NYC Mosque vs. Thomas Jefferson

Everybody agrees that our Freedom of Religion gives Muslims the right to build the NYC mosque. Everybody, that is, except Thomas Jefferson. This founding father knew that the time would come when someone would try to subvert and misuse our freedoms and here is his response to that:

A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high virtues 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.

This quote by Thomas Jefferson was used at the very end of a book by an Egyptian woman who immigrated to the US and converted to Christianity when she was 30. Until then she had been a Muslim in an Arab country, following the Sharia laws and living a life of fear and subjugation. The book, Cruel and Usual Punishment by Nonie Darwish is a fascinating insider’s look at the Islam religion, Sharia laws and how they came into being. But it was the author’s last chapter regarding America which I found to be both compelling and chilling.

You can almost hear the desperation in Ms. Darwish’s voice as she tries to convince the reader that Islam is not a religion of peace. For example, she states that there are 35,213 references in the Koran, Sharia laws and various Muslim scriptures basically advocating killing non-believers. Yes, the Old Testament is also rather bloodthirsty in places however the whole premise to Christianity is Jesus’ messages in the New Testament. He repudiated the Old Testament and taught that in the face of violence we should turn the other cheek and He gave us the Golden Rule. Islam, on the other hand, is the exact opposite. In the early parts of the Koran Mohammed was respectful of the “People of the Book” meaning Jews and Christians. As both Muslims and Jews were desert tribal people back then there was a natural affinity that is until Jewish tribes declined Mohammad’s “request” that they convert and join his tribe. Their refusal triggered a hatred of all Jews continuing to this day. From that point forward the Koran gets bloodier and bloodier in its suggested treatment of all infidels and apostates.

For Islam, this hatred of Jews has remained unchanged in the past 1400+ years. One example in Darwish’s book is that in 2005 the British House of Commons passed a bill aimed at curbing religious hatred. A delegation of prominent Muslims applied to have Islam exempt from the bill since followers of Mohammed must humiliate, hate, distrust, deceive and kill Christians and Jews. They therefore knew that readings from the Koran would be hate crimes under the new law as hatred of non-believers continues to be a central doctrine of Islamic scriptures. The scary part is that anti-Semitism is facing resurgence particularly in Europe which has experienced a large influx of conservative Muslims.

Ms. Darwish brought up an interesting and very relevant point about her former religion. In the US we strongly believe in separation of Church and State. Muslims, however, have intertwined Islam with the Sharia laws. You can’t have one without the other. The author then stated that historically, once Muslims start building mosques in a country they will next begin to push for acceptance of Sharia laws. This is already happening here and in Europe. We have all started to hear of stories ranging from taxi drivers refusing passengers carrying alcohol to Muslim women wanting to take their drivers license picture in full regalia with only their eyes showing.

But why are we letting them get away with it in the first place? Either it is a religion (Islam) or it is a political party with their own set of laws (Sharia). Darwish wondered what would have happened if Lenin had said that Communism was a new religion and began building Communist temples in the US under our Freedom of Religion. What is the difference? We must enforce separation of Church and State allowing Islam without Sharia. Muslims in America must obey our laws and recognize that this is a country where women are treated equally, daughters aren’t killed if they “dishonor” their fathers and we settle disputes in courts not with violence. And just as we forced Mormons to change their religion to fit in with out monogamous society so must we deal with any illegalities found in Islam/Sharia.

As the NYC mosque situation was hitting the headlines I was reading this book which made it that much more chilling. At the end of her book, Ms. Darwish, who lived her first 30 years in a conservative Arab country asks “the West to send a strong and firm message to Muslims everywhere. Muslims need to hear that the human right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is above the right of any religion that wants to take it away. Muslims need to hear the word ‘No’”.

Although Ms. Darwish ends her compelling book with Jefferson’s quote, on the next to last page is another timely quote:

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage. – Author Unknown.

So which stage are we at and can we learn to just say 'No'?

Greg's Idea of a Gay Bar for Muslims

Like many Americans, I am disgusted that plans continue to go forward to build a mosque next to Ground Zero. However, this week, I heard the funniest and cleverest retort to the proposed muslim mosque. Instead of giving you bits and pieces I am going to let you read the entire article by Greg Gutfeld from his blog The Daily Gut. Enjoy!

MONDAY'S GREGALOGUE: MY NEW GAY BAR
So, the Muslim investors championing the construction of the new mosque near Ground Zero claim it's all about strengthening the relationship between the Muslim and non-Muslim world.

As an American, I believe they have every right to build the mosque - after all, if they buy the land and they follow the law - who can stop them? Which is, why, in the spirit of outreach, I've decided to do the same thing.

I'm announcing tonight, that I am planning to build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men. To best express my sincere desire for dialogue, the bar will be situated next to the mosque Park51, in an available commercial space.

This is not a joke. I've already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.

As you know, the Muslim faith doesn't look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I'm building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.

The goal, however, is not simply to open a typical gay bar, but one friendly to men of Islamic faith. An entire floor, for example, will feature non-alcoholic drinks, since booze is forbidden by the faith. (In a later follow up Greg added that this non-alcoholic section will offer 42 virgin drinks.) The bar will be open all day and night, to accommodate men who would rather keep their sexuality under wraps - but still want to dance.

Bottom line: I hope that the mosque owners will be as open to the bar, as I am to the new mosque. After all, the belief driving them to open up their center near Ground Zero, is no different than mine.

My place, however, will have better music.

For investment information, contact me at dailygut.com

Don't you just love it? And since Monday he has received some legitimate property offers and a lot of media attention from both the left and the right. For updates see his website at http://www.dailygut.com/.

I learned about this when I saw him interviewed on one of Fox's talk shows. Perhaps the best part was in the discussion of what to name this gay muslim bar. Since most names suggested aren't printable then use your own imagination to think of a name.

Since Monday, Greg actually went so far as to twitter the Cordoba House, the muslim group behind the mosque and they twittered back a reply "You're free to open whatever you like. If you won't consider the sensibilities of Muslims, you're not going to build dialog." Huh. Maybe they should stop to consider the sensibilities of Americans. And if they won't then perhaps I'll see about renting office space next to the gay muslim bar to house offices for a new muslim version of the Working Women magazine geared to professional Islamic career women. :-}

Seeing is Not Believing

Everyone knows that the politically correct police have been slowly changing our language to fit their liberal perspective. What you may not realize is that they are also manipulating images to show only what they want us to see. The goal is to make people identify specific images of their choosing with specific topics. As I look for images for my blog I have noticed this disturbing trend as I see more and more biased and politically correct images.

Take for instance last week’s blog about Easter where I googled “Christian images” to find pictures for my blog. Google image results will provide eighteen images, including photographs, cartoons, symbols and there will be multiple pages. The first page of Christian images had four pictures of a cross, one picture of doves and one had hands in prayer. So one-third of the first page of pictures included standard Christian images. Yet there was not one picture of Jesus or even a Bible. There were two pictures of what was supposedly the largest church in America but it looked rather sterile and isolated. The rest of the pictures included various sayings and a couple of images were for something called the Christian café.

Finally on the second page I saw a picture with Jesus in it along with more pictures of crosses, and sayings and pictures about peace and doves. But then there were two cartoons - one about “Christian Taliban” and another entitled “Free Christians”. The worst, though, was the picture titled “Porn Again Christians”. It went downhill as the the third page had a image a naked man being arrested, two more of shirtless muscled men, one of a decapitated man on an exam table and a pie chart titled “Christian Oppression”.

OK you get the point. The 54 pictures shown for Christianity had one, maybe two, pictures of Jesus, none of the bible, one angel and none of any of the other people or stories from the bible. Yet there were multiple pictures of nude or semi nude men, one about porn and many discussing the “oppression” and problems about Christianity. You can’t help but notice how terribly slanted the choices were for Christianity images. But what about Muslims? How would Google treat these images?

A search of Muslim images first resulted in a lot of pictures of women in burkas although in contrast there were a few pictures of Muslim beauty pageant winners. There were also pictures of Muslim symbols and a couple of shots of men in prayer. In the first few pages there were a number of pictures of protesters holding various banners. Were they protesting the strict sharia laws or perhaps all the terrorist attacks on innocent citizens? Of course not. Under the title of “Muslim Outrage” were protester holding banners which read things like “Behead those who insult Islam”. Unlike the search for Christianity which showed multiple negative attacks on the religion I found only one in the first few pages of the Muslim images search. This result was a form with the title of “”Hate Muslims? So do we!” But this turned out to be a joke and not a serious attack on the religion such as the ones on Christianity. In the first few pages I didn’t see any negative cartoons or banners or pictures against Muslims or the religion. I wonder if people are afraid to ridicule or denigrate Islam whereas there is no such restraint against Christianity. Or is it simply politically correct to defend Muslims and Islam while it is equally politically correct to abuse Christianity?

Most of my blogs, however, are about Republicans and Democrats, and I need appropriate pictures to go with these articles. So what images does Google provide for these topics? About a third of the first page for both Republican and Democrat searches showed elephants and donkeys, respectively. But the third picture for Republican is a takeoff of the progress of man from monkey to human called “Some Noted Republican Presidents”. I next saw a picture of a typical American family in which all of them are holding rifles or guns. There was an images included a picture of a Jesus holding a gun with the question “What would Jesus do?” and another of a militant Jesus. Oddly enough, the Democrat first page also contained a picture of Jesus, this one looking sad and was a pitch for a song called “Jesus was a Democrat”.

The stunning difference of the two Google searches became clear with the second page of images. The Democrat page continued with more pictures of donkeys, a number of uplifting pictures of patriotic symbols such as the White House and the flag plus serious pictures of famous Democrats. The first picture on the second page of the Republican search shows a strange cartoon of a man in drag, complete with fishnet stockings and heels and for some unknown reason there was a cat up his ass and he was telling a pollster that he was a Republican. Was that supposed to be funny? The second picture is a real snapshot of a man holding a banner which read “I’m a Republican and Ashamed of the GOP”. The rest of the pictures on this page continued to have derogatory and/or obscene pictures about Republicans with a few scattered pictures of elephants, including a cover of Time magazine showing the rear end of an elephant.

Nice, huh? Can you imagine some twelve year old writing a paper for school on Democrats and Republicans and coming across these images? Are Democrats and liberals so insecure, so fearful of Republicans and conservatives that they have to rig the world to tilt it in their favor? Political correctness and the liberal view of the world has taken over not just the words we say (or can not say) but they are also taking over the images associated with these words. Yet has anyone noticed? Has anyone objected to the unfairness found in these images?

"Seeing is believing" we use to say. But now you can't even trust the images you see. I fear for the day that these politically correct words and images become so commonplace that we can no longer recognize that they are even biased.

Names do matter

After Nidal Malik Hasan killed and wounded our soldiers at Fort Hood, some woman being interviewed said with a straight face “I wish his last name was Smith.” And for me, that summarizes all this PC stupidity.

People just won’t admit the fact that a large group of radical Muslims want to incite terror and kill us. Liberals are so afraid of being politically incorrect that they simply refuse to face reality. Wake up America! It’s not ‘Smiths’ or ‘O’Brians’ or ‘Yamamoto’s’ who have issued jihads or holy wars against us. It’s people with Arabic names. It’s people who are Muslim’s. It’s people who hate our way of life and the very freedom for which we stand.

We need to recognize that we can no longer sit back and enjoy our freedoms. Our freedoms and way of life are being attacked. And not just with bullets. They are using our very own freedoms and courts to shelter and advance their malignant religious rules and laws. Already there are examples of how they are trying to corrupt our country with their extreme laws. At least some reporters are starting to investigate the murder of Muslim women who dared to be Americanized. Women who only wanted to dress like Americans, get an education, be more than the wife to a radical Muslim husband who believes he has the right to kill his wife without facing any penalties by his culture. In fact, why aren’t more women libbers taking up the cause of these Muslim women? They were sure quick to go after radical Mormons who illegally had multiple wives. Yet they are suspiciously quiet while radical Muslim men abuse their wives and daughters in the name of Allah and the Koran.

Perhaps a part of the problem is that we are a country of nice people. It is almost impossible for us to understand that radical Muslims could treat their women that cruelly. And then there is the little fact that millions of strangers want us dead. Liberals refuse to believe this. They think maybe if they could talk to them, sit down and listen to their leaders, perhaps even understand where they “are coming from” that they could then find some common bonds that will lead to understanding and acceptance. Wrong. Sure they will sit down and talk, their leaders might even make promises to be better in the future. And then at the earliest opportunity they will find a way to kill our soldiers and blow up innocent bystanders with their suicide bombers and ignore their promises.

When the world doesn’t act in a manner that Liberals approve of then Liberals end up turning issues inside out arguing that enemies are friends and friends are enemies? Words no longer mean what we were taught and they give nicer names to things that threaten them so as to feel better. They will insulate themselves by believing that they are superior to other Americans and that their greater intelligence allows them to see the “big picture” and understand the other side. They will always argue that a minority is at the mercy of the oppressive white man. Ironically, most Liberals won’t believe the stereo types of the "abused" minority but will quickly embrace any negative stereo type of the rest of us. And the scary part is that this group is who is running our country today.

Now we had a man of Arabic background, a Muslim, go on a shooting spree killing unarmed soldiers. I had hoped that perhaps our military hadn’t been quite as corrupted by political correctness such as our universities, media and local schools have been. This episode with Fort Hood demonstrates just how wrong I was. Political correctness, fear of upsetting a minority, worrying about playing fairly; it is this stupidity that allows a US soldier like Hasan to go so far as to communicate with al Qaeda and email with a radical imam. Not only was his outrageous conduct tolerated but this traitor was even promoted and sent to Fort Hood. Why did no one stop him? How many more unstable Muslims are there in our military? And better yet, does the FBI or military have what it takes to finally go after these men now?

What makes it doubly hard is that much of the hatred begins and ends in their temples. Radical Imams preach against the godless Americans, raise their children to despise us and our way of life, imprison their women into a life of servitude and encourage their young men that killing Americans is not only right but will give them eternal gratitude when they give their life for the cause. And these temples are not just found overseas. They are here in America, too.

Of course not every Muslim temple harbors radicals. But we need to stop the PC bullshit and admit that yes, some of them are our enemies. We need to be penetrating these temples, putting in taps and all that espionage stuff and letting the FBI do their job; rather than being persuaded by liberals and the ACLU start that we are being prejudicial and unfair to this religion. We need to recognize that there are cores of truth in stereo types. We need to take action if someone is showing questionable actions, such as this Hasan had without worrying that some ACLU lawyer will come after you.

And maybe the first step is to call things by their right names. When Nidal Malik Hasan began killing unarmed soldiers it was a terrorist attack; Hasan was literally creating terror and fear and not a “man made disaster” which is what our Homeland Security Secretary Janet Naplitano would have you call it. That’s right. A terrorist attack is supposed to be called a man made disaster. It would be laughable if it weren’t so, well, terrifying.

Islamic Blackmail Wins Again

Remember the date of August 7, 2008. It is when America had another major loss in the war on terrorism and continued this country’s long slide into becoming subjugated by Muslims and radical Islams. Perhaps I am being overly dramatic, yet I really don’t think so. But let me tell you what happened and you can decide for yourself.

A journalist, Sherry Jones had written her first novel, “The Jewel of Medina” which followed the life of one of Mohammed’s wives. In a Reuter’s interview Sherry is quoted as saying “I have deliberately and consciously written respectfully about Islam and Mohammed…. I envisioned that my book would be a bridge-builder.”

Random House picked up the novel with a publishing date of August 12 followed by an eight-city publicity tour. However, on August 7th Random House decided it was not going to publish this book nor would they release it thereby stopping anyone from publishing it. The Reuter’s article explains Randon House's decision:

Random House deputy publisher Thomas Perry said in a statement the company received "cautionary advice not only that the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community, but also that it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment."

"In this instance we decided, after much deliberation, to postpone publication for the safety of the author, employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone else who would be involved in distribution and sale of the novel," Perry said.

If it weren’t so scary I would find it to be incredibly ironic. One of our most sacred freedoms is that of the free press. How often has the media berated conservatives for wanting to take out books from libraries that they deemed offensive? How many times has the ACLU defended schools that stocked books that most of the parents found inappropriate for children?

Yet when a major publishing company backs down on publishing a book there isn’t a single outcry. No one at ACLU is standing up for Sherry Jones’s. There isn’t even a whisper on how Random House was blackmailed by “the Muslim community” except by bloggers. There are a lot of heated exchanges on the internet but it still all goes back to a writer’s freedom to write whatever she likes, even if it might offend some Muslims. Boo hoo. Could you imagine the outcry if that best seller The Da Vinci Code treated Mohammed in the same way it treated Jesus? Or the uproar by the biased media if it had been a Christian group that threatened violence if Random House published an anti Christian book? It would be laughable if it weren’t so serious.

It almost makes me say why bother? The press is crucifying anyone who supports the war in Iraq and the war on terror. Why should our soldiers give their lives to protect freedoms that the press is willing to roll over on when there is the first hint of violence? It is simply unbelievable that a major company such as Random House is terrified of upsetting the Muslims and actually gave in to their blackmail. And yet it did happen.

I use to think the conservative talk radio and TV shows were getting pretty extreme at times. I don’t any more. And to go back to the start of this article, do you think I was exaggerating about the importance of what just happened? No, I don’t think so, either. Not sure what we can do other than keep a watch for other instances of how this country is bowing down to the radical Islams. If the liberal press won’t do their job then we must do it for them. And if you agree then please feel free to start emailing this article and any others like it to your friends and even to conservative radio and TV shows. We need to let the Muslims and the liberals know that once again it is the conservatives, the true patriots, who will save the far left from their own cowardice and will protect all of America’s freedoms, including the freedom of the press.