from the truth.

July 8, 2010 an Atlanta, Georgia mosque was set on fire. CAIR trumpeted this as another in a increasing series of hate crimes against Muslims. Naeem Baig, vice president of the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamic Circle of North America, claimed that the arson attack was part of the "incidents of Islamophobia [that] are on the rise in our country." It turns out the fire was set by one of the mosque-goers with the motive being to create anti-Muslim sentiment and thus, reinforce the victimization of Muslims CAIR and other groups continuously claim as true.

Oct 7, 2008 the Dayton Daily News (OHIO) reported that a 10-year old girl at a local mosque had been sprayed with pepper spray by unknown assailants through an open window from the outside. Authorities, during their search of the mosque found the can of spray in a bag in the basement. Furthermore, HAZMAT crews found no trace of the pepper on either the child or in the mosque. CAIR once again crowed about how this was a Muslim hate crime and indicative of rising Islamophobia.

Oct 17, 2008 a Muslim student at Elmhurst College reported being assaulted by a masked gunman after the assailant wrote anti-Muslim graffiti in a women’s bathroom on campus. Safia Julani’s claim was proved false, and she was arrested for filing a false police report, a felony in Ohio punishable with up to 3 years in prison. CAIR again said this was a hate crime and when the truth came out they did not retract their position.

Why does CAIR perpetuate lies and refuse to accept as fact what some Muslims perpetrate? Without victims CAIR would have no anti-Muslim hate crimes to trumpet and thus no “poor victimized Muslim” card to play.

There is no doubt crimes are committed against people because of who or what they are, Muslims are no exception. Recently there have been a few noxious acts against mosques and Muslims. Any right-minded person condemns these acts in no uncertain terms. There is no reason to attack with violence any house of worship, or anyone of a particular faith, yet some will resort to it as a way of striking out blindly against concepts and dogma they do not believe are in their best interests.

The perceptions Americans have of Islam and Muslims is being questioned, debated and discussed. This is a very good thing. The problem is how the Islamic world, CAIR and many Muslims react to these queries and what they say in response. Americans have the right to question the ground zero mosque imam as to why he won’t engage in religious dialogue. Americans have a right to demand answers as to where the money will come from. Americans have the right to ask of Muslims to explain their religion critically, openly and truthfully.

If Islam and Muslims continue to put forth the narrative that they are victims of Islamophobia and hate crimes and refuse to acknowledge that it is up to them to change the paradigm, America and the west will remain questioning, uncertain and afraid. Islamophobia is a claimed victim status, based not in fact but in repeatedly shouting it over and over, with no proof beyond the emotional and false rhetoric.

Just ask the Jews.

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Rachel Zoll and Intolerant Trolls

The Associated Press, usually counted on to deliver fairly unbiased reporting presents us with a piece from Rachel Zoll which is just another example of shoddy research and claims unverified.  Ms. Zoll never asks the pertinent questions, nor endeavors to provide any kind of real context, she just regurgitates what the left believes: opponents bad, supporters good and while were at it lets re-arrange the deck chairs.  Veiled threats, misplaced anger and an unwillingness to examine critically what is spewed by mosque supporters characterizes this piece.

Here for your enjoyment is my reply.

Insulting a Majority of Americans isn’t Productive for Mosque Proponents

On 8-30 Rachel Zoll for the Associated Press writes of the misery and fear that questions about the ground zero mosque/community center are causing Muslims in America. Adnan Zulfiqar says that his topic for the opening khutbah, or sermon at the University of Pennsylvania will be the mosque controversy. After all, he says what other topic could he choose that generated so much vitriol, epithets, smears and even violence over the summer. Who’s fault is that, Mr Zulfiqar? Mosque proponents have consistently labeled opponents as racists, hatemongers, bigots, Islamophobes and zealots. These are the usual charges leveled against those who try to stand up for freedom of speech and raise awareness of the jihad ideology and Islamist supremacism. What is frightening is these charges are being thrown out against 70% of Americans who oppose the building of the mosque at 45-51 Park Place, and in a totally indiscriminate way. Labeling a majority of Americans as racists is not the warm, tolerant and inclusive dialogue as the imam, his wife and the property owner claim they are for.

Mr Zulfiqar continues to ponder over the potential fallout and what can be done about Muslim backlash. He asks whether young Muslims will become second-class citizens, inferring that the debate over the mosque/community center will cause some kind of radical change in them, now that they are second-class. No one is suggesting taking away any rights from anyone, Muslim or not. No one advocates the taking away of any rights from anyone, Muslim or not. The questions raised are legitimate questions about the imam and his support of Hamas, about the symbolic aspect of a mosque at GZ and about the financing. That line of inquiry has nothing to do with Muslims being second-class citizens. When a developer decides to build a new sub-division there are hundreds of hoops they must jump through, hoops which ask serious and probing questions of the contractor, backers and sub-contractors. Where is the money from? How many in the crew?. How long until completion? There is never a cry of developer-phobia as these hoops are seen as the cost of doing business. So by asking the same questions of a mosque/community center which is not much more than a large building project the shouts of racist and Islamophobia echo across the site, effectively stopping any and all dialogue.

Serving the University of Pennsylvania ‘s campus ministry Mr Zulfiqar worries about the struggle for young Muslims between being American and Muslim. It’s disconcerting for them, and this kind of scrutiny on their religion could make them a radical or worse, they could become more conservative in how they perceive themselves fitting into the American tapestry. Let me understand this: if I continue to ask questions about the mosque/community center then will I be responsible for creating radicals who, often enough blow things sky-high? Mr Zulfiqar knows, as does the left that no matter what they say to smear, defame and ostracize opponents of the mosque/community center those people will never strap a bomb onto themselves and explode inside a pizza parlor or nightclub in the name of Jesus or Buddah or the Pope. In short, most people will not be radicalized no matter how hard you push. Radicalization does not happen merely because someone was mean to you.

Eboo Patel, an American Muslim leader explains how other immigrant groups were subjected to ostracism and hatred as new arrivals. Historian Jonathan D. Sarna of Brandeis University points out that Jews in particular had it rough, as New York at one time banned the building of synagogues. Yes, of course, we all remember the history of Jews proclaiming that they were going to take over, and that Jews were plotting all sorts of terror attacks. Do we remember the Fort Hood jihad shooting, the Arkansas recruiting center jihad shooting, the Christmas underwear bomb jihad attempt, the Times Square jihad car bomb attempt, the Fort Dix jihad plot, the North Carolina jihad plot, the Seattle jihad shooting, the JFK Airport jihad plot and others? Oh, wait! Those weren't plots by 19th-century Jews in New York, but by 21st-century Muslims all over the U.S.! I’m sorry, my bad!

My point is that not all Muslims engage in this kind of behavior, but that when supporters of the mosque/community center such as the imam and his wife support sharia in America, refuse to condemn Hamas and other like-minded groups, and are grossly dishonest it makes the demand that Americans assume that they are different from the Muslims who were responsible for those jihad plots seem like unmitigated bullying, and a complete refusal to engage the legitimate concerns that people have about sharia and the intentions of the Ground Zero mosque/community center cheerleaders.

Patel believes Muslims today in America are on the same path with integration and believes it will be a difficult period of adaptation. With the dialogue going on now about the mosque/community center Patel feels this will cause widespread damage that will linger for years. Actually, the widespread damage that will linger for years comes from all the jihadist terror, the lies, smears and supremacist declarations groups like CAIR and people like imam Rauf continue to advance.

Cries of oppression from the Muslim quarter on their claim that more mosques are needed is misleading as mosques are going up all over the country, even as we speak with some in areas which have neither the numbers of the money to sustain them. That raises questions, but if asked the label Islamophobe is quickly slapped on.

There are numerous Muslims in America who champion democracy and religious tolerance but now they question whether it is all worth it. Calling the imam of the mosque/community center “apparently liberal” assumes he can also be “apparently conservative” thus hanging the label of extremist on him would negate Raufs claim that he supports women’s rights, human rights and interfaith outreach. Identifying someone as extremist does require more than accusations. When the imam says he does not support religious dialogue, that should indicate extreme views to most.

University of Delaware political scientist Muqtedar Kahn bemoans the fact that the joke of all this is on moderate Muslims. He says there is no point in becoming American since you will be treated as a radical anyway due to being Muslim. He wants to know if he will be treated as one supporting Al-Qaeda if(or when) he gets into trouble. Questioning your motives, including beliefs in, or support of Al-Qaeda during the course of an investigation is normal procedure. Taking offense at what most would see as routine makes the question about treatment moot. It would be in the best interest of Mr Kahn and Muslims world-wide to not support Al-Qaeda because of human decency, respect for human life and the importance of human rights.

The “radicals” decreed by those who claim to speak for Islam perpetuate great evil by murdering innocents and actively working for the subjugation of women and non-Muslims. Do Muslims across the world actively speak out against those who have hijacked their religion, or do they whine about how non-Muslims are the real problem? Is there a call for an Islamic reformation by moderates, or are there veiled threats issued if we don’t stop our snooping and take what is said as fact? Implied blame for “radicalization” and the results thereof merely deflect criticism away from any behavior wanting to be hidden. It is not the west’s responsibility to assume blame unchallenged, it is Islam and Muslims who must show change, tolerance and a willingness to answer the tough questions. Until that happens, we are left with hollow accusations of intolerance and the bad taste of arrogance.