Friday, July 15, 2011

Stealth Jihadism Never Sleeps

Pictured is the latest proposed design for the Ground Zero Mosque. Classical, isn't it? As we all know, the tenth anniversary of the World Trade Center attack is coming up. The Trojan Mosque is only a symbol of what the jihadists have been up to since that horrible day. And it symbolizes how they intend to use 9/11 to their own advantage. It's another stealth jihadist plan called Prepare New York. It's a cover for what they are actually preparing New York and the rest of America for.

Prepare New York is not a new concept, it's merely the new and improved version of what the Muslim Brotherhood put together back in the early 80s. Simply put, it's a strategy to promote "interfaith understanding" and "mutual tolerance" in order to hide the true Muslim objective of Islamic world domination. Renascent Islamic fundamentalism is having a fairly easy time running this con on the "feel-good" mainstream Christian churches and the wider politically-correct society.

The Brotherhood's Worldwide Strategy for Islamic Policy cites the following goals: "Eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within, sabotaging its miserable house with its own hands, mastering the art of coalitions, the art of absorption, and the principles of cooperation." Step one is to get the general populace to accept the Islamic faith as just another belief system, no different from Judaism and Christianity except in its rituals and language. That's easy in an America which promotes tolerance and more recently outright prohibits criticism of imported religion.

Once the religion is firmly ensconced as a "mainstream religion," it is time to demand that the host country make special allowances and accommodations unique to Muslim practice. This is already in full bloom throughout England and in many parts of Europe. And despite strict constitutional strictures against unequal enforcement of civil and criminal law, it's coming to America in the form of sharia, alternate law for Muslims disguised as protected religious belief. They couch all their plans in terms of freedom of religion, anti-racism, anti-discrimination, and human rights. And they get "progressive" religious groups and liberal polticians to support their position.

Now listen to the noble goals of Prepare New York in their own words: "A coalition of New York based interfaith organizations who have joined together to help create a city-wide climate that promotes healing and reconciliation in anticipation of the tenth anniversary of 9/11." What are they afraid of? A few spontaneous lynchings?Note the lack of any mention of who was behind the 9/11 mass murder. The purported reason for the formation of Prepare New York (with a large degree of truth) is a response to the national and international headlines surrounding last summer's proposed Muslim Community Center in lower Manhattan. I suppose it was good PR not to call lower Manhattan "Ground Zero."

The Prepare New York mission statement goes on to use all the now-familiar magic words: "To shift the discussion from one of fear and mistrust targeting any belief or group to one that celebrates New York's extraordinary diversity of religious freedom and expression." Its' not a discussion, it's a polemic. Why wouldn't we fear and distrust a religion that orders its acolytes to fly jumbo jets into American skyscrapers? New York's "extraordinary diversity" is the result of a long history of admitting immigrants of multiple faiths and beliefs who wanted to live the American dream in peace with their neighbors. "Diversity" is not synonymous with "suicide," except in the minds of Islamists and their useful idiots such as Mayor Bloomberg and the National Council of Churches.

Among the Prepare New York "action partners" is the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and an unindicted co-conspirator in the terrorist funding Holy Land Foundation case. CAIR semi-privately says that the purpose of the coalition and its partners is to "channel thought, education and action to work within various influential institutions and use them in the service of Islam." Mark that. "Islam." Not New York, not America. And the useful idiots prepare to march to the slaughter like dumb sheep.

Others on the list of Prepare New York partners is the Cordoba Initiative (organizers of the Ground Zero mosque activities), Intersections International (a Brotherhood-connected interfaith group), Odyssey Networks, the American Society for Muslim Advancement (a radical Islamist group headed by Ground Zero mosque organizer and once-proposed imam Feisal Rauf), and a host of Iranian-funded Islamic groups. A major partner is the Abraham Path Initiative, funded by the Saudi Arabian Alwaleed Bin Talal Foundation (Wahhabists). And as frosting on the cake, the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations, the brain-child of former Iranian President Hojjatolesiam Khatami. That's a coalition, all right, comprised of "diverse" radical Islamic groups joining together for one common goal--Islamic domination of America.

Now I know this may come as a total shock to you, but two of the major non-Islamic "interfaith" fundraisers for Prepare New York are the Open Society Foundation and One Nation, both created by and funded by, drum-roll please, George Soros. One Nation is particularly odious, since it claims on its website that "the Islamic faith has historically upheld beliefs that respect women and their role in society, although these teachings have often been misrepresented by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. [Prior to the coming of Islam} women and girls faced oppression in many forms. Women were denied basic human rights, but with the introduction of Islam, women in the region gained many rights." Oh, yeah? List them.

So let's just be honest about what these people are "preparing New York" for. New Yorkers have one of two options--submission or death. All the rest, including Prepare America's 9/11 touchy-feely tolerance promotion is merely the "softening-up" in preparation for the true jihad.

Related note: On Friday, July 8, a New York judge dismissed another case that was a barrier to the building of the Ground Zero mosque. First Responder and Fireman Tim Brown was found by the judge to have no legal standing to sue to stop the demolition of the historic building. The American Center for Law and Justice, which represented Brown and other plaintiffs attempting to block this monstrosity will appeal. ACLJ's attorney made the following statement: "We believe the court erred in ruling that our client, Timothy Brown, an American hero and 9/11 first responder, does not have standing to challenge the politically motivated decision not to landmark a standing monument to that day. This decision fails to give appropriate consideration to first responders and others who risked their lives and lost loved ones on September 11th. If Mr. Brown does not have standing, then who does? We intend to appeal this decision and remain confident that this mosque will never rise above Ground Zero."

26 comments:

Joel Farnham said...

Be prepared LawHawk.

You have just joined the ranks of conspiracy theorists of Muslim behavior. At least according to any Muslim sympathizers aka liberals.

Welcome aboard!! :-)

I agree this is the reason why this mosque so close to ground zero is being built. I think this one will go down to the wire. I think the mosque will be started but not completed.

T-Rav said...

One of my few recent victories in grad school came some months ago, when several of us were talking about the building of the mosque. One guy--I like him all right, but he tends to act like he knows more than everyone else--said in an exasperated, why-do-I-have-to-explain-this-to-you-children way, "It's not a mosque!"

My response: "Apparently the people trying to build it thought it was, because they described it that way on their Twitter feed until people started noticing." That shut him up. Well, mainly he rolled his eyes and gave a really huffy look, but that's what "intellectuals" do to save face.

BevfromNYC said...

Actually LawHawk, does Tim Brown have standing? As much as it pains me, I would say that the judge may be right. He and his fellow plaintiffs may have emotional standing, but I am not sure they have any legal standing. The building was privately owned and they have the right to sell to whomever they choose and for whatever price. They sold the building for half of what it was on the market for and rescinded an earlier contract for twice the money. Wonder why?

The courts can say what they want, BUT the union construction trades already have said that they won't work on the "community center" or the "mosque". One union revolt I applaud.

Tennessee Jed said...

I suspect this will be a great place to train Jihadist martyrs without having to later have to enter the country. They will already be here.

As for Soros, I'd pay a lot (o.k. a bit) of money to scan his brain and forcing him to say out loud exactly what he really is thinking (like, say, Jim Cary in Liar, Liar.) In all honesty, I had always felt this was an uphill battle, legally. The argument has always been, "sure you CAN build it, but it would be in incredibly bad taste you morons." Well who knows, maybe some bitter gun clinging religious zealot will pump an R.P.G. through the window of a minaret. Wouldn't that be ironic.

T-Rav said...

OT, but since apparently I'm going to be asked to recap it at some point anyway: Obama's presser this morning was even dumber than the last one, if you can believe that. There were so many asinine comments I've pretty much forgotten what he started off with, but basically there was nothing new to report. Jugears is really only holding these conferences for PR purposes at this point and not adding anything of substance--totally different from his past behavior, of course.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: We conspiracy theorists have to stick together. LOL

That "Islamic Center" is nothing more than a giant finger being poked in America's eye. They know that with the 10th anniversary coming up they had better get on with their "ain't we all just one big happy family?" crap before the reality of what the building represents sinks in.

The next rally should be held at the site of the Orthodox Christian Church that was also destroyed on 9/11. The one the city won't allow to be rebuilt.

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: A turd by any other name stinks as bad. They can call it the "Temple of We Love America" for all I care. It won't hide what it actually is.

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: Like most big cities, New York has its rules on historic buildings. Anyone who believes a building has genuine historical significance has standing to sue. The plaintiffs had a logical nexus to the historicity of the building based on its age, location, and their direct involvement in pulling people out of the flaming rubble during the second date which will live in infamy.

The judge used his legal discretion, and we'll see if an appellate court upholds him. Sadly, I think it will. But as you say, there's more than one way to skin a cat. If the law can't do it, then the local citizens will have to find a way to make it a practical impossibility.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tennessee: As I've pointed out in several other articles, a mosque is not the same thing as a church or synagogue. Religious worship is only part of the purpose of a mosque. The original and ongoing purpose is an armory for ongoing jihad. The old gospel tune "Ain't gonna study war no more" is turned on its head in mosques where it's "we're gonna study war forever."

Like you, I have always felt that the movement to stop the mosque would have to succeed morally, practically and politically. Legal actions were, and are, the weakest link in the chain. However there are laws that can stop things in their tracks if the money can be traced to terrorist organizations. That is both political and legal. It's illegal to use terrorist funds to build a project, but it takes the political will of a government other than Obama's to do the investigation and prosecute the case. We'll have to wait on that one.

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: The Messiah of Economics just babbled, dodged and weaved as usual. No substance whatsoever. I only watched to see what new lying metaphor he would use for Republicans trying to get spending and the debt under control. "Corporate jets" and "granny over the cliff" weren't getting much traction.

He also continued to use "revenue" when he means "taxes," as in "we need to cut costs, but we also need to increase 'revenue.'"

What worries me is that it's a repeat of "all Obama, all the time" lately. We couldn't turn the TV on without seeing that grinning geek talking about universal health care. Inexplicably, it worked, and now we have to undo that as well. Let's hope he only gets one trip to the well with his constant appearances on TV.

rlaWTX said...

OT some more: We just had an office conversation (as the official political junkie on site) about Obama's threats to not pay Social Security and the military. I had to explain to my 65yo, about to retire officemate that there was NOT a "Social Security Lock Box" with $$ in it. But also that the govt could still pay SS if they WANTED to, but it was in Obama's interest to stir panic. Then we talked about the upcoming election cycle... I was asked - How do you KNOW all this? and i gave y'all the credit!!

On topic: sneaky, lyin', vile snakes in the grass...

AndrewPrice said...

"Eliminating and destroying western civilization from within"... sounds like the Democratic Party platform!

LawHawkRFD said...

rlaWTX: I wonder how many people actually believe that Obama would dare not pay Social Security. There is an established order of priorities for pay-outs during one of these financial crises. Any non-payment of Social Security benefits would be the final proof that he sees people as political toys rather than as human beings. He must pay Social Security benefits as long as there's a dime left in the treasury.

Thanks for the boost. I hope you calmed your retiring friend down a bit.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: I knew it had a familiar ring to it. LOL

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: I wasn't paying close attention, but did I hear Obama use the expression "Armageddon" during the conference? That would trump granny over the cliff and corporate jets for sure. Then all that would be left would be "financial holocaust."

Patti said...

law: what are they afraid of indeed. no reason to prepare folks for things unless there is reason.

as an aside, my husband was there on 9/11 and he was taken in by new yorkers everywhere (took a few days before he could get out). as with most americans, we take care of our own and even those who aren't ours as long as they ain't trying to kill us.

and to think that happened with no preparations whatsoever.

LawHawkRFD said...

Patti: What they really are afraid of is the public seeing through their smokescreen of civilization. As they merrily burn churches and synagogues throughout Muslim lands, and rape, torture and behead non-Muslims on the slightest pretense, they pretend to be afraid of violence in NYC on 9/11. They know better, but they are cynically using legitimate righteous indignation about their own mass murder to ramp up support for phony tolerance and mutual understanding.

What is so disgusting is that they have the nerve to paint themselves as the victims of prejudice and statistically non-existent anti-Muslim violence. Worse yet, they've succeeded among the hysterical left and "interfaith" Judas goats.

T-Rav said...

LawHawk, I didn't catch that, but I did notice that he basically said he would not sign a deal that did not include tax increases--which 80% of Americans support or something. (This was accomplished, of course, by doing a lot of the "new math" with some recent polls.) Also, did it seem to you that the "adult in the room" is getting a little temperamental with reporters' questions?

rlaWTX said...

hey, T-Rav, sorry to let the cat out of the bag on BH!

(pun intended)

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: You're not listening to the Great One carefully. Those are revenues, not taxes. As we all know, taxes produce revenue. And we must increase revenue. All he has to do is increase the tax rate on "the rich" to 100%, and it will produce revenue that amounts to about .01% of the national debt. You obviously just don't get it.

It was impossible not to notice that Obama is starting to get testy with the press, particularly the ones who are asking questions from outlets which are supposed to "be on his side." He's about as adult as my eight-month old puppy, and his skin is thinner than tissue paper.

LawHawkRFD said...

rlaWTX: Snakes in the grass have a right to live too. You are guilty of speciesism, and I intend to denounce you publicly for it.

T-Rav said...

LawHawk, I can't imagine how Obama thinks he's winning this--or at least this aspect of it. I guess he thinks he's such an awesome campaigner and celebrity, he can't lose as long as he stays in front of the camera. But frankly, he's been coming off pretty badly in the last few pressers, and might actually be damaging himself the more he does this. At least, that's what I'm hoping.

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: For those who buy into his chop-suey, I think he's like all Chinese food--an hour later you're hungry again. He seems to get a small positive bump after these conferences, and then the hunger sets in and his polls drop again. More people are switching back to meat and potatoes all the time, despite his chopped hooey. I'm confident that in the long run, his support is going to continue to decline while the Republican position gets clarified. The important thing is to avoid the appearance of being the Scrooge that he tries to paint while hammering on the idea that jobs, money, and the economy will all improve when the tax structure stops destroying the greatest creator of wealth and jobs--the mid-size and small business. Even I want to see a lot of those corporate loopholes closed, but accompanied by substantial cuts in capital gains taxes, death taxes, and disincentives for businesses to start up, hire new employees, and stay in America.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

Here is something new. Fed Judge in DC Circuit just Ruled that the scanners are Constitutional. Sort of shoves aside the forth amendment. It seems, according to this judge, virtual strip-searches are exempt from the Constitution, never mind that they are conducted almost exclusively on people who are the least likely to commit a terrorist act. Oh, btw, a person can always opt out of the scanners and get real personal with a stranger. I wonder if TSA pays it's employees extra for a pat down?

As of today's date. TSA has NEVER caught a terrorist.

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: You're scaring my cats again. If you don't stop, they'll start sabotaging our posts, and then where will we be? Kitty Kelly has already started turning off the number lock and turning on the caps lock while my back is turned.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: I know. This just gets sillier and sillier. The judge used a specious thought-process. The Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to airport searches because it isn't technically a government function, and fliers could simply choose other forms of transportation. That would have had some ring of truth to it if this were 1935, but it doesn't make a lot of sense in 2011.

As onerous as I find those death-ray machines, I could probably tolerate it if I could be convinced that it was truly efficacious and not being used as a substitute for solid security procedures and plain common sense. The airports are beginning to look very much like scenes from Idiocracy.

Post a Comment