Monday, October 11, 2010
DAWAH IN NY TAXPAYER FUNDED HOSPITAL: PROSELYTIZING PLASTIC DOC ON GRAND ROUNDS
No, this is not a flyer for a talk by Major Hasan (the jihadi who came out on grand rounds) before mowing down 14 US soldiers at Fort Hood. The silence on their bloody slaughter is treasonous. But it is strangely evocative of Hasan's dawah on Grand Rounds. I wonder if this Dr. Hassan will use other Dr. Hasan's powerpoint presentation on Islam I do. It is the must succinct presentation on jihad and the threat doctrine (below).
This is a taxpayer-funded New York hospital. Call me old fashioned, but I don't want my taxpayer dollars used to proslytize for Islam. Separation of mosque and state, right?
This is still America, is it not? Contact the hospital. Politely explain your position. This is wrong.
Jacobi Hospital
1400 Pelham Parkway South
Bronx, NY 10461
(Corner of Eastchester Road and Pelham Parkway South)
General Information: Appointments: (718) 918-5700
Admitting: (718) 918-5370
Patient Information: (718) 918-5374
Patient Relations: (718) 918-5245
E-mail Jacobi
Sunday, October 10, 2010
PAMELA GELLER AND ROBERT SPENCER AT TEMPLE UNIVERSITY DESPITE CRUSHING LEFTIST FASCISM, INTIMIDATION AND BULLYING
UPDATE: Q and A video just posted -- scroll.
Despite the rabid attacks of the leftist. Islamic smear machine and their promises to shut us down, Robert Spencer and I spoke at Temple University Thursday without incident. It got a little noisy during the Q and A, but so what?
Kudos to Alvaro E. Watson President. Temple University Purpose, who stood fast and would not cave to the pressure of school officials or bullying (fascist-like) students.
Much thanks to Pamela Hall for pictures and videos.
Meanwhile outside the rapid mouth foamers were screaming about "no hate in their state, Geller and Spencer hate hate hate." Here are some shots that Alvaro's mom grabbed for me.
Say that three times fast -- betcha can't!
Shocka -- antisemites too.
Check out the flyers they were passing out (I scanned it for your enjoyment):
And this:
Here is a quick clip of the clowns protesting us and trying to intimidate people into not going into the event. Listen to the chanting. "When Islam is under attack, what do we do, stand up, fight back!" Did you ever hear the left chant, "When America is under attack, what do we do, stand up fight back!"? Never. Ever.
The jackboots posted about the event here. Apparently, they were hoping for an incident to happen and to write about. Ha Ha. Denied. (hat tip on that David)
UPDATE: Here's the Q and A:
TERRORIST STREET ART
Terrorist street art hits a new low in New York, and that's not an easy thing to do. The bar is so low...... what am I talking about? There is no bar.
Signed 'Bunny bin Laden.'
WALL-TO-WALL ATLAS IN THE NEW YORK TIMES
I am traveling, so posting is light, but I had to share the love. Online New York Times front page looks like this.
But wait. It gets wilder. I can't scan this, but .... you get the picture(s)
Check it out: Front page of the Sunday Metro section
National edition (left) two page spread in black and white
Metro section (right) -- full color double truck
Front page Atlas -- heh
My take on their piece here
Actual interview excerpts here.
Saturday, October 09, 2010
THE NEW YORK TIMES: OUTRAGED, OUTRAGEOUS AND UNHINGED
As expected, the New York Times did an extraordinarily nasty and fallacious piece on me. It is full of distortions, inaccuracies and lies from beginning to end.
Referring to me using terms like "socialite," "dilettante," and other words invoking silly, superficial, purposeless women, is downright farcical. Show me a socialite who is fighting for American values 20 hours a day. I don't even have lunch, let alone gala charity events. The only thing worthwhile in this piece is the actual interview, which is, frankly, all that really matters. But let's have a cursory look at this piece, shall we?
The numbers quoted from my divorce settlement are grossly, wildly inaccurate. I don't want to air dirty laundry in public, but there is absolutely no truth to what Anne Barnard and Alan Feuer "reported" about this. And although I do not want to get into personal matters, how do they know that my deceased ex "didn’t always agree" with what I was saying? Did they employ a ouija board? Just for knowing, this claim also is patently false.
Of course they hold up my lack of journalistic "credentials" as a disadvantage. Clearly we see how this "advantage" has rendered the New York Times and the rest of the fraternity of credentialed journalists hopelessly inaccurate and incapable of objectivity and responsible journalism. Why no piece like this on Daisy Khan, or Feisal Abdul Rauf, or Sharif El-Gamal?
Here is credentialed journalism: they say without explanation that I "posted doctored pictures of Elena Kagan, the Supreme Court justice, in a Nazi helmet." They don't bother to mention that the Kagan photoshop came after it was revealed that Kagan had cited in her thesis a German Marxist who became a Nazi when Hitler took power. They claim that I said that "a young Barack Obama slept with 'a crack whore,'" without mentioning that in that post I was making a point about unfair journalists (like these Times writers), constructing a reductio ad absurdum about media bias.
Just to show how avid and careful they were in their quest for the facts, they have me video blogging from an Israeli beach. Won't Fort Lauderdale be surprised to find out that the Zionist war machine is now occupying Florida beaches? Richer still was their reference to "arching her bikini-bared back provocatively." Please. I was submerged in the water with my kids in the background. Talk about easily titillated! I never arched my back except to swim away. They've been spending too much time with the Taliban. And they fault me for equating Palestinians with Hamas. The Palestinians elected Hamas, but who cares?
I know they spoke to Pamela Hall, but she is not mentioned in the article. They asked her what my worst traits were, but she must not have given them any grist for their mill.
It's revealing how many times they refer to my "Long Island-accented voice" and upbringing. It says more about them than it does about me. It's elitist, it's snobbish, and it's condescending.
But while they have room for that, you'll notice that the Muslim Brotherhood is nowhere mentioned in this piece, although I referred to them extensively. Even when they referred to the halal Campbell's Soup story, they declined to mention ISNA or the Muslim Brotherhood, only referring to a nameless Islamic group. Why is the New York Times so solicitous or afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood, that they won't mention its name? Nor do they mention the mega-mosque's earlier name, Cordoba Initiative, although it was only known as such for many months.
They refer to my work as a "crusade," but never refer to the supremacists' jihad as anything nefarious. They refer to my work as waging "a form of holy war," but never, ever discuss the real holy war against the West.
They say Paypal branded me a hate site. I know that facts are irrelevant, but they didn't.
In talking about my role in the mosque controversy, they say:
Two days later, Ms. Geller invited readers to protest the “9/11 monster mosque being built on hallowed ground zero,” in a post that was among the first to spread the misimpressions that the project was at the World Trade Center site and would solely house a prayer space.
Who's misimpressioning here? The site of the building is Ground Zero. You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts. That building was hit by the landing gear from one of the planes, and destroyed. It is part of the Ground Zero attack site. And I never said that the building would solely house a prayer space. (Note "prayer space": the Times can't bring itself to call it a mosque, even though the prayer space in this building will be a mosque.)
Even the links they provide are deliberately deceptive. When deriding me for calling Sharif El-Gamal a thug, they don't link to his rap sheetor his threatening of a moderate Muslim. They only link to the post about his being a tax deadbeat, which is not about his thuggishness.
They minimize the mortal threat to Rifqa Bary's life, mischaracterizing her father's death threat to her for leaving Islam for Christianity as Rifqa having "accused her parents of abuse." They say I helped draw "vociferous objectors to a hearing this summer on a since-scrapped proposal for a mosque on Staten Island." Here again, they make no mention of the fact that it was a Muslim Brotherhood mosque. "Vociferous objectors" is Times-speak for patriots and defenders of freedom.
As far as the public school madrassa in Brooklyn goes, I referred extensively to Pamela Hall's seminal work. She was responsible for taking what should have been a Pulitzer-Prize-winning picture of the Almontaser-sanctioned "Intifada NYC" t-shirt. They quote the head of the school, Dabah Almontaser, saying: “New York is the cosmopolitan city of the world. They figured that if they could do it here, they could do it anywhere. And sadly, they did.” Do what? Fight for justice? Stand up against the jihad against Israel? Stand up against a public school being made into a madrassa? I would do it again. And going to Almontaser for her take on the madrassa is like going to the fox for his take on the henhouse.
They gave space to hit-and-run insults from anonymous people at the New York Observer, which was swarming with doctrinaire leftists like Mike Tomasky and Joe Conason, and note: they made no mention of the fact that I worked all my life, from the time I was thirteen. I worked full-time from the time I was seventeen. My high school was on split session; I got out at noon and worked til eight. I worked through college, and never stopped working until I left to raise my children in my late thirties. "Socialite," my eye!
The New York Times said: "And Ms. Geller said, without evidence, that the center’s financing might be tied to terrorists." We know that Rauf is a leading member of the Perdana Organization, the single largest financier of the Turkish terrorist group's jihad flotilla against Israel. Rauf and Daisy Khan have received funding from the Xenel Corporation. The connection between Xenel and al Qaeda, according to the Orlando Sentinel, was persuasive enough that the city of Orlando decided to cancel the contract it had previously awarded to Xenel. The involvement Bin Laden-tied Xenel led to the cancellation of a different 100-million-dollar project in Florida. If such ties would cancel a convention center, why not a 100-million-dollar Islamic supremacist mega mosque at the site of largest attack on American soil by these same players? And yet the Times says I have no evidence.
They ridicule the idea of taqiyya, calling it "the hiding of true beliefs, religiously sanctioned for Muslims, usually minority Shiites, under hostile rule." They don't mention that the idea of religious deception in Islam is not just held by Shi'ites, but is founded on the Koran, which tells Muslims that they can pretend to be friends with unbelievers to "guard themselves against them" (3:28). A hadith explains this as meaning "We smile in the faces of some people, but behind their backs we curse them." That sounds like Rauf, with his love for religious dialogue in English and rejection of it in Arabic, to me.
They claim that I am branding Rauf a "radical Islamist," when in fact his own words are those of a radical: "We tend to forget, in the West, 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." Referring to jihadis, he says: "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?" Rauf calls Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi "a very very well known Islamic jurist, highly regarded all over the Muslim world" -- Qaradawi has approved of Palestinian suicide bombings and genocide of the Jews. It was on Qaradawi's authority that Hamas began to use women in suicide attacks. He has called for "drastic" punishment of homosexuals. (Video here.)
They refer to the pain expressed by those who oppose the Ground Zero mega mosque as "heckling." And I had to laugh, of course, when the New York Times said that Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin were getting their talking points from me. Has anyone told Rush yet?
Barnard and Feuer write, "Opposition to Park51 grew — and with it, antipathy for Islam." It wasn't "antipathy for Islam" -- that is more of that racist-Islamophobic-anti-Muslim nonsense. It was outrage at the lack of compassion and sensitivity to the pain and the grief the mega mosque organizers were causing. To suggest that I provided the vocabulary to express this grief, under the guise of "worries about Islam," is laughable. It is justifiable concern about slaughter in the name of jihad, Islamic supremacism, the subjugation of women, and gender apartheid. The dead can't speak.
They're snarky about anyone who goes off the reservation, but they actually refer to the disinformationalists and propagandists of Media Matters as a "media tracking group," and not the left-wing propaganda hate site that it is, void of facts -- like this article. They say: "Her claims were disputed often enough that the liberal media-tracking group Media Matters called on stations (ineffectually) to stop presenting her as an expert." They do not and cannot, however, cite one example where I was actually wrong; instead, they just resort to ad hominem attacks. The Times is implying in this that I was so inaccurate that the smear machine Media Matters called on stations to stop featuring me in the interests of accuracy, when actually Media Matters was afraid that some of the truth was getting out to the public despite their best efforts. That they mention Loonwatch, a Goebbels-style hate site, speaks volumes.
And they say this about the EDL: "Ms. Geller went on to champion as patriotic the English Defense League, which opposes the building of mosques in Britain and whose members have been photographed wearing swastikas. (In the interview, Ms. Geller said the swastika-wearers must have been “infiltrators” trying to discredit the group.)" They don't mention that the EDL unequivocally supports Israel, waves the Israeli flag, has a Jewish division, has Hindu and Sikh members, and does have an ongoing problem with leftist infiltrators joining their rallies in order to try to discredit them by making racist or neo-Nazi statements.
They expose themselves completely when brushing over the death of Aqsa Parvez. They never mention why she didn't have a headstone in the first place (because she brought dishonor to the family, which is why she was murdered, and that dishonor did not merit her being remembered after death). They put "honor killings" in quotes, as if it were something I made up. In all their combing through my site, they seem to have missed this post. Is it any wonder that these reporters don't understand the whole idea of compassion and decency in regard to the Ground Zero mosque, when they put the term "honor killings" in quotes?
One thing the Times got right: the picture of me accompanying the article is accurate!
NEW YORK TIMES: THE PAMELA GELLER INTERVIEW
The New York Times is doing a Sunday piece on ....... Pamela Geller. Yikes. Let me say that I was very reluctant to speak with them, for the obvious reasons. I did not want to do it. But they were going to do a Geller piece with or without me. My thinking was that if I could present my ideas, perhaps I could influence the rational thinker.
I sat down with Anne Barnard and Alan Feuer for over three and half hours. They pulled interview excerpts from our long conversation and posted them in their Saturday online edition. Check it out. I don't know what they plan for Sunday; I can only imagine. I do know that these quotes are online today -- not in print. Nor is their a link to them on the Region main page. I will be curious to see if they make it into Sunday's piece alongside their narrative...... Here are a few excerpts of their excerpt:
Pamela Geller: In Her Own Words NY TIMES
The following are excerpts from an interview with Pamela Geller, a conservative blogger who has been vocal in opposition to the Islamic center and mosque to be built near ground zero. Anne Barnard and Alan Feuer interviewed Ms. Geller on Sept. 28, 2010.
Fight Against the ‘Mosque’
Ms. Geller on whether she is a leader in the fight over the planned Muslim center:
PAMELA GELLER I didn’t choose this moment; this moment chose me in that you decided that I was responsible, which is so amusing to me. I’ve been doing what I’ve been doing for years. I update the blog 10, 15 times a day. I treated the ground zero mosque story the way I treat every other story. To me it was an outrage, to me it was deeply offensive, to me it was indicative that interfaith dialogue and mutual respect and mutual understanding is a one-way street with Islamic supremacists, not Muslims. I believe that Muslims are more victimized by Islamic supremacists than even non-Muslims. But I covered it the way I covered any other story.
ALAN FEUER Do you consider yourself at this point a, or the, or one of the leaders of this fight against the mosque?
PAMELA GELLER No. No.
ALAN FEUER Why not?
PAMELA GELLER Because I think that I’m giving voice to the voiceless. But how am I a leader? Look, there is no way that I have a magical power wherein 70 percent of the American people are opposed to this mosque. It’s demeaning and it’s condescending to the individual, for you — not you, sir — for someone to say that.
Now someone somewhere decided that we’re going to make it about her and we’re going to demonize her and marginalize her and call her a racist Islamophobic anti-Muslim bigot so that anybody that agrees with her is a racist Islamophobic anti-Muslim bigot. But you know what? Maybe it’s because all the Tea Partiers were called racists, or because it’s been tried too many times, it’s just not sticking. Maybe it’s sticking on the left, but the chattering classes and the political elites do not represent the American people. Not at all. And you’ve lost their trust, which I think is the absolute worst thing.
Her DriveMs. Geller on what motivates her:
[..]
I feel as if I am doing something that must be done. I’m making an important contribution in the information battle space, because that’s where we are now. You know, it really is a war of ideas and it’s important. That’s why the free-speech issue for me is everything. It’s the line in the sand; it is the difference between peace and war, because with freedom of speech, peaceful men can effect change. Without freedom of speech, peaceful men have no choice but to resort to violence. You have no alternative. Freedom of speech is the line in the sand.
And that’s why when I see the press, I see this self-imposed Shariah. And it’s Shariah: do not defame Islam, do not insult Islam.
A Moderate MuslimMs. Geller’s definition:
ANNE BARNARD Just to be completely clear, so you’re saying if someone is a devout Muslim, meaning if he or she is practicing and believing in the tenets of Islam, they cannot in your view be a political moderate?
PAMELA GELLER No.
[...]
No, no, they can’t. Now I also believe that a true translation, an accurate translation of the Koran, is really not available in English, according to many of the Islamic scholars that I’ve spoken to. That’s deeply troubling. And I don’t think that many westernized Muslims know when they pray five times a day that they’re cursing Christians and Jews five times a day. I don’t think they know that.ALAN FEUER Right. So you believe in the idea of a moderate Muslim, if not...
PAMELA GELLER Oh, I absolutely ... Oh, I believe in the idea of a moderate Muslim. I do not believe in the idea of a moderate Islam.
ANNE BARNARD What would be a moderate Muslim then?
PAMELA GELLER I think a moderate Muslim is a secular Muslim.
[...]
Seminal MomentMs. Geller refers to the landing gear of one of the 9/11 planes, found at the site of the planned mosque:
PAMELA GELLER You guys ran the landing gear —
ANNE BARNARD Yes, yes.
PAMELA GELLER — that I held up at all my rallies, thank you very much. That was the — for me that landing gear was the seminal moment, it was the — the landing gear is in the building? God, it gives you the chills. I mean the Japanese could build a Shinto shrine at Pearl Harbor; they never asked. They would never ask. It’s just wrong.
[..]
Even the cabdriver who was slashed, the Muslim cabdriver, by a pro-mosque supporter, who had an affiliation to Park51, who worked for Park51, the cabdriver said the mosque is wrong. That story did not get the ink it should have gotten because, A, it wasn’t someone who was against the mosque. If it was someone that was against the mosque, forget about it, I’d be hanging. I’d be hanging in Union Square. Yeah. Whatever.
[...]
ShariahMs. Geller on Islamic law in the United States:
ANNE BARNARD So do you really think that creeping Shariah is the biggest danger to America right now?
PAMELA GELLER No. The biggest danger to America? No. Do I think it’s a big danger? Yeah. Am I worried about it for tomorrow? No. Is that how it happens? No. It’s a drip, drip, drip, drip, drip. The mosque-ing of the workplace where you’re imposing prayer times on union contracts, non-Muslim workers have to lengthen their day: it’s wrong. And in places like Greeley and in Marshall, in Colorado, the media doesn’t report on it, but they’ve come to fisticuffs, there’s been rioting. The non-Muslim workers, they’re mainly Hispanics, they don’t want to lengthen their day.
The thing is: I don’t care if you worship a stone; just don’t stone me with it. These demands are a way of imposing Islam on a secular society. Asking for prayer space in public schools for Muslim children is imposing Islam. If the child is religious, send them to madrassa. If you don’t want to handle meat that’s not halal, don’t become a cashier at Target or Wal-Mart. If you want to wear the hijab, don’t work at Disney.
ALAN FEUER Do you detect a level of coordination behind this?
PAMELA GELLER No. Yeah, yes. The level of coordination is Shariah, is the Koran. This is living under Islamic law. It’s not that there’s a — look, I guess there’s conspiracy theory and there’s conspiracy fact. And clearly the global jihad, the installation of a universal caliphate, is the objective of a great many Islamic supremacists who make no secret of it.
[...]
Separation of Mosque and StateIslam in European politics:
PAMELA GELLER I understand what you’re saying and I have no problem with the identity politics. Honestly, I have no problem with hijab, I have no problem with burqa, I have no problem with purple hair. I don’t care. What I’m saying is the separation of mosque and state needs vigilance, that’s what I’m saying. And all you need to do is look at the current global map and the historical evidence to see what happens when you get these increased demands to Islam. Now, depending upon the region. The Middle East was once a Christian region, and look at all the Muslim countries that are living under the Shariah.
Look at even in Europe, the Islamization of Europe, you cannot ignore it. You cannot ignore the fact that there are no-go zones, where the police cannot go in France, cannot go in England, the fire department cannot go. When they go, it’s a trick, it’s an ambush many times. And there are no-go zones and the rule of law is the Shariah.
So what are we talking about? What are we looking at, if we can look past our watches in 10 years, 20 years? What are you looking at? Are you looking at reverting to city-states in Europe? I’m serious. This is not static. You think that where we are right now is where we’re going to be?
ALAN FEUER No, of course not.
PAMELA GELLER Of course not. So yes, I look at Europe and I’m concerned. I think the first country that will be Islamic in Europe will be the U.K. They already have introduced the Shariah law into their judicial system. And again you’ll say, “So what’s wrong with that?” What’s wrong with adjudicating family disputes and, and I say to you it’s always incrementally. The fact that welfare benefits in the U.K. go to multiple wives. If you have multiple wives, you get multiple benefits. Why would you encourage polygamy? I know it’s happening in America, the polygamy, but so far I have not heard of multiple benefits, and if I have, it’s not a matter of law, it’s not a sanctioned entitlement.
And so freedom of speech is in jeopardy. Religious freedom under the Shariah does not exist, and while it all may sound outlandish, you’ll wake up one day, you won’t recognize your own country. I have no problem with Islam. I have a problem with a political Islam. And I’ll say it once, I’ll say it 100 times that the separation of mosque and state needs to be maintained, and it’s not as simple as you’d think. Because you see a little kid and he wants to pray, you give him a prayer space. You’re not thinking. I mean, I see the face, I’m a mother. But I do. One’s not thinking in terms of precedent.
On the Prism of Israel ................here
Go, read the whole thing. There are three pages.
TODAY! GROUND ZERO MOSQUE PROTEST: HAMAS-LINKED CAIR HONORING GZM THUG DEVELOPER SHARIF EL-GAMAL
Protest Ground Zero mosque developer and CAIR honoree. The FBI itself has "suspended all formal contacts between CAIR and the FBI."
Further, "...until we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and HAMAS, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner." (go here.)
That El-Gamal is being honored by a group the FBI won't even partner with speaks volumes.
We are in Washington, DC! Join us -- Simon Deng, Rob Spencer, James Lafferty et al and me -- to protest the Ground Zero mega mosque. CAIR is honoring Ground Zero Mosque developer Sharif el-Gamal, the waiter turned thug/shady developer. This charlatan is speaking at the Hamas-linked CAIR banquet on Saturday October 9th -- they appear to be sharing harassment and intimidation tips.
5:30 p.m., Saturday, October 9
at the Marriott Crystal Gateway
1700 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, VA.
CAIR will honor Ground Zero Mosque developer Sharif El-Gamal.
JOIN US AND STAND AGAINST ISLAMIC SUPREMACISM, INTOLERANCE AND HATE
9/11 families were joined by immigrants from India, Russia, Egypt, Israel, Africa, Iran and Europe to show opposition to the construction of a mega-mosque at Ground Zero at our rally in June. Others flew in from overseas to speak or just to share their particular ethnic communities’ experiences at the hands of moslems.
The waiter-turned-millionaire developer (a transformation not yet satisfactorily explained) Sharif El-Gamal has said that "when you beat up someone physically you get exercise & stress relief," and he has a history of run-ins with the law.
And now he shows us yet again how "moderate" the entire Ground Zero mosque initiative really is: he is going to address the annual banquet of Hamas-linked CAIR:
Sharif El-Gamal, the main developer of the Park51 project in lower Manhattan, will speak at CAIR's 16th annual banquet on Saturday, October 9 in Arlington, Va. A recent summit of national Muslim leaders expressed strong support for Park 51 project.Register today to hear from the man at the center of a manufactured controversy that has sparked an anti-Muslim backlash nationwide.
GO TO: http://www.cair.com/banquet/
CAIR is also holding an intensive day-long critical leadership skills training conference on the same day as the banquet.
The conference will include training sessions for public speaking, on-camera interviews, using social media, political engagement, challenging Islamophobia and knowing your legal rights with law enforcement agencies.
You can find details, including session descriptions here.
Whether you are an imam, president or board member of a mosque, a young business leader, a student leader, an activist, or just someone who wants to help the community, this is the conference you must attend.
Islamophobia has become a growing threat to American Muslims and must be challenged vigorously, methodically, and comprehensively. You, the Muslim grassroots, are a key player in this organized effort. During the conference, we will also present a strategic vision for the American Muslim community for the next 20 years.
As a community, we will stand firm to defend the ideals of civil rights and equality. Empower yourself to take an active role by joining us at the leadership conference. We have only 200 spaces available for the workshops, so reserve your place right away.
We're looking forward to a day of practical trainings and an evening of celebrating our community. Please join us on Saturday, October 9, by making your reservations today.
GO TO: https://www.cair.com/banquet/
SEE Descriptions of the training sessions: http://tinyurl.com/CAIRworkshopsTo make a reservation over the phone or to reserve an entire table for eight people, call 202-742-6454 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 202-742-6454 end_of_the_skype_highlighting, or you can e-mail banquet@cair.com
Sincerely,
Nihad Awad
CAIR National Executive Director
CAIR operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case. Several of its former officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. Two of its other officials have made Islamic supremacist statements. CAIR also was involved in the Flying Imams' intimidation suit against the passengers who reported their suspicious behavior.
If you get interviewed by the media, make sure you drive home the message – I am deeply offended by the Ground Zero Mosque and I will do everything I can to oppose it legally. It is not only about New York, America opposes the Ground Zero Mosque.
James Lafferty media note:
A word about mischief by those who oppose us. .. At a Ground Zero Mosque rally in New York, an ABC News cameraman deliberately tried to provoke some of our people. He asked nasty, insulting questions and then stood ready to record an angry even violent response. Don’t fall for this. It may give you some temporary satisfaction to chew these people out but, you can be sure, it will be edited and presented in the most unflattering way. Remember the wise counsel of John Wayne – talk low, talk slow and don’t talk too much.
If someone hassles you, please tell the nearest police officer. Don’t throttle the troublemaker or part his hair with your sign. See you Saturday at 5:30 p.m. at the Marriott Crystal Gateway.
Good advice.
Friday, October 08, 2010
TIMES DERANGEMENT SYNDROME
The Times is mosque-shilling again. This time with a new narrative. *sigh* Now it is equating the opposition to the building of the city's first Roman Catholic church by Protestant New Yorkers in 1785 New York. Nuts. This is not even analogous. How does that relate to this? Why is The NY Times embarrassing itself this way? They are publicly soiling themselves to get this victory mosque built.
The Cordoba [conquest] House, a 15-story mega mosque, is being erected on the site of a building destroyed in the 911 attacks in the name of Islam. Hundreds of millions have been slaughtered in the name of Islam. Where is the humanity of Rauf, Khan and Gamal? Where is their common decency?
Does The Times really think people are that stupid? Don't answer that. It is contemptible. This is not a religious issue. This is about erecting a 15-story mega mosque on a building destroyed in the most heinous Islamic attack on US soil in American history. Helllooooo.
You have to wonder where these clowns find these people. I am sure there are many priests, pastors, rabbis etc. who would make the righteous case for anywhere but there.
ApolloSpeaks wrote in a previous comment thread,"The New York Times, sliming the people of New York and America, published an article likening opposition to the Ground Zero mosque with anti-Catholic bigotry of the past (see). The article was about opposition in 1785 New York to the building of the city's first Roman Catholic church by Protestant New Yorkers who at the time understandably hated and feared Catholicism. The original site of the church on Broad Street was in the heart of the much smaller 18th century city. After boisterous protests, sometimes turning violent, city officials pressured Catholic authorities to move the church's location (named St. Peters) to what was then outside city limits. The church was built where it stands today at Barclay and Church close to Ground Zero two blocks from Abdul Rauf's anti-semitic designed supremacist mosque. Believing that Rauf is a harmless, moderate, peace loving Moslem St. Peter's pastor Father Madigan supports the mosque while urging Rauf to quiet fears by assuring us that he doesn't embrace "an ideology antithetical to American ideals."
Over at the paper of submission:
Many New Yorkers were suspicious of the newcomers’ plans to build a house of worship in Manhattan. Some feared the project was being underwritten by foreigners. Others said the strangers’ beliefs were incompatible with democratic principles.
Concerned residents staged demonstrations, some of which turned bitter.
But cooler heads eventually prevailed; the project proceeded to completion. And this week, St. Peter’s Roman Catholic Church in Lower Manhattan — the locus of all that controversy two centuries ago and now the oldest Catholic church in New York State — is celebrating the 225th anniversary of the laying of its cornerstone.
The Rev. Kevin V. Madigan, who is the pastor of St. Peter’s, said that when he began reading about the history of his church early this year in preparation for the Oct. 5 anniversary, he was not initially struck by the parallels between the opposition it had faced and what present-day Muslims have encountered in proposing a community center and mosque near ground zero.
“There was no controversy when they first proposed it, and we were just pleased to have a new neighbor,” said Father Madigan, whose church, at Barclay and Church Streets, sits two blocks from 51 Park Place, the site of the proposed Islamic center. Both are roughly equidistant from the construction zone at ground zero.
But as an uproar enveloped the Islamic project over the summer, the priest said he was startled by how closely the arguments and parries of the project’s opponents mirrored those brought against St. Peter’s in 1785.
Father Madigan detailed those similarities in a letter to parishioners over the summer, in two sermons he delivered at an interfaith gathering last month and at a special Mass last Sunday marking the church’s anniversary.
For starters, he said, there was the effort to move the church project somewhere else.
City officials in 18th-century New York urged project organizers to change the church’s initial location, on Broad Street, in what was then the heart of the city, to a site outside the city limits, at Barclay and Church. Unlike the organizers of Park51, who have resisted suggestions they move the project to avoid having a mosque so close to the killing field of ground zero, the Catholics complied.
Then there were fears about nefarious foreign backers. Just as some opponents of Park51 have said that the $100 million-plus project will be financed by the same Saudi sheiks who bankroll terrorists, many early-American Protestants saw the pope as the sworn enemy of democracy, and feared that his followers’ little church would be the bridgehead of a papal assault on the new United States government.
Thursday, October 07, 2010
SPEECHIFYING
Top Photo courtesy Pamela Hall, Bottom photo thanks to Craig Snider
Posting is a bit spotty today, as I am speaking in Philly today and tonight. The David Horowitz Freedom Center hosted a lunch and book signing for Robert and me. Although it was a book event, the Ground Zero mega mosque took center stage. The intrepid and wonderfulPamela Hall came down and filmed it -- I will post the video as soon as she has it up.
Tonight we enter the snake pit -- join us, won't you?
Thursday, October 7 · 7 pm -9:30pm
Location Howard Gittis Student Center, Temple University Main Campus
1755 North 13th Street
MORE "TOLERANCE" AND "HEALING" AND "OUTREACH": GROUND ZERO MOSQUE DEVELOPER LASHES OUT
Once a thug, always a thug. More peace and love coming from the developer of the triumphal Cordoba mosque at Ground Zero. Thug Gamal (Park 51 nee Cordoba) is whining about the one news outlet that is not shilling for his grotesque mega mosque. Unbelievable. This little girl should have one day of Pamela Geller media treatment. He'd be curled up in a ball in his basement. Coward.
Here's something I will never understand: if the developers of the Ground Zero Mosque (GZM) truly want to co-exist with those around them, why do they keep hurling incendiary insults?
Under the username Park51, on Twitter the developers of the GZM lashed out at Fox News recently. Writing about a report on Bill O'Reilly, Park51 wrote:
That link at the end leads to a Media Matters report that alleges, "Fox News has much closer ties to Truthers than [Imam] Rauf allegedly does." Smooth. Seriously, did the GZM developers actually think that it was smart to link to an article that claims that Fox News might have connections with people who think 9/11 was an inside job?
The "cc: @cordobainit" is the Cordoba Initiative, another group in favor of building the GZM. Cordobainit writes such things as asking its supporters to sign petitions from the ACLU:
And also hilariously claiming that "77%" of Americans support the building of the Mosque:
Once again, I don't understand why the developers keep doing things like this. Maybe you all can make sense of it.
I can. He is an islamic supremacist.
PAMELA GELLER, BIG JOURNALISM: WILDERS TRIAL, FREE SPEECH IS ALSO ON TRIAL
Check out my latest oped in Big Journalism:
In Wilders Trial, Free Speech Is Also On Trial Pamela Geller, Big Journalism
In what can only to be described as a throwback to the seventh century, Dutch Parliamentarian and anti-jihad warrior Geert Wilders was back in court Monday on specious “hate speech” charges filed by a corrupt, criminal dhimmi court in the Netherlands.
How dare they subjugate their Western values to Islamic supremacism in this dangerous farce?
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
STATISTICAL ISLAM PART I
Islamic scholar William Warner, whose work I have long admired, has devoted recent study to statistical Islam. I was fortunate to spend the day with Mr. Warner when he came to see me speak in Tennessee. His work is seminal.
For the statistics, go to: http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/index.html
It is a must-read series; here is part I.
Statistical Islam, Part 1 of 9
One of the great questions of the 21st century is: What is the true nature of Islam? There are two distinct answers to this question from the media and leaders. The popular message is that Islam is one of the great world religions, a peaceful religion, a foundation of world civilization, its Golden Age was the highpoint of history, and it preserved Western thought while we were in the Dark Ages. The alternative message is that Islam is a brutal, backward, woman abusing, violent, intellectually narrow ideology that is out to annihilate civilization.
Which side is right? How do we resolve this issue? Can it even be resolved? If we turn to the “experts” of any of the opinions, they will tell you that their view is correct. What then is the ultimate authority that will give us a firm foundation for reasoning and judgment about Islam? Is it possible to use critical thought or must we just accept the authority of experts?
There is way to achieve consensus about ideas that goes beyond expert opinion. The use of facts along with logic is the basis of critical thought. The ultimate form of critical thought uses measurements and numbers to resolve questions. This paper will use the foundational texts of Islam and measure the importance of ideas by how many words are given to concepts. The assumption is that the more content that is devoted to a subject, the greater the importance of the subject is. As an example: the Koran devotes 64% of its text to the subject of the unbeliever. This is assumed to imply that the unbeliever is important in Islamic doctrine.
The use of critical thought may seem counter-intuitive since many people view Islam as a religion that does not have a rational basis. Actually, Islam is not only rational; it is hyper-rational, but it uses another form of logic than the one we take for granted.
If we are to use critical thought, we must have a firm foundation. All Muslims agree that:
“There is no god, but Allah and Mohammed is His messenger.”
When this is repeated as a public testimony, you become a Muslim. However, this statement is not only the beginning of Islam, it is also the foundation and totality of Islam. It is not enough to worship Allah; you must worship as Mohammed worshipped.
Who is Allah and where do we learn about Him? This question points directly to the Koran.
Then the Koran, in turn, points directly to Mohammed. It says 91 times that Mohammed is the perfect Muslim. He is the divine human prototype, the only pattern acceptable to Allah. The actions and words of Mohammed are so important that they have a special name—Sunna. We find the Sunna in two texts. The Sira is the biography of Mohammed and the Hadith is the collection of hadiths (small stories, traditions) about Mohammed.
Islam is based on Koran and Sunna. Since the Sunna is found in the Sira and the Hadith, this means that three books contain all the doctrine of Islam—the Trilogy. If it is in the Trilogy (Koran, Sira, Hadith), then it is Islam. If something is not in the Trilogy, then it is not Islam. All of the Islamic doctrine is found in the Trilogy. Now, we have the complete information with no missing pieces.
We have established our first criteria of knowledge. All authoritative statements about Islam must include a reference to the Trilogy to be authenticated. It does not matter what a scholar, imam, media guru, or anyone else says, if what they say cannot be supported by the doctrine in the Trilogy, then it is not Islam. If it is supported by the Trilogy, then it is Islam.
We have been taught that the Koran is the source of Islamic doctrine. However, the Koran is only 14% of the total sacred texts . Actually, the Sira and the Hadith are 86% of the total textual doctrine . Islam is 14% Allah and 86% Mohammed. This is very good news. The Koran is obscure, but anyone can understand the life and sayings of Mohammed. These statistics point to the easy way to know Islam—know Mohammed. Anyone, absolutely anyone, can understand Mohammed and hence, Islam.
Islam is a text-based doctrine, so the nature of these texts must be made clear. A Muslim believes that the Koran is perfect, complete, universal and eternal. It does not contain the slightest error and it is the exact words of the only god of the universe. Mohammed is the perfect example of how to live the sacred life. This idea of complete, final, universal, and perfect textual truth is very hard for non-Muslims to comprehend. Most people read the Koran with the attitude of: “Oh, they don’t really believe this.” When Muslims read the Koran, their attitude is: “These are the perfect words of Allah.” Muslims call themselves the “believers” and by that they mean that they believe the Koran is perfect and Mohammed is the perfect pattern of life.Remember, we started with the question: Can we evaluate what the media commentators, politicians, imams and other “experts” say about the true nature of Islam? Yes, we can know the true nature of Islam—it is found in the Trilogy. If what the expert has to say can be supported by the doctrine found in the Trilogy, then it is valid, since the Trilogy is the final arbiter of all opinions and statements about Islam.
Critical thought provides a powerful first step. Now, let us measure the doctrine of Islam. The following cases show how the technique of counting the number of words that are devoted to a topic can be used to discover the dominant themes of Islamic texts and, hence, Islamic doctrine.
DHIMMEDIA: NEWSPAPERS REFUSE CARTOON THAT REFERENCES MUHAMMAD
MORE SELF IMPOSED SHARIA
More media capitulation to Islamic supremacism, as explained here. I understand their fear, but my question to all of these cowards is, isn't the alternative more frightening? Isn't the ascension of sharia and blasphemy laws more frightening than publishing a silly toon? Isn't the silencing of free men a scarier prospect than the whole of the global jihad?
Isn't freedom worth fighting for? Worth dying for? How dare they so casually relinquish that which our fathers, grandfathers and founding fathers fought so hard and died for.
Someone said that if you trade freedom for peace you get neither -- or something along those lines. True that.
Editors Pass on Comic Strip With ‘Where’s Muhammad?’ Reference Editor and
PublisherSome editors opted not to run Sunday’s “Non Sequitur” comic strip, which included a “Where’s Muhammad?” reference, according to The Washington Post’s “Comic Riffs” blog.
Wayne Miller’s strip on Sunday depicted a scene in a park with a variety of characters, with the caption, “Picture book title voted least likely to ever find a publisher: ‘Where’s Muhammad?’”
Some 20 papers, including the Portland Press Herald and the Boston Globe — both of which “Non Sequitur” Wiley Miller reads — opted to run a Sunday replacement strip featuring the recurring character Obvious-Man. "Non Sequitur" is syndicated by Universal UClick.
The Washington Post ran the strip online Sunday, but not in its print edition.
Miller told Comic Riffs, "I have absolutely no information on why any of the editors chose not to run it. All I can do is surmise that the irony of their being afraid to run a cartoon that satirizes media's knee-jerk reaction to anything involving Islam bounced right of their foreheads. So what they've actually accomplished is, sadly, [to] validate the point."
"Non Sequitur," which bowed in 1991, has won National Cartoonists Society division awards for Best Comic Strip and Best Comic Panel.
The irony of the cartoon's message should not get lost on anyone.
UPDATE: The quislings at the Washington Post are pretending to be staunch defenders of free speech, but they took the cowards way out. They ran the toon online, but not in print. lol. You can't make this stuff up. Here's their take:
Depending on what newspaper you take, you may or may not see today's "Non Sequitur" comic that's captioned, in part,"...Where's Muhammad?"
Some newspapers chose instead to run a Sunday replacement strip featuring the recurring character Obvious-Man. So what was the editorial thinking behind the choice?
[..]
The Washington Post chose to run the "Where's Muhammad?" comic in its online edition but not in its Sunday print funnies, running an "Obvious-Man" replacement. Spokeswoman Kris Coratti said The Post had no comment on that decision.
Posts
