► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Ground Zero Mosque’

Con Edison seeks to evict Ground Zero Islamic Victory Center

by Phantom Ace ( 7 Comments › )
Filed under Headlines, Islamic hypocrisy, Leftist-Islamic Alliance at November 19th, 2011 - 5:41 pm

Not only is the Ground Zero Mosque an insult to Americans, but they are dead beats who don’t pay their utility bill rent. Con Edison, which supplies electricity to NYC is seeking  to evict the Ground Zero Mosque owners

Con Edison wants a judge to green-light the eviction of the would-be developer of the controversial mosque near Ground Zero — because, the utility claims, he doesn’t have a prayer of paying the $1.7 million that he owes in back rent.

At a hearing in Manhattan Supreme Court, Con Ed lawyer Scott Mollen yesterday portrayed Sharif el-Gamal as a deadbeat slumlord and far too cash-strapped to pay back what he owes.

“They’re $1.7 million in arrears, and they have not come close to demonstrating they have the ability” to pay up on the rent at 51 Park Place, Mollen told Justice Richard Braun.

Let’s hope the judge rules in favor of this.
(Hat Tip: refugee000)

NJ Gov. Chris Christie Does NOT Get the Counterjihad

by 1389AD ( 265 Comments › )
Filed under Abortion, Barack Obama, Censorship, Dhimmitude, Elections 2012, Free Speech, Hamas, Koran, Regulation, Republican Party, Second Amendment at January 21st, 2011 - 8:30 am

Just about all voters, everywhere where there are elections, tend to vote their pocketbooks. That means they generally back whichever candidate they rightly or wrongly believe will help them to prosper. For liberals, that generally means getting the government to help them to prosper at the expense of their fellow citizens. For the American conservative base and for many independent voters as well, it’s all about curbing runaway taxation and spending, rolling back government regulation, and getting a grip on the skyrocketing national debt.

After that come other ‘hot-button’ issues. For the US voting bloc sometimes known as the ‘conservative base’, the two biggest issues have historically been the Second Amendment and pro-life. The Second Amendment makes the difference between freedom and slavery, and it provides the only real bulwark against government tyranny. As we have seen with Barack Hussein Obama, a politician who shows his contempt for the unborn is all too likely to feel the same way about the rest of us, except insofar as he thinks he can use us for his own purposes.

What else is important? For me and a growing number of other conservatives, the counterjihad counts as much as pro-life and the Second Amendment.

Some conservatives have spoken hopefully about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie as a potential presidential candidate. While he seems to be good on curbing the budget, and he has taken a pro-life stance to some degree, he is somewhat equivocal with regard to gun rights, and he certainly does not get the counterjihad. For me, that’s a deal-breaker.

First of all, Gov. Christie is in bed with a known Hamas operative:

Gov. Christie’s Strange Relationship with Radical Islam

(h/t: orangecrush)

NJ Governor Chris Christie in front of NJ judicial seal

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s nomination of Sohail Mohammed to be a state judge shows the governor’s tin ear for radical Islam. Not only did he appoint a longtime mouthpiece for radical Islamists to be a judge, but Christie has also turned a blind eye to the activities of one of Mohammed’s clients – radical imam Mohammed Qatanani, head of one of New Jersey’s largest mosques.

Qatanani has a history of Hamas support and was related by marriage to a leading Hamas operative in the West Bank. This fall, Qatanani will return to a New Jersey immigration court, where the Department of Homeland Security is fighting to have him deported. In his initial application for a green card filed in 1999, government lawyers say Qatanani failed to disclose a conviction in an Israeli military court for being a Hamas member and providing support to the terrorist group.

Oddly, Christie – a Republican who was then the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey – sided with Qatanani against DHS, allowing a top lieutenant, Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles McKenna, to testify as a character witness at Qatanani’s first immigration trial, and publicly embracing the imam at a Ramadan breakfast at his mosque. Christie later appointed McKenna as New Jersey’s head of homeland security..

As general counsel to the American Muslim Union (AMU), Mohammed often represented clients subject to government allegations concerning terrorists. The AMU often is highly critical of U.S. counter-terrorism efforts.

One online newsletter even included a claim that a “Zionist commando orchestrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks” and shows support for a “Rabbi” from the extremist Jewish organization Neturei Karta, which denies the right of Israel to exist and supports its dismantling.

The AMU has criticized some of the response to the September 11 attacks, especially regarding the PATRIOT Act. Explaining why the AMU had become more politically active and was holding voter registration drives, one employee of AMU said: “Right now, the Patriot Act—basically it’s unconstitutional…I believe it targets Muslims unfairly. If someone’s going to come out with a bill that’s discriminatory, I’m not going to vote for them.”

As general counsel, Mohammed bucked several high-profile terror support prosecutions. After authorities shut down the Holy Land Foundation near Dallas for alleged Hamas support in 2001, Mohammed told the Record of Bergen County, N.J., that the government was unjustly singling out Muslim organizations.”People see this as another example of how heavy-handed the administration has been thus far,” he said.

The move was newsworthy in New Jersey because an HLF officer, Mohammed El-Mezain, preceded Qatanani as imam of the Islamic Center of Passaic County. El-Mezain and four fellow defendants were convicted of illegally routing millions of dollars to Hamas in 2008.

During a lecture given a year earlier, Qatanani included the HLF defendants in a prayer for relief from oppression. “Oh Allah assist our brothers and sisters in Philistine [Palestine], and Iraq and Chechnya,” he said. “O Allah remove occupation and oppression and o Allah improve the matters of our community … to assist our brothers and sisters in the Holy Land Foundation, ask oh Allah … to assist them and to remove the difficulty that they have been inflicted with all of the brothers and sisters in this country, oh Allah to prove them non-guilty.”

Additionally, Mohammed publicly defended Palestinian Islamic Jihad operative Sami Al-Arian following a 2003 indictment which alleged he was a North American leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Appearing on MSNBC, Mohammed criticized the fact that it took years of investigation before the indictment was issued. “It all points out to the distrust that the Muslim community have, which is this is nothing but a witch-hunt,” he said. “This is nothing but a politically motivated indictment, and all you are waiting for is the right opportunity to indict the person, the climate is right.”

Al-Arian, a longtime professor at the University of South Florida, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to provide goods and services to the PIJ. In sentencing him, a federal judge said the evidence made it clear he was “a leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. You were on the board of directors and an officer, the secretary. Directors control the actions of an organization, even the PIJ; and you were an active leader.”

Much more here.

Gov. Christie’s behavior in this regard is no fluke. Unlike other prominent Republicans, he has refused to take any position with regard to the infamous “Ground Zero Mosque”:

Republican Pol Warns of Playing ‘Political Football’ With ‘Ground Zero Mosque’

The Republican governor of New Jersey chastised Democrats and Republicans for using the proposed Islamic center near the site of the 9/11 terror attack as a “political football,” in a sharp departure from members of his own party who are intent on making the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” an issue in fall election campaigns.

Gov. Chris Christie’s comments contrast those of prominent national Republicans, including Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin who kept up their attack on the proposed project two blocks from where the World Trade Center was destroyed by Islamic militants.

Palin, who previously criticized the planned mosque, took to the airwaves Monday to attack President Obama for saying the Muslims had a right to build there.

“He just doesn’t get it, that this is an insensitive move on the part of those Muslims who want to build that mosque in this location. It feels like a stab in the heart to, collectively, Americans who still have that lingering pain from 9/11,” the former Republican governor of Alaska said on Fox News.

Her comments echoed those of New Gingrich who compared the Islamic Center’s backers to Nazis.

But Christie warned against politicians “overreacting,” and he spoke as someone with a closer connection to the tragedy.

Christie served as New Jersey’s attorney general following the attacks, and many of the nearly 3,000 people who died in the collapse of the Twin Towers were from New Jersey. New Jersey was also a co-owner of the World Trade Center.

“Given my last position, that I was the first U.S attorney post 9/11 in New Jersey, I understand acutely the pain and sorrow and upset of the family members who lost loved ones that day at the hands of radical Muslim extremists,” said Christie at a bill-signing ceremony. “And their sensitivities and concerns have to be taken into account. Just because it’s nearly nine years later, those sensitivities cannot and should not be ignored.”

He included Obama as among the politicians who he scolded for playing politics with the emotional issue and called for tolerance for Muslims.

“We cannot paint all of Islam with that brush. …We have to bring people together. And what offends me the most about all this is that it’s being used as a political football by both parties. And what disturbs me about the president’s remarks is that he is now using it as a political football as well. I think the president of the United States should rise above that.”

The govenor said he would not take a public stance on the Islamic center because “I don’t believe that it would be responsible of me to get involved and comment on this any further because it just put me in the same political arena as all of them,” he said.

Read the rest.

What’s more, Gov. Christie refuses to stand up for for free speech for the counterjihad:

NJ Transit was right to can Koran-burning creep Derek Fenton, says Gov. Chris Christie

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Wednesday backed the controversial firing of a transit worker who burned pages of the Koran outside a planned mosque near Ground Zero.

NJTransit fired assistant train coordinator Derek Fenton Monday, just two days after he ripped pages from the Koran and torched them with a lighter on the ninth anniversary of 9/11.

“We’re supportive of the action taken by NJTransit,” Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak told the Daily News.

Read the rest.

Waffling and compromising with Islam just does not work. Until such time as Gov. Christie is willing to recognize that Islam is an expansionist, totalitarian enemy ideology that seeks to rid the world of everything but itself, he is not ready to be Commander-in-Chief.


Flight 93 on 9/11: Ride to Stop the Crescent Mosque

by 1389AD ( 84 Comments › )
Filed under Dhimmitude, Islam, September 11 at September 4th, 2010 - 12:00 pm

Anyone live within driving distance of Somerset, Pennsylvania? It’s a beautiful place to visit and a group of motorcyclists from Indianapolis is already going.

Tom Burnett Senior and Alec Rawls are buying full page color ads in the Somerset Daily American for both Friday the 10th and Saturday the 11th, so anyone who makes the trip will have a ready made protest sign waiting for them. Just buy a newspaper, tape the ad to a piece of cardboard, and let the massed national media know what side you are on.

That’s right. With Laura Bush and Michelle Obama both attending, it’s going to be a media circus, and a rare opportunity to force coverage of our issue. Just self-organize. Ad-holders will show a core of united opposition (and the media might even be forced to read our brief expose).

A PDF of the ad will be posted in another blogburst next week for anyone who wants to make signs ahead of time. There is also a set of small posters that were put together for a previous talk by Mr. Burnett. Just print with tiling to make the finished product as large or small as you want:

Board 1: The giant crescent

Board 2: It points to Mecca

Board 3: The gigantic Islamic sundial

Board 4: The 44 glass blocks

Petition to stop the Flight 93 memorial passes 10,000 signatures

Including a spate of dozen or so by 9/11 family members that feature some very strong comments. (See pages 198 and 199.)

Blogburst logo, petition

It Points to Mecca video nearing 20,000 hits

Thanks to big fat repostings by Creeping Sharia and Atlas Shrugs. Thank You!

http://www.youtube.com/v/Y4z1QN6m_QI

Here are parts 2, 3 and 4 (also worthy):

http://www.youtube.com/v/IGx95pcGksE

http://www.youtube.com/v/HVVKKoGRVFw

http://www.youtube.com/v/Q8GoejBgPt4

If you haven’t been to Shanksville before, there really is no lovelier place on earth than an open field in that sprawling Sherwood Forest that is Western Pennsylvania. Drink it in. There is something in the air at that patriots’ grave.

To join our blogburst against the crescent mosque, just send your blog’s url.


Addendum:

BunkX disagrees with the claims made in this thread. Scroll down to view his comments, which appear near the end of this thread. Some further discussion takes place on this overnight thread.


I travelled to 51 Park Place yesterday

by Delectable ( 340 Comments › )
Filed under Islam, Religion at September 1st, 2010 - 2:00 pm

This column will come as a shock to some, but it must be written. It comes after a great deal of thought and soul searching, and after I wrote this article.

I travelled to 51 Park Place with my dad yesterday (we were in the neighborhood anyway). I saw firsthand that this location is not within eye distance of Ground Zero. There will be a large building blocking the view of this location and Ground Zero, and it will certainly not tower over Ground Zero and/or the Freedom Tower. This is close to Ground Zero, but not next door. The TV remembrance ceremony would not ever pan to the Cordoba Institute. I honestly believe this “Ground Zero mosque” is not even symbolically awful. It simply is a mosque in the neighborhood of Ground Zero.
 
I happen to believe the imam in particular is a fake-o moderate who wishes for a one-state solution vis-a-vis Israel and supports the Iranian regime. He claims to be a “bridge builder,” so he has a special responsibility to prove this by being transparent and clear in his denouncement of jihad as well as his financing, which he has not done. I thus support protests of Imam Rauf and his group. But I do not support blocking the Islamic center and mosque itself. Consider: (a) the reality that the location is not in fact within eye view of Ground Zero; (b) there is no pending allegation that this imam and/or the Cordoba Institute has broken any laws. After giving this serious thought, I don’t see why there is any cogent argument to be made to block this mosque. As I just said, I oppose this imam and support protests against the imam. But there is no “there there” that can or should be used to block Park51/Cordoba Institute from building at this site.
 
To put it in clearer perspective: if the American Nazi party were to want to be at that location and lawfully purchased the land, I say we would have to let them be there. (note that Nazis were allowed to march in Skokie, Illinois)
 
I don’t think there is any argument to be made for banning Park51/Cordoba Institute/”Ground Zero Mosque” that could withstand first amendment scrutiny. I also don’t understand the sensitivity argument. Firstly, Imam Rauf and his group can be the most insensitive bastards they want to be, in accordance with the law. Secondly, since the proposed building is not within eye view of Ground Zero, what is there to be sensitive about? Thirdly, if Imam Rauf is so bad, why is it better to have this mosque located uptown or in Brooklyn?
 
When people think about it, they realize that it really is no better to have a mosque in Times Square (as an example), and that is why we are starting to see people from all walks of life writing that they want all mosques banned. So the argument that it is only this “insensitive location” that is the problem is simply disingenuous. However, I ask: do we really want the government to have the ability to ban a religious institution? Do you trust the government to have that sort of power and not abuse it? I realize many of the protestors are simply expressing their distaste of Imam Rauf and his group (as a lobbying tool, rather than through governmental action), and are misinformed about the exact location of this proposed community center/mosque, believing it to be closer to Ground Zero than it is. But some of the protestors have started to literally say all mosques should be banned, and some politicians are starting to hitch their wagon to such extremists. This is a problem for all of us.
 
I believe Islam is a religion with a mainstream that often promotes inequality and violence, as well as antisemitism and supremacism. I would like that to change, but that is what appears to be the case today, with “mainstream leaders” that excuse away wife beating and Hamas. (see: Tariq Ramadan) However, as I said before, my analysis of Islam is unchanged even if I believed Islam were the equivalent of Nazism itself. I am also aware of the fact that Nazism at first spread by speech. And that is a pitfall of the first amendment and a risk we have to take. But if we start to say “no new mosques,” (or even that a certain radius around Ground Zero should be free of mosques) then we’ll start to see a primrose path of the government being in a position to ban all sorts of other speech. See, as an example, the Netherlands, where, for good-hearted reasons, there are hate speech laws. These very laws are being used to punish Geert Wilders, and possibly send him to jail. In Canada, Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn had to face bogus “hate speech” prosecutions. In France, while the hijab is banned in schools, so are kippahs and crosses. It is these sorts of situations that I would like to avoid.

And just to clarify – when there are allegations of laws being broken (such as the Muslim American Society, where there are allegations (and video evidence) that they have literally funded Hamas), then my analysis changes. The law provides the US government a tool to block/freeze the property of terrorist groups, if it is proven that they are in fact a terror front group.  See this  and see this. In contrast to the Muslim American Society, there is no such claim that the “Cordoba Institute” have violated these laws.
 
And with this all said – the first amendment does not require that the New York Times (as an example) publish Hamas propaganda. And on Sunday, Ali Abunimah (Electronic Intifada) published a load of human excrement in the NY Times, where he openly advocated the Hamas position. His whole column was rife with double standards, inconsistencies, and inaccuracies. The NY Times has no legal obligation to publish pro-jihad columns, and I believe that our efforts are much better spent opposing the NY Times, Washington Post(et al) for allowing their newspapers to advocate on behalf of jihad, than it is going after symbolic and ultimately less important issues, such as the Ground Zero Mosque, which would be a pyrrhic victory anyway, if won, as it could make all of us less free.

We are a nation of laws, not of men. Once we start to make exceptions to our laws for unpopular groups, we start to descend into anarchy.

I don’t like Imam Rauf and his group. In fact, a part of me believes he is as great a threat as Bin Laden, as he legitimizes Islamic radicalism. (see his support for the Iranian regime and belief in a one-state solution vis-a-vis Israel, as but examples of this) But as S. G. Tallentyre said, “Though I disagree with everything you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it.”