Imam Rauf and the State Department:The Truth About our Man in the Middle East
On his Pajamas Express blog today, my PJM colleague and friend Michael Ledeen dug up an old article from Imam Rauf, revealing that he not only endorsed the 1979 Iranian revolution creating an Islamic theocratic state, but then turned around and advised President Obama to respect the Iranian regime’s guiding principles.
Writing in Slate, Christopher Hitchens made precisely the same point. “The more one reads through his statements,” Hitchens writes, “the more alarming it gets.” Like Ledeen, he quotes the same passage written by Rauf in the Huffington Post back in June 2009. Explaining the so called “rule of law” espoused by Rauf, Vilayet-i-faquih, Hitchens writes:
Vilayet-i-faquih is the special term promulgated by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to describe the idea that all of Iranian society is under the permanent stewardship (sometimes rendered as guardianship) of the mullahs. Under this dispensation, “the will of the people” is a meaningless expression, because “the people” are the wards and children of the clergy. It is the justification for a clerical supreme leader, whose rule is impervious to elections and who can pick and choose the candidates and, if it comes to that, the results. It is extremely controversial within Shiite Islam. (Grand Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq, for example, does not endorse it.) As for those numerous Iranians who are not Shiites, it reminds them yet again that they are not considered to be real citizens of the Islamic Republic.
Rauf’s “rule of law,” Hitchens points out, is “the most extreme and repressive version of Muslim theocracy.” Ledeen and Hitchens are absolutely correct. So the question must be asked: what is the Department of State doing sending this radical Muslim theocrat — who falsely poses as a moderate — on a tour of the Middle East purportedly to explain the principles of American democracy abroad and win new friends for the United States?
Of course, as Hitchens also notes, anyone who points out the truth is now accused of “Islamophobia.” That term is the equivalent of yelling Red-baiting at those who told the truth about Communism in the ’50s. Just look at this week’s issue of Time, with its cover asking whether Americans are Islamophobic, and the cover story essentially answering that in the positive.
And today, Pamela Geller — whose website I find full of some preposterous conspiracy theories that can too easily be used to discredit her – proves that on occasion she can be right too. (Take notice, Frank Rich, who in Sunday’s New York Times writes that the attacks on the proposed Ground Zero mosque on Fox News and in the New York Post were all inspired by Geller, whom he calls a “rabidly anti-Islam blogger best known for claiming that Obama was Malcolm X’s illegitimate son.”) Will Rich now cite the real evidence that Geller has uncovered, including the official text and recording of a speech presented by Imam Rauf in Australia in 2005?
Given at The Bob Hawke Prime Ministerial Centre, Rauf showed himself to be the anti-American that he is and revealed his basic support of radical Islam. The imam was introduced as a man who “preaches a message of peace and understanding between peoples” from his current mosque which is twelve blocks from Ground Zero. But when he steps up to speak, the message he delivers is something quite different.
“We tend to forget, in the West,” Rauf says, “that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaida has on its hands of innocent non Muslims. You may remember that the US-led sanctions against Iraq led to the death of over half a million Iraqi children. This has been documented by the United Nations. And when Madeleine Albright, who has become a friend of mine over the last couple of years, when she was Secretary of State and was asked whether this was worth it, said it was worth it.”
Islam, the imam claims, “does not need a Reformation.” Speaking only a few days after the Islamist bombings in London in 2005, he obfuscated, casting doubt on who was responsible, while it was well known by then that radical Islamists living in London had been responsible. He does the same dance in regard to the Madrid bombings.
He is less sanguine when answering who was responsible for terrorism in Iraq. You guessed the answer: the United States. First, Imam Rauf asks his audience how many of them had seen Michael Moore’s “documentary” Fahrenheit 911. Watching an Iraqi woman screaming after finding that her house was bombed, the imam tells the audience that “I found myself weeping.” He then comments:
“How do you tell people whose homes have been destroyed, whose lives have been destroyed, that this does not justify your actions of terrorism. It’s hard. Yes, it is true that it does not justify the acts of bombing innocent civilians, that does not solve the problem, but after 50 years of, in many cases, oppression, of US support of authoritarian regimes that have violated human rights in the most heinous of ways, how else do people get attention?“
Imam Rauf has a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem. It is not the two-state solution supported by the United States, Israel, and the Quartet. No, he believes that the “one-state solution is a more coherent one than a two-state solution.” In other words, a unitary Arab state in all of the old Palestine Mandate, the end of Israel as a Jewish state, with a Jewish minority living under the control of radical Islamists who will treat them as dhimmi.
So why, one must ask, is the State Department sending this radical cleric to represent the United States, and why is the mainstream media continually reassuring us that he is a reasonable patriotic American and a good representative of moderate Islam? The answer may be partially found in the interview conducted this morning on MSNBC’s Morning Joe program. Joe Scarborough and guests asked questions of Assistant Secretary of State Philip Crowley. You can see his interview here.
When asked whether or not the United States was in favor of “regime change” in Iran, Crowley first answered: “That’s a matter for the Iranian people.” While he acknowledged there were some “questioning circumstances” in the recent election that returned Ahmadinejad to power, Crowley indicated no support for Iranian opponents who were being arrested or killed, and expressed no dissatisfaction with the actions of the current government. Instead, he emphasized that “we are prepared to engage” with Iran and to “have conversations” with its representatives. U.S. policy, he asserted, was to try “to forestall” an arms race in the region. He said nothing about sanctions or even a military option kept in reserve should the regime move closer to achieving the bomb. He ended by saying that of course, the Israeli-Arab conflict had to be ended and that would encourage Iran to take the right steps.
When the questions then turned to Imam Rauf, Crowley responded that this was his fourth trip for the State Department, the second this year which added to the two that took place in 2007. The State Department’s work with Rauf, he noted, preceded the mosque controversy. Rauf toured in a program that also included Catholic priests, Jewish rabbis and Protestant ministers who helped foreign audiences “understand religion in our society.” Then he offered this clincher:
“Rauf is a moderate Muslim figure here in the United States” who preaches “religious tolerance throughout the world.” Crowley went on, when asked whether or not Americans should trust Imam Rauf, that “we send 1200 people” on these tours, and “50 of them are clerics.” We don’t expect they will agree with U.S. policy.” But they are all people with “broad experience” and thus help foreign audiences “understand the United States.”
So we have our answer. Rauf is the Obama administration’s and the State Department’s man in the Middle East, sent to assure his audiences that the US will be sensitive to their needs, and is ever ready to appease them in the interests of “peace.” We do all this, while the imam tells his audiences quite the opposite. Like them, he wants the destruction of Israel, rationalizes terrorism and accuses the United States of real terrorism against Muslims, while seeking to have his fellow Americans accept the Islamic theocracy as the regime he says is favored by the people of Iran.
How much longer can the fiction be maintained that this man behind the proposed Ground Zero mosque is a moderate and a man of peace?
AN UPDATE TO THE CONTROVERSY: Aug.24, 9pm, EST
Today, if there was any doubt that the liberal elite has decided to go all out on behalf of Imam Feisal Rauf, there is much evidence to show this is indeed the case. First, on today’s Morning Joe program, co-host Mika Brzezinski spent most of the morning fulminating about how the right-wing was opposing freedom of religion, and preventing a good moderate imam from having the chance to build the mosque he deserves.
But most upsetting was the position taken by Richard Haas, chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and a Bush advisor during the last administration. On the same program (I could not find the clip or transcript as yet on the web), Haas praised Imam Rauf and his wife Daisy Kahn as the epitome of “moderate” Muslims who want to “Americanize Islam” and build an Islamic faith fully integrated into the American mosaic. Haas said he knows both of them, has met them many times, and essentially finds the debate surreal and an example of the Islamophobia gripping many of our countrymen.
It is telling that this program, one of the few that purports to have different points of view represented, presented not one person who addressed the salient issue of what Imam Rauf really believes, and whether or not he says one thing to his Islamic audiences abroad and another to people like Jeffrey Goldberg and Richard Haas. Could they not have found one person who holds the analysis offered by Christopher Hitchens or Andrew McCarthy? Of course they could. That they and the other programs choose not to reveals only that to raise the kinds of issues they address is considered far out of the mainstream, and therefore impermissible to be aired on certain programs.
Second, one finds the astonishing article at The New Republic by the former radical activist and now journalism and sociology professor at Columbia University, Todd Gitlin. According to Gitlin, Rauf is a subversive, but not one who wants to harm or subvert our country. “But what he wants to subvert is not the United States of America. What he wants to subvert are dictatorships in Islamic nations.”
As Gitlin proclaims, Rauf wants to build an American Islam whose foundations are not sharia law, but “the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution,” which he is quoted as saying “express the Islamic ideal, which is itself but an expression of the Abrahamic ethic.” Yes, “the American Constitution and system of governance uphold the core principles of Islamic law.” As Gitlin goes on to say, quoting the imam:
The overarching American religion that all Americans live under is ‘Islamic’ in the sense that it is fully compliant with and expresses the Islamic Shariah.” In Rauf’s understanding, Sharia is predicated on religious pluralism, which is “a fundamental human right under Islamic law.”
We have no need to worry, Gitlin tells us, since the imam writes that the United States “is substantively an ‘Islamic’ country.” So, he is not surprised that the State Department has sent this man to let the Muslim world know about our country, since he is one of its firmest supporters. Writes Gitlin: “He wants to Americanize the Muslim world in the way that counts—by promoting our political institutions.” So, no need to listen to the racist and insensitive Islamophobic inhabitants of the right-wing, who want to scare their fellow Americans in order to get votes in November for the Republican Party and tea-party candidates.
Gitlin sees no need to further explore anything that might point to contrary evidence, such as that offered by Michael Ledeen and Christopher Hitchens.
Of course, the good imam knows what to say. In his interview last night, he said all the right comforting words:
And so, the poignancy of this all is I’ve been called and accused, even by the radicals, of being a moderate. People have said, “Where are the voices of the moderate Muslims?” and here I am trying to do something that expands and amplifies the voice of the moderates in Islam. And how they can conclude this would be a pilgrimage for the radicals is the very opposite of the truth. The fact of the matter is that we are a threat to the radicals because we are the most articulate advocates for combating radicalism. You have to transform people by utilizing the values that they think. When I speak to Muslim audiences, I use the verses of the Koran which we, Muslims, believe to be God’s words. I use the teachings of the Prophet because these are the things that convince them. I use these languages, these methods, to calm that radicalism.
You don’t have to trust Todd Gitlin. Just see what the imam himself has to say when speaking to a Western reporter. And on the Huffington Post, Prof. David Gushee presents a new analogy: the GZ Mosque controversy is our new American “Dreyfus Affair.” I kid you not. Merely exercising one’s right to oppose a mosque built in this particular spot, and to present arguments against it, is the equivalent of the French government’s framing up of Capt. Alfred Dreyfus in 1894. Then, the French Army, with the support of nationalists and anti-Semites, framed the only Jewish officer for secrets actually passed to Germany by a Major Esterhazy.
In this man’s eyes (he actually teaches religion and Christian ethics- God help his students) Dreyfuss today is Imam Rauf, and …well, let the man present his case himself. He writes:
Those similarities include the identification of an entire religious minority as a threat to the nation, the harmlessness of both Captain Alfred Dreyfus and Imam Abdul Rauf, the role of major media voices in whipping up frenzied national fears, and the questionable capacity of the nation to honor its own legal and moral principles. The other parallel is almost too painful to name: the role of the Christian majority and some of its most vocal and visible leaders in turning the religious “Other” into an object of infamy. In France a hundred years ago, these were Catholic demagogues leading the charge. Today they are mainly Protestant evangelicals.
Those Christian evangelicals again. What can you expect? I mean these people favor Israel too. One does not have to even make a case, just mention them.
So here are some opposing points for Gitlin, Gushee, Mika Brezezinski and Richard Haas to read and hopefully profit from. First, in today’s NRO, Andrew McCarthy writes about the attempt to invent a moderate Islam that barely exists. He informs us about “Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual guide and a favorite of the Saudi royal family,” whom he notes has been endorsed and cited by our good Imam Rauf. Called the “most well known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today” by Imam Rauf, the sheik’s argument is Islam is incompatible with secular society. After all, to say you know better than Allah is “apostasy.” And if a Muslim makes a public break with the faith, as let us say Hirsi Ali and others, he has a quick solution: “Execution.” And this is the face of Muslim moderation!
Well, Andrew McCarthy asks: Why do so many say they are moderates? His answer: “Because we have abandoned reason.” McCarthy is not anti-Islam. He wants a reformed Islam to flourish. As he writes:
Instead, abandoning reason, we have deep-sixed our own frame of reference and substituted mainstream Islam’s. If that backward compass is to be our guide, then sure, Qaradawi and Rauf are moderates. But know this: When you capitulate to the authority and influence of Qaradawi and Rauf, you kill meaningful Islamic reform.
He makes an observation that relates to my blog two days ago, that gave consternation to so many. McCarthy says wisely that “there are millions of moderate Muslims who crave reform.” But we are killing the opportunity for it to develop by giving the label of moderate to the likes of Rauf and Qaradawi. McCarthy points out:
Meanwhile, individual Muslim reformers are branded apostates, meaning not only that they are discredited, but that their lives are threatened as well. The signal to other Muslims is clear: Follow the reformers and experience the same fury. As Qaradawi put it in the 2005 interview, public apostates are “the gravest danger” to Islamic society; therefore, Muslims must snuff them out, lest their reforms “spread like wildfire in a field of thorns.”
re: “the State Department’s man in the Middle East”
The single intelligent utterance ever heard from Senator Chuck Schumer of NY was his reference to “…some guy in the State Department named Crowley…”
This guy Crowley is a horse’s ass. The State Department he represents failed to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union or the rise of Islamism. State was working on new strategies for appeasing the Soviets to the last moments of the Soviet Union’s existence. The fat lady had to sing herself hoarse before our ambassadors would stop groveling.
Moreover, State has allowed the new Russian Republic to rise from the ashes of the Soviet Union to again threaten American interests and thwart American initiatives around the world. American enemies everywhere once again have a powerful Slavic ally.
Meanwhile,Crowley and his colleagues at State can’t wait to begin SALT talks with the Iranians. Concessions are such fun.
This guy Crowley and the other Wise Men in the State Department ought to be charged with treason, honestly tried, then stood up against the nearest wall and shot.
“State has allowed the new Russian Republic to rise from the ashes of the Soviet Union….”
Who lost Russia?!?! Shades of the ’50s!
Never mind snotty allusions to the fifties, Joe. I grew up during the fifties and remember my parents and teachers glued to the Army-McCarthy hearings.
Joe McCarthy’s hostility toward the State Department was entirely legitimate. The charge of Communism was misdirected, however.
True Communists were cunning and capable adversaries. This guy Crowley and his colleagues are incompetent stumblebums. McCarthy calling them Communists was an insult to Communism.
The State Department began with Protestant missionaries. Sleazy religious con artists who travelled around the world defrauding ignorant aborigines into believing that Jesus invented modern medicine. Crowley and the other guys at state are their third or fourth generation still feeding at the public trough.
Just as I was saying!
Unfortunately Ron, the breakdown of Muslims in the West, this man is a Moderate and average Muslim. There is a small minority of Liberal Muslims, which is what people are actually referring to when they say moderate. The majority of Muslims may reject violence in the service of Islam (for themselves) but they fully agree with Muslim Supremacism, Shariah Law, Dhimmitude for non Muslims, etc.
Wake up and smell what’s stinking up the place.
Islam. Not radical Islam. Just plain ole Islam.
There isnt a Communist Shangri La, and their isnt an Islamic one either. They are both Hell holes of oppression and human rights abuse….invariably. They may take slightly different forms, such as Castroism, North Korea, Soviet Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey….but they are all variations on a theme.
“Wake up and smell what’s stinking up the place. Islam. Not radical Islam. Just plain ole Islam.”
Maybe the Ground Zero Mosque is part of an Islamist plot after all. It’s certainly brought to the surface the sort of anti-Islamic hatred that radical Muslims have long argued is rife in American society and is the “real reason” we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Every demonstration against the mosque (really a community center with a prayer room – the same sort that existed in the Twin Towers!) must provoke cheers in Osama bin Laden’s cave. Poor General Petraeus, trying to convince the locals that the U.S. is not at war with Islam!
Your sympathy for General Petraeus, the war effort, or American well-being in general is transparently false. Perhaps you might choose to relocate and make a living shepherding dirt clods with your fellow noble Islamists in Gaza, Sudan, or anywhere else but here.
Dear Joseph: you need to acquaint yourself with the past 1400 years of real history- not Mikey Moore’s nor Howie Zinn’s , nor Noam Chomsky’s phantasmagorical nonsense and equivocations. Ask yourself this question: whilst the early Christians spent 300++ years dying in the Roman coliseums for pagan pleasure and entertainment and in stunning conviction to their belief of turning the other cheek and abjuring violence-in-return-for-violence visited upon them – just how did Islam spring out of the Arabian peninsula and across the Maghreb all the way to the Iberian peninsula in just over 100 yrs????? The force of an idea? The “goodness” and “sweet human reason” of Mohammed’s patriarchical nightmare? Or, at the end of a bloody scimitar and lance? By force….might this be the first time you ever heard of such an historical reality-well and thoroughly documented before our time of grotesque ignorance and self-righteous political correctness. You sir, are a dangerous and ill-educated member of humanity….correct yourself, ‘cuz, you ain’t fooling anyone here!
Thank you, Silverback, for so clearly demonstrating my point!
What point, Joe? That I disagree with your louche solipsisms and implied politically correct ahistoric superiority? Tell you what ,how about we agree to meet and discuss this all in downtown Mecca- you know, opposite the courtyard which holds the Kabah; The corner whereon resides the grand Coptic ( as original a Christian church as one will find in these modern times ) Cathedral and juxtaposed to the Grand Synagogue which was built over 1400 years ago before Mohammed butchered the 650 Jewish inhabitants of same city……what? Oh, there are no churches nor Synagogues in Mecca…well, my bad, why don’t we go over to Medina or Riyadh, surely the “religion of peace” has a church or synagogue somewhere on their tolerant and holy soil?…..what a useful idiot you expose yourself to be in “making your point”….I believe I have just made mine, however.Go read a book,Joe.
One does not get to be an Imam by being a moderate. Allah’s word (or at least what Mohammed said it was) is absolute and must be followed to advance.
Ummm… Will the real Ron Radosh please stand up? Yesterday you published a massive screed against those on the Right who consider Islam to be a genuine threat to our civilization. Today you seem to accept the notion that at least one sinister Muslim has become a big player and has penetrated deeply into the American administrations of both Bush and Obama, so much so that State has funded his radical activities in the past, and is currently funding his Jihad Jaunt into the terror funding epicenter of the universe.
I suppose that’s remarkable progress in a mere 24 hours. Glad you seem to recognize what a cancerous and evil man this imam actually is.
But yesterday you scolded those on the Right who are pointing out the linkage between Islam, tyranny and intolerance in the Muslim world, and global Muslim terror. You chastised us and suggested we are pushing those “moderates” into the waiting arms of Islamic extremists.
Today you criticize (rightly) the pronouncements of this vile Muslim liar. Again, good.
But, in essence, if you lay the crime of radicalizing Muslims through our criticisms of Islam at our feet, aren’t you asserting a variation on the same statements Rauf made two weeks after 9/11 that America was accessory to the atrocity of 9/11, or that UBL is an American-made thing? Weren’t you, just like Rauf, suggesting that Americans are responsible for the terrorism of the Muslims?
Well?
Which side are you on?
Morton,
As I was pointing out to Ron yesterday, the British government has also been pursuing a strategy of sucking up to Moderate Muslims, which being Muslims are still Islamists….which hold a range of views on law and supremacy and kuffar and dhimmitude and so on and so forth…which are abhorent to Western Christians and Secularists alike.
This isnt a strategy for repelling this evil ideology. This is a strategy for minimizing violence as we shift to Islamic domination and supremacy.
Good Lord!
New book out Ron…
Denmark: Islam’s power, Europe’s new reality
One day Karen Jespersen and Ralf Pittelkow drove from their home in Dragør, over the Øresund bridge, to the Rosengård district in Malmö. They drove around and felt that they’ve arrived in a different world. Shops had signs in Arabic. Only a few spoke Swedish on the street. Veiled women were everywhere. There were satellite dishes on the balconies.
“We thought of a young headscarf-wearing woman who appeared on Swedish TV,” remembers Karen Jespersen. “She said: ‘it feels like Iraq or another Arab country. I feel excellent in Malmö’. Rosengård is a Muslim parallel society where people live their own lives. This provides fertile ground for radical Muslims to have growing influence. All over Europe we see the same trend in many major cities.”
This trend led the athor husband-and-wife team to write the book ‘Islams magt. Europas ny virkelighed’ (Islam’s power, Europe’s new reality). The book is meant as a warning.
Q: A warning against what?
“We show that significant changes occur in European populations with a rapidly growing proportion of Muslims,” says Ralf Pittelkow and adds: “At the same time there’s a trend for more and more young Muslims to denounce European societies and their values. They want their own Muslim communities, where Islam’s values and regulations govern. It scan lead to a completely different Europe with great conflicts.”
The book uses many concrete examples from various European counties to show that there is pressure to increase Islam’s influence in society. This can be seen in the chapters on women’s situation, crime, freedom of speech, fragmenting society, Islamic law, Islamism and terrorism.
Q: It’s been said that the Muslims who are born and grow up in Europe are becoming more integrated. You don’t see any positive trend in that direction?
“Yes, we do,” says Karen Jespersen. “There’s a significant group of youth who integrate and contribute to our society. We stress that Muslims are a diverse group with different view. We point out three groups especially:
On the one hand, there are the Islamists, who want an Islamic society. On the opposite side are the liberal Muslims, who want to integrate Islam in the liberal, democratic society. Between these there’s a very big middle group who accept Islam’s dogmas, but only practice them to a lesser degree. This grou’s development is critical. Unfortunately, a growing portion of them are moving more in the Islamic direction.”
Q: We we must surely give Islam the same religious freedom as other religions?
“Absolutely. But it’s important to understand that Islam is not just a religion like all others. Islam set rules for how society should be organized. The rules can only be implemented in practice if Islam has power in society. Therefore strong Muslim forces are trying to influence the form of European societies. We reject that. Muslims should have freedom to practice their faith. But Islam shouldn’t have power,” says Ralf Pittelkow.
“We point out that Islam’s power shows up in different ways. It can be religious Islamists who want to implement their principles. But at the opposite end, it can also be Muslims gangs, who take control of a neighborhood. Even if they don’t comply to the principles of Islam, it is clear that many of them identify strongly with Islam.”
Q: Why are you so afraid of parallel societies? Isn’t it an expression of diversity?
“It’s not a positive diversity, but on the contrary, a deeply damaging fragmentation and dissolution of society. We’re getting a society where there are deep rifts between the population groups. It undermines one of the most important qualities of a society, namely the trust between people. Denmark is a country with a lot of trust, and it will be a tragedy if we squander it,” says Karen Jespersen.
Q: How will Europe avoid this trend you fear?
“Strictly controlled immigration is a prerequisite for integration to succeed,” says Ralf Pittelkow. “But beyond that it’s about standing fast to European basic values. Above all, we must insist on the tradition of information and freedom, which applies the same rules, the same demands and the same rights to all. No to Muslim special requirements.”
“We will not have gender separation. We will not have male domination over women. We will not have Islamic headscarves in our justice system, educational system and health system. We will not have restrictions on our freedom of speech. We will not have closed off Muslim areas. We will not have burqas or niqabs. We will have air and light, freedom and equality,” says Karen Jespersen.
“the problem is that the elite in European society have shown no joy, pride or resolution when it comes to our values. They have been plagued by guilt and contempt for their own culture and have been way too tolerant for the deeply intolerant features of Islam. This is Europa’s most profound problem: Lacking self-consciousness and fighting spirit,” says Ralf Pittelkow.
“One day Karen Jespersen and Ralf Pittelkow drove from their home in Dragør, over the Øresund bridge, to the Rosengård district in Malmö. They drove around and felt that they’ve arrived in a different world. Shops had signs in Arabic. Only a few spoke Swedish on the street. Veiled women were everywhere.”
Reminds me of Henry James’s negative reaction when he visited the Lower East Side of Manhattan.
The difference being, James was anti-Semitic, but the Jews in Manhattan were not driving anybody out by violence. The Muslims in Malmo have already driven out almost all of the Jews out of Malmo.
As I pointed out six years ago, it was once America, not Europe, that was famously bedeviled by a violence-infused, segregated, alienated minority group with a radical separatist, hate-preaching leadership and a long history of bitterly resented second-class treatment.
It’s hard to pinpoint exactly when or how European Muslims overtook African-Americans as the number one “minority problem” in the Western world, but this eclipse of America’s horrific racial hostilities at least offers hope that some combination of time, cultural acceptance and expectation of assimilation can heal even seemingly intractable social rifts…
Dan,
There are some major differences between blacks in America and Muslim immigrants, the most obvious being that the latter are immigrants coming here of their own free will. One problem in Europe is that the arranged marriages of young immigrants to relatives in the homeland ensures that even within families there will always be unassimilated new blood. The imported man will be especially sensitive to the relative emancipation of his Westernized cousin wife and may attracted to jihadis and sharia to bolster his place in the society. The import bride won’t be able to read to her kids in the new language, and she won’t be able to instruct them in the everyday customs of the West. Her children will be at a disdavantage in school. .The immigrant always feels the judgement of the family back home
What I would like to see is an article about American immigration policy. I am not talking about illegal immigrants who come across our borders to the south. I am talking about quotas for legal immigration from different parts of the world. What have been the trends in quota allocated to applications from Middle East countries? Who decides this? This is something I have not seen written about. Please, could someone shed some light on this?
Ron, the only way to have a serious discussion about the nature of Islam in America, is to have a serious discussion about the truth of how the Islamic belief system operates.
In your immediately prior essay, your instincts toward a “live and let live” attitude brought you to the conclusion that we should treat the “good” Muslims differently from the “bad” Muslims, in essence. As an American, you believe in freedom of religion. As a defender of the Constitution, you believe in the separation of church and state. Of course, those words do not appear anywhere in that document.
If we are to work our way through the things we believe and hold dear, we must analyze what our system of representative self-governance intends to accomplish and we must at once eliminate a slavish adherence to form over substance, to words whose meaning has been twisted out of shape and bring back some sense and proportion between individual freedoms and communal responsibility.
First, freedom of religion does NOT mean, the freedom of ANY loosely organized group of people claiming to be engaged in “worship” be allowed to conduct themselves in any manner they choose, adopting any laws they see fit, to bring about the advancement or destruction of any group at their whim. We do not allow for human sacrifice. We do not allow for ritual torture of children or women. We do not allow for honor killings.
Even if those things were part and parcel of a “religious practice” or ritual, we would not allow them.
We are an organized society. We have laws, mores, a method and manner for legislation and protections, prosecutions and punishments. There have been, in our past, some religions that allow for bigamy. We, as a society, decided that we did not share that value system.
We, as a culture, do not promote lying toward one group of people, in order to gain an advantage over them. It happens, of course. But we call the perpetrators sinners…not believers.
The notion that we should, as a society, promote and advance the seeds of our own destruction, has been planted by the “professional left” and, having germinated since the early days of the likes of Duranty, Zinn, Chomsky, Alger Hiss and others.
We have set about the continuing fantasy that we must allow ourselves to be beaten with our own book of principles, by those who mean to destroy us. The “professional left” have infiltrated our very thought process about the “goodness” of our self-governance and have twisted the plain meaning of words to such an extent that they no longer have the same meaning, in fact, often they have no meaning at all.
If one tries to reconcile why the “professional left” is so adamant about protecting and advancing Sharia law into Western society, it is jarring at first, since the “professional left” seemingly is wholly contrary to the ultra-conservative notions and beliefs toward women, gays, freedoms of thought, expression and human sexuality. A JUDEO-CHRISTIAN sect holding such beliefs, would be excoriated on a daily basis by the professional left’s strongholds in the mass news operations, academia and entertainment.
But, in an “enemy of my enemy, is my friend” sort of way, the professional left has adopted the cause of radical Islamic ism and champions their cause, while burying their barbarism under a code of silence, which they use as a weapon and a shield in secret compliance societies such as the JournoList crowd.
We need not willingly bow down at the altar of our own sacrifice as a nation, nor should we accede to the demands that Israel be slandered then destroyed, under the false pretenses of “freedoms” of religion, or the plight of the “Palestinian” people.
The subterfuge, and then the guilt-inducing pummeling of America, Israel and the West is a constant drumbeat, incessant, endless and concerted effort to tear down those societies and replace them with something else.
Our openness and self-reflection as a society is being used as a broken link in the chain by those intent on destroying us from the inside.
Sharia law is wholly incompatible with our system of laws and cannot run parallel to it. It must either defeat it, overcome it, overwhelm it, or it must be denied. One must supersede the other. This is not a condemnation of the Muslim people…or even of their religious beliefs or practices. It is a plain statement of fact.
It is an either/or question. We must decide if we wish to live by Judeo-Christian laws and mores or by Sharia laws and mores. This is not a decision that we should take lightly.
We also must finally…finally…stand up to the professional left and declare that they are an enemy of state. They wish to tear down the government by fraud, deceit, coverup, subterfuge, distortion and infiltration. They stand with sworn enemies and constantly slander this nation. We do not need to apologize for our very existence. We have little to be ashamed of and much to take pride in…our exceptionalism is real and not an arrogance.
We are a good people. We have sound moral instincts. When we hesitate, when we recoil…it is NOT out of bigotry, racism, or xenophobia. These are slanders hurled at us by those who mean to do us harm. We face them daily. As does Israel and now, much of Western society. We are being beaten by our own rulebook and our human decency. Enough is enough. The professional left must be stopped, before they tear us to shreds.
And, there is no guilt in standing by our Judeo-Christian system of laws and mores. Just as other societies make no apology for their heritage and adherence to it, so should we be proud of ours. All may apply to live among us in peace and harmony…under OUR rules, as they have been applied since our inception….just as we would have to live under THEIR rules, in their homeland. We won’t be fooled again.
Beautifully expressed. Thank you.
ALL Democratic candidates for ANYTHING, from dog catcher to senator, should be asked at EVERY possible opportunity “Do you believe Sharia is compatible with our American system founded in individual liberty?” Make them go on record.
Morton: your reference to Rauf’s statement about our complicity with
the attacks against us, was taken out of context. Rauf–as he has
subsquently stated–was referring to our support for the Taliban
when the Soviets invaded and occupied Afghanistan, on the princple
that ” the enmey of my enemy is my friend.” Such short sighted
expedient policy, of course blew up in our faces–literally.
Hank
One problem “Hank”….the Taliban did not exist in Afghanistan until a few years AFTER the Soviets crossed the bridge BACK into the USSR…..The Taliban was an entity cobbled together by Pakistan’s ISI to control their western border and create another ally to support them in their push to throw India out of Kasmir….to reclaim The Punjab& control the Hindu Kush…what is it about Americans NOT knowing their history? And, then speaking such utter nonsense with conviction…or are you not really an American “Hank”? Is the name Hamid? or Hamza or Hazari?
To quote a very young Winston Churchill after the final charge was over at Omdurman: “the borders of Islam have ALWAYS been bloody.” How quaint,eh!
Problem is that Taliban did not exist and those who would later form the Taliban played a secondary role in the fight against the Soviets be it like Mullah Omar because they were still Mr Nothings or like Gulbudin Hykmatiar (technically not a Taliban but he was the closest to a real one in those years) because they were far too busy fighting the “moderately islamic” resistance to do much against the Soviets. The heros of the resistance like Ismail Khan or Ahmad Shash Massud were to become members of the Northern Alliance.
Also the CIA did not fund the Afgahan resistance. becuase the ISI alleged a greater knowledge of Aghanistan and because the aid had to go through Pakistan general Zia (Pakistan’s islamist dictator) more or less forced the CIA to let the ISI handle the aid and and decide who would get it. Of course the ISI favored the Islamic radicals a la Hykmatyar who in addition weren’t as touchy about the occupied Afghan territories Pakistan was supposed to give back in 1999.
Hank Hank Hank you display typical left wing historical and Islamic ignorance.Anything is allowed in Islam in order to protect or promote the CULT even the denying of being a Muslim (oh!! so thats what you are doing is it Obambi).
So tell us moonbats what other religion not only sanctions but encourages LYING ( Taqqiya), what other religion discourages questions, what other religion describes any non members as Pigs and Dogs, what other religion actively treats women as second class citizens, what other religion has virulent antisemitism at its very core, what other religion has no separation of Church, State and Common Law but is a monolithic all controlling entity . The reasoning, justification and authority for ALL of which is enshrined in its Holy Book which according to them is the “Actual and Unalterable word of God”. An evil illogical God which CONTROLS, Preordains and punishes at will .
As has been so rightly said ‘There may be moderate Muslims but there is no moderate ISLAM”. I can vouch for that I know many moderate Muslims and the reason they are moderate is that they know virtually NOTHING about Islam except what the Imam tells them on Fridays and we all know how truthful most Imam’s are . How do I know they know nothing because I have talked to them and I know much much more about Islam than they do.
Muslims are so fond of crying ‘Islamophobia’ but what HYPOCRITES they are as “antisemitism” is a major core element of the Koran and a major part of Islam itself. How much do you think they would cry if other religions Holy Books were even a little bit as anti Islamic as the Koran is antisemitic.
Imam Rauf has also BOASTED about writing the LIAR MESSIAH’s Cairo speech . If that is correct then Obama’s paw prints are all over the Graond Zero Mosque from its outset and not just for STUPIDLY justifying it.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/08/imam-rauf-boasts-that-he-wrote-obamas-muslim-speech-in-cairo.html
Still think HUSSEIN is not a Muslim moonbats?
let’s keep it simple…
this so called “moderate” imam, supports Hamas.
Read Hamas’s CHARTER..
It’s purpose is to MURDER the JEWS.
Simple really.
the Imam supports the Islamic NAZIS.
REALLY its that simple folks…
WAKE THE HELL UP PEOPLE
Myth: The State Department represents American interests abroad.
Fact: The State Department represents foreign interests in America.
Once you separate the myth from the fact you can understand why the Rauf trip is being sponsored. He has been chosen by foreign interests and is reporting to them face to face.
The problem here, in my opinion, is that the Imam’s pro- or anti-American views should not be an issue in the discussion of whether the mosque can be built. (We cannot argue in favor of “loyalty tests.”) It does become germane in evaluating his fitness as a taxpayer-paid messenger of understanding to the Muslim world. It also increases the urgency of investigating the source of funds used to build the mosque.
Allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to operate freely in this country is not an intelligent policy. Allowing Communist Front Groups to operate in the US was also not an intelligent policy.
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the
high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The
laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country
when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country
by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law
itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are
enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the
means.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Colvin, 1810.
Liberals are cowards who won’t dare acquaint themselves with true Islamic doctrine, 1400 years of marauding Islamic history or the human rights cesspools which are modern day Islam.
Islamic moderates are people who don’t (or pretend not to) believe in the doctrines of their religion. Anyone who would put their faith in moderates to change Islam is a fool.
Islam is constantly crying victimisation and about being an oppressed MINORITY . So tell us Muslims what other MINORITY do you know that is constantly boasting of having 1.5 BILLION members. But you are supposed to totally forget and ignore this boasting when they want sympathy and left wing moonbats of course do. Like everything else about the left and Islam this reeks of HYPOCRISY.
The Koran is FULL of antisemitism as are most Imams so tell us Muslims which OTHER religions Holy Books contains even the slightest bit of anti Islamic teaching. Yep thats right NOT ONE. Crying Islamophobia is yet more left wing moonbat STUPIDITY and blatant Islamic HYPOCRISY.
Where is our delightful Secretary Of State, the Smartest Woman In The Universe, and Imam Rauf’s employer on this controversy? Usually her nasal squawks are long and loud on any issue you can name but her and her bigmouthed alleged husband have donned robes of invisibility and wafted off to shatter mirrors in some other dimension. Oh, that’s right, this week she’s threatening Israel with dire consequences if they dont agree to commit national suicide. Hillary Clinton is a ‘moderate’ is the same sense that Imam Rauf is a ‘moderate’, which is to say she’s a radical pretending to be more moderate than the feckless Obama. The Clintons must be having a good laugh as the Obamunists tie themselves into knots trying to get people to sympathize with these CAIR thugs who stand behind their liberal enablers flipping off the majority of Americans. Watching our entire leadership class crawl on their bellies to grovel to these barely concealed terrorist sympathizers should inspire every American to go to the polls this November and send these spineless, gutless, anti-American Democrats a message that we’re not going to accept ‘leaders’ who insult us and disgrace our nation any more. Your vote counts. If you dont go to the polls and vote against every Democrat then you are as bad as the most nauseating liberal, the most bum-crawling ‘multiculturalist’.
Mr. Radosh,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100820/bs_yblog_upshot/news-corps-number-two-shareholder-funded-terror-mosque-planner
“News Corp’s number-two shareholder (…..Prince Alwaleed bin Talal)
funded ‘terror mosque’ planner-
…..Al-Waleed has directly funded Rauf’s projects to the tune of more than $300,000. If Fox newscasters can darkly suggest “terror dollars” are sluicing into the Islamic center’s coffers via “shady characters,” then are Al-Waleed, and News Corp. leader Rupert Murdoch, by the same logic, also terror stooges?”
So, Mr. Radosh, Fox News is an Anti-American and supports radical Islam?
No Mr. Walters, anyone can buy stock in any company they like, a fact that obviously escapes leftists like you. Fox News has done more to expose this anti-American Imam than any of the other networks. Rupert Murdoch has not been seen endorsing the Mosque Of Osama’s victory unlike our President and Secretary Of State and every other liberal in the country. You libs are so rabid to discredit Fox News that you’ll even accuse them of being on your side if it shows signs of being a clever debating point.
You can not ignor El-Gamal in all of this. A new insight into the finances behind the actual owner of 45 Park Place, Sharif El-Gamal through SoHo Properties. Seems one of his key financial backers is Hisham Elzanaty, who lost both his parents, along with 33 members of Egypt’s military, in the tragic crash of EgyptAir flight 990 on October 31, 1999 off the coast of Nantucket Island. Compelling evidence is that Gameel al-Batouti deliberately crashed the plane (reliable source analysis by The Atlantic’s William Langewiesche at: http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2001/11/langewiesche.htm
In his youth, al-Batouti was a pilot for Egypt in the 1967 and 1973 wars with Israel. Googling Hisham Elzanaty indicates he owns a private medical facility in the South Bronx, Elzanaty is also signed up on what seems to the Arabic equivalent of Alwaleed bin Tatal’s ‘facebook’ page.
When EgyptAir flight 990 crash killed his parents on October 31, 1999, permanent status negotiations had started (9/13/1999), and the release of prisoners as a confidence-building measure had been completed on 10/15/1999. The Camp David negotiations followed in July, 2000.
Straight out of a Tom Clancy novel (“Debt of Honor”) that Gameel al-Batouti could not bear the idea of Arafat doing a Sadat when al-Batouti crashed that airplane on October 31, 1999.
So many coincidences…like El-Gamal’s partner in SoHo Properties being the nephew of the Secretary-General of the Arab League is a coincidence, and Rauf’s affiliation with Malaysia’s Matathir’s Peace4Perdana being the main financial sponsor of the peaceful part of the “Free Gaza” flotilla.
Is this a El-Gamal+Rauf+Khan publicity stunt to derail Israeli-Palestinian direct talks in 2010??
posted in case Ron Radosh reads the comments. and if you do, you should have read Gitlin’s first TNR blogpost defending Rauf – seems my comment got him to read the book for his second post
Ron Radosh, who Frank Rich has characterized as BEST KNOWN for writing rabid Pro-Islamist, Pro-Jihad screeds and demonizing those who had formerly been his respected colleagues. Of those former viciously and unreasonably attacked friends, there are none who will have anything further to do with him. He is on a crazed crusade.
The above approximates what you did to Pam Geller. How could you?
And the answer is no, of course not. Of course Rich won’t cite any evidence that Geller has uncovered. Not only because he has no interest in facts — but he has chosen Geller, especially because of her excellence and genuine courage, as an object of his derision and ridicule. Rabid indeed.
So condescending of you to “cede” that “on occasion she can be right too.”
What’s gotten into you? Your writing — some of which I’ve read — has been superb — up till now. First, you write a very long, ill-informed and wrong article about wonderful moderate Islam, rather aggressively challenging those who are much more informed about the subject than you — and now — for no reason at all — you discredit one of the very best, most valiant reporters whose prolific work is no less than excellent and a life-saving gift to us all.
What you wrote about this courageous woman is a disgrace — especially for a man like you.
How could you say that her website is “full of some preposterous conspiracy theories” and that “on occasion she can be right too.” Where do you get off? Clearly, you know almost nothing of her website or her work. You, a man who is assumed to be one of integrity. Who I assumed was so.
You know very well what the Leftist media does to those who are threatening to their favored whatevers and whoevers. You know very well that Frank Rich will say anything about anyone who is not “Left” enough for him — you know what an attack dog he is — and that it’s his very twisted vision which made him one of the integrity-challeneged responsible for our having Barack Obama wrecking our country and all of our international relationships today.
Yet you choose to repeat and disseminate that creature’s attack on Geller — clearly knowing almost nothing of her — or her work — yourself.
Out of the thousands of posts she has made — there are exactly two that she is being attacked for. One was satire. She Vlogged in a Bikini and called it her American Burkha. This is gawd awful? Who is shocked — Leftists??? It was f-u-n-n-y!
(cont’d)
(cont’d -#2)
She is a brilliant woman, has a fine and analytical mind, and has done mega-amounts of absolutely great work — which all too often, those disseminating it “forget” to give her credit for.
But she is no cold “intellectual.” She has temperament. She is not tame. She reminds me a bit of a wild horse in the best sense of that image.
On the day I saw the Malcolm X story I said to myself — “Oh, she’s having a bad day — she made a mistake — they’ll punish her for this.” It wasn’t even hers — but she did a favor for a friend.
I don’t know what you were writing about in those days just before and after Obama’s election — I wasn’t reading you then — but most of “us” were in a “state” to put it mildly.
It was bewildering and desperation-making — clearly knowing that this man was no Democrat — but something quite — Else —
and to then see the MSM totally self-destruct in an orgy of drooling, dishonest and dishonorable journalism — to see the extent the MSM went to, to encourage mindless worship and total unreality — the vicious attacks on Palin and her children — sending cadres to search her trash — yet doing no — none — nada — vetting or investigation of their idol. On the contrary, hiding, obscuring and making excuses for information and evidence in plain sight that would have rendered him totally unable to win the election had it been presented to the voters in a realistic manner — or had the few bits that slipped passed their guard not been trivialized, and those that reported it discredited and as “racist,” “conspiratorial” or ridiculed as “crazed” —
And their constant meme, “guilt by association” which was the whitewash and the table-turn. What “guilt?” Nobody said “guilt!” Qualification! Since when do intense “associations” not count for Qualification? Blinders. All to install the totally unqualified, who would unquestionably do great damage to our nation — which has proven to be the case and which we absolutely had no doubt about.
Actually, it was Pamela who kept reporting on Obama’s Marxist, Extreme Leftist and Alinsky background, and early mentoring by Communist Frank Marshall Davis plus others, and later with Rev. Wright, Bill Ayres, Rashid Khalidi — Rezko, the slumlord, his deep connections to extreme Left ACORN, and his trip to Kenya while U.S. Senator, to support the Islamist Odinga, encourage his people to revolution against the government which was our ally — and whose rampages later caused many, many horror deaths. Odinga has recently installed Sharia in a so-called power-sharing agreement there — at the cost of those many lives — with Obama’s approval and support. Then there’s the wonderful work she’s been doing to address Honor Killing of Women which has come to the U.S. I could go on and on about the excellent reporting she has done — and the volumes of it — she has more energy than 10 people.
There was ridicule. Few honestly listened. Fewer wanted to know.
(cont’d)
(cont’d #3)
There was a feeling of panic in the face of the danger this man presented, especially just before the election (there’s still panic and dread — we’re just getting used to it now). I don’t know — I’m guessing — but that could cause some grabbing onto anything — something — that, rightly or wrongly — could maybe get people to pay attention. But “Known” for that? For that one post? That would be laughable if it wasn’t so hurtful, and destructive. It was an evil “Rich-ism” and you ate it up — you let him use you — and you joined in — to harm a valorous person for no reason at all.
She was one of the first to begin writing about Islam and Islamism — the government’s blindness and ignorance about the subject — the infiltration — educating, informing, educating, educating — and introduced fine authors and other good investigative bloggers.
Without her work, I just don’t believe many, many writers and the public would have much sense of the nature of the threats that are facing us today. Yes, her explosive, emotional and bombastic work and personality — there’s good reason for it — the emotion makes so much sense — it’s so appropriate and real. It wakes up the sleeping, and the by the MSM mind-numbed.
She’s a bit wild — passionate is the word — she’s very, very human and feeling — New York style — and many are and should be extremely grateful for and to her.
For you to have a glance at her website — produce a journolist-style smear — and then
disseminate — of all people’s — Frank Rich’s attack — it’s revolting. I guess you assumed she wasn’t important enough for you to honestly check out. You were wrong. She’s very important. To a lot of people. And she’s the only one with the nerve, the courage, the ability, the intelligence, and the fortitude to take on and confront the Rauf’s of our world — face to face. Could you do it?
You should apologize.
Sorry for the mis-post; (con’t)
To me there seems to be a footsy game going on @ MORNING JOE that epitomizes what is wrong with journalism today. Mark McKinnon had a column over at D.Beast talking about how the Dems have blown it big time – and his theme was that it was all about trust.
The Mika & Joe routine is all about the insiders stopping in to kibbitz and let their hair down. But it’s also about making money doing it – and that includes the deadline realities of competitive television. It isn’t just about being first – it’s also about establishing the best access. Call it the Bob Woodward school of journalism. It’s a major reason why the public no longer trusts the Media. They don’t break stories because they are driven by the need to curry favor and sell books – hense a dolt like Mika B. pans herself off as a journalist.
Hense, while there is a shocking poll stating that nearly a third of Americans still believe that Obama is a Muslim, Mika and Joe will devote the lionshare (even during a post Primary news day?) to these issues around the mosque, or Obama’s lack of public religiousity, or talking to oafs like Phillip Crowley.
Besides that what does anyone who goes on this show – as ultimate media and/or washington insiders – have in common with the average american struggling to make a living and keep a roof over their head?
In most cases it’s just millionares talking to other millionares about what the White House flakes like Gibbs wants people to think about. The good news is that like most everything on MSNBC it’s just so much overpriced flatulance nobody pays much attention to – except all the ‘cool’ insiders.
McCarthy says wisely that “there are millions of Muslims who crave reform.” This statement raises several questions.
Q: Where are they?
A: From all indications, these moderate Muslims seeking reform have only been sighted in the imaginations of Non-Muslims who don’t want to stand up for their own beliefs.
Q: What sort of “Reformed Islam” do they seek?
A: A form of Islam that rejects virtually everything demanded of them by their “Prophet” and replaces it with a set of beliefs that are as yet to be specified, but are pleasing to Non-Muslim Liberals. It will be called Reformed Islam.
Q: How will these “millions of Muslims craving reform” benefit from this reformation?
A: Westerners will like them more.
Q: What are the obstacles facing “these millions of Muslims craving reform?
A: 1)”Real” Muslims will persecute, torture, kill, behead and dismember them.
2) There is no well defined vision of what “reformed Islam” should be.
Q: What happens to them if they don’t reform?
A. They become part of the “religion/totalitarian political system” that is steadily conquering the world.
Q: What then is the real incentive for an Islamic reformation to occur?
A: There is none. The side that is winning the battle has no reason to modify its goals to appease the side that is losing simply because the losing side doesn’t have the courage to defend itself.
Q: What are the odds that a significant Islamic Reformation will take place?
A: Zero
It is time to stop this insanity of believing that Islam will voluntarily “reform” to help its ADVERSARY meet its objectives.
Too many elites of both the left and right seem unable to come to terms with the fact that they are not the center of the universe; the Islamists DON”T GIVE A DAMN about our opinion of them. They have THEIR OWN goals, their own agenda: world domination.
The time has come for Non-Muslims to un-apologetically advance our own agenda without regard for offending those who wish to destroy us.
Bottom Line…
Rauf is promoting a Shariah compliant America. It’s what he does.
here is the man in his own words slamming the usa and arrogantly stating that americans have misinterpreted the constitution on separation of church and state
http://www.unisa.edu.au/hawkecentre/events/2005events/Imam_Feisal.mp3
The obvious answer why the State Department gave him ambasorial status by paying his way is that he can
come back through our borders without having to display
the booty he picked up from overseas MUSLIMS
Ron Radosh, Roger Simon and others find it very difficult to give up the liberalism. It is a religion that is very difficult to renounce. All the ‘moderate’ Islam stuff needs to go, and the denigration of Pam Geller is also unfortunate. Geller has done more – along with Spencer – to uncover the truths about Stealth Jihad and Obama’s role than anyone – far more than Radosh or Simon.
I have observed that of all different types of insurance, medical care insurance is the most dubious because of the turmoil between the insurance policy company’s need to remain making money and the customer’s need to have insurance policies. Insurance companies’ income on wellness plans are very low, therefore some organizations struggle to make money. Thanks for the concepts you talk about through this web site.