Pamela Geller's Blog, page 971

Intelligence Report: Muslims Told to Reject the West

A just-released intel report validates what this blog, Jihadwatch, and a few others have been warning for years. It is a Canadian report, but is hardly exclusive to our neighbor to the north or the US. The West must face this colonization of a hostile and "parallel society."

It is not a new idea or perversion of Islam. It is pure Islam, original Islam, and they are following Islamic teaching. The only "misunderstanders" of Islam are those who deny this reality and in effect collude to advance Islamic supremacism.

You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consquences of avoiding reality.

Muslims Told To Reject West: Report National Post (hat tip John)

A newly released intelligence report says hard-line Islamist groups want to build a "parallel society" in Canada, which could undermine the country's social cohesion and foster violence.

The de-classified Intelligence Assessment obtained by the National Post says extremists have been encouraging Muslims in the West to reject Western society and to live in "self-imposed isolation."

The report focuses on groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which do not advocate terrorist violence but promote an ideology at odds with core Western values.

"Even if the use of violence is not outwardly expressed, the creation of isolated communities can spawn groups that are exclusivist and potentially open to messages in which violence is advocated," it says.

"At a minimum, the existence of such mini-societies undermines resilience and the fostering of a cohesive Canadian nation."

The report was written by the Integrated Threat Assessment Centre, which monitors threats to Canada's national security and is composed of representatives of CSIS, the RCMP, Foreign Affairs, National Defence and other agencies.

It was circulated internally last year after Hizb-ut-Tahrir invited Muslims to a conference in Mississauga, Ont., to discuss the establishment of an Islamic caliphate. A copy of the document was recently released under the Access to Information Act.

"While the issue of violence by Islamist groups has continued to be a counter-terrorism priority for Western governments and particularly security services for many years, Islamist social ideology appears to have gone unstudied, precisely because the use of violence is either unsupported or understated," it says. "Nevertheless, several Islamist movements advocate a rejection of Western society and mores, and encourage self-imposed isolation of Muslims in the West."

It says Islamists believe that Islam should govern all aspects of society and that Sharia law and state law should be "synchronized." Extremists forced to flee Muslim-majority countries such as Egypt now preach these beliefs in the West, it says, adding, "By definition, their world views clash with secular ones. A competition for the hearts and minds of the diaspora Muslims has hence begun."

That competition has surfaced in the United Kingdom, where the outlawed Al Muhajiroun told Muslims not to submit to any "man-made law," while in Denmark some Muslims are administering their own form of justice, it says.

Read the rest: here

Afghan Convert Out of Islam Pleads for Mercy

Obama is strangely silent on the apostasy case I posted on here.. As you know apostasy (conversion out of Islam) is punishableby death.  In a similar case back in 2006, Abdul Rahman was spared the penalty of death and granted asylum in Italy after the Bush administration intervened. President Bush and others had insisted Afghanistan protect personal beliefs.

American blood and treasure in Afghanistan .......... for what?

Where is President Obama? His silence is deafening and dangerous. Silence is complicity.

In October a letter delivered by an unnamed Westerner and addressed to "the international Church of the world and to the President Brother [Barack] Obama"  found its way to the U.S. and Europe from an Afghan prison. The writer, Sayed Mossa, described being imprisoned for his Christian faith when a co-worker gave him over to Afghanistan's National Directorate of Security, often called "the secret police," back in late May. In spite of Mossa's disability as an amputee, Afghan judicial officials refused to bat an eye at the humiliation he endured in the hands of his fellow prisoners. Beatings, sleep-deprivation and sexual abuse were all a part of the nightmare that unfolded after his arrest. (more at OWIW)

Mindy Belz reports:

Deeds done in darkness The World (hat tip Danielle)

A prison epistle sheds light on otherwise unknown Christians suffering in secret cell

[image error]

In October Sayed Mossa handed a letter to a Westerner who came to visit him several times in jail in Afghanistan. He also asked the visitor not to come back, fearing that any misstep could lead to his death.

The letter, a copy of which WORLD received in late October, begins with a plea "to the international church of the world and to the President Brother [Barack] Obama and to the heads of ISAF force in Afghanistan." It describes his imprisonment since late May "due to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, saviour of the world." It also describes daily beatings and torture: "They did sexual things with me, beat me by wood, by hands, by legs, mocked me ("he's Jesus Christ"), [spit] on me. No body let me for sleep night and day." He also has received death threats.

Brit's Top General says Al-Qaeda Cannot Be Beaten

I agree with General Sir David Richards that al-Qaeda "cannot be beaten" but not for the same reasons. Clearly if we are afraid to freely discuss the ideology and motives behind this global war on the West then surely we cannot beat it.If we dare not speak its name, surely we cannot defeat it. If, instead, those that speak to the religious ideology that compels war against the "non-believers" are the ones demonized, surely it will defeat us.

Rules of engagement, political correctness, foreign aid to our assassins make it impossible to defeat this enemy. Give me the The Bush Doctrine - "you are either with us or against us" as opposed to The Obama Doctrine, "we are against us."

Britain's top soldier says al-Qaeda cannot be beaten  Telegraph (hat tip Danielle)

The new head of Britain's armed forces, Gen Sir David Richards, has warned that the West cannot defeat al-Qaeda and militant Islam.

He said defeating Islamist militancy was "unnecessary and would never be achieved".

However, he argued that it could be "contained" to allow Britons to lead secure lives.

Gen Richards, 58, said the threat posed by "al-Qaeda and its affiliates" meant Britain's national security would be at risk for at least 30 years.

The general, who will tomorrow lay a wreath at the Cenotaph in Whitehall in memory of Britain's war dead, said the West's war against what he described as a "pernicious ideology" had parallels with the fight against Nazi Germany in the Second World War.

In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, the general disclosed that Prince William was unlikely to serve in Afghanistan but suggested that his brother Harry, training to be an Apache helicopter pilot, could return to front-line duty in Helmand province.

He said the British military and the Government had been "guilty of not fully understanding what was at stake" in Afghanistan and admitted that the Afghan people were beginning to "tire" of Nato's inability to deliver on its promises.

However, he said the sacrifice being made by the Armed Forces in Afghanistan, where 343 soldiers have been killed since 2001, "has been worth it". Progress was being made and Nato was "in the right parish". He said: "Don't give up folks, it's all to play for."

[....]

The general said: "In conventional war, defeat and victory is very clear cut and is symbolised by troops marching into another nation's capital. First of all you have to ask: do we need to defeat it [Islamist militancy] in the sense of a clear cut victory? I would argue that it is unnecessary and would never be achieved.

"But can we contain it to the point that our lives and our children's lives are led securely? I think we can."

"I think we can." Doesn't sound like a rallying cry to me.

Taliban Terrorists 'would be freed from Guantánamo to join Afghan peace negotiations'

The very idea that we would be releasing Taliban terrorists to join "peace" negotiations is really scary. Not for the obvious reason that upon their release they will join the Muslim army and kill our soldiers, but scary because our "leadership" would consider such suicidal insanity.

The idea of peace to the enemy is a "pax islamica," a world living under the horror of Islam. Obama's jihad against Israel while aiding and abetting the most violent and imperialistic Islamic supremacists is a lethal cocktail for freedom loving peoples.

Taliban prisoners 'would be freed from Guantánamo to join Afghan peace negotiations' Telegraph (hat tip Dianelle)

Taliban prisoners would be freed from Guantánamo Bay to potentially join peace negotiations under a proposal from the Afghan council appointed to find a settlement to the insurgency.

The High Peace Council will also seek safe passage for militant commanders to travel abroad and negotiate, a senior member of the body told The Daily Telegraph.

Mullah Arsala Rahmani said talks needed representatives of the Taliban's Pakistan-based Quetta Shura, or ruling council, many of whom were unable to travel because of sanctions or the threat of capture.

Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Turkmenistan were all candidates to host fugitive militants he said, while Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan had been ruled out.

Read it all.

Afghan convert to Christianity is charged with Apostasy: "Crimes" punishable by death

Tell me again why we are expending priceless blood and billions in treasure on this sharia state. If we are not fighting this, we are wasitng out time.

For more than a decade, the second Sunday in November has been commemorated in churches worldwide as the International Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church. This year it is also the day that Sayed Mossa, an Afghan convert from Islam to Christianity, has been scheduled to stand trial.

Afghan government officials announced earlier this week that they have scheduled that court date for Mossa's case—which WORLD has been covering (see "Fugitives," Aug. 28, 2010, and "Deeds done in darkness," Nov. 20, 2010)—even though the charges and his legal representation remain in doubt.

According to Westerners closely following his case in Kabul, Mossa is likely to be charged with espionage and with conversion to Christianity, or apostasy—crimes that may be punishable by death under Islamic law. The court session may be televised, officials have said, and it is likely that Mossa will be asked to renounce his faith.

Read the article here.

UK: Israeli Embassy Takes Up Against Staunch Defenders of ...... Israel

A new "group" was recently formed by the British Board of Jewish Deputies, Holocaust Information Campaign, CST and the Israeli Embassy, among others, "to combat Jewish support for the English Defence League within the community." 

Jewish Kameradschaftspolizei leadership in the UK have declared war on the pro-Israel, counter jihad group, the English Defense League. This just after the massive EDL demonstration in support of Israel. I have wrestled with the Jewicides at the CST, et al, so it is not surprising to see the usual humilated suspects prostrating themselves to Islamic supremacists, but what turned my head is "Israeli Embassy." Could this be true? Does the Israeli government know?

I have for years reported on the vile Jew hatred on display in front of the Israeli embassy in the UK  by the very enemy the EDL marches against. Last year I posted video and pictures of Muslims attacking policemen (while screaming "allahu akbar" "Kuffaaaaaar!"  and "run you fucking cowards") who were escorting them to the Israeli embassy, where they terrorized and tried to break through the gates to attack the Jews.

What have the British Board of Jewish Deputies, Holocaust Information Campaign, CST and Israeli Embassy done to address the violence, Jew bashing, and antisemitism of devout Islam? 

The only explanation I have for this illogical and seemingly self destructive behavior is that the Jews have not yet begun to internalize or intellectualize the very idea of working in their own self interest. They never had a "self interest." They were slaves for 400 years, and their base instinct is survival.

 

 

Demonizing the Jew 10th Jan 2009. London.

London
"Jew holding dead baby covered in blood"

"Jew eating dead baby whilst holding dead child"

"Jew holding dead child and eating baby"

The Jewish Chronicle, notoriously leftwing and Jewicidal:

Updated: ZF joins Israeli embassy and JfJfP in fight against EDL Jewish Chronicle

It's great to see that the Israeli embassy in London and Jews for Justice for Palestinians have made a common cause to fight the English Defence League, an offshoot of the Holocaust-denying BNP which has fooled a few Jews into thinking it is pro-Israel. They have been joined by the Zionist Federation, too. Well done Harvey Rose, you are a bigger mensch than previously thought.

The initiative of the Union of Jewish Students, the campaign is a response to the creation of a "Jewish division" by the extreme right-wing anti-Islamic-fundamentalist group earlier this year, and the EDL's pro-Israel protest outside the Israeli Embassy last month, which was supported by American rabbi Nachum Shifren.

The "Not in our name" group's founding pledge states: "The Jewish community has always been at the forefront of anti-fascism. From Cable Street to defeating the BNP at the ballot box, we have been unafraid to speak out against those who seek to spread fear and hatred in our communities.

"Now our community faces a new threat. The EDL claims to be our allies in the fight against extremism. In reality, they are violent racists with BNP members and Nazi sympathisers among their ranks.

"It is time for the Jewish community to come together as one to expose the EDL as the racist thugs they are."

UJS campaigns director Carly McKenzie said: "We felt this was a prime opportunity to bring the whole community together with one loud voice."

But Roberta Moore, of the EDL's Liebstandarde Jude, is not convinced.

But Roberta Moore, head of the EDL Jewish Division, claimed the campaigners had "betrayed the Jewish community" and challenged them to a filmed public debate. She said: "Let's have it all out in the open once and for all."
"We are not bothered by their futile threats and attempts to silence us. We, and much of the Jewish community, know they lack the courage to address the issues we highlight. They have not been doing their job for a long time, and seem to have not only abandoned but betrayed the Jewish community in general."

This is beyond. Nazis are frank with their message. Positively vocal. Neo's and oldo's. Hitler's Mein Kampf and Osama's fatwa on America are pretty clear documents. No need to search for itty bitty clues. Hitler would be turning over in his grave if there were a "Jewish division" in the Wehrmacht. I mean, really.

Nazis do not carry Jewish flags. Nazis do not hang with, march for, and defend Jews. This is crackpot thinking, and nazis are the last war.

 

Kristallnacht Redux: "The Jews have been served with such bills before"

More interfaith communication. Must-read post over at the Sultan:

When Jewish Windows Break

Several years ago a small group of notable British Jews, such as Anglican Atheist comedian Stephen Fry, Quaker writer Stevie Krayer and Claire Rayner, who once visited Israel and said she didn't like it because the people were rude to her which probably justified all those suicide bombings, put out a statement announcing that they were refusing to celebrate Israel's Independence Day. Rather they said, "We will celebrate when Arab and Jew live as equals in a peaceful Middle East."


That the likes of Ivor Dembina or Selma James refuse to celebrate Israel's Independence Day is about as newsworthy as the revelation that David Duke will not be attending a Black Power rally. Considering that there is a neck and neck race between the far left and the far right over who hates Israel more and is readiest to blame any and all world events on a vast Jewish conspiracy, no one expects Mike Marqusee to wave the blue and white, anymore than we expect to find an undiscovered poem by T.S. Eliot in which he describes how much he enjoyed celebrating Chanukah.

What is interesting however, is that the likes of Harold Pinter make their ultimatum conditional on achieving a state of affairs that has never existed in the history of the Middle East for thousands of years.

If we take their demand, that "Arab and Jew live as equals in a peaceful Middle East" literally, then Israel can never have legitimacy until Saudi Arabia opens up Mecca to the Jews it slaughtered and expelled from there. Only when Yemen and Syria extend equality to Jews, and everyone tosses away their weapons, instead settling their disputes with nice and orderly chess matches or humus cooking contests, then Hilda Meers or Arthur Neslen of Al Jazeera, with his countless peace proposals that involve legitimizing Hamas, will stop by for a fireworks display and shed a tear for the dead.

Since then Harold Pinter has since gone to the great wastepaper basket in the sky, but the small petty malice of notable British Anglicans, Marxists and Quakers, who all turn out to be Jewish when there's a petition slamming Israel to be signed, a boycott to be arranged, or a flotilla carrying vital supplies of aging anti-war activists to Hamas to be sailed, goes on.

Israel stole the land, they declare. Whose land did they steal? The land of the people who stole it from them. This reduces Arab grievances to a farce in which an angry burglar phones the police to report that the owner of the looted property he stole had broken into his house and took it back. (The only possible reply is that time legitimizes theft, in which case the only difference between a racist occupying colonialist entity and a native inhabitant is a few generations.) Common sense renders such outrage ridiculous, but to the moralizer, the man who takes back what is his, is just as bad as the man who took it from him. Even worse. To the moralizer, the original thief was deprived, while the homeowner is depraved. The thief only took what he needed, but the homeowner is the oppressor who took away a deprived man's necessities, he should have just kept his mouth shut.

For over a thousand years, Jews in the Middle East were deprived of their land, their property and their lives. They were legal and social inferiors of the colonizers who had occupied their country. From the Arab mercenaries who fought for Rome, to the Bedouin bandits who raided the outposts of a decrepit Byzantium, to the Caliphs dreaming of glory and gold, they had lived under an occupation that makes the wailing of the Nakba into something laughable. And the moment they managed to gain their independence, they went from deprived to depraved. In an unprecedented turn of events, they became the occupiers of their own country. The settlers of towns and villages built over the ruins and remains of the old towns and villages where they had lived.

Suddenly the nation that had gained its freedom against the will and armed force of its British colonial occupiers, was deemed the colonizer and occupier. The state that curiously extended political and religious freedoms to minorities, in a region where such minorities are usually stamped out or herded into ghettos, became a racist entity. And one of the world's oldest peoples were denounced as foreign interlopers, on behalf of a mythical Palestinian nation that had never existed at any point in history, as anything but a Greco-Roman designation for a portion of the territory on their maps.

And who are these racist Israeli Zionists anyway? Is it the Israeli Druze, Circassian or the Samaritan? The Israeli Armenian or the Israeli Arab? Of course not, it is the Jew. Of course it always the Jew. Was it the Jews who had lived there since the last massacre that wiped out their kind? Is it the Moroccan, Ethiopian and Yemenite Jews who fled oppression and tyranny to find refuge in a land where they were not required to bow to Muslim Arabs and accept them as their superiors? Was it the European Jews who fled the Holocaust to return to the land from which Arab mercenaries had expelled them to Rome, and were forced to fight the armies of General Sir John Bagot Glubb?

They, the occupiers of their occupiers. The colonialists of their colonizers. The slaves who had become masters of their masters, yet treated them with far more decency than they themselves had been treated. A crime which can never be settled, until the balance is restored, and the slaves again become slaves, and Arab and Jew are once again equal. As they are today in Saudi Arabia. Then finally Harold Pinter and the rest of the heavenly choir of West End immortals will wave the white and the blue. Because there will be peace. The peace of the slave. The peace of the dead. The butcher's bill served to Israel for daring to be free.

The Jews have been served with such bills before. After Kristallnacht, when the Nazi thugs had gotten through looting and smashing Jewish shops and synagogues throughout Germany, the Nazi regime presented the Jews with a bill of 1 billion Reich marks. For the damage that the Jews themselves had suffered at the hands of the Nazis. Today when there is broken glass and charred walls to be found in Sderot or in a family car overturned on the road to Hebron, it is still the Jews who must pay for it in the form of territorial concessions. Some 72 years later, when Jewish windows are smashed, it is still the Jews who must pay.

But this is not about the facts. Facts are cold, dead things that stir no souls. It is emotions that do this. Hate is one of the strongest of these.

I have seen several anti-Jewish outbreaks in Germany during the last five years, but never anything as nauseating as this. Racial hatred and hysteria seemed to have taken complete hold of otherwise decent people. I saw fashionably dressed women clapping their hands and screaming with glee, while respectable middle-class mothers held up their babies to see the "fun".

NY Times Con Job: "DAISY KHAN had never seen so many Jews in her life."

The New York Times has a cover story in the, get this, "Fashion and Style" section on Daisy (nee Farhat) Khan. Anne Barnard contributed to Michael Grynbaum's silly puff piece. You will recall that Barnard was a writer on the Times Geller hit piece here. Do check the difference in tone covering the Con and the Geller.

Daisy Khan, an Eloquent Face of Islam Fashion and Style Section (if she is fashion, I am the Pope).

Pamela Geller, Outraged, and Outrageous Metro Section.

The language of morality is in such grave disorder that Khan is fawned over. Her achievement -- a proposal to build a 15-story mega-mosque in a buidling destroyed by the Muslim terror attacks of 911 that slaughterred thousands of Americans in the name of jihad.

I, on the other hand, "wage a form of holy war through Atlas Shrugs, a Web site that attacks Islam" with "venomous rhetoric," according to the Times. My crime? I oppose the Ground Zero mosque. 

The New Tork Times con job on Khan begins with this: (hat tip Rajan)

DAISY KHAN had never seen so many Jews in her life.

The year was 1974, and Ms. Khan, an awkward, artistic 16-year-old who had just emigrated from India to the suburban Long Island enclave of Jericho, N.Y., was attending her first day of school in America.

It was not going well.

Her fellow students giggled at the newcomer with the dark skin, exotic accent and unfamiliar religion. Few Muslims, it seemed, had ever attended the mostly Jewish Jericho High School. When a teacher asked her to stand and introduce herself, the questions came fast: Did she ride a camel? Did she ride an elephant?

I kid you not. Daisy nee Farhat had never seen so many Jews in her life. Perhaps because she grew up in Kashmir. How many Jews are there in Kashmir? Muslims have no "tolerance" for Jews in Kashmir.

The Times kicks off by implying that the Jews were victimizing poor Farhat. The Times never addresses or mentions that Islam is the most antisemitic, genocidal ideology in the world. The Jews have suffered unspeakable barbarity and cruelty and humiliation at the hands of Muslim rulers, but The New York Times, instead, publishes, this antisemitic crap.

Wait. It gets better. The whole thing is such saccharine sweet propaganda -- you almost feel embarassed for the reporters, so supine are they.

It is a role she now inhabits on a far larger scale. Since the summer, Ms. Khan, a former architectural designer, has emerged as an eloquent and indefatigable public face of the maelstrom surrounding Park51, the Islamic community center and mosque that she and her husband, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, are trying to build two blocks north of ground zero.

Daisy -- "eloquent and indefatigable." Geller -- "outraged and venomous."

You'll notice that the Times never mentions the actual name of the project, Cordoba, or that the Cordoba Initiaitive  was rebranded Park51 when the public got wise to what Cordoba actually meant -- Islamic conquest over the West.

A modern Muslim who prefers high fashion to the hijab, Ms. Khan has become a lightning rod for the anger of right-wing bloggers and commentators who consider the Islamic center an affront to the victims of Sept. 11, or worse.

Aw. She is cast as and plays the victim throughout the whole interview, which is jawdropping. Could the media be any more fawning, flattering and silly when covering the Khan?

But as the project became daily grist for news talk shows and a flash point in the midterm elections, Ms. Khan has transformed herself from an obscure leader in the nonprofit world into a fierce spokeswoman, passionately defending the project and, inevitably, finding herself cast as the voice of moderate Islam.

What is moderate about a 15-story Ground Zero mega mosque (with crashing Jewish stars, crosses and pentagons on its exterior)? And note, she is "fierce" "passionate!" Geller is, once again, "outraged and venomous."

She gained a reputation as a bridge builder. In January 2002, the group held an exhibition of works by Muslim artists to commemorate Sept. 11. A "bread-fest" in 2003 at St. Bartholomew's Church on Park Avenue brought together dozens of Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders. A 2006 conference in Copenhagen culminated in a face-to-face meeting between conservative Muslim leaders and Flemming Rose, the Danish newspaper editor who published the cartoons depicting Muhammad that set off a worldwide controversy.

[...]

The couple's reputation grew. Ms. Khan quit her corporate job to focus on nonprofit work, and the couple appeared more frequently on television specials about a new brand of moderate Islam. Ms. Khan was asked to join an advisory panel on education for the National September 11 Memorial and Museum.

Look who is on the panel for the National September 11 Memorial and Museum.

But she and her husband did not anticipate the enormous controversy that would ensue, she said. Or the personal stress.

No controversy? Did they think Americans would lie down for this? As for Rauf, he is always hiding behind her skirts. No mention that Daisy nee Farhat is his third wife (or if he has actually divorced the other two). Nor did Barnard ask Daisy nee Farhat about her "polygamy initiatives." Where's the journalism?

The proposal has brought death threats; these days, she barely sees her husband and has had trouble sleeping. "There are some days I am afraid to turn on the TV," she said.

But, but but the Times was just extolling Khan as "she parries with news anchors like Christiane Amanpour, on the ABC News program 'This Week.'" The media snow job couldn't be more of a blizzard of love -- but Daisy nee Farhat is losing sleep. Hey Daze, drop the mosque and watch the outpouring of love from the infidels. But it's not the infidels whose love she seeks.

As for death threats, chew on this, whiner.

Joyce Dubensky, who has worked with the couple as head of the Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding, said that Ms. Khan was "visibly shaken" when she saw her at a function earlier this year.

Visibly shaken. What asshattery. Always they use the Jew for the beard (for cover).

"She said, 'Joyce, I can't believe what they're saying, and that they're coming after us,' " Ms. Dubensky recalled. " 'If we can't build an interfaith community center, who can?' "

She can't believe "they're coming after us."

Anyone can build an "interfaith" community center, but not a mega-mosque at Ground Zero. You'll notice "interfaith" goes only one way. Dawah (proselytizing) or supremacist scolding.

Asked about the recent stress, Ms. Khan, a loquacious speaker, paused and stared into the distance. Then her smile and upbeat tone returned. "I believe this affliction, even though it has taken a personal toll on us, is going to result in something better for all of us."

Affliction. Pathetic. Daisy Khan should get the Pamela Geller treatment for one day. That's a lesson she sorely needs.

Stop whining, bridge builder. And shame on the NY Times.

New York Times Con Job: "DAISY KHAN had never seen so many Jews in her life."

The New York Times has a cover story in the, get this, "Fashion and Style" section on Daisy (nee Farhat) Khan. Anne Barnard contributed to Michael Grynbaum's silly puff piece. You will recall that Barnard was a writer on the Times Geller hit piece here. Do check the difference in tone covering the Con and the Geller.

Daisy Khan, an Eloquent Face of Islam Fashion and Style Section (if she is fashion, I am the Pope).

Pamela Geller, Outraged, and Outrageous Metro Section.

The language of morality is in such grave disorder that Khan is fawned over. Her achievement -- a proposal to build a 15-story mega-mosque in a buidling destroyed by the Muslim terror attacks of 911 that slaughterred thousands of Americans in the name of jihad.

I, on the other hand, "wage a form of holy war through Atlas Shrugs, a Web site that attacks Islam" with "venomous rhetoric," according to the Times. My crime? I oppose the Ground Zero mosque. 

The New Tork Times con job on Khan begins with this: (hat tip Rajan)

DAISY KHAN had never seen so many Jews in her life.

The year was 1974, and Ms. Khan, an awkward, artistic 16-year-old who had just emigrated from India to the suburban Long Island enclave of Jericho, N.Y., was attending her first day of school in America.

It was not going well.

Her fellow students giggled at the newcomer with the dark skin, exotic accent and unfamiliar religion. Few Muslims, it seemed, had ever attended the mostly Jewish Jericho High School. When a teacher asked her to stand and introduce herself, the questions came fast: Did she ride a camel? Did she ride an elephant?

I kid you not. Daisy nee Farhat had never seen so many Jews in her life. Perhaps because she grew up in Kashmir. How many Jews are there in Kashmir? Muslims have no "tolerance" for Jews in Kashmir.

The Times kicks off by implying that the Jews were victimizing poor Farhat. The Times never addresses or mentions that Islam is the most antisemitic, genocidal ideology in the world. The Jews have suffered unspeakable barbarity and cruelty and humiliation at the hands of Muslim rulers, but The New York Times, instead, publishes, this antisemitic crap.

Wait. It gets better. The whole thing is such saccharine sweet propaganda -- you almost feel embarassed for the reporters, so supine are they.

It is a role she now inhabits on a far larger scale. Since the summer, Ms. Khan, a former architectural designer, has emerged as an eloquent and indefatigable public face of the maelstrom surrounding Park51, the Islamic community center and mosque that she and her husband, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, are trying to build two blocks north of ground zero.

Daisy -- "eloquent and indefatigable." Geller -- "outraged and venomous."

You'll notice that the Times never mentions the actual name of the project, Cordoba, or that the Cordoba Initiaitive  was rebranded Park51 when the public got wise to what Cordoba actually meant -- Islamic conquest over the West.

A modern Muslim who prefers high fashion to the hijab, Ms. Khan has become a lightning rod for the anger of right-wing bloggers and commentators who consider the Islamic center an affront to the victims of Sept. 11, or worse.

Aw. She is cast as and plays the victim throughout the whole interview, which is jawdropping. Could the media be any more fawning, flattering and silly when covering the Khan?

But as the project became daily grist for news talk shows and a flash point in the midterm elections, Ms. Khan has transformed herself from an obscure leader in the nonprofit world into a fierce spokeswoman, passionately defending the project and, inevitably, finding herself cast as the voice of moderate Islam.

What is moderate about a 15-story Ground Zero mega mosque (with crashing Jewish stars, crosses and pentagons on its exterior)? And note, she is "fierce" "passionate!" Geller is, once again, "outraged and venomous."

She gained a reputation as a bridge builder. In January 2002, the group held an exhibition of works by Muslim artists to commemorate Sept. 11. A "bread-fest" in 2003 at St. Bartholomew's Church on Park Avenue brought together dozens of Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders. A 2006 conference in Copenhagen culminated in a face-to-face meeting between conservative Muslim leaders and Flemming Rose, the Danish newspaper editor who published the cartoons depicting Muhammad that set off a worldwide controversy.

[...]

The couple's reputation grew. Ms. Khan quit her corporate job to focus on nonprofit work, and the couple appeared more frequently on television specials about a new brand of moderate Islam. Ms. Khan was asked to join an advisory panel on education for the National September 11 Memorial and Museum.

Look who is on the panel for the National September 11 Memorial and Museum.

But she and her husband did not anticipate the enormous controversy that would ensue, she said. Or the personal stress.

No controversy? Did they think Americans would lie down for this? As for Rauf, he is always hiding behind her skirts. No mention that Daisy nee Farhat is his third wife (or if he has actually divorced the other two). Nor did Barnard ask Daisy nee Farhat about her "polygamy initiatives." Where's the journalism?

The proposal has brought death threats; these days, she barely sees her husband and has had trouble sleeping. "There are some days I am afraid to turn on the TV," she said.

But, but but the Times was just extolling Khan as "she parries with news anchors like Christiane Amanpour, on the ABC News program 'This Week.'" The media snow job couldn't be more of a blizzard of love -- but Daisy nee Farhat is losing sleep. Hey Daze, drop the mosque and watch the outpouring of love from the infidels. But it's not the infidels whose love she seeks.

As for death threats, chew on this, whiner.

Joyce Dubensky, who has worked with the couple as head of the Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding, said that Ms. Khan was "visibly shaken" when she saw her at a function earlier this year.

Visibly shaken. What asshattery. Always they use the Jew for the beard (for cover).

"She said, 'Joyce, I can't believe what they're saying, and that they're coming after us,' " Ms. Dubensky recalled. " 'If we can't build an interfaith community center, who can?' "

She can't believe "they're coming after us."

Anyone can build an "interfaith" community center, but not a mega-mosque at Ground Zero. You'll notice "interfaith" goes only one way. Dawah (proselytizing) or supremacist scolding.

Asked about the recent stress, Ms. Khan, a loquacious speaker, paused and stared into the distance. Then her smile and upbeat tone returned. "I believe this affliction, even though it has taken a personal toll on us, is going to result in something better for all of us."

Affliction. Pathetic. Daisy Khan should get the Pamela Geller treatment for one day. That's a lesson she sorely needs.

Stop whining, bridge builder. And shame on the NY Times.

The Post-American President: "Tracking Obama's Transnationalism"

Ed Lasky has penned a must-read piece in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on Obama's relinquishing of American hegemony and sovereignty to internationalism. He sources The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America, as well as Rush Limbaugh, Andrew McCarthy, and Paul Kengor's new book, DUPES: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.

Read it.

"Tracking Obama's Transnationalism" Ed Lasky, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Barack Obama is enthralled with the concept of multilateral institutions and wants to vest more power in the United Nations. In Obama's mind, we live in a "Post-American World" -- the title of a book by Fareed Zakaria he was seen holding during the campaign. The title says it all: America is a declining power that must accommodate itself to its fall by seeking to work with multilateral institutions such as the United Nations.

Obama buys this belief (America is not really an exceptional nation in his view).

Over the last two years we have outsourced much of our foreign policy to the United Nations. We have even allowed the United Nations Human Rights Council to roundly criticize America as being afflicted with racism, gross disparity of wealth, oppression and other popular Third World epithets.

Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer have written a critique of Obama's policies and used Zakaria's own words in naming their book "The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America."

In their book, Geller and Spencer report on the many actions that the Obama team has taken over the last two years to weaken American power:

• We have betrayed long-term allies such as Great Britain, Honduras and Israel while averting our eyes to the rising threats posed by Iran and Hugo Chavez's regime in Venezuela.

• We have been sleepwalking for the last two years while Iran has been behind the killing of Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan and while it progresses on its path toward an Islamic bomb.

• Domestically, Obama has circumvented the rules in place to check the power of the president by appointing left-wing czars without the Senate confirmation process required when Cabinet officers are chosen. Many of these -- the latest being Elizabeth Warren, the consumer rights czarina -- have a pronounced left-wing ideology that might not have survived a grilling by the Senate.

Of course, there are also Cabinet officers who seem to share Barack Obama's ideology.

Among these would be Attorney General Eric Holder. David Limbaugh, Rush's Limbaugh's brother, has a new book, "Crimes Against Liberty: An Indictment of President Barack Obama," that delves into the role played by Eric Holder in furthering Obama's agenda.

The Department of Justice has basically given a pass to the New Black Panther Party despite charges (backed up by video) that members of this group engaged in voter intimidation during the 2004 election. The DOJ has stonewalled efforts by members of Congress and journalists to understand why this case was dropped.

America has homegrown adversaries, too. But we also have foreign adversaries. Eric Holder (as the decider-in-chief at the DOJ) has been making one suspect decision after another regarding terror suspects. Holder's ideology might be driving him but the results are damaging to America.

Limbaugh makes his case: Holder has sought to defame CIA interrogators by seeking to criminalize their conduct while also giving terror suspects American criminal trials (with all the rights granted by our Constitution).

Andrew McCarthy believes Holder's actions "might have to do with the administration's bent towards transnationalism -- a doctrine of post-sovereign globalism in which America is seen as owing its principal allegiance to the international legal order."

Of course, giving trials instead of military tribunals to terror suspects risks exposing the means and methods we use to thwart terror attacks while also risking the chance that terrorists may be sprung by "virtue" of legal technicalities.

Transnationalism appears to be the guiding philosophy of the Obama administration.

As Kengor's book makes clear, there is a history of such dupes working (sometimes unwittingly) in ways that weaken America.

Geller and Spencer and Limbaugh all make clear that we are seeing history repeat itself -- as tragedy.

Read the rest.