How long has the US been helping Muslim Groups?

This was posted Tuesday at Corruption Chronicles, a Judicial Watch blog but I just found it today. Have a look.

U.S. Helps Radical Muslim Groups Get Taxpayer Dollars

In its fervent crusade to befriend Muslims, the White House will host special workshops this week to provide members of radical Islamic groups with direct access to U.S. government funding, assistance and resources.

While this may sound surreal, it’s reality in the Obama Administration, which has embarked on a never-ending mission to befriend the enemy. Previous efforts include secret meetings between Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and extremist Arab and Muslim groups to discuss national security matters and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s special order allowing the reentry of two radical Islamic academics whose terrorist ties have for years banned them from the U.S.

As contemptible as those moves may seem, the latest effort is even more outrageous. Various government agencies, including the departments of Homeland Security, Agriculture, Education and Health will participate in the White House seminars which were exposed by an independent nonprofit dedicated to monitoring the nation’s security.

The goal is to provide the leaders of groups associated with the parent organization of Hamas and Al Qaeda (Muslim Brotherhood) with tips on cutting through “red tape” when seeking U.S. government access or money. In all 20 national Muslim groups with ties to the global Islamist organization that preaches Jihad are scheduled to participate. Their mission is to obtain cash and other resources from Uncle Sam.

While the U.S. government has kept the event quiet, it was announced in a newsletter by a Saudi-funded group (Islamic Society of North America or ISNA) that was a co-conspirator in a federal terrorist funding case a few years ago. Featured in a Judicial Watch special report on Muslim charities that finance terrorism, ISNA is firmly committed to spreading the radical form of Islam, which is the driving force behind Jihad.

Now the Obama Administration is helping ISNA and its radical Islamic counterparts access American taxpayer resources as well as top government officials.

Go here to read the comments and discussion on this.

Two Muslim Writers Make the Case -- Against the Ground Zero Mosque

Good for Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah. These two Muslim writers make many very good points about the proposed mosque near Ground Zero.

Two simple ones:
New York currently boasts 30 mosques. There is no shortage of worship space.
$100 Million is a lot of money that could go to starving Muslims in other countries.

Three salient ones:
A religious group looking to improve its reputation with Americans would do things like:
Include a synagogue and church in the building.
Include a memorial to the 9/11 victims.
Reduce the size of the building and donate a chunk to the 9/11 victims.

And a big one:
"It's like "permitting a Serbian Orthodox church near the killing fields of Srebrenica where 8,000 Muslim men and boys were slaughtered..."

Sigh.

The argument that to be against a mosque near Ground Zero is counter to America's relgious freedoms is absurd. This isn't about religious freedom. It's about political correctness metastatising into a cancer. Apparently it's cancer of the eye. We are now blind and cannot see clearly. Common sense is absent.

Our hope lies in these two authors -- who are the "good Muslims" we keep hearing about, but never hear from. Well, here they are, we've finally heard from them -- and they are denouncing the location of this mosque as well as their religion's treatment of women and other "bad Muslim" things.

It is good to hear from them. The alleged silent majority of "good Muslims" could learn a lot from these two. And so can anyone who thinks it's okay to build that huge Islamic Center near Ground Zero -- a place where a small group of Muslims killed a large group of Americans.

Go read the whole piece here.

Three Articles on Muslims

All are published through Pajamas Media,

First from Roger L. Simon

Real Blog War: CAIR Goes After Robert Spencer
Robert Spencer, the publisher of Jihad Watch, has been a controversial figure in the blogosphere for some time now. Some liberal bloggers love to bash him, considering him racist against Muslims or Arabs. 

Of course, almost none of those bloggers actually speak Arabic or know much of the intricacies of Islam and sharia law, all of which Robert does. Nor are they particularly interested in the ideas involved. Sharia may be one of the most misogynistic and homophobic legal systems ever invented, it may be at its essence antithetical to the separation of church and state and to everything we stand for, proselytizing the world while specifically subjugating all other religious groups and individuals who do not convert, but Spencer’s critics don’t seem to care. This isn’t about knowledge or truth. It’s about anger, envy, the need to be “right,” and all the rest of those “attractive” traits that motivate so many of us. Read the rest.

 Meet the Man Who Exposed the Al-Dura Hoax
An interview with Philippe Kars
by by Brendan Bernhard
 
Energetic tired determined intelligent harried impatient boyish argumentative charming brusque — those are a few adjectives that come to mind as one attempts to describe Philippe Karsenty, the tireless talking thorn who has embedded himself in the side of France’s government-owned television channel, France 2, and even more firmly between the ribs of its revered Franco-Israeli Jerusalem correspondent, Charles Enderlin, the reporter responsible for having perpetrated what is now often referred to as the “Al-Dura hoax.”
It all began almost ten years ago — on September 30, 2000, when France 2 ran a 50-second tape of what appeared to be the death by Israeli fire in Gaza of Mohammed al-Dura, a 12-year-old Palestinian boy, while he cowered in the arms of his father – a contemporary pietá for the Arab world. Enderlin, who had not been present at the scene, and whose editors had edited the tape from the roughly six minutes of footage sent to them by the channel’s Palestinian camera man (who had himself cut it down from 27 minutes of tape), plainly stated in his voiceover that the boy had been intentionally shot by Israeli soldiers and that he had died.

Initially accepted as fact, the report is now widely disbelieved, and no one can take greater credit for exposing and publicizing France 2’s fabrication than Karsenty.   Be sure to read it all.

Is Islam Really the Second-Fastest Growing Religion?

The religious makeup of the world is changing, but the media’s focus on the West is causing many to be blind to Islam’s losing of ground in the third world.

 by Ryan Mauro

 

It’s a stated fact everywhere from the media to academia to churches: Islam is the second-fastest growing religion. It will become the biggest religion during this century. Christianity is going out of style and Islam is the new kid on the block. We hear it from those wanting to give the Muslim community a bigger voice; from those complaining about Western ignorance; from those trying to put Islam on the same plane as Christianity and Judaism; and even in churches decrying the lack of evangelical fervor among the congregation.

But is it really true?

It’s true that Islam (as well as atheism and universalism) is growing in the West, mostly because of high birth rates among Muslims and immigration, but the exploding growth of evangelical Christianity around the world through conversion is unreported. The analysis is distorted because of the lack of reporting from places like Africa, where nearly half of the population is estimated to be Christian. In other places like China, news of such trends is suppressed, leaving few to know that some estimates put the Christian population there at up to 111 million. There may be more members in the underground evangelical movement there than in the 75-million strong Chinese Communist Party. It’s been reported that 10,000 Chinese convert to Christianity per day. That number may be a stretch, but if current trends hold, predictions that China will become the country with the largest number of Christians by the middle of the century could come true. Read it all here.

Links on Obamacare, Chicago Politics, Liberal Press bias, Obama's Policies and other news of the day

Rod Blagojevich trial rattles insiders

Scary Chicago politics.... scary for the party in power.  Chicago politicians acting like Chicago politicians.  One pundit asked if this had anything to do with the recent visit over the Memorial Day weekend. If I find the link again I will add it.

From Michelle Malkin:

The Resurrection of Rod Blagojevich
From NRO Online by Jonah Goldberg:

In a Welfare State, How Much Is ‘Enough’?
That’s a question Democrats don’t tend to ask.
 
Stu Tarlow in The American Thinker blog:  
Don't be fooled by Obama's 'incompetence'

It is a tremendous mistake to think that the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico will help convince Americans of Barack Obama's incompetence. Obama's true agenda is so insidious that even his inability to handle a crisis serves his greater strategy.

From The American Thinker:
A Sneak Preview of the Ground Zero Mega-Mosque
By Stella Paul
 
From Investor's Daily:
Reversing A Mistake

Medical Care: Monday's headline from Reuters — "Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health model" — is a warning. In the not-too-distant future, the headline will be used again, except "U.S." will replace "Canada."

Howie Carr in the Boston Herald:
Barack Obama didn’t part the waters - he just made them dirtier

On the day of the memorial service for the 11 dead on the oil rig last week, Barack flew to San Francisco for a fund-raiser on behalf of the hideous Sen. Barbara “Botox” Boxer. It was held in a mansion owned by a member of the Getty family, of Big Oil infamy. And yet nary a word among the usual Ivy League pukes on MSNBC and in The New York Times [NYT].

An IBD Editorial:
Colombia Election Skunks The Media

 Elections: Loopy Green candidate Antanas Mockus was hailed in the press as Colombia's next president. But the voters had someone else in mind and stunned with Sunday's result. It exposed Mockus' rise as pure media hype.

Just a start on the day's news and opinions.

Have you seen this interesting/crazy/scary/ strange logo for the Missile Defense Agency?

Missile Defense Agency  go take a look.
It's like a mix between the Obama campaign logo and the Islamic star and crescent.
I first saw this at Gateway Pundit, then went to the MDA and then to the Washington Times. 

We have a new envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)

Criticism of Obama’s OIC Envoy Raises Questions About the Need for Such an Envoy
By Patrick Goodenough

(CNSNews.com) – President Obama’s decision to appoint an envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has focused renewed attention on the Saudi-based body, and what role a U.S. envoy should play.
Partly overshadowed by the controversy surrounding statements Rashad Hussain made six years ago about a man indicted for supporting terrorists, is the question of whether the U.S. should have an envoy to the Islamic bloc in the first place.
With a secretariat based in Jeddah, the OIC was established as a direct response to an attempt by an Australian, later declared insane, to set fire to the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem’s Old City in 1969. ...
The position of U.S. envoy to the OIC was created by President George W. Bush in his last year in office.
Heritage Foundation scholar Brett Schaefer said Monday that the appointment of that envoy brought “little discernable improvement in OIC behavior,” pointing to its conduct at the U.N. and Human Rights Council.
He questioned the wisdom of having an envoy at all.

  Read the rest of the history of the conference and make up your mind.

Fort Hood Revisited

This is from Baldilocks

There's another emotion I'm feeling about this, but I don't quite have name for it yet.

It's been brought to my attention by several reliable sources that the Defense Department has brought Louay Safi to Fort Hood as an instructor, and that he has been lecturing on Islam to our troops in Fort Hood who are about to deploy to Afghanistan. Safi is a top official of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and served as research director at the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT).

Worse, last evening, Safi was apparently permitted to present a check (evidently on behalf of ISNA) to the families of the victims of last month's Fort Hood massacre. A military source told the blogger Barbarossa at the Jawa Report: "This is nothing short of blood money. This is criminal and the Ft. Hood base commander should be fired right now."

ISNA was identified by the Justice Department at the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing conspiracy trial as an unindicted co-conspirator. The defendants at that trial were convicted of funding Hamas to the tune of millions of dollars. This should have come as no surprise. ISNA is the Muslim Brotherhood's umbrella entity for Islamist organizations in the United States.

A Muslim--a Jihadist--murders those which he has sworn oaths to lead, to stand beside and to render no harm to. So what do his commanders do? They bring in a representative from America's Muslim Brotherhood entity to chat up the troops and bribe the bereaved.

No, I can't name this feeling. But I know in my gut that the base commander didn't order this visit. The permission for this came from the top.

Mark Steyn Always Delivers the Truth

The Hole at the Heart of Our Strategy
We’re scrupulously non-judgmental about the ideology that drives terrorism.

Thirteen dead and 31 wounded would be a bad day for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, and a great victory for the Taliban. When it happens in Texas, in the heart of the biggest military base in the nation, at a processing center for soldiers either returning from or deploying to combat overseas, it is not merely a “tragedy” (as too many people called it) but a glimpse of a potentially fatal flaw at the heart of what we have called, since 9/11, the “War on Terror.” Brave soldiers trained to hunt down and kill America’s enemy abroad were killed in the safety and security of home by, in essence, the same enemy — a man who believes in and supports everything the enemy does.

And he’s a U.S. Army major.

And his superior officers and other authorities knew about his beliefs but seemed to think it was just a bit of harmless multicultural diversity — as if believing that “the Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor” (i.e., his fellow American soldiers) and writing Internet paeans to the “noble” “heroism” of suicide bombers and, indeed, objectively supporting the other side in an active war is to be regarded as just some kind of alternative lifestyle that adds to the general vibrancy of the base.

When it emerged early on Thursday afternoon that the shooter was Nidal Malik Hasan, there appeared shortly thereafter on Twitter a flurry of posts with the striking formulation: “Please judge Major Malik Nadal [sic] by his actions and not by his name.”
Concerned Tweeters can relax: There was never really any danger of that — and not just in the sense that the New York Times’s first report on Major Hasan never mentioned the words “Muslim” or “Islam,” or that ABC’s Martha Raddatz’s only observation on his name was that “as for the suspect, Nadal Hasan, as one officer’s wife told me, ‘I wish his name was Smith.’”

What a strange reaction. I suppose what she means is that, if his name were Smith, we could all retreat back into the same comforting illusions that allowed the bureaucracy to advance Nidal Malik Hasan to major and into the heart of Fort Hood while ignoring everything that mattered about the essence of this man.

Since 9/11, we have, as the Twitterers recommend, judged people by their actions — flying planes into skyscrapers, blowing themselves up in Bali nightclubs or London Tube trains, planting IEDs by the roadside in Baghdad or Tikrit. And on the whole we’re effective at responding with action of our own — taking out training camps in Afghanistan, rolling up insurgency networks in Fallujah and Ramadi, intercepting terror plots in London and Toronto and Dearborn.

But we’re scrupulously non-judgmental about the ideology that drives a man to fly into a building or self-detonate on the subway, and thus we have a hole at the heart of our strategy. We use rhetorical conveniences like “radical Islam” or, if that seems a wee bit Islamophobic, just plain old “radical extremism.” But we never make any effort to delineate the line which separates “radical Islam” from non-radical Islam. Indeed, we go to great lengths to make it even fuzzier. And somewhere in that woozy blur the pathologies of a Nidal Malik Hasan incubate. An army psychiatrist, Major Hasan was an American, born and raised, who graduated from Viriginia Tech and then received his doctorate from the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, which works out to the best part of half a million dollars’ worth of elite education. But he opposed America’s actions in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and made approving remarks about jihadists on American soil. “You need to lock it up, Major,” cautioned his superior officer, Col. Terry Lee.

There is another page, read it here.

Will Muslims Accept Americans?

That is the question that should be asked by USA Today. In the Sunday print edition there is an editorial that asked the question "Will Americans Accept Islam?" (I don't have an online link to this article). I am more than a little bit put out that the question was not the other way around.