Alice Hoagland, Mother of Flight 93 Hero Mark Bingham, Has Passionate Plea For Developer of Park 51 (Ground Zero Mosque)

H/T LiveLeak.com 

Bill O'Reilly Speaks the Truth & Both Whoopie Goldberg and Joy Behar Walk Off the Set

Bill O'Reilly speaks the truth about a majority of Americans saying that it is inappropriate for the Ground Zero Mosque to be built so close to Ground Zero and that the mosque should be moved further away from Ground Zero, from where Muslim extremists murdered 3000 innocents on 9/11. The CNN survey shows that 68% of Americans oppose where the Ground Zero Mosque is planned to be built. It is only the left wing fringe cooks that think it is appropriate to have this mosque built a stone's throw away from where Muslim terrorists murdered 3000 innocents in the name of Allah, and Islam. The Imam claims to want to "build bridges" with the public which consists primarily of non-Muslims while both his actions and words are ticking off the public with his willful ignorance, and somewhat threatening statement in the CNN interview if it isn't built where he and other Muslims want it. Gee... the Muslim Imam seems to be having a temper tantrum because his so called goal of "building bridges" and having the mosque built exactly where he and other extremists Muslims want it isn't going as planned. If the mosque isn't built in the exact spot that Muslims want it then it won't be considered a victory mosque. If this is any sign of how "peaceful" he is then God help us. The man is a wolf in sheep's clothing. 

Imam Rauf -- The Good, the Bad & the Ugly

Ibn Warraq has written two articles about the Imam, his multiple messages - mixed messages - and the two faces of Imam Feisal Rauf - the good Imam and the bad Imam.  I am posting both articles below.

From Ibn Warraq:
Journalist and author Fareed Zakaria has made some grave accusations against those who oppose the building of the Islamic center near Ground Zero, and has predicated his own approval of the project on the moderateness of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Zakaria wrote that Abdul Rauf “has said one or two things about American foreign policy that strike me as overly critical — but it’s stuff you could read on The Huffington Post any day.”


Yes, indeed — you are likely to read similar “stuff” on the Huffington Post, since Rauf has written there. But how can that possibly constitute a convincing defense of Rauf? Many Huffington Post writers are anti-American, and believe that the U.S. had 9/11 “coming to it.” They still have not learned that 9/11 had nothing to do with U.S. foreign policy.

Rauf evidently has not learned that lesson either. On Sept. 30, 2001, 60 Minutes host Ed Bradley asked him if he thought the U.S. deserved the 9/11 attacks. Rauf replied, “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened. . . . We have been an accessory to a lot of — of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it — in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the U.S.A.”


It is worth noting Rauf’s words carefully. The atrocity is characterized in the passive: “a crime that happened.” This allows Rauf to avoid stating that it was Islamists who committed it. In his book What’s Right with Islam, Rauf even objects to the term “Islamism” — one that was actually concocted to avoid indicting Islam directly — since, he argues, it falsely implies that Islam is the source of the militancy.
CONTINUED


The problems with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s book What’s Right with Islam begin with the title. As Andrew McCarthy noted on National Review Online, the book, whose full title is now What’s Right with Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West, was previously called What’s Right with Islam Is What’s Right with America; before that, it was published in Malaysia as A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America post-9/11. In one edition published by HarperCollins, the copyright page told us that the “edition was made possible through a joint effort of The International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) and the office of Interfaith and Community Alliance of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Funding for this project was provided by IIIT.” The HarperCollins edition no longer contains this telling information, and with reason. McCarthy reveals that both ISNA and IIIT have promoted Hamas, and were demonstrated “by the Justice Department [to be] unindicted co-conspirators in a crucial terrorism-financing case involving the channeling of tens of millions of dollars to Hamas through an outfit called the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. For the last 15 years, Hamas has been a designated terrorist organization under U.S. law.”

Dawa is the invitation, addressed to men by God and the prophets, to believe in the true religion, Islam. The term can mean propaganda, but more specifically, it refers to Islamic missionary work, which is not limited to efforts to convert individuals but includes efforts to convert entire societies and establish Islamic states. Yusuf Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, predicts that Islam will “conquer America” and “conquer Europe” through Dawa.


In the book’s chatty and ostentatiously friendly preface, Rauf tells us that he is an American and a Muslim, and proud to be both. Then comes this sentence: “September 11, a day that will live in infamy for having provoked the United States into a war, confused and frightened many non-Muslim Americans about Islam.” Note that in this description of why 9/11 will “live in infamy,” there is not a word about Islamic terrorists killing 2,976 people. We saw earlier how Rauf characterized 9/11 as “a crime that happened”; now it is a provocation.

It is not unusual for Rauf to dismiss or ignore the victims of 9/11. During a lecture he gave in Australia in 2005, Rauf said, “We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims. You may remember that the U.S.-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.”
CONTINUED

Imam Rauf is by no means a moderate Muslim. His words have in fact revealed the true Imam Rauf - extreme in his beliefs.  Rauf is much, much too radical and terrorist sympathizing and must not be allowed to build a mosque at Ground Zero, where Muslim extremists murdered 3000 innocents.  Through his words, as seen in the articles above, Imam Rauf has revealed that he is more akin to our enemy than he is a friend to the U.S.

Does Islam Suck?

EAGLE FREEDOM LINKS 9-7-10 Part 2

Landshark 5150 posts on a pathway back to the Constitution.

Let The Truth Be Known shouts a warning call and says our government is out of control.

Lone Star Parson posts on Hawking the atheist.

Maggie's Notebook reveals Tom Coburn saying Obamacare brings single payer.

Minded Numbed Robot posts on Obama's Gulf War.

My Thoughts on Freedom says it is time to bury John Maynard Keynes. 

Random Musings by Cliff shows a video on Father of 9/11's Todd Beamer on the mosque. 

Randy's Roundtable says Obama forgets who is president.

The Reaganite Republican states Bumbling Obama will need a miracle to .... .

Saberpoint posts reasons why Obama is a Muslim.

The Born Again American tells us about his journey which started 23 Years ago Today.

The Conservative Lady posted on Happy Government Day.

The Current posts on Arizona: In the Shadow of King George.

They Say/ We Say posts on the funneling of money from abroad to fund Ground Zero mosque.

TOTUS tells us of Old, Old Stories.

Trestin Meacham posts some thoughts on his Leaving Korea.

Tu Ne Cede Malis posts on Holy Orders & Why Elaine Groppenbacher cannot be Father Elaine.

Woodsterman posts on Ground Zero.

Amusing Bunni's Musings informs us that Time & Newsweek aren't Friends With Obummer Anymore.

Donald Trump Calls Ground Zero Mosque 'Insensitive'

Donald Trump said “I think it's very insensitive to build it there. I think it's not appropriate, a I think it's insensitive and it shouldn't be built there.”

Liberals and Muslims Paths Converge

I have been thinking about how much both liberals and Muslims have been working together lately.  Both of their paths seem to converge and now they are working in concert to impose intolerance on other religions such as traditional Christianity and the Jewish faith or those religious peoples' that do not follow the religion of Islam. I mean before this Ground Zero Mosque debate, when have you ever heard or seen liberals defending any person's right to religion?  Liberals are usually attacking Christianity and shouting "separation of Church and State" from the rooftops, pushing the secularization of America to the enth degree, but for some reason now they are defending the Muslims and the religion of Islam when that particular religion was either perverted or correctly applied when 19 Muslims murdered 3000 innocents on September 11, 2001 only a stone's throw away from Ground Zero.  But, separation of Church and State means absolutely nothing to liberals in this intance.

Liberals want to "transform" America and destroy all that America is from within, while Muslims want to destroy the West, especially America, from the outside and create a Caliphate.  Both liberals and Muslims want to destroy America and make it their own -albeit in different ways- but they are committed to working together to destroy America. And, that is where their paths converge, to destroy America by working together to dismantle any trace amounts of America being a Judeo-Christian nation, and our Republic.    

Just recently I found an article written by Michael Youssef that exposes a writer on an Arab website who proceeded to explain to her Arabic readers about the Unitarian Church and many “other Christian denominations,” referring mainly to mainline denominations, and why Muslims should be supportive of them.


She said they are not like those “traditional Christians” who believe in the divinity of Christ. They, like us “Muslims,” believe that Jesus was just a good prophet: ‘To be sure, they do not believe in Mohammad as the true prophet of Allah, but we can get along with them.”

Then, Michael Youssef points out, yet, one more reason why both Muslims and liberals, or Muslims, Unitarians and the liberal mainline denominations are working together -- they all reject Biblical truth.

We must stop both liberals and Muslims

from destroying America!!!

9/11 families Speak Out on Ground Zero Mosque

You Just Might Be a Dhimmi If . . .

You just might be a dhimmi if…you believe in “tolerance” and “openness” to Muslims while displaying the opposite to Christians.


You just might be a dhimmi if…you believe that Islam is a religion of peace

You just might be a dhimmi if…you are in favor of a mosque being built just a stone’s throw away from Ground Zero where 3000 innocent people were murdered.

You just might be a dhimmi if…you are in favor of being sensitive to Muslim beliefs while advocating the ultimate act of insensitivity toward the families of the victims of 9/11.

You just might be a dhimmi if…you take this Imam’s word at face value, trusting him more than the common sense suspicions of your fellow concerned Americans.

You just might be a dhimmi if…you see a mosque being located just two blocks from Ground Zero as being good.

You just might be a dhimmi if…you think that Sharia law is compatible with our constitution.

You just might be a dhimmi if…you think that Sharia law wouldn’t be covered under religious freedom.

You just might be a dhimmi if…you think that these insensitive Muslims who are trying to build a mosque very close to Ground Zero are trying to “build bridges” with between Islam and Western culture.

You just might be a dhimmi if…you don’t want a background check on the imam to insure that absolutely no funds are coming from organizations with ties to terrorism.

If your dhimmitude emboldens and leads to Islamic extremists committing another terrorist attack, the dead will be so thankful for all your tolerance and openness toward the religion of peace.

Stop the dhimmis!

We must stop the dhimmitude!

Sacrilege at Ground Zero; Does One Really Have the Right to Build Anywhere?

I am in total agreement with Charles Krauthemmer. He is spot on! And, since Krauthammer is so eloquent and nails it, IMO, I am posting his wise words on the Ground Zero Mosque below:

By Charles Krauthamer:
A place is made sacred by a widespread belief that it was visited by the miraculous or the transcendent (Lourdes, the Temple Mount), by the presence there once of great nobility and sacrifice (Gettysburg), or by the blood of martyrs and the indescribable suffering of the innocent (Auschwitz).


When we speak of Ground Zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it belongs to those who suffered and died there -- and that such ownership obliges us, the living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place, never allowing it to be forgotten, trivialized or misappropriated.

That's why Disney's 1993 proposal to build an American history theme park near Manassas Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition that feared vulgarization of the Civil War (and that was wiser than me; at the time I obtusely saw little harm in the venture). It's why the commercial viewing tower built right on the border of Gettysburg was taken down by the Park Service. It's why, while no one objects to Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive.

And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their heartfelt mission to pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them a lesson in respect: This is not your place; it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let silence reign.

Even New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who denounced opponents of the proposed 15-story mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero as tramplers on religious freedom, asked the mosque organizers "to show some special sensitivity to the situation." Yet, as columnist Rich Lowry pointedly noted, the government has no business telling churches how to conduct their business, shape their message or show "special sensitivity" to anyone about anything. Bloomberg was thereby inadvertently conceding the claim of those he excoriates for opposing the mosque, namely that Ground Zero is indeed unlike any other place and therefore unique criteria govern what can be done there.

Bloomberg's implication is clear: If the proposed mosque were controlled by "insensitive" Islamist radicals either excusing or celebrating 9/11, he would not support its construction.

But then, why not? By the mayor's own expansive view of religious freedom, by what right do we dictate the message of any mosque? Moreover, as a practical matter, there's no guarantee that this couldn't happen in the future. Religious institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that the mosque won't one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi -- spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, and onetime imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists?

An Aulaqi preaching in Virginia is a security problem. An Aulaqi preaching at Ground Zero is a sacrilege. Or would the mayor then step in -- violating the same First Amendment he grandiosely pretends to protect from mosque opponents -- and exercise a veto over the mosque's clergy? CONTINUED

Do the people who want to have a mosque built just a stone's throw away from hallowed ground really have a "right" to build this mosque?  If the proposed building of a particular building on a site can be refused due to zoning laws and aesthetics why couldn't the sensitivity of  the victims families of those murdered on 9/11 hold more clout and overrule the "right" for this mosque to be built? Wouldn't you think that the sensitivity of the 9/11 victims families would be considered far more important to take into account than zoning laws or aesthetics when approving the building of a particular building? I would think so, and in spades.

A Trojan Mosque, "Settlements" & 4th Generation Warfare

I heard this article as it was being read over the radio on my way to work this morning. It's quite an interesting article. Enjoy!

By Scott Wheeler and Buckley Carlson:
                                                             Imam Feisal Adbul Rauf and his wife, Daisy Khan, the two halves of the public – and outwardly, “peaceful” – face of the Ground Zero Mosque effort, have proved themselves extremely competent practitioners of modern day media interaction; soft-spoken and articulate, they are faithfully “on-message” with their aspirations to help “bridge” the cultural divide, and to be regarded as the “anti-terrorists.”


Rauf and Kahn are nimble, and seemingly non-threatening. They are also the lucky beneficiaries of a compliant and un-inquisitive media.

For who can honestly begrudge Rauf and Kahn their inability to reconcile Rauf’s post-911 assertion that America was an “accessory” to the terrorist slaughter of 3,000 of her own; their refusal to disclose the sources of the $100 Million they are raising; or their malleable condemnation of “terrorism?” And is their apparent condemnation of terrorism conditional, such as it is with many who identify with political Islam? Also, what about Rauf’s refusal to denounce the violent terrorist group Hamas as a terrorist organization?

These would seem the salient questions…and yet, these queries are never made during the “interviews” to which these two submit. If only their “mainstream” inquisitors would dig as deep within the Muslim community as they do looking for any trace or nuance that could be construed as “racism” among the “tea parties.”

Rauf and Kahn’s public retreat from the use of the term “Cordoba House” – with it’s unmistakable historical reference to an Islamic culture that celebrates military victories by eradicating all traces of its enemy (and importantly, that vanquished enemy’s religious culture) by erecting a mosque as an enduring monument to the Supreme Power of Islam – certainly bespeaks a sophistication about “communications framing” that you aren’t likely to find in many “men (or women) of the cloth.” So, let there be no doubt, these two are exceptional.


But, what if Rauf and Kahn were more than just clever media manipulators and were actually “front men” for something more insidious?

The deeper one looks, the more this appears to be a “Trojan Mosque”…and Rauf and Kahn the soft side of a larger objective to plant mosques throughout the United States, and use them as “settlements." The kind of settlements for which Muslims will justify terrorist acts when built by Jews in Israel. Seem far fetched? Just do a little reading on the history of the proposed Ground Zero Mosque's name sake….Cordoba, or the al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, or really, any one of thousands of others around the world.
CONTINUED

My Rant on the Ground Zero Mosque

Newt Gingrich is spot on!! We are asked or told to bend over backwards for Muslims and Islam, which is a so-called religion, and yet they won’t respect a majority of the 9/11 families' wishes to stop the building of this mosque, along with a majority of the citizens of the United States who are against this mosque being built so close to Ground Zero  -- 2 blocks from Ground Zero -- where Islamic extremists murdered close to 3000 innocents. If these Muslims really wanted to build bridges and truly respected people of other faiths then they would offer to build the mosque at a different location, further away from Ground Zero or just abandon the building of the mosque altogether. This is pouring salt on the wounds of the 9/11 victims’ families.  This is totally making my blood boil and has me crying inside for both the 9/11 families and our country. This is going to cause many families mental anguish. These Muslims are claiming that they are building this mosque so that they may build bridges with citizens of other faiths but by forcing this mosque down our throats and having this mosque built so, so, so close to Ground Zero they are doing the exact opposite -- breaking bridges and causing tensions to mount.  If these Muslims really respected American citizens they would follow Pope John Paul II's example of how he strove to build bridges in Auschwitz and across Europe.  While I disagree with the notion that there is a similarity between Carmelite nuns and Muslims or Islamic extremists since I don't think any Carmelite nuns murdered innocents, I do think that there is an apt comparison between the Ground Zero Mosque and the abandoned building which was used as a convent in Auschwitz. The Muslims who want this mosque to be built need to reveal all sources of funding and prove that they are getting absolutely NO funding from any terrorist organization.  Then, in my book, it would also be a must for them to change their date that they have planned for opening the mosque, from September 11 to any other day of the year. Just because these Muslims may have a "right" ( which I don't think they do, since they would be building this mosque in a war zone) to build a mosque in this particular location doesn't mean that it is necessarily the right thing to do.  It is simply not right for a mosque to be built so close to Ground Zero.

No Mosque at Ground Zero!

Muslims already have at least one mosque in the vicinity of Ground Zero and don't need another.  If we allow Muslims to have yet another mosque, and that one exist within a couple blocks of Ground Zero we are waving the white flag and allowing terrorists to win, letting Muslims rule the world and create a caliphate.  This mosque has nothing to do with freedom of religion or freedom of speech but in having the citizens of the United States be subjugated by the Muslim world.  We must not let Muslims distort freedom of religion to further both their cause of terrorism and further their endgame of having complete control around the world.



H/T CreepingSharia