| May 2008 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
July 2007 Stats for The Big Picture.
Per Hotair:
That's actually the key ruling here: The court holds on page 95 that because sexual orientation is (1) immutable, (2) unrelated to one's ability to function in society, and (3) a target of prejudice, it should be treated as a "suspect classification" for purposes of the state constitution's equal protection clause.
There's no proof that sexual orientation is immutable. On the contrary - a Google search on the phrase "formerly gay" turns up many listings of people who were formerly gay, and no longer are.
The Court has based its ruling not on the law, but on a Liberal view that they now seek to impose on all of us. This is a massive attack on free speech. The Left lost this argument on the playing field of public opinion, and now the Court seeks to impose a view on us all using the power of the state.
Per Mark Steyn, the Court is acting like they are our "super monarchs," in defiance of their historic duty to merely interpret the law:
...what happened here was not just a sly judicial coup, but an explicit one in the wake of the expressed will of the California electorate, and their elected representatives. And what's interesting to me about this general business of judicial activism, in a period when most sort of sources of authority in society, whether you're talking about politicians or the Church, or I suppose the media, if you mean fellows like Walter Cronkite, when most of those sources have diminished in authority, we have kind of compensated by over-venerating a handful of guys in black robes, just because they happen to be called judges, and sit on a fancy court. And there's no reason for this. It's entirely at odds with the founders' conception of a functioning republic, that in effect, you should turn a handful of judges into super monarchs who can overrule.
This ruling can be overturned by a constitutional amendment that is already heading towards the November ballot. If the Court's ruling were to stand, you can expect to see the ACLU in our grade schools demanding:
The Court was split on this - it was a 4 to 3 decision. Do you object to having four guys in robes tell you what your children can and can't be taught about sexual orientation? Do you want to protect free speech? If so, contribute to ProtectMarriage.com, and sign up on ProtectMarriage.com to help.
Obama likes to say that he is a uniter:
Obama Says He Can Unite U.S. 'More Effectively' Than Clinton
MANCHESTER, N.H., Aug. 14 -- Drawing a sharp contrast with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, his main rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama said in an interview that he has the capacity she may lack to unify the country and move it out of what he called "ideological gridlock."
"I think it is fair to say that I believe I can bring the country together more effectively than she can," Obama said. "I will add, by the way, that is not entirely a problem of her making. Some of those battles in the '90s that she went through were the result of some pretty unfair attacks on the Clintons. But that history exists, and so, yes, I believe I can bring the country together in a way she cannot do. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be running."
But if Obama is such a uniter, why does he permit his supporters to say that anyone who doesn't vote for him, is a racist? For example:
He not only permits them to say it - he personally led the way, in December of 2006. From Sisu:
"Are some voters not going to vote for me because I'm African-American? Those are the same voters who probably wouldn't vote for me because of my politics," Barack Obama told ecstatic New Hampshire voters yesterday. Being one of those voters who probably wouldn't vote for him because of his politics, we were naturally offended at his suggestion that people like us are racists.
His claim to be a uniter is shown to be incorrect, because under his leadership his supporters are using this extremely divisive strategy.
It stars grade-school and high-school kids, and is from Writer-Director Cheryl Felicia Rhoads.
------
Many are discussing how Obama and Wright are setting back race relations in this country. From Roger L. Simon:
Al Sharpton criticizing Barack Obama for urging non-violence in the Sean Bell verdict protest puts into dramatic relief the major racial conflict of our time - and it is inside the African-American community, not outside. Outdated racial profiteers like Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and now the formerly obscure Reverend Jeremiah Wright are clinging for dear life to their reactionary views that have impeded progress in their own community for years.
Unfortunately for all of us, Obama - whose instincts should have been better on this matter - has found himself trapped between appeasing these race baiters (and their constituencies) and taking what is truly a progressive (note the use of the word) stand against them because of his twenty year association with Reverend Wright. The candidate's speech on racism, so lauded in the press, actually worsened the situation by implying an equivalency between the reverend's excrescences and his own grandmother's fear of being mugged. That Obama could even think this way makes us wonder about his ability to lead us out of these particular woods.
And woods they are indeed. The situation is close to tragic and this election year shows a real chance of running off the rails in a way few of us would have predicted. It has a potential for pushing race relations seriously backwards in a society that was already relatively open handed. People do not like being accused of racism when it is not there. The original attraction of the Obama campaign is that it was post-racial and now it is anything but.
Wright has made his own racism undeniable.
Obama has shown that he, Obama, also excuses racism:
Will Obama and Wright set back race relations in this country? I suggest that on the contrary, America's decades-long tradition of powerfully opposing any tendency towards racism, will win in the end, resulting in the disgrace of Obama.
Since Martin Luther King, America has moved in the direction of opposing and putting down all notions of racism. In just the past two years, we have seen striking examples of this in the cases of Don Imus, Michael Richards, and Duane "Dogg" Chapman.
Obama's implied and explicit excuses for racism, are being powerfully rejected by the American public. It appears that Obama's supporters are already finding him to be no longer acceptable. From Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal:
This week we learned the limit of a dream in American politics. At Barack Obama's darkest hour, not one prominent ally came forward to support him. Everyone abandoned Everyman.
No prominent black clergyman came forth to make even the simple point that Jeremiah Wright's notion of the "black church" is but one point on a spectrum of faith. Rev. Wright, now written off as a virtual nut case, got more support from black clergymen than did Obama.
Barack Obama was bleeding by Monday and needed cover. Where, when he could have used them, were Obama's oh-so-famous endorsers: Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, Oprah, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Patrick Leahy, Tom Daschle, Amy Klobuchar, Claire McCaskill, Jay Rockefeller, John Lewis, Toni Morrison, Roger Wilkins, Eric Holder, Robert Reich, Ted Sorenson, Alice Walker, David Wilhelm, Cornel West, Clifford Alexander, Donald McHenry, Patricia Wald, Newton Minow?
Where were all the big-city mayors who went over to the Obama camp: Chicago's Richard Daley, Cleveland's Frank Jackson, Atlanta's Shirley Franklin, Washington's Adrian Fenty, Newark's Cory Booker, Baltimore's Sheila Dixon?
It isn't hard for big names to get on talk TV to make a point. Any major op-ed page would have stopped the presses to print a statement of support from Ted Kennedy or such for the senator. None appeared. Call it profiles in gopher-holing.
Are we really to believe that two individuals - Obama and Wright - are going to turn a nation away from a course it has been on for decades?
On the contrary.
Far from setting back race relations in America, there is a good chance that Obama and Wright will suffer a fate similar to that of Don Imus, Michael Richards, and Duane "Dogg" Chapman, and wil be - to a greater degree, a la Richards and Chapman, or to a lesser degree, a la Imus - disgraced.
From A.M. Whittaker:
I'm not quite certain where to put my comment - but this seemed to be the best place.
I don't have cable so I don't have access to the 24 hour news services. My news comes from the local network morning shows - msm.
This morning, after wading through stories like the recent shark attack, there was just a mention of the recent apparent assassination attempt on President Karzai. I was astounded and immediately switched around and ended up at a local international station, MHZ, and got a great deal of information.
I just don't understand, this is a tremendously important incident. which should have been covered over Matt Lauer in Argentina, jumprope champions, or the latest recipes.
No wonder the general public is ignorant!
This morning Drudge is linking a report on a news conference held yesterday by Israel's UN Ambassador, Dan Gillerman: "Israel's UN ambassador calls Jimmy Carter 'a bigot'". I'd been invited to attend that news conference, by telephone hookup, and can report on a lot more that Gillerman had to say. From my typed notes (not expected to be verbatim):
Today I believe we are no longer in a clash of civilizations... but in a clash of civilization, singular. In most of the bloodshed within the Muslim world, the vast majority of the victims are Muslim. Every day hundreds of Muslims are slain by their brethren.
What worries me is the eerie silence of the Muslim world. No Muslim leader, secular, religious, or academic, gets up and says, 'What are we doing?'
[On press coverage of this:] When Westerners kill Muslims, it's a crusade. When Jews kill Muslims, it's a massacre. When Muslims kill Muslims, it's the weather channel.
But there is a shot of optimism. I don't know what woke them up. Maybe it was the war in Lebanon in 2006, which most of the Arab nations realized was only a preview of a something coming soon to a theater near you. They realized that the real threat, is Iran, with its ambitions of spreading Shia extremism and terrorism, and generating it all over the world. They came to Annapolis defying Iran, and forming a coalition of the moderates, with a view toward being more pragmatic and realistic regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Israel has no war with the people of Iran. We respect and admire the history and the people of Iran. We feel the people of Iran were dealt a very raw deal, with the extreme, reactionary leaders of Iran, including a president who denies the Holocaust while preparing the next one.
Iran is a danger to the stability and civilization of the world as we know it.
We have no war with Iran, but Iran has a war with us.
Iran is a thousand miles away from Israel, but it has proxies on our borders. Iran's proxy Hezbollah is on our northern border, and its proxy Hamas is on our Southern border, armed and controlled and trained by Iran. 60 years after its birth, Israel is under real threat from Iran. All Israelis - seven million Jews, Muslims and Christians, are under range of missiles, mainly supplied by Iran.
The world realizes this, and the Muslim world realizes this, and realizes that there is a limit to what Israel will take. Hamas continuously shells Israeli cities and villages and schools, trying to kill and maim Israeli civilians and children. And all this is done with very direct supplies from Iran.
Not only most of the world, but most of the Muslim world, will choose to side against the Iranian extremists.
It is important to bolster and embolden the moderates, while marginalizing extremists. So I am very happy with Abbas' visit to Washington and the support he's getting from Washington.
What would be the ramifications in the event that the majority of Arab nations sided with the US against Iran, and joined us in an effort to halt Iran's sponsorship of extremism and terrorism in the world? Gillerman also stated that "Basically, Syria and Iran, together with Hamas and Hezbollah, are the main axes of terror and evil in the world." If this is correct, the elimination of Iran as the principal driver of extremism and terrorism, could contribute substantially toward cutting the heart out of the global Islamist and extremist movement.
Oil is near $120 a barrel, and OPEC expresses reluctance to increase output so as to help lower prices.
But Popular Science reports on new ways to turn biomass into - not ethanol - but into actual gasoline (via Instapundit):
Researchers at UMass Amherst recently published a new method of refining hydrocarbons from cellulose, paving the way to turn wood scraps into gasoline, diesel fuel, Tupperware-anything, essentially, that's normally refined from petroleum.
..."If we can get 100 percent yield, we estimate the cost to be about a dollar per gallon," Huber says. "Right now we're at 50 percent. Can we get 100 percent? I don't know. Hopefully we'll bump those numbers up."
This process can use biomass other than corn or food products, leaving the world's food 100% available for people and other living things to eat:
Huber's work stands out as likely the first direct conversion from cellulose, opening up as potential fuel sources virtually anything that grows. Commercialization of the technology may take another five to 10 years, the researchers predict.
Developments in so-called "green hydrocarbons" arrive as ethanol continues to come under attack as expensive, inefficient and a contributor to rising food prices around the world. (More than a billion bushels of corn are diverted to ethanol production each year.) "There's certainly a lot of historical inertia for ethanol. It's gotten us off to a great start, but I can't see the country transitioning to flex-fuel," says John Regalbuto, director of the Catalysis and Biocatalysis Program at the National Science Foundation. "I almost think, long term, that we will go to plug-in hybrids. But we're still going to need diesel and jet fuel-you can't run trains or fly planes with ethanol or hydrogen."
"We already have the infrastructure in place to distribute liquid fuels," Huber says. "We're using them to power transportation vehicles today, and I think that's what we'll be using in 10 years and in 50 years. And if you want a sustainable liquid transportation fuel, biomass is the only way to go.
So the hubris of OPEC appears to be driving us to unexpected success in the development of alternative fuel sources.
And here's the kicker: what's one thing the OPEC states can never produce? Biomass. Their land is a desert. They can't grow anything there. Their old-fashioned oil deposits could become too expensive to use. It's the ultimate irony: rather than running out of oil, the oil of the OPEC states would be left in the ground, replaced by ultra-cheap gasoline produced from waste biomass.
They'd be buying their fuel from us.
Just off the top of my head, and for no particular reason, as a general effort on behalf of all candidates running today for their party's nomination, here is a quick list of things to avoid saying when you are running for president.
I know, I know, again you're probably thinking that no candidate would ever be enough of an elitist, out-of-touch, America-hating, racist to say any of the things on this list. It's almost impossible to imagine that any candidate would ever say even one of the things on this list. Surely no candidate would ever say all of them.
That could probably never happen.
Now that American Airlines is getting its jets flying again, this is a good time to have a look at what grounded them in the first place. It turns out to have been, in large part, a typical bureaucratic foul-up. From the LA Times:
As the airline struggled to get its planes flying again, new details emerged on the events that led to the massive flight cancellations and the Federal Aviation Administration's newly aggressive role in policing the nation's airlines.
While nervous airline executives refused to publicly criticize the FAA, they privately grumbled that the agency had been taking a harder line with airlines on complying with airworthiness directives. They said the extraordinary number of flight cancellations might not have been necessary if the FAA hadn't gotten "unreasonably" tougher in recent weeks.
"I'm not sure I would characterize it that way," a more cautious Gerard Arpey, chief executive of American Airlines, said. He stopped short of criticizing the agency for its role in one of the nation's worst air travel debacles but added, "It would be fair to say that the FAA is stepping up surveillance."
To recap: the FAA decided to change its procedures for clearing jets for flight. So far so good. The FAA tightened its requirements, in a laudable effort to make our skies safer. However, then a typical bureaucratic snafu occurred. The FAA forgot to give the airlines advance warning. They sprung the changes on the airlines, and not surprisingly, this resulted in grounding 300 jets belonging to the world's largest airline. The cost to the airline is estimated in the tens of millions; additionally:
The financial pain suffered by the airline could be just the tip of the iceberg, experts say, when you take into account lost productivity for more than 300,000 displaced passengers, hotel costs, missed meetings and lost sales.
And that's just for the travelers themselves. There's also the time spent by travel agents, colleagues, family and friends trying to help all those travelers get home, or filling in for them while they can't.
And here's the kicker: this is the kind of bureaucracy that Hillary and Snob-ama want running the nation's health care. What a nightmare that would be.
Obama's hypocrisy is shocking for being so blatant:
But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
"...or antipathy to people who aren't like them." Let's compare that to some of Obama's other remarks, from his own book, "Dreams of My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance" - much of which you can hear him reading out loud:
And yet, even as I imagined myself following Malcolm's call, one line in the book stayed with me. He spoke of a wish he'd once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence, might somehow be expunged.
[.....] The minority assimilated into the dominant culture, not the other way around. Only white culture could be neutral and objective. Only white culture could be nonracial, willing to adopt the occasional exotic into its ranks. Only white culture had individuals.
[.....] That hate hadn't gone away; it formed a counter-narrative buried deep within each person and at the center of which stood white people -- some cruel, some ignorant...
"White blood... white culture... white people"... that's how Obama thinks. He's full of antipathy towards people who he believes 'aren't like him' -- and as seen through his prejudiced eyes, skin color is all it takes to make someone different from him. He declaims against people's supposed "antipathy to people who aren't like them", but in his book, he exemplifies such antipathy.
His hypocrisy is astounding.
And the bitterness he speaks of, is his own.
From Islam Watch via Fox News:
A report posted on Islam Watch, a site run by Muslims who oppose intolerant teachings and hatred for unbelievers, exposes a prominent Islamic cleric and lawyer who support extreme punishment for non-Muslims — including killing and rape.
A question-and-answer session with Imam Abdul Makin in an East London mosque asks why Allah would tell Muslims to kill and rape innocent non-Muslims, including their wives and daughters, according to Islam Watch.
"Because non-Muslims are never innocent, they are guilty of denying Allah and his prophet," the Imam says, according to the report. "If you don't believe me, here is the legal authority, the top Muslim lawyer of Britain."
The lawyer, Anjem Choudary, backs up the Imam's position, saying that all Muslims are innocent.
Click here to watch the interview with Islamic lawyer Anjem Choudary.
"You are innocent if you are a Muslim," Choudary tells the BBC. "Then you are innocent in the eyes of God. If you are not a Muslim, then you are guilty of not believing in God."
Choudary said he would not condemn a Muslim for any action.
"As a Muslim, I must support my Muslim brothers and sisters," Choudary said. "I must have hatred to everything that is not Muslim."
This cleric isn't in some Islamic nation. He's in an East London mosque, preaching specifically for the killing and rape of his non-Muslim fellow Brits.
Permitting him to continue isn't permitting freedom of speech - it's permitting a very small subset of freedom of speech, specifically, freedom to incite murder of non-Muslims.
If it's easy to accept the rule against shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it should be easy to pass a law saying that it's illegal to call for people to kill those who aren't part of one's own organization - in this case, the organization of radical Islamists.
Dr. Wafa Sultan Speaks at a Private Residence in Los Angeles
Shockingly, on U.S. soil, a citizen of this country has had to go into hiding due to threats from an organized group - radical Islamists:
Dr. Wafa Sultan has been forced to go into hiding with her family following a fatwa (religious edict) from an Islamic scholar, according to Omedia. Sultan faces the fatwa following a recent debate on Al-Jazeera in which she challenged Egyptian Islamist Talat Rheim over Dutch cartoons of Mohammed, who Muslims revere as a prophet. Sultan argued that Denmark had the right to print the cartoons.
Click here to see Sultan's March 4 interview on Al Jazeera.
Last week, at a private residence in Los Angeles, Sultan appeared. Here is an excerpt from her remarks (transcribed from an audio recording, and presented here with the permission of Dr. Sultan):
You need to jump the gap between you and them. Bridge this gap, and begin to understand this mindset. You cannot win this war until you understand the Muslim mindset.
You know, prior to my first interview on Al Jazeera in 2005, I thought I only needed to educate my people in the Arab world. But right after that interview, unfortunately, I found out that the West is lacking knowledge about the realities in the Arabic world. They don't know anything about the Muslim mindset. At a very early age, we are brainwashed to believe, that we are here, to spread Islam. We are here to fight, for Allah's sake, and to kill or to be killed in his army.
They're very different. Their concept of time is so very different from your concept. They are well-trained to be patient. They believe time is at their side. It doesn't matter how long they wait. One day they're going to reach their goal.
And there is a very well-known in Islam called al-Taqiyya. I don't know if you're familiar with it. Al-Taqiyya means Muslims are allowed to lie, to cheat, to deceive, in order to reach their goals.
In my first interview on Al Jazeera, the host asked me the question, "Why are you trying to be American, more than Americans? I said, "Believe it or not, I am American more than Americans. I was born in hell. I know the difference between hell, and paradise. But unfortunately, most Americans don't. [APPLAUSE]. They take their American lives for granted.
Just greeting my next-door neighbor - walking freely down the street - you take it for granted; I don't. So please, defend your life. Defend your values. This war is a very tough war. I have no doubt, that we are going to win this war.
Thank you so much!
[APPLAUSE]
Dr. Sultan asked us for our help in defending her against a fatwa issued against her by Al-Qaradhawl, a radical Islamist and resident of Qatar. You can help by submitting the following letter, drafted by one of her many supporters, to the embassy at Qatar. Use this link, and paste the letter into Feedback:
Embassy of Qatar:
As an American citizen I am appalled by the rage, threats and hateful rhetoric leveled against Dr. Wafa Sultan by Egyptian Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi.
Al-Qaradawi does not have the right to issue religious edicts, or "fatwas" against persons residing in the U.S., who express their opinions in an attempt to uphold the truth. In fact, it was this type of hateful rhetoric, threats and rage that compelled Dr. Sultan to speak out in the first place. As a result of al-Qaradawi's actions to exact revenge and incite hatred against Dr. Sultan, she has now been forced into hiding.
These are extraordinary charges against Dr. Sultan made by al-Qaradawi, who states them in a manner which his fellow jihadists understand perfectly. In fact, we all understand exactly what he is threatening.
Given that al-Qaradawi has justified suicide attacks against innocent civilians and American soldiers in Iraq, it is abundantly clear that he encourages violence and threats of death over civil discourse and free speech.
Law enforcement officials should take this latest threat against Wafa Sultan very seriously indeed.
Signed...
I've also drafted a variation on the above letter, which can be sent to the U.S. Embassy in Qatar. Use this email address to reach Michael Alan Ratney, currently the Chargé d'Affaires at the embassy while GWB's nominee for incoming Ambassador to Qatar, Joseph LeBaron, awaits nomination hearings.
Dear Mr. Ratney,
As an American citizen I am appalled by the rage, threats and hateful rhetoric leveled against Dr. Wafa Sultan by Egyptian Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi.
Al-Qaradawi does not have the right to issue religious edicts, or "fatwas" against persons residing in the U.S., who express their opinions in an attempt to uphold the truth. In fact, it was this type of hateful rhetoric, threats and rage that compelled Dr. Sultan to speak out in the first place. As a result of al-Qaradawi's actions to exact revenge and incite hatred against Dr. Sultan, she has now been forced into hiding.
These are extraordinary charges against Dr. Sultan made by al-Qaradawi, who states them in a manner which his fellow jihadists understand perfectly. In fact, we all understand exactly what he is threatening.
Given that al-Qaradawi has justified suicide attacks against innocent civilians and American soldiers in Iraq, it is abundantly clear that he encourages violence and threats of death over civil discourse and free speech.
As an American citizen, I urgently request that the U.S. Embassy in Qatar take every step to protect the lives of American citizens from death threats issued against them which emanate from Qatar.Signed...
Just yesterday LiveLeak acted courageously in the face of death threats, to post the film, FITNA. We in this country must demand that our government take every step to defend our freedom of speech from threats against our citizens, and we must champion those who courageously defend our freedom of speech - from our soldiers fighting overseas, to LiveLeak, and to Dr. Sultan.
LiveLeak today courageously restored hosting of FITNA, the powerful film that shows how many Imams, preaching hate per their understanding of the Koran, radicalize Muslims so that individual radical Islamists feel compelled to attempt to kill non-Muslims. I previously posted that only Islam produces such numbers of mass murderers; this video shows why that is.
LiveLeak previously removed FITNA from its servers due to death threats it received from radical Islamists. It restored the video after taking security measures to protect its employees:
On the 28th of March LiveLeak.com was left with no other choice but to remove the film "fitna" from our servers following serious threats to our staff and their families. Since that time we have worked constantly on upgrading all security measures thus offering better protection for our staff and families. With these measures in place we have decided to once more make this video live on our site. We will not be pressured into censoring material which is legal and within our rules.
The primary duty of the government is to protect the safety and security of the citizens.
At this time government is falling short of achieving these goals. Our government is not yet doing enough to protect our rights to free speech. LiveLeak has had to courageously defend our free speech by using it in the face of such threats.
This is becoming like the wild west, when many citizens had to carry guns on a daily basis to defend themselves from attack - because there was little protection for citizens from those who threatened them.
The government must catch up to the strategy used by radical Islam, a strategy which has never before been used to attack the freedom of this country.
As in the first sentence of this post, the strategy is easy to describe:
Relevant supporting links:
According to one FBI agent interviewed in Ronald Kessler's new book The Terrorist Watch, about one in ten of the United States' 2,000 mosques are believed to preach hatred. That number was higher before 9/11, however, as radicals now seek to evade U.S. intelligence agencies.
But the problem extends beyond mosques. Islamic schools play a role, too. According to scholar Daniel Pipes, a Saudi textbook at the Islamic Saudi Academy of Alexandria, VA, teaches first graders that, "all religions, other than Islam, are false, including that of the Jews [and] Christians," while books used by New York City's Muslims schools include, "sweeping condemnations of Jews and Christians."
A new report issued by the New York Police Department indicates that radical Islam continues to have an appeal among Manhattan's Muslims, often through "informal groups or clusters of young men…usually associated with a particular venue - community center, non-governmental organization, university group, housing project, café or even a particular mosque." NYPD also noted the, "growing trend of Salafi-based radicalization that has permeated some Muslim student associations (MSA's)."
This environment has undoubtedly impacted America's Muslims. According to a Pew Research Poll, roughly one-quarter of young Muslims (ages 18-29) in the United States believe that suicide bombing is justified under certain circumstances.
We as a people are coming to grips with the fact that under the guise of religion many mosques house preachers of mass murder.
There can be no tolerance for such preaching in a civilized society.
There can be no tolerance for such preaching in a society that seeks to protect its freedom of speech.
There can be no tolerance for such preaching in a society that protects its civilians from death threats.
The answer: our government must prosecute, expel, ban, arrest, and jail Islamist leaders who preach that the Koran says Muslims must kill non-Muslims, and who preach that the Koran says that our freedoms must be overthrown, and that Shariah must replace the American Constitution; and our government must do so regardless of whether such preaching is done under cover of freedom of religion.
See also this previous post:
To Eradicate the Islamist Killers, We Must Destroy the Mechanism that Produces Them
