Obama’s Islamist: Let’s not Talk About Muslims Integrating

Back in late January, Islam loving Obama overturned a President Bush ban on Tariq Ramadan. Ramadan is a smooth talking Islamist, and he has quickly joined in on the Islamic info war. The problem with speeches like this, is that those that do not follow the subject of Islam closely fall for cons like this. Obama has helped the enemy advance, once again.

Muslim Scholar Makes First U.S. Appearance After Ban is Lifted

(RNS) Tariq Ramadan made his first public appearance in the U.S. on Thursday, since the U.S. State Department barred entry to the controversial scholar and Islamic activist in 2004.

Ramadan’s appearance on a panel in New York on “Islam in the West” reflects recent U.S. efforts to build bridges with Muslims and ends a long odyssey for Ramadan, who teaches Islamic Studies at the University of Oxford.

Ramadan, on a five-day visit, is the grandson of Hasan Al-Banna, who founded the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

But the Swiss-born Ramadan is popular among Muslims who appreciate his message about the compatibility of Islam and democracy. He has also criticized American policies in Iraq and Palestine, however, garnering enemies who say his moderate talk is a smokescreen for radical ambitions.

In 2004 the Bush administration revoked Ramadan’s visa and later accused him of sending money to a charity connected to terrorists.

Ramadan said the group was not on a U.S. government watch-list when he made the donation, and had no way of knowing their terrorism connection.

On Thursday, Ramadan said the ban undermined American values and that it was no longer appropriate to speak about “Muslims in the West,” but rather “Western Muslims.”

“The difference is that we are not here in a host country. We are at home, and Islam is a Western religion,” Ramadan said.Ramadan will also speak Saturday in Chicago at a banquet sponsored by the Council on American Islamic Relations, and on Monday at Georgetown University.

Talk of Muslim integration was old, too, he said. “It’s time not to speak about integrating, it’s to think about contribution, what do you give to your country. This is a step forward, when you give something, people are not asking where do you come from, they want to know where we are going together.”

Link to Article

CAIR Strikes Back at Anti-Islam Church

The Council on American Islamic Relations, has attempted to counter the anti-Islam message recently made by a Minnesota Church. Here I counter the CAIR message.

Muslim group counters St. Cloud pastor’s anti-Islam ad

The Minnesota chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations is launching an ad of its own to counter an ad in the St. Cloud Times last month that the group deems anti-Islam. Baptist pastor Dennis Campbell’s ad for the Granite City Baptist Church read, in part, “Moslems seek to influence a nation by immigration, reproduction, education, the government, illegal drugs and by supporting the gay agenda.” CAIR’s response ad, after the jump, bears the headline, “We are American, We are Muslim.”

We know that CAIR, and you being Muslims is what concerns us. Being an American citizen does not necessarily mean loyalty to America as it stands today.

“We are your neighbors,” the CAIR-MN ad states. “We are natives and immigrants. We are educated, skilled, and working hard to achieve the American Dream. We are a part of America’s history and future. We are doctors, teachers, lawyers, community activists, athletes, elected officials, taxi drivers, service workers, police officers, and business owners. We are American. We are Muslim.”

Unfortunately you are part of the future, but in all reality your religion should of never been allowed to be practiced here in the first place. We will fight you tooth and nail in an effort to stop the Islamification of America, and the careers of Muslims do not mean a thing, as teachers and doctors have become suicide bombers. Try and get some new talking points.

CAIR-MN president Lori Saroya, who learned of the ad from concerned community members, said that following Campell’s ad, her office got calls from several Christian organizations saying that the views of Granite City’s pastor do not reflect those of other Christian churches.

Sadly many Christian Churches do support Islam, even though the end-game of Islam is to destroy Christianity. Islamic supporting Christians are taking part in the slow suicide of Western Civilization.

“The reality is that Muslims are Americans who co-exist peacefully with people of other faiths,” said Saroya in a statement on Tuesday.

Some do, but it does not mean much. Because Muslims are slowly but surely “peacefully” taking over the West within the law. Then there are other American Muslims that do not bother to hide their agenda. They preach their hatred towards non-Muslims right on the streets of NYC.

The bottom line here is that CAIR is lying, like their religion encourages them to.

Here is their mission statement.

“Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam … Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book
of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the
only accepted religion on Earth.”

Link to Article

Obama: Say Goodbye to the Term Radical Islam

Our Islamic loving Dictator has only two things on his mind. They are spending every penny that he can get his hands on, and catering to Islam. This move by Obama, fits right in with the Islamic loving speech that John Brennan, Assistant to the President For Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, recently gave at NYU. I’ll be blunt here, we have no shot at winning this war with Obama in office. We just have to hold on until the next presidential election.

BTW, this plan was already tried in the UK. It is a proven failure.

Not all terrorism: Obama tries to change subject
Apr 7

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama’s advisers plan to remove terms such as “Islamic radicalism” from a document outlining national security strategy and will use the new version to emphasize that the U.S. does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terrorism, counterterrorism officials say.

The change would be a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventive war. It currently states, “The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.”

The officials described the changes on condition of anonymity because the document is still being written and is unlikely to be released for weeks, and the White House would not discuss it. But rewriting the strategy document is the latest example of Obama putting his stamp on U.S. foreign policy, as with his promises to dismantle nuclear weapons and limit the situations in which they can be used.

The revisions are part of a larger effort about which the White House talks openly, one that seeks to change not just how the U.S. talks to Muslim nations, but also what it talks to them about, from health care and science to business startups and education.

That shift away from terrorism has been building for a year, since Obama went to Cairo and promised a “new beginning” in the relationship between the U.S. and the Muslim world. The White House believes the previous administration based that relationship entirely on fighting terrorism and winning the war of ideas.

“You take a country where the overwhelming majority are not going to become terrorists, and you go in and say, ‘We’re building you a hospital so you don’t become terrorists.’ That doesn’t make much sense,” National Security Council staffer Pradeep Ramamurthy said.

Ramamurthy runs the administration’s Global Engagement Directorate, a four-person National Security Council team that Obama launched last May with little fanfare and a vague mission to use diplomacy and outreach “in pursuit of a host of national security objectives.” Since then, the division has not only helped change the vocabulary of fighting terrorism, but also has shaped the way the country invests in Muslim businesses, studies global warming, supports scientific research and combats polio.

Before diplomats go abroad, they hear from the Ramamurthy or his deputy, Jenny Urizar. When officials from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration returned from Indonesia, the NSC got a rundown about research opportunities on global warming. Ramamurthy maintains a database of interviews conducted by 50 U.S. embassies worldwide.

And business leaders from more than 40 countries head to Washington this month for an “entrepreneurship summit” for Muslim businesses.

“Do you want to think about the U.S. as the nation that fights terrorism or the nation you want to do business with?” Ramamurthy said.

To deliver that message, Obama’s speechwriters have taken inspiration from an unlikely source: former President Ronald Reagan. Visiting communist China in 1984, Reagan spoke at Fudan University in Shanghai about education, space exploration and scientific research. He discussed freedom and liberty. He never mentioned communism or democracy.

“They didn’t look up to the U.S. because we hated communism,” said Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, Obama’s foreign policy speechwriter.

Like Reagan in China, Obama in Cairo made only passing references to terrorism. Instead he focused on cooperation. He announced the U.S. would team up to fight polio with the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, a multinational body based in Saudi Arabia. The U.S. and OIC had worked together before, but never with that focus.

“President Obama saw it as an opportunity to say, ‘We work on things far beyond the war on terrorism,'” World Health Organization spokeswoman Sona Bari said.

Polio is endemic in three Muslim countries — Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan — but some Muslim leaders have been suspicious of vaccination efforts, which they believed to be part of a CIA sterilization campaign. Last year, the OIC and religious scholars at the International Islamic Fiqh Academy issued a fatwa, or religious decree, that parents should vaccinate their children.

“We’re probably entering into a whole new level of engagement between the OIC and the polio program because of the stimulus coming from the U.S. government,” said Michael Galway, who works on polio eradication for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also began working more closely with local Islamic leaders in northern Nigeria, a network that had been overlooked for years, said John Fitzsimmons, the deputy director of the CDC’s immunization division.

Though health officials are reluctant to assign credit to any one action, new polio cases in Nigeria fell from 83 during the first quarter of last year to just one so far this year, Fitzsimmons said.

Public opinion polls also showed consistent improvement in U.S. sentiment within the Muslim world last year, though the viewpoints are still overwhelmingly negative.

Obama did not invent Muslim outreach. President George W. Bush gave the White House its first Quran, hosted its first Iftar dinner to celebrate Ramadan and loudly stated support for Muslim democracies like Turkey.

But the Bush administration struggled with its rhetoric. Muslims criticized Bush for describing the war on terrorism as a “crusade” and labeling the invasion of Afghanistan “Operation Infinite Justice” — words that were seen as religious. He regularly identified America’s enemy as “Islamic extremists” and “radical jihadists.”

Karen Hughes, a Bush confidante who served as his top diplomat to the Muslim world in his second term, urged the White House to stop.

“I did recommend that, in my judgment, it’s unfortunate because of the way it’s heard. We ought to avoid the language of religion,” Hughes said. “Whenever they hear ‘Islamic extremism, Islamic jihad, Islamic fundamentalism,’ they perceive it as a sort of an attack on their faith. That’s the world view Osama bin Laden wants them to have.”

Hughes and Juan Zarate, Bush’s former deputy national security adviser, said Obama’s efforts build on groundwork from Bush’s second term, when some of the rhetoric softened. But by then, Zarate said, it was overshadowed by the Guantanamo Bay detention center, the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison and a prolonged Iraq war.

“In some ways, it didn’t matter what the president did or said. People weren’t going to be listening to him in the way we wanted them to,” Zarate said. “The difference is, President Obama had a fresh start.”

Obama’s foreign policy posture is not without political risk. Even as Obama steps up airstrikes on terrorists abroad, he has proven vulnerable to Republican criticism on security issues at home, such as the failed Christmas Day airline bombing and the announced-then-withdrawn plan to prosecute self-described 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York.

Peter Feaver, a Duke University political scientist and former Bush adviser, is skeptical of Obama’s engagement effort. It “doesn’t appear to have created much in the way of strategic benefit” in the Middle East peace process or in negotiations over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, he said.

Obama runs the political risk of seeming to adopt politically correct rhetoric abroad while appearing tone-deaf on national security issues at home, Feaver said.

The White House dismisses such criticism.

In June, Obama will travel to Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country, and is expected to revisit many of the themes of his Cairo speech.

“This is the long-range direction we need to go in,” Ramamurthy said.

Paris: 400 Restaurants Serving Halal Food

I understand the concept of the free market, and the desire to make money. I also understand that continually catering to a religion that is hellbent on world domination, is a mistake. If non-Muslims continue to cater to Islam, one day they will wake up and not even recognize their own country. The choice is theirs.

I wonder if the pig masked French will invade more of these restaurants?

France’s young Muslims fuel boom in halal food

The young ones want high-end halal luxuries and a range of halal cuisines, rather than the foods that their parents grew up with, the Guardian reports.

In response to the growing demand for halal products, which is increasing by 15 per cent a year, supermarket group Caisno has started stocking an increasing variety of halal meats.

The fast-food chain Quick has a number of halal-only burger bars and Muslim corner shops selling exclusively halal foods and drinks are also flourishing.

Wealthy young Muslims are behind the new trend , according to Yanis Bouarbi, 33, an IT specialist who started the website paris-hallal.com, which lists restaurants in France serving halal food.

“When our parents and grandparents came to France they did mostly manual work and the priority was having enough to feed the family,” he told the Guardian.

“But second or third-generation people like me have studied, have good jobs and money and want to go out and profit from French culture without compromising our religious beliefs. We don’t just want cheap kebabs, we want Japanese, Thai, French food; we want to be like the rest of you.”

Yanis Bouarbi’s website now lists more than 400 restaurants in Paris and its suburbs, and he plans to expand it to other French cities.

Link to Article

Lawmakers: Afghan Leader Threatens to Join Taliban!

Is this finally the last straw? Will we now wake up, and realize that we have no Muslim allies? They are using us for our money, and to gain power. In the end they will stand with Islam against us. It is time to bring the troops home, drill where we can, and end all Muslim immigration and aid. As I have been saying for years, it will be us or them. There will be no middle ground, so take a side.

Lawmakers: Afghan leader threatens to join Taliban

KABUL – Afghan President Hamid Karzai threatened over the weekend to quit the political process and join the Taliban if he continued to come under outside pressure to reform, several members of parliament said Monday.

Karzai made the unusual statement at a closed-door meeting Saturday with selected lawmakers — just days after kicking up a diplomatic controversy with remarks alleging foreigners were behind fraud in last year’s disputed elections.

Lawmakers dismissed the latest comment as hyperbole, but it will add to the impression the president — who relies on tens of thousands of U.S. and NATO forces to fight the insurgency and prop up his government — is growing increasingly erratic and unable to exert authority without attacking his foreign backers.

“He said that ‘if I come under foreign pressure, I might join the Taliban’,” said Farooq Marenai, who represents the eastern province of Nangarhar.

“He said rebelling would change to resistance,” Marenai said — apparently suggesting that the militant movement would then be redefined as one of resistance against a foreign occupation rather than a rebellion against an elected government.

Marenai said Karzai appeared nervous and repeatedly demanded to know why parliament last week had rejected legal reforms that would have strengthened the president’s authority over the country’s electoral institutions.

Two other lawmakers said Karzai twice raised the threat to join the insurgency.

The lawmakers, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of political repercussions, said Karzai also dismissed concerns over possible damage his comments had caused to relations with the United States. He told them he had already explained himself in a telephone conversation Saturday with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that came after the White House described his comments last week as troubling.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said reports Karzai threatened to abandon the political process and join the Taliban insurgency if he continued to receive pressure from Western backers to reform his government are troubling.

“On behalf of the American people, we’re frustrated with the remarks,” Gibbs told reporters.

The lawmakers said they felt Karzai was pandering to hard-line or pro-Taliban members of parliament and had no real intention of joining the insurgency.

Link to Article

Supreme Court Refuses Muslim’s Case About Possible Juror Bias

Finally a Muslim that is looking to use our system against us loses one. He tried to play the Islam victim card, and was beaten by a higher hand. In this trial he was charged with unlawful sexual contact. Being that Islam is a religion that allows rape, he probably thought that he was doing no wrong.

Supreme Court refuses Muslim’s case about possible juror bias

A Muslim defendant sentenced to 28 years says his lawyer should have been allowed to question a juror who, during jury selection, spoke of possible bias against Muslims. The US Supreme Court refused Monday to hear the case.

By Warren Richey, Staff writer / April 5, 2010

The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to take the case of a Muslim defendant in Colorado whose lawyer was barred from questioning a prospective juror who, during jury selection, expressed concern that he might be biased against Muslims.

The trial judge refused to allow the defense lawyer to closely question the prospective juror about his possible anti-Muslim prejudice. The judge also refused a request that the individual be excluded from the jury.

Instead, the man became one of 12 jurors who heard evidence in a trial infused with anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim themes and comments, according to court documents.

The defendant, Homaidan Al-Turki, was convicted of having unlawful sexual contact with a live-in housekeeper, of failing to pay her for all her work, and for keeping her in slave-like conditions. He was sentenced to 28 years in prison.

The Supreme Court decision not to hear the case leaves Mr. Turki’s conviction in place.

An impartial jury?
Turki’s lawyers had appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the trial judge’s actions violated their client’s constitutional right to an impartial jury.

In their petition to the high court, they said judges must allow trial lawyers to closely question prospective jurors whenever there is a “significant likelihood” that racial or some other invidious prejudice might influence the juror’s deliberations.

Lawyers with the Colorado attorney general’s office had urged the high court to reject the appeal. They argued that the juror in question did not express actual bias, but only raised a hypothetical concern.

The Colorado brief suggests that the juror may have been attempting to get himself thrown off the jury because he had an upcoming important business trip.

At issue in the trial was whether Turki engaged in routine sexual abuse of his housekeeper and treated her like a slave. Prosecutors say Turki paid her $1,500 for her entire stay in the US. They calculated that under the minimum wage she should have been paid more than $96,000 for the last three years of work.

Turki is a national of Saudi Arabia who moved to the US in 1995 with his wife and children and the housekeeper. He was a PhD candidate in linguistics at the University of Colorado and ran an Islamic bookshop.

At some point in 2001 or 2002, federal agents began to monitor his activities, according to court documents. Despite the ongoing surveillance, he was not charged with a crime.

Focus shifts to the housekeeper
Then in 2004, the government discovered that Turki had a live-in housekeeper from Indonesia and that her work visa had expired. The housekeeper, also a Muslim, was jailed and interrogated about Turki’s activities. She was threatened with deportation.

According to Turki’s lawyers, the housekeeper repeatedly denied suggestions by the agents that her employer had committed crimes. Then, after nearly five months, she alleged that she had been sexually abused by Turki and that he had refused to pay her for work.

The next day, she signed an application for a new US work visa, according to Turki’s lawyers. The government granted the application, allowing her to continue to live and work in the US.

The case was turned over to state prosecutors, who charged Turki with aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, extortion, and false imprisonment.

Turki’s lawyers say state prosecutors sought to use fear of Muslims and post-9/11 anti-Islamic prejudice among the jurors to help win a conviction.

One prosecution witness was portrayed as an expert in Islamic culture and women’s issues. The witness offered a harsh critique of the treatment of women in Muslim countries and informed the jury that her opinion was derived in part from familiarity with the family of Osama bin Laden, the Al Qaeda terrorist leader.

In his closing argument, the prosecutor referred to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, noting that the live-in housekeeper was so isolated in the Turki home that she was unaware of the 9/11 attacks until much later after they took place.

Defense lawyers argued that the housekeeper lied about the sexual assaults after months of prodding by federal agents. In return for her testimony against her former employer, she received a work visa.

The jury acquitted Turki of kidnapping and sexual assault. He was convicted of false imprisonment, extortion, and the lesser offense of unlawful sexual contact.

A friend of the court brief filed on behalf of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia argued that Colorado prosecutors “conspicuously [played] to the jury’s anti-Arab/anti-Muslim bias throughout the trial.” It added that the state’s case was organized around a theme to incite bias, emphasizing cultural differences.

To our backstabbing Saudi “allies”, that is right, our cultural differences should be pointed out. While my government is afraid of you, millions of Americans are not. The fight has just begun!

Link to Article