The American Jingoist

ACT for America Articles

ACT

AUGUST 30, 2010

Islam in the Public Schools

The culmination of the project next year will be a written report that we will make available online as well as mail to every school board member in America.
Updated: Tue., Aug. 24, 2010, 5:07 AM

HS test ‘slams’ Christianity, lauds Islam

By YOAV GONEN Education Reporter

Last Updated: 5:07 AM, August 24, 2010

Posted: 2:33 AM, August 24, 2010

State testmakers played favorites when quizzing high-schoolers on world religions — giving Islam and Buddhism the kid-gloves treatment while socking it to Christianity, critics say.

Teachers complain that the reading selections from the Regents exam in global history and geography given last week featured glowing passages pertaining to Muslim society but much more critical essay excerpts on the subject of Christianity.

“There should have been a little balance in there,” said one Brooklyn teacher who administered the exam but did not want to be identified.

“To me, this was offensive because it’s just so inappropriate and the timing of it was piss-poor,” he added, referring to the debate over the plan to build a mosque near Ground Zero.

The most troubling passage came from Daniel Roselle’s “A World History: A Cultural Approach,” observers said.

The passage reads: “Wherever they went, the Moslems [sic] brought with them their love of art, beauty and learning. From about the eighth to the eleventh century, their culture was superior in many ways to that of western Christendom.”

Meanwhile, an excerpt listing the common procedures used by Christian friars to introduce the religion in Latin America stated that “idols, temples and other material evidences of paganism [were] destroyed,” and “Christian buildings [were] often constructed on sites of destroyed native temples” — and built with free Indian labor, to boot.

“I can see why some people might see these questions as skewed,” said Mark MacWilliams, a religious-studies professor at St. Lawrence University in upstate Canton. “Why does the exam seem to have only documents that portray Islam as a religion of peace, civilization and refinement, while it includes documents about Christianity that show it was anything but peaceful in the Spanish conquest of the Americas?”

At the same time, MacWilliams criticized the presentation of Hernando Cortes’ conquest of Mexico — which he said portrayed him as a “choirboy” rather than a “conquistador.”

“It’s quite a whitewash,” he said.

Some other religious-studies experts contacted by The Post said they didn’t see what the fuss was all about.

“[The] selections seem about equal in terms of being historically/culturally focused, all relatively positive about the contributions made by each religion as it was introduced into various societies,” wrote Barbara Sproul, an associate professor of religion at Hunter College in Manhattan.

Yet Michael Dobkowski, chair of Religious Studies at Hobart and William Smith Colleges in upstate Geneva, asserted that it was only Christianity for which both positive and negative aspects were highlighted.

“Some [essays] suggest a kind of Christian triumphalism and the desire to convert the other that is not present in the treatment of Islam,” he said. “My impression is that there is certainly a divergence of approaches and impressions that should not appear in a Regents exam of this caliber.”

State education officials said that every effort had been made to present accurate historical information through the excerpts.

They said the questions had been developed over a four-year period and require students to use their own knowledge of social studies to produce answers.

They added that they weren’t aware of any complaints about the exam.

The Muslim reading:

* “Wherever they went, the Moslems [sic] brought with them their love of art, beauty and learning. From about the eighth to the eleventh century, their culture was superior in many ways to that of western Christendom.

* “Some of the finest centers of Moslem life were established in Spain. In Cordova, the streets were solidly paved, while at the same time in Paris people waded ankle-deep in mud after a rain. Cordovan public lamps lighted roads for as far as ten miles; yet seven hundred years later there was still not a single public lamp in London!”

Source: Daniel Roselle, A World History: A Cultural Approach

The Christian reading:
Common Procedures used by Friars in Converting Areas in Spanish America:

* “Idols, temples and other material evidences of paganism destroyed.”

* “Christian buildings often constructed on sites of destroyed native temples in order to symbolize and emphasize the substitution of one religion by the other.”

* “Indians supplied construction labor without receiving payment.”

* “In a converted community, services and fiestas were regularly held in the church building.”

Source: Based on information from Charles Gibson, Spain in America

Additional reporting by Chuck Bennett

ACT

August 24, 2010

Which Islam Will Prevail
in America?

Andrew McCarthy, lead prosecutor in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was one of our featured speakers at the 2010 ACT! for America National Conference and Legislative Briefing. He is the author of the compelling book The Grand Jihad.

His recent commentary (below, highlights added) is well worth taking a few minutes to read

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/244349/which-islam-will-prevail-america-andrew-c-mccarthy

Andrew C. McCarthy

Which Islam Will Prevail in America?
That is the real question at hand in the Ground Zero mosque debate.

The real battle for religious freedom lurks beneath the Ground Zero mosque controversy. It is sadly ironic that our public debate presents the mosque proponents as the partisans of liberty: That includes everyone from imam Feisal Rauf, the project’s sharia-touting sponsor, to President Obama, Mayor Bloomberg, and the rest of the Islamist-smitten Left, to the GOP’s own anti-anti-terrorist wing. Yet, wittingly or not, when they champion this mosque and its sponsors, it is the agenda of an alien and authoritarian Islam that they champion — an Islam against which many American Muslims chafe.

When it comes to liberty, no one in this society has been given a wider berth than the Islamists, the purveyors of this authoritarian Islam, which is the mainstream Islam of the Middle East. Their vise grip on the American Muslim community has been cinched for two decades by the government, the media, and the academy. For our post-American ruling class, “Islamic outreach” means prostituting themselves for Saudi largesse; it means putting the “moderate” label on the Muslim Brotherhood — the Saudi-backed saboteurs whose American operatives boldly promise to “eliminate and destroy Western Civilization from within.”

The victims of this lethal charade include American Muslims. They, too, crave religious liberty and Western enlightenment. Our elites abandon them to the sharia-mongers. That freedom destroyers have been allowed to pose as freedom defenders ought to tell mosque opponents something: We have done a poor job of explaining the stakes.

In 1993, I headed up a prosecution team that was preparing to try the “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven other jihadists for conducting a terrorist war against the United States. The case revealed this country’s Muslim divide.

On one side were patriotic American Muslims, without whom successful prosecution would have been impossible. Not only did they infiltrate the terror cells, they helped us shape the resulting evidence into a compelling narrative. On the other side were the Muslim Brotherhood’s satellites. These included outfits like CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations), which was formed in 1994 by the Brotherhood’s Hamas-support wing, with seed money from an Islamic “charity” — the Holy Land Foundation — later shut down for financing foreign terrorist organizations. These Brotherhood satellites purport to speak for American Muslims. In fact, they speak for anti-American Muslims, most of whom are outside the United States. They demagogued the case as a phobic criminalization of Islam itself, just as they have libeled America since 9/11 as being “at war with Islam.”

Translating evidence into English turned out to be a Herculean challenge during our trial preparation. Most of our evidence was in Arabic, because almost all of our defendants had immigrated here from Egypt and Sudan, hotbeds of anti-American Islam. The resulting mounds of documents, wiretap recordings, and inflammatory sermons overstretched the Justice Department’s thin Arabic-language capacity. To ease the strain, we tried to retain some civilians as private contractors. A number of local Muslims expressed interest, but in the end they turned us down.

BROTHERHOOD ISLAM vs. AMERICAN ISLAM
Mind you, they wanted to help. They were as offended as anyone by what the terrorists had done. These folks were Americans. They were the kind of Muslims you’re never exposed to, given the media’s preference for jihad apologists who, when not applauding him, claim Osama bin Laden was “made in the U.S.A.” But the would-be translators wanted ironclad assurance that their assistance to the prosecution would be kept confidential. It was an assurance I was not in a position to give, so they politely declined.

Here’s the most depressing part: It wasn’t really a matter of safety. There was surely some element of that — it goes with the territory in terrorism cases. But these people were mostly worried that they and their families would be ostracized in their communities as traitors to Islam.

In Muslim communities, I learned, many people — especially American Muslims — were supportive of our investigations. Of course they didn’t like the light of suspicion being shined on Muslims, not any more than Italian Americans liked the attention our mafia cases thrust on their communities. Yet they tuned out the CAIR chorus, just as most sensible people tune out the grievance industry. They reserved most of their resentment for the malevolent, anti-American actors in their midst. They understood that public safety is the government’s highest obligation. As long as they could do it quietly, they were willing to help.

But doing it quietly was imperative. Most American Muslims are not instinctively different from other Americans. But American Muslim communities are peculiar. In many of them, the leadership of the mosques and Islamic centers is foreign (or at least foreign-influenced). This leadership tends to be anti-Western and arrogant, claiming an Islamic authenticity Americans are said to lack. Many American Muslims are intimidated into silence. They are cowed by the specter of being condemned as too American. In Islam, there is no more grievous offense than causing disunity through infidelity. It is no small thing when community leaders frame a Muslim as insufficiently loyal to the ummah, the notional Islamic nation.

American Muslims are also taken aback by the ease with which their community leaders straddle the line between preaching Islam and cheerleading for terrorists. Why, they wonder, does their government, the U.S. government, consistently elevate America-bashing Islamists who can’t give a straight answer when asked about Hamas and Hezbollah? Why not highlight Muslims who are pro-American and unambiguously anti-terrorist — Muslims who desperately need the support?

Most of the mosques and Islamic centers in our country are controlled, to a greater or lesser degree, by the Muslim Brotherhood and its satellites. The North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) was established in the early Seventies to buy up property for the establishment of American mosques and “Islamic centers,” the latter being what the Brotherhood calls “the axis” of the Islamist movement in America. The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) supplies literature and vets imams. Both NAIT and ISNA, along with CAIR and other Brotherhood groups, were identified by the Justice Department as unindicted coconspirators in the recent Hamas-financing prosecution against the Holy Land Foundation. These Islamists owe their vision to the Brotherhood. Just as important, they owe their livelihood, influence, and power to moneyed Middle East patrons, particularly the Saudis.

The Kingdom and the Brotherhood have combined for a half-century to put American Muslim communities in a stranglehold. They proselytize a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam — an amalgam of Saudi Wahhabism and Brotherhood Salafism — that is virulently anti-Western. Its instruction to Muslims in the United States, Canada, and Europe is voluntary apartheid: Immigrate but don’t integrate, infiltrate but don’t assimilate.

SHARIA OR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM?
This brand of Islam is designed to create parallel Muslim enclaves, resistant to America’s freedom culture and to Western civilization, just as it created the liberty-killing “no-go zones” now sprouting up throughout Europe. It is designed to snuff out religious freedom, pressuring American Muslims to adopt the Islamists’ social mores, financial practices, and anti-Western outlook. And the authoritarian device it uses to establish and control these enclaves is sharia, Islam’s legal and political framework, which aspires to control of all aspects of life — not just spiritual life, but all of life.

It is the Brotherhood’s objective to thread sharia through American law and culture. This mission drives imam Feisal Rauf’s work, as documented by the Center for Security Policy’s Christine Brim in an eye-popping report at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Peace website.

Since 2006, Rauf has been developing the “Sharia Index Project.” His partners in this venture include longtime Muslim Brotherhood honcho Jamal Barzinji, a top official at the International Institute of Islamic Thought. The IIIT, a major backer of the convicted terrorist Sami al-Arian, is one of the Brotherhood satellites that republished Rauf’s book, What’s Right with Islam Is What’s Right with America, the book that was released in Malaysia under the more telling title, A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11. (The other Brotherhood organization behind the republication of Rauf’s book was the aforementioned ISNA.) As Ms. Brim explains, the purpose of Rauf’s Sharia Index Project is “to benchmark” every country’s compliance with sharia, with an eye toward pressuring them to adopt and enforce more.

The United States is not going to become a sharia state anytime soon. That obvious fact has commentators pooh-poohing the encroaching peril, even as we watch Europe succumb before our eyes, as if no-go zones, honor killings, the Balkanizing of society, and the strangulation of freedom could never happen here. On Tuesday, for example, in an otherwise insightful column on the Left’s incoherence in the mosque controversy, the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto took an offhanded swipe at the “fringe right’s ravings about ‘Shariah.’” But are the concerns really “ravings,” and are they truly confined to a right-wing “fringe”?

It so happened that in the same day’s Journal, Bret Stephens penned a sharp essay about Muslim “moderates” who turn out not to be so moderate. As his counterpoint, he offered a courageous, progressive Muslim reformer, Irshad Manji. Rather than pretending that Islamic doctrine has nothing to do with terrorism, Ms. Manji is forthrightly confronting the doctrine and working to change it. What is it that needs change? As illustrated in her spellbinding book, The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim’s Call for Reform in Her Faith, much of what ails Islam is sharia sclerosis. Sharia, she elaborates, represents the legal opinions of classical Muslim jurists, frozen a millennium ago and, ever since, impervious to critical inquiry.

Frozen it remains thanks to atavistic zealots, prominent among them the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization founded by fundamentalists in the 1920s and lavishly funded by the Saudis since the 1950s, an outfit Manji correctly describes as “the al-Qaeda of its generation.” These Islamists are the true enemies of religious liberty. It is they who foreclose modern Muslims from the right to reason independently, to evolve.

Whether Ground Zero mosque proponents realize it or not, the cause they are advancing — against the will of the American people, and, perversely, under the guise of “religious freedom” — is the Islamist cause. It is the Brotherhood, not American Muslims, insisting that this monument must be imposed on this sacred spot.

It is a “considerable comfort,” Mr. Stephens writes, “to know that there are Muslims in the U.S. like Irshad who are working, tirelessly but mainly out of view, toward the cause of reform. They could use more support and recognition.” But, of course, their tireless work must happen “out of view,” because the Islamists have made it too dangerous for them to work openly. And they are denied support and recognition because the post-American ruling class has made its bed with sharia salesmen like Rauf, who blame America for 9/11 and can’t bring themselves to say Hamas is a terrorist organization.

By contrast, American Muslims grasp that 9/11 was an attack on their country, too. Their emerging leaders, such as Zuhdi Jasser and Steven Schwartz, have started organizations — respectively, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and the Center for Islamic Pluralism — that promote freedom and offer Muslims an escape from the Brotherhood’s clutches. As Messrs. Jasser and Schwartz relate, American Muslims understand the significance of Ground Zero to our nation, to the families of those who were slaughtered, and to the enemy against whom we are still fighting. They know that, in contrast to the innate intolerance of sharia states, the United States opens its arms to people of all faiths, including Muslims. Like Ms. Manji, they are struggling, against daunting opposition, to forge an Islam that embraces Western values, that reveres religious faith but denies it temporal authority.

The Ground Zero mosque controversy is not about religious liberty for Muslims. It is about which Islam will thrive in the United States: the one that is fighting Americans, or the one American Muslims are fighting for.

Al Qaida under new
American Management

For 18 months we have been ringing alarm bells about the wisdom of President Obama’s campaign of apology and appeasement to the Muslim world.

We have contended that this will not improve our image in the Muslim world, and will in fact produce the opposite effect—emboldening Islamists and expanding their ranks.

The results are in.

Appeasement of those driven by a supremacist ideology, which radical Islam is, has never worked in the past. Not surprisingly, it’s not working now.

IBD Editorials

Under New American Management,
Al-Qaida Now Poses Inner Threat

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/ArticlePrint.aspx?id=543760

By PAUL SPERRY

Posted 08:17 PM ET August 13, 2010

If al-Qaida looks and sounds different as we approach 9/11′s ninth anniversary, it’s because it’s under new American management. No fewer than four U.S. citizens and a permanent U.S. resident have risen to senior leadership posts.

These five English-speaking leaders are actively planning or facilitating attacks against their countrymen, while recruiting and radicalizing other American turncoats to carry them out.

By remaking itself into an American enterprise, al-Qaida is now more lethal than ever. Its new generation of leaders understands the way America works, having lived here for decades. They have a better sense of our security blind spots. They also know which kinds of attacks will produce both mass panic and maximum economic damage.

Al-Qaida’s indigenous rebirth, moreover, befogs our military strategy. We’re no longer at war with just a foreign enemy, but fellow Americans recruited by the enemy. They’re supplied, in turn, by a seemingly endless stream of homegrown foot soldiers, fed by a native Muslim population once believed quiescent and nonthreatening.

Shockingly, the War on Terror has morphed into a mini-civil war, and it’s posing major new challenges to its prosecution. We’re now battling our own citizens. How do we deal with wartime traitors? Can the CIA assassinate them? Can it spy on them? What about their civil rights?

This muddies an already muddy war, and it’s all part of al-Qaida’s plan.

After 9/11, the group vowed to convert our own people against us, something once thought impossible. But it’s managed to groom a startling number of American citizens and residents and install them in top leadership slots, including:

* Adnan Shukrijumah: The long-time Florida resident, who obtained a green card while living in the U.S. for more than 15 years, has replaced 9/11 planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammad as chief of al-Qaida’s terror operations.

Believed to be directing U.S. terrorist cells from Pakistan, Shukrijumah, 35, recently was indicted as a conspirator in last year’s plot to blow up the New York subway. There’s a $5 million reward for his capture.

* Adam Gadahn: The California-born Muslim convert assists Shukrijumah and Osama bin Laden as al-Qaida’s chief propagandist. He tailors the group’s message to American Muslims, as well as disaffected minorities ripe for conversion.

In 2006, Gadahn invoked U.S. Muslims to attack military bases, singling out California’s Camp Pendleton as a candidate for “a shooting spree.” Three years later, a Muslim soldier went on a shooting spree at Fort Hood. Gadahn, 31, praised the attack and urged more.

The first American to be charged with treason in 50 years, Gadahn is hiding in Pakistan with a $1 million bounty on his head.

* Anwar Awlaki: Articulate and media savvy, the American-born cleric is al-Qaida’s top recruiter of Western suicide cells.

Awlaki has recruited or radicalized countless homegrown terrorists, including the Fort Hood shooter and the Times Square bomber, both English-speaking citizens. Authorities also believe he ordered the Christmas airliner attack, which puts Awlaki in the middle of the last three major terror acts on U.S. soil.

Thought to be bin Laden’s heir, Awlaki has called on American Muslims to turn against their government, and has even justified killing American civilians. “Jihad against America is binding on every other (American) Muslim,” he said.

The 39-year-old Awlaki lived in the U.S. for 21 years before fleeing to Yemen after 9/11. Treasury last month designated him a “key leader of al-Qaida” and froze his assets. He’s also on the CIA’s terrorist hit list.

* Samir Khan: A U.S. citizen who grew up in New York and Charlotte, N.C., the Web-savvy 24-year-old is now in Yemen helping Awlaki target American audiences as al-Qaida’s newest propagandist.

Khan is editor of al-Qaida’s splashy new organ, “Inspire,” a Webzine that provides jihadists step-by-step instructions in English on making bombs that can elude bomb-sniffing dogs.

* Omar Hammami: The ex-Baptist convert to Islam grew up in the Alabama suburbs before joining al-Qaida.

He’s now, at 25, a field commander in Somalia, another key al-Qaida hot spot, where he’s recruiting and training U.S. jihadists. His trainees include dozens of Minneapolis college kids, including one who earned the dubious title, “first American suicide bomber.”

This new cadre of al-Qaida leaders is enlisting a growing faction of the U.S. Muslim community, many of them African-American and white converts who don’t fit the Arab terrorist profile. As many as three dozen U.S. converts are said to have gone through al-Qaida training in Yemen, where they’ve received Awlaki’s blessing. They reportedly include blond-haired, blue-eyed types, fitting a profile of Americans that al-Qaida in the past could only dream of recruiting.

Its recruiting effort is made all the easier by some 15,000 jihadi Web sites, 80% of which are operating off servers based inside the U.S. Across the country, moreover, mosques and Islamic bookstores sell Awlaki’s recorded sermons as CD box sets. It’s all protected “free speech.”

“Jihad is becoming as American as apple pie,” Awlaki boasts. More and more, he warns, terror attacks will come “from within” ‹ even within our own military.

Meanwhile, the so-called moderates of the Muslim establishment are sitting on their hands. Major Muslim groups have refused to cooperate in terror probes until the FBI backs off mosques. Their cold war turned hot last fall, when a Muslim leader in Detroit died in a shoot-out with agents, triggering outcry throughout the Muslim community.

It’s just a matter of time before a homegrown nut inspired by a radical mosque or Web site overcomes their bomb-making learning curve and successfully detonates one, blowing up a building or a mall or a plane inside America. And then we’ll all wonder why more wasn’t done to shut down these sites. Of course, by then we’ll be sweeping up the remains of victims, and it will be too late.

“America cannot and will not win,” Awlaki hisses. With Washington running from the war, disengaging from an enemy that now counts our own citizens among its senior ranks, we cannot afford to dismiss his words as bluster.

Sperry, formerly IBD Washington bureau chief, is a Hoover Institution media fellow and author of “Infiltration” and “Muslim Mafia.”

ACT

August 20, 2010

Our “Moderate Muslim” Problem

True reformers ignored

Petition numbers continue to grow

Bret Stephens’ recent column in The Wall Street Journal (below, highlights added) is a must-read. Thanks to the controversy surrounding the Ground Zero Mosque, more and more Americans, as well as many in the media, are beginning to focus on the threats radical Islam poses to America beyond those who are the actual terrorists.

In a recent appearance on the Michael Savage radio program, ACT! for America president Brigitte Gabriel went into great detail about the “moderate Muslim” problem Stephens discusses below. We have seen this “moderate Muslim” song and dance many times before, where government officials ignore the true Muslim reformers while spotlighting the likes of Imam Rauf. Think Abdurahman Alamoudi, touted as a paragon of moderation, feted at the White House—until he was convicted on terrorism related charges. He is now serving a 23 year prison sentence.

Here’s a question for those insisting Ground Zero Mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a “moderate.” Why won’t he sign the “Freedom Pledge” sent to him by Former Muslims United? All it asks is that Muslim leaders oppose retaliation against Muslims who leave Islam. Rauf’s refusal to sign a pledge opposing any kind of retaliation against “apostates” proves that his words about “tolerance” are a sham designed to fool the gullible.

There are true Muslim reformers in America. Rauf isn’t one of them.
Our ‘Moderate Muslim’ Problem
The Ground Zero mosque imam earns wide congratulations while true reformers go ignored.

• By BRET STEPHENS

Items of interest in the news media’s coverage of “moderate Muslims”:

• The New York Times, Oct. 19, 2001: “Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki, spiritual leader at the Dar al-Hijra mosque in Virginia, one of the nation’s largest. . . . is held up as a new generation of Muslim leader capable of merging East and West.”

• NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams, Dec. 9, 2004: “It’s the TV industry’s newest experiment, ‘Bridges TV,’ billing itself the ‘American-Muslim lifestyle network,’ featuring movies, documentaries, cartoons. . . . It’s the brainchild of Aasiya Hassan, an architect, and her husband, Muzzamil Hassan, a banker, who are disturbed that negative images of Muslims seem to dominate TV, especially since 9/11.”

• Boston Globe editorial, Aug. 4, 2010: “The simple fact is there’s nothing threatening about the proposed Islamic center, which is being spearheaded by Feisal Abdul Rauf, one of the most respected moderate Muslim leaders in the country.”

See where this is going?

Most readers probably know of Awlaki as the U.S.-born imam who presided over the mosque attended by two of the 9/11 hijackers. Awlaki also served as theological mentor to Fort Hood killer Nidal Malik Hassan, would-be Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad. President Obama has authorized the military to assassinate Awlaki, now thought to be living in Yemen.

As for Bridges TV, the saccharine story told by Brian Williams and reporter Ron Allen (complete with scenes of the family’s domestic bliss in their modest home in Buffalo, N.Y.), came to an abrupt end in February 2009, when Mr. Hassan beheaded his wife after she had filed for divorce, evicted him from their home, and won an order of protection. Last week, Mr. Hassan’s attorney defended her client on the grounds that he was, of all things, a “battered spouse.”

Now we have the controversy over the Ground Zero mosque, opponents of which are being widely branded as bigots. As, no doubt, some of them are: There are bigots in any crowd.

Then again, is it bigoted to oppose bigots? Consider an interesting historical antecedent. In 1993, a controversy similar to the current one unfolded when residents of a Washington, D.C., suburb sought to use zoning laws to shut down the local mosque, ostensibly on grounds that it was a traffic nuisance. “Worshipers of many faiths said closing the popular mosque . . . would amount to discrimination against one of the area’s fastest growing religions,” the Washington Times reported at the time.

The mosque in question? None other than the Dar al-Hijra, later to be known as the “9/11 mosque.” So were the petitioners who sought to shut it down bigots? Or is it that they got a whiff of its extremism, and didn’t like the smell? “We are appalled at the ill will and friction,” the paper quoted one Sylvia Johnson, “who said mosque-goers have yelled at her and blocked her driveway.”

Here, of course, the argument will be made that, unlike Awlaki, Mr. Rauf really is a moderate. And that might well be so—by the standards of his native Kuwait. But a man who claims to condemn all forms of terrorism yet refuses to call Hamas a terrorist group is not a moderate by American standards, which happen to be the relevant ones when you’re trying to build a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero. Mr. Rauf still has a perfect legal right to go ahead with his scheme. But his supporters need to choose between defending him on grounds of his alleged moderation (in which case his views are relevant), or on the principle of religious liberty (in which case they’re not). They can’t have it both ways.

Which brings me to the fundamental problem with too many self-described moderate Muslims. A few years ago, my friend Irshad Manji made the point to me that “moderate Muslims denounce terror that’s committed in the name of Islam but they deny that religion has anything to do with it.” [Editor’s Note: Exactly what CAIR representatives do.] By contrast, she noted, “reform-minded Muslims denounce terror that’s committed in the name of Islam and acknowledge that our religion is used to inspire it.”

That’s a distinction worth pondering. It’s also a considerable comfort to know that there are Muslims in the U.S. like Irshad who are working, tirelessly but mainly out of view, toward the cause of reform. They could use more support and recognition. As for the professional charlatans and secret radicals who claim to be moderate, it would be well if their cheerleaders in the media could inspect their credentials a little more carefully before lavishing them with praise. Because, when it comes to heralding the arrival of the long-awaited moderates, there’s nothing more embarrassing than a case of premature congratulation.

Exposing the real Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf

This past Friday, President Obama waded into the Ground Zero Mosque controversy, asserting it was a religious freedom issue.

Memo to President Obama and the politically correct elites in media, politics, academia and elsewhere: We’re not disputing First Amendment rights here.

We are not opposed to the first amendment right to build a mosque. We are opposed to the erection of a mosque on the sacred ground of Ground Zero, because this will be viewed by tens of millions in the Muslim world as a victory shrine. This will embolden those committed to jihad against America and swell their ranks.

We are opposed to the stunning insensitivity toward the 9/11 victims by Imam Rauf and those supporting him in this endeavor.

And we are concerned about the real agenda for this mosque, an agenda that includes the advance of sharia law, which is why we bring you this email today. In this extensive expose’ below learn for yourself who the real Imam Rauf is—hardly the “moderate” he and his apologists claim he is.

If you haven’t yet done so, please sign our petition opposing the Ground Zero Mosque. One national poll now shows that 54% of Democrats, 70% of Independents, and 82% of Republicans are opposed to the Ground Zero Mosque.
Feisal Abdul Rauf By Alyssa Lappen
An investigative report prepared for ACT! for America

Feisal Abdul Rauf, born in Kuwait in 1948, boasts of his issue from an “Egyptian family steeped in religious scholarship.” ¹ He presents himself as a Muslim moderate.² Yet Feisal Rauf’s Muslim Brotherhood provenance, radical by definition, is as authentic as it gets.

Feisal Abdul Rauf By Alyssa Lappen
An investigative report prepared for ACT! for America

Feisal Abdul Rauf, born in Kuwait in 1948, boasts of his issue from an “Egyptian family steeped in religious scholarship.” ¹ He presents himself as a Muslim moderate.² Yet Feisal Rauf’s Muslim Brotherhood provenance, radical by definition, is as authentic as it gets.

Evidence of family, and direct Rauf Muslim Brotherhood connections

Click here to continue reading this report.

Terror threat and

the border

The op-ed below, written by Brigitte Gabriel, appeared today in the New York Post.

We encourage you to forward this to everyone you know.

Looming threat from illegals: terror

By BRIGITTE GABRIEL

Last Updated: 10:01 AM, July 30, 2010

Posted: 12:01 AM, July 30, 2010

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/looming_threat_from_illegals_terror

_fxLo773X6OkZJXUCLXVIXJ

Arizonans will be grateful for some extra help from the National Guard, starting Sunday, in protecting the border and fighting drug violence — especially now that a federal judge has blocked key parts of their recent illegal-immigration law. But there’s a more pressing border issue that goes beyond Arizona: the alliance between drug cartels and groups that aim to smuggle terrorists into our country through the Mexican border.

Last week’s detonation along the Texas-Mexico border of an Improvised Explosive Device similar to those used in Iraq and Afghanistan strongly suggests that Hezbollah is working with the drug cartels — and that America is unsafe. Law-enforcement officials and intelligence analysts believe that terrorist groups like al Qaeda have been working with such gangs as the ruthless MS-13 to smuggle terrorists into America.

Intel briefings and other sources suggest that al Qaeda spends as much as $50,000 to smuggle in a single terrorist, while Hezbollah, funded by Iran, pays as much as $10,000.

Indeed, some analysts estimate that thousands of terrorists have already been smuggled into the United States through the Mexican border since 9/11. Last year, a worker at the Mexican embassy in Beirut was caught selling visas to enter Mexico for $3,000 apiece. Hezbollah terrorists know that once they get to Mexico they can make their way here through our southern border.

A congressional report on homeland security acknowledges this threat. The report, “A Line in the Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border,” addresses the alarming rate at which the number of aliens referred to as “other than Mexican,” or OTMs, are crossing the border. Many OTMs are nationals and terrorists from countries such as Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Chechnya, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Our biggest threat is that a nuclear, dirty or biological bomb could be smuggled by OTMs into America soon.

Hezbollah, the most sophisticated terrorist organization today, trains al Qaeda members in centers in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley before they leave for terror destinations via Syria, my sources there report. The organization manufactures IEDs in Lebanon and has perfected their use since the 1980s.

An alliance between the drug cartels and Hezbollah is a symbiotic, win-win situation for both parties. Hezbollah can share its expertise in tunnel-engineering and bomb-making with the drug cartels. The cartels can then smuggle dealers and drugs through these tunnels, several of which have been discovered in recent years, while Hezbollah smuggles terrorists and munitions to be used in terror missions in America.

Hezbollah is Iran’s proxy army and is trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. As Iran and America head into a confrontation over Iran’s nuclear program, Iran must ensure it has sufficient operatives in America to retaliate when the time comes, and this alliance provides the means to get them here. That time is coming faster than we think.

Intelligence analysts think Hezbollah has at least 11 cells in America, including one in New York City. If provoked, perhaps via an Israeli strike, it is likely Iran will retaliate not only against Israel but against its strongest ally.

Our border-security crisis extends beyond illegal workers and employers looking for cheap labor. A suitcase bomb or biological bomb detonated in any major city in America would kill untold numbers of civilians and wreak havoc on our economy. Health care, prison housing and other costs for illegal immigrants would ultimately pale in comparison to such devastation.

Terrorists now have operational centers all over South America. They’re learning Spanish and obtaining fake Spanish papers in case they’re caught crossing over the Mexican border. The Tri-Border region of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay in South America has become a haven for international Islamic extremists. A State Department report notes that Hezbollah and other terrorist groups were using bases in Latin America to “raise millions of dollars annually via criminal enterprises.”

Americans must put politics aside and act now to secure the Mexican border. Arizona families are in need of protection from the drug violence, but we must protect the millions of Americans living in major cities who are threatened by a suitcase bomb or the like smuggled through the Mexican border.

The time for bickering is over.

Terrorism analyst Brigitte Gabriel, author of “Because They Hate,” is president of ACTforAmerica.org.

LEGISLATIVE ALERT!!

The U.S. Congress Moves a Step Forward Toward the

Eradication of “Libel Tourism”

By Lisa Piraneo, Director of Government Relations

Tuesday, the House of Representatives passed a modified version of H.R. 2765, the “Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act,” (aka the “SPEECH Act”) originally introduced by Representative Steve Cohen (TN), and recently passed in the U.S. Senate. It will now be sent to the White House for the President’s signature, at which time it will become law.

H.R. 2765 deters individuals from bringing a libel or defamation suit against an American in a country that has less protective free speech laws. This increasing practice is not used to pursue legitimate claims of defamation and libel, but to silence journalists, publishers, authors as well as anyone else who seeks to exercise their First Amendment right of Free Speech. It is referred to as “libel tourism” or “lawfare” and it is being used successfully to silenced authors and journalists, like Rachel Ehrenfeld, who write about issues critical to our national security.

As Representative Peter King recently stated, “We cannot change other countries’ (libel) laws, nor would we want to. We must respect their laws, as they ought to respect ours. However, we cannot allow foreign citizens to exploit these courts to endanger Americans’ First Amendment protected speech; especially, when the subject matter is of such grave importance as terrorism and those who finance it.”

ACT! for America has a history of aggressively and successfully working to defeat libel tourism and to protect every American’s constitutional right to Free Speech. We have supported and helped pass similar legislation at the state level in New York (“Rachel’s Law”), as well as similar legislation in Florida, Illinois, Utah, Tennessee, Maryland and California. It was time for the U.S. Congress to address libel tourism protection at a national level as well.

ACT! for America is supportive of H.R. 2765’s provisions—namely banning enforcement of foreign libel judgments, and allowing authors to request exoneration in court. However, we endorsed, The Free Speech Protection Act introduced in the House as H.R. 1304, by Rep. Peter King, and in the Senate as S. 449, by Sen. Arlen Specter, as we feel it is stronger legislation. The proposals were on our list of “High Priority Legislation” in the current session of Congress and we actively supported them.

The Free Speech Protection Act contains not only provisions included in H.R. 2765—namely banning the enforcement of foreign libel judgments—but it goes a step further: The legislation would also allow American authors and journalists to sue those foreign plaintiffs here in the United States—something that we feel will be a strong and successful deterrent to libel tourism litigation.

The bottom line: Legislation that codifies any of our constitutional rights is critically important, and passage of H.R. 2765 can certainly be categorized as a “score” for us on the constitutional scoreboard. We remain hopeful, however, that stronger legislation, such as the King/Specter Free Speech Protection Act, will be addressed and ultimately passed into law during the next session of Congress. Doing so will ensure that the harassment of libel tourism will finally be significantly diminished, if not eliminated altogether.

REMEMBER, YOUR VOICE COUNTS!

IF EACH OF US DOES JUST A LITTLE, TOGETHER WE CAN

ACCOMPLISH A LOT!

NJ Judge rules it’s not rape when a Muslim forces himself on his wife!

Recently, an ABC News story scoffed at the Oklahoma referendum going to the voters that prohibits the courts from using sharia law in their decisions. The implication was that there is no need for this.

Really?

Jihad Watch reported on Saturday (see story below, highlights added) that a New Jersey judge ruled that a Muslim man, accused of forcing non-consensual sex on his wife, was not guilty because of his religious beliefs.

Here is the portion of his ruling that should leave no doubt that Islamic sharia law is penetrating America:

“This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.”

In other words, the husband’s belief in sharia law trumps New Jersey criminal law. The husband did not commit a crime because he was acting according to sharia law.

Fortunately, an appellate court had the good sense to overturn this absurd decision. But don’t let anyone tell you we don’t need to worry about sharia law being imposed on us here in America! Or on Muslims who don’t wish to be subjected to it.

Sharia in New Jersey: Muslim husband rapes wife, judge sees no sexual assault because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/sharia-in-new-jersey-muslim-husband-rapes-wife-judge-sees-no-sexual-assault-because-husbands-religio.html

Muhammad said: “If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning” (Bukhari 4.54.460).

He also said: “By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel’s saddle” (Ibn Majah 1854).

And now a New Jersey judge sees no evidence that a Muslim committed sexual assault of his wife — not because he didn’t do it, but because he was acting on his Islamic beliefs: “This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.”

Luckily, the appellate court overturned this decision, and a Sharia ruling by an American court has not been allowed to stand. This time.

“Cultural Defense Accepted as to Nonconsensual Sex in New Jersey Trial Court, Rejected on Appeal,” by Eugene Volokh in The Volokh Conspiracy, July 23 (thanks to CameoRed):

From today’s opinion in S.D. v. M.J.R. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.), a domestic restraining order case:

The record reflects that plaintiff, S.D., and defendant, M.J.R., are citizens of Morocco and adherents to the Muslim faith. They were wed in Morocco in an arranged marriage on July 31, 2008, when plaintiff was seventeen years old. [FN1] The parties did not know each other prior to the marriage. On August 29, 2008, they came to New Jersey as the result of defendant’s employment in this country as an accountant….

[Long discussion of the wife's allegations of abuse, which included several instances of nonconsensual sex as well as other abuse, omitted for space reasons. -EV]

Upon their return to the apartment, defendant forced plaintiff to have sex with him while she cried. Plaintiff testified that defendant always told her

this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do.

After having sex, defendant took plaintiff to a travel agency to buy a ticket for her return to Morocco. However the ticket was not purchased, and the couple returned to the apartment. Once there, defendant threatened divorce, but nonetheless again engaged in nonconsensual sex while plaintiff cried. Later that day, defendant and his mother took plaintiff to the home of the Imam and, in the presence of the Imam, his wife, and defendant’s mother, defendant verbally divorced plaintiff….[...]

While recognizing that defendant had engaged in sexual relations with plaintiff against her expressed wishes in November 2008 and on the night of January 15 to 16, 2009, the judge did not find sexual assault or criminal sexual conduct to have been proven. He stated:

This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.

After acknowledging that this was a case in which religious custom clashed with the law, and that under the law, plaintiff had a right to refuse defendant’s advances, the judge found that defendant did not act with a criminal intent when he repeatedly insisted upon intercourse, despite plaintiff’s contrary wishes.

Having found acts of domestic violence consisting of assault and harassment to have occurred, the judge turned to the issue of whether a final restraining order should be entered. He found such an order unnecessary, vacated the temporary restraints previously entered in the matter and dismissed plaintiff’s domestic violence action….

The appellate court reversed this absurd decision, saying:

As the judge recognized, the case thus presents a conflict between the criminal law and religious precepts. In resolving this conflict, the judge determined to except defendant from the operation of the State’s statutes as the result of his religious beliefs. In doing so, the judge was mistaken.

A close call. But no doubt more of this is to come.