There are Liars and There are Those Who Use Statistics

guydewhitney heretics crusade defending western civilization from world hunger and military spending

I came across this wonderful bit of distortion on Google+ today trying to blame world hunger on US politicians…

KilbyTonja Kilby's profile photo

Tonja Kilby  –  9:46 AM  –  Limited
This makes me SICK
Armando Lioss's profile photoArmando Lioss originally shared this post:
  –  Comment
+1
1 share – John Newmark
4 comments from Guy DeWhitney and John Newmark

0 older comments

John Newmark's profile photo

John Newmark – If this makes you sick, consider this.  The figures come from 2008.
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2008/1000853/index.htmlCurrent World Military Spending is 35 times higher than in 2007.  So what took 8 days back then…
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

10:15 AM   

 Here is my little contribution of reality… I actually LOOKED AT THE DATA! Yes, Virginia, I know that they consider that cheating in the partisan world but, who cares?
Guy DeWhitney's profile photo

Guy DeWhitney – Tell it to the ones escalating.
Here is some analysis from that bunch of data.MIL SPENDING – PERCENTAGE OF GDP
Korea, North 25.00%
Saudi Arabia 10.00%
Jordan 8.60%
Yemen 6.60%
Syria 5.90%
Turkey 5.30%
United States 5.25%MIL SPENDING – INCREASES SINCE 2005:
China $53,357,142,857
United States $39,400,000,000
India $10,428,571,429
Saudi Arabia $6,848,333,333
Turkey $4,304,337,500
Indonesia $3,929,428,571
Iran $2,043,437,500
Korea, South $1,959,250,000
Colombia $1,725,833,333
United Kingdom $1,358,666,667
Germany $890,625,000

And the scary one – PERCENTAGE of increase since 2005:
China 5846%
Indonesia 2216%
Syria 693%
Cuba 607%
India 484%
Iran 480%
Chad 442%
Belarus 401%
Colombia 396%
Yemen 386%
Turkey 382%
Saudi Arabia 328%
Bangladesh 313%
Lebanon 309%
United Arab Emirates 220%
Korea, North 200%
Jordan 198%
Korea, South 174%
Chile 168%
Israel 161%
Germany 120%
United Kingdom 119%
United States 119%
Egypt 112%

Dr Liepert of Calgary Council of Imams Declares Koran History Not Holy Writ

islmaicrageboy

My Dear Virginia, let me introduce you to Dr Liepert; an apologist for Stealth Jihad in Canada who is …

"Dr. David Liepert

…a member of the Calgary Council of Imams who helped craft the Canadian Council of Imams Declaration, and spokesperson for the Muslim Council of Calgary. He is also Vice-President of the Faith of Life Network and author of Muslim, Christian and Jew: Finding a Path to Peace Our Faiths Can Share."

The good Dottore is a skilled dispenser of smoothly crafted phrases designed to skim the edge of truth and lie, while giving an unequivocally false to fact message. Here is my take on his classic Moderate Muslim ™ apologetic in today’s Huffington Post… This article will probably grow several times after I publish it… I will be looking individually at the Imams who signed this document and see how much we can find out of what they say to the Ummah, as opposed to us Kafir.

"Reclaiming Islam from Extremists and Fear-Mongers: Why the Canadian Council of Imams Declaration Matters

Thanks to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, Islamophobia is at an all-time high."

It always helps a "big Lie" to start it off flat-footed and shamelessly right up front, then hammer away at it as though it is as undisputed as the existence of something called gravity. Once again let us link the representative data from the FBI’s own statistics on hate crimes; I should just put this section of this post on an F-key!

This is the iron skillet calling the almost new aluminum pan black! Let us look at some actual data, instead of opinion shall we Virginia?

6,489,000 Jews in US more or less; 2.2% of the population – CAIR claims that there are 7 million Muslims in the US for, about 2.2 % (is that why the CAIR number is much higher than all other estimate, to equal the Jewish presence? Just a thought.)

So then, Virginia, all we need to do is compare the anti-Islamic crime with the anti-Jewish crime 1 to 1 for us to see who is getting the short end of religious bigotry:

  Incidents Victims Offenders Percentage
All anti-Religion: 1,519 1,732 632 100%
Anti-Jewish 1,013 1,145 353 66%
Anti-Islamic 105 130 85 7%

 http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/data/table_01.html

(Addition 8/11; Please take note Virginia that the anti-Islamic crimes were committed on average by only 1.2 persons per crime while the anti-Jewish crimes were more often group efforts with an average of 2.9 offenders per incident!)

Even if we use the figure for Muslims in the US given by the American Religious Identification Survey of 1.3 million (about a fifth of the CAIR number) gives a weighted comparison of anti-Jewish = 66% and anti-Islamic = 105 incidents times 5 for weighting = 525 out of 1,519 incidents equaling 35%, barely half of the anti-Semitic rate! Q.E.D.

Back to Liepert:

"Violent extremists have succeeded in distorting the common perception of who Muslims really are. Most North Americans now equate Islam with violence, and think Muslims are bent on world domination."

It is hard to think otherwise when the Muslim media, schools, and clergy are virtually under the control of these same violent fundamentalist’s visions of what Islam should be.  Would it matter much if the average Catholic were peaceful in nature if the majority of the clergy from Priests on up were of another opinion regarding things like mercy, humanity and innocence? Wait, it didn’t matter much did it? But they reformed; they reformed!

In passing, do not fail to notice the enforcing of the Me, Victim, You Evil bi-polar attitude.

"In reality, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are an exceptionally…"

Exceptionally? Holy people have a humility before, not only God, but their fellow man as well, co-religionist or not, that transcends the day to day attitudes of the common clay…

I fail utterly to see that trait in the words of this man. Forgive me if I sound "bigoted" to you, but I feel the thing we call Holiness transcends religion; and my experiences in Life have never failed to reinforce that view.

"…peaceful and tolerant people who seek to live in harmony and happiness with their non-Muslim neighbors."

Believe it or not Dr Liepert, I agree with this completely; but as I said, it is the LEADERSHIP that is tainted and corrupt, not the Ummah, but it all amounts to the majority of Islam being seen as cannon fodder against the West.

"But as the saying goes, all it takes for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing."

Again, I totally agree, but despite my known sympathy for the steep learning curve the Ummah faces to break free of the perverted clergy I see that same steep curve as making it MORE important that they DO begin to stand up en mass and get on with it; the curve will only get steeper; the stronger the chain, the more it MUST be broken!

"The Canadian Council of Imams Declaration is a major step by the good people of Islam to stand up and take back their religion and their religion’s public image from fanatics."

I do not see it that way at all; I see the self-same self-serving clergy trying to pull the wool of "moderate" over their Islamist wolfskin; again!

"The members of the Canadian Council of Imams are the scholarly elite of mainstream Islam in Canada, and they decide what Muslims are taught in our mosques."

Like I said, these are the ones that make sure a majority of Mosques dispense Islamist teachings, preaching’s and literature!

I debated a non-Muslim Islamic "consultant" in Virginia last month, who told me that the Quran commands Muslims to fight with Jews and Christians. I replied that the verse he quoted came in response to a rumored army that had gathered in the north bent on Islamophobic genocide. The verse wasn’t telling Muslims when to fight: they marched north expecting a bloody battle to the death. At the time it actually prevented bloodshed by telling Muslims when to stop fighting."

So, the passages of the Koran are merely historical records? They are not to be held as exemplars of behavior or guides for modern Islamic law? Is that you position? Will you preach that position in Mecca on your next Haj? Can I see the video if it survives?

"The "consultant" also quoted a scholarly treatise in support of violent expansionary jihad from the eighteenth century, and I reminded him that most of mainstream eighteenth-century Christianity also perverted the Bible to support the slave trade."

And what if he had quoted a respected, modern Imam’s fatwa defending the very real modern Muslim slavers? Would you have declared that this was not "the traditional way Muslims have seen it"?

"During a different discussion, another so-called expert claimed Muslims were bent on destroying churches. I told her about Caliph Umar, a Muslim warrior who refused the Christian Patriarch’s offer to pray in Jerusalem’s main cathedral after Umar had conquered the city, "so future Muslims would not declare it a mosque, that it remain a church forever."

My good Dottore, you just refuted yourself! This one lone Muslim leader followed his inner humanity and did something to PREVENT the traditional response from the Ummah that would have destroyed and rededicated the Church! Isn’t it amazing Virginia, what an innocent look can make people swallow?

This strikes me with thoughts of a similar quote from about a hundred years ago…

"You can’t say the whole town approved of the lynching of those three boys and their fathers! No Sir! Even the Niggers admit there were no more than three hunnerd people, men, women and children included there, screaming and cheering them on… And you NY boys know right well that this town has a population of 520 as of last July!"

Excuse me while I spit, that left a bad taste in my mouth!

"It all got me wondering whether people who dislike Islam are really the best ones to provide your information about either Muslims or Middle Eastern history."

And someone with a history of seeming lies, distortions and half-truths in favor of a white-washed Islam is?

On to the declaration…

 

We, the imams who have signed below, hereby affirm and declare the following fundamental points:
1. We believe in the oneness of Allah (God) and in the oneness of humanity and that all the Messengers of God, including the final Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), have taught human beings how to come closer to God and closer to one another. Islam is a religion of nature and humanity, one that teaches that a person cannot be a good Muslim until he/she becomes a good human being. All human beings are equal, and all of them are the children of Adam and Eve (peace be upon them). The best Muslim is the one who is good to his/her family and neighbors and one who avoids harming others with his/her hand or tongue.

[GDw; But the Koran and Sharia define a Good human being as a Muslim, so a non-Muslim is not fully Human until they submit to their inborn Muslimness!]

2. We believe in peaceful coexistence, dialogue, bridge building, and cooperation among all faiths and people for the common good of humanity.

[GDeW; but the Koran, hadith, and Sharia define "the Good of Humanity" as being a world under Sharia!

Islam does not permit the killing of innocent people, regardless of their creed, ethnicity, race, or nationality.

[Nice word, Creed, it side-steps the fact that the Koran demands that to be "religious", you must accept the major tenets of… ta da, ISLAM! Ditto to be "innocent"]

The sanctity of human life overrides the sanctity of religious laws. Islamic rulings do not — and should not — contradict natural laws.

[GDeW; This just says that Islamic law cannot contradict Islam!]

Islam is a religion that promotes peace, justice, equality, dignity, and freedom for all human beings.

Surely, it defines Humans as Good Muslims and Good Muslims as Humans, of course they promote their own welfare! But wait, aren’t they supposed to be all religious and such? Where is the humility?

3. We believe in the preservation of all the necessities of life. Islam upholds the sanctity of religion, life, intellect, family/society, and property.

[GDeW; And defines religion as Islam, family/society as Muslim families and Muslim societies, and property as belonging to the Ummah not the kafir!]

4. We believe that the well-being of our fellow citizens is the well-being of Muslims, and that the well-being of Muslims is the well-being of our fellow citizens.

[GDeW; And Islam does not recognize non-Muslims as fellow citizens! This is explicit in Koran, Hadith and Sharia! The Dhimmi status is the highest a Kafir can hope for in a Muslim society.]

Being law-abiding people is part of the Islamic practice, and following the pristine teachings of Islam leads to good citizenship.

[GDeW; and the pristine teachings tell the Muslim that ALL MANMADE LAWS ARE INVALID BEFORE SHARIA! Good citizenship is ONLY good Muslim Citizenship.]

5. We believe in gender equity [note that – equity, NOT equality; there is nothing in any of the wordxs definitions that talks about equality, only about "fair" judgments under some unstated set of rules, Islamic in this case; we know already about Islamic laws regarding women] and each man and each woman’s divine right to education [as judged by Shari’a standards], social contribution [as judged by Shari’a standards], work [as judged by Shari’a standards], and treatment with respect and dignity [as judged by Shari’a standards]. Men and women complement each other, and healthy [as judged by Shari’a standards] relationships between them are essential to a healthy [as judged by Shari’a standards] society.

6. We believe that it is the right of every individual adult person to determine for themselves their conduct towards and within their society (for example, in matters of dress or good manners), and their personal conduct in matters of faith and belief as well, as long as their conduct does not threaten the common good [as judged by Shari’a standards, NOT by man-made laws]. Likewise, we believe that every society must be allowed to express and celebrate humanity’s profound cultural diversity, as long as the expression of that diversity does not include the compulsion of any individual to violate their own human rights [in other words, does not force them, or tempt them, or allow them to violate their Islamic responsibilities], or their personal values [those who choose to violate Shari’a are either criminally insane or simply evil], or their human [Muslim] nature, or otherwise threaten the common [Islamic] good of all [Islamic] people.

7. We believe and strongly encourage Muslims to seriously engage in civic life and contribute to their communities and society as much as they can.

[GDeW; no doubt, right up to the point where they can seize control of the machinery of State, and declare Shari’a supreme.]

Signatories:
Imam Dr. Hamid Slimi (Canadian Council of Imams/Faith of Life Network)
Imam Ismail Fetic (Bosnian Islamic Centre of Hamilton)
Imam Dr. Arafat Elashi (Scholar & Lecturer in GTA)
Imam Dr. Ziyad Delic (Canadian Islamic Congress, Ottawa)
Imam Habeeb Ali (Canadian Council of Imams, Secretary)
Imam Abdul Hai Patel (Canadian Council of Imams, Interfaith Relations)
Imam Dr. Mohammad Iqbal Al-Nadvi (Alfalah Islamic Center, Oakville)
Imam Hafiz Faizan-ul Haq (West End Islamic Center, Mississauga)
Imam Yusuf Badat (Islamic Foundation of Toronto)
Imam Omar Subedar (The Islamic Society of Peel, Brampton)
Imam Ashraf Baddar (Faith of Life Network)
Imam Abdullah Hatia (Islamic Association of Saskatchewan, Regina)
Imam Mohamed Arif Desai (Masjid Darul Iman, Markham)
Imam Prof. Abdulvehab Hoxha (Albanian Muslim Society of Toronto)
Imam Sikander Ziad Hashmi (Islamic Centre of Kingston)
Imam Mohamed Nafis Bhayat (Jame Masjid, Mississauga)
Imam Mahomed Iqbal Subrathi (Markaz-ul-Islam Masjid, Edmonton, Alberta)
Imam Anver Moallim (Jami Omar – Ottawa)
Imam Michael AbdurRashid Taylor (Islamic Chaplaincy Services Canada)
Imam Dr. Aly Hindy (Salaheddin Islamic Centre, Toronto)
Imam Tarek Abu Noman Mohammad (Islamic Center of Cambridge)
Imam Zamir Ahmed Chohan (Islamic Foundation of Toronto)
Imam Jamal Hammoud (Muslim Council of Calgary)
Imam Abdul Raaoof Kabar (Muslim Council of Calgary)
Imam Ahmad Abdul Kadir (Muslim Council of Calgary)
Imam Hafiz Asim (Brampton Islamic Centre)
Imam Ahmed Ibrahim (Brampton Muslim Community)
Imam Ahmad Kutty (Islamic Institute of Toronto)
Imam Abdool Hamid Akbar (Islamic Institute of Toronto)
Imam Nedzad Hafizovic (Bosnian Islamic Centre, Toronto)
Imam Shabir Ally (Islamic Information Centre, Toronto)
Imam Ayman Al-Taher (International Muslims Organization of Toronto)
Imam Mohamad Khatib (Muslim World League, Toronto)
Imam Muhammad Kamaruzzaman (Danforth Islamic Centre & Baitul Aman Masjid)
Imam Refaat Mohamed (Barrie Mosque)
Imam Alaa Elsayed (Islamic Centre of Canada-ISNA)
Imam Khaled Alazhari (Ottawa Mosque)
Imam Mohammad J. Qazi (Masjid al-Farooq Islamic Centre, Mississauga)

Do Not Adjust Your Map; Canada Has Entered… The Shari’a Zone

asethonorkiller

Photograph by: Colleen De Neve, Calgary Herald

I can remember when Canada was the more or less sane of the two English speaking North American nations; times they are a changin’ have changed!

I took a look at Jihad Watch prior to moving on to other, more domestic, affairs when this little number from the Calgary Herald popped up at the top; I envy Robert his “Spencidor’s Army” sending him items they glean from the net… it takes TIME to read all those news sources!

So much for domestic affairs for a while…

CALGARY – The Calgary mother who killed her teenage daughter by strangling her with a scarf more than three years ago will not have to spend a day in jail, a judge ruled on Thursday.

But, in suspending the sentence of Aset Magomadova and placing her on probation for three years, Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Sal LoVecchio said the penalty can still meet the ends of justice.

Yes, Virginia you read that right… three years probation for 2nd degree murder; it gets “better”! Let us take this nauseating mess one glob at a time; the additions in brackets are mine.

“At first blush (a suspended sentence) may sound like a get out of jail free card. It is not,” emphasized the judge.

“The court has said the act in question [murdering her daughter with her own hands] does not merit [two goats would not butt heads over this girl] a period of incarceration. [“not subject to retaliation” is “a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring.” (‘Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2)]

There are other, even more reliable texts that support this woman’s actions according to Shari’a law…

“The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used not to kill the children, so thou shouldst not kill them unless you could know what Khadir had known about the child he killed, or you could distinguish between a child who would grow up to be a believer (and a child who would grow up to be a non-believer), so that you killed the (prospective) non-believer and left the (prospective) believer aside.”
– Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4457.

On with the show…

What the court has done is reserved or to use the word of the statute, ‘suspended’ judgment on that point [the murder of her daughter] for a period of time on conditions. If the conditions are satisfied, then the individual will not be sentenced. If they are breached, the individual will be brought back to the court to be dealt with further.”

What this seems to mean is that if the lady is nice, and keeps to her probation then in three years it will be as though the murder never happened! At that time I assume the judge will go to the cemetery and wave his magic wand; the dirt will rise and the daughter will walk amongst us again, go to school, graduate, marry and live a long happy life. What is that Virginia? The corpse will just rot in the ground and a life will never be lived? Ce La Vie!

…LoVecchio deemed she did not intend to kill her, even though such an act required at least 2 1/2 minutes of continuous strangulation to cause death, and convicted her last October of the lesser included offence of manslaughter.

Manslaughter; oopsie, I just accidently, but with culpability, strangled my own freaking daughter for enough time to listen to Break On Through (To The Other Side) by The Doors and have a whole 5 seconds left to watch her eyes go dead in silence! Try it; play the track and close your eyes and just imagine the evil n this judge’s heart…

Gee Virginia, can you tell that I am a little tweaked by this judge? Knew you could!

…it was the wish of the family that “people would know mental health services for young people and hel[p] for their families will be improved, and changes made to the system, so that others who have to go through similar situations do not fall through the cracks.”

What more do you need to understand the 180 degree twist this family puts on blame, shame and trauma? Allah forbid anyone else should have to go through the horror of murdering their daughter… who mentions the daughter? No one!

Defence lawyer Alain Hepner said his client was crying after she learned she’d be free to go home and agreed it was appropriate.

…LoVecchio said he wrestled with dynamics of the family in reaching his conclusions.

“This was a family in crisis with events spiraling out of control,” he said, alluding to the friction between Aset and Aminat leading up to the deadly confrontation that morning.

MURDER, damn it, it was a murder, not a confrontation!

“It cannot be reduced to simply a case of mom choosing to kill her daughter as a form of discipline because she misbehaved. Quite simply, the events of that morning cannot be seen as a single isolated event.”

Yes, it can as I am sure that is exactly what was going through the “mom’s” mind at the time her version of Break On Through was playing in her head; and for 5 seconds longer.

Quite simply the above garbage cannot be seen as anything but trying to blame the victim or someone, anyone but the mother who strangled her daughter for AT LEAST 2 and a half minutes until she was dead, dead, dead.

But the Crown Prosecutor is not taking this lying down!

Crown prosecutor Mac Vomberg had argued for a 12-year prison term.

The Crown appealed the conviction long ago, but Vomberg said he could not comment about a possible appeal of the sentence.

“That’s up to another branch of Alberta Justice,” Vomberg said outside court, emphasizing there are “only degrees of losers, no winners” in the tragic case.

“We have to review this decision very carefully and we have to analyze exactly what are the terms of probation.”

I take that last to mean that if this Reader’s Digest Mom steps over the line even a fraction Mr. Vomberg will be there with a video camera and handcuffs.

Defence lawyer Alain Hepner said his client was crying and very relieved about not having to go to jail.

I am sure; she was probably shocked to her bones when they told her that Canada actually would send her to prison for this; and they would have, if she had not been a Muslim with “traditional ways” confusing her willing integration into Western society – and a daughter too willing to add to her confusion by adopting those ways too quickly! POOR WOMAN!

Politically Correct Hate Crime and Terrorism in The 21st Century: Heretics Crusade on CafePress

Heretics Crusade Slogans and Designs can be purchased on everything from buttons and stickers to shirts and yard signs

Help Support the Heretics Crusade!

politicallyCorrecthateCrimeStringTank

21st Century Guide
To
Politically Correct Hate Crime

White Males
It Is Hate Speech If You Offend:
Minorities, LGBTs, Females or Muslims

Christians
It Is Hate Speech If You Offend: Females or non-Christians; Especially Muslims

Minorities
It Is Hate Speech If You Offend: Muslims

LBGTs
It Is Hate Speech If You Offend: Minorities or Muslims

Jews
It Is Hate Speech If You Offend: Minorities, Females or Muslims

Non-Abrahamic Religious
It Is Hate Speech If You Offend: Anyone

Females
It Is Hate Speech If You Offend: Minorities, LBGTs or Muslims

Muslims
It Is Hate Speech To Offend: Your Imam

 

21stcenturyterrorismcapsleeve

21st Century Terrorism

(You Can’t Tell The “REAL” Victims Without a Scorecard)

Stage One
Threats Are Issued
By
Radical Muslims

Stage Two
Threats Are Carried Out
By
“Completely Secular Terrorists” Who Don’t Even LIKE Religion
(But Are VERY Upset About Israel)

Stage Three
Explanation of How The Dead Provoked “All of Islam” Delivered
By
“Moderate”Muslims

Stage Four
Agreement that The Victim’s “aggression” Provoked The Attack
By
“Western” Leftists

Eboo Patel; Spinning So Fast Must Make Him Dizzy!

normal_BARBARIC%20eng

Today on Huffington Post we find our old friend Eboo Patel explaining once again how the anti-democratic, pro-violence, anti-women stance of every school of Islamic Jurisprudence has to be the result of Western Islamaphobia.

Eboo likes to pretend he is a soft-shelled moderate, aching for love and acceptance,and then proceeds to diminish and excuse, or simply ignore, every reality associated with Islam today while blaming all the worlds ills on the Evil West.  Come Virginian, lets us examine his latest display of his mastery of the Islamic concept of Kitman.

Eboo is very skilled at wrapping unrelated concepts into a lump and smearing them with a foul smell, all the while maintaining a saintly glow on his pained authorial face.

“In public, Islam always appears in flames. Sometimes it’s on fire in the movies, sometimes it’s on fire in the newspapers. The most recent example, of course, is on the cartoon South Park, where the Prophet Muhammad was depicted wearing a bear suit.”

Here Eboo trumpets the stands Islam as Victim line while ignoring the glaring DATA regarding acts by Muslims, Riots, killings, bloody repression of women and child abuse that makes Hebert Hebert look like a Sunday School teacher! THESE are the things that keep Islam appearing “in flames” not The Big M in a bear suit!

This is especially true in regard to South Park, What religious figure has that show NOT mocked without bearing the threat of violence? Just one, the mysteriously insecure “perfect example” to mankind!  A sure sign that it is the LEADERS that are “offended” and not the “ummah” is that both South Park and other comedy shows have mocked Mohamed and Islam before, and gotten away with it, simply because the LEADERS did not call for riots… it is beyond reason to believe that the masses did not see these other depictions.

Next, the slight of hand artist pulls a terrorist rabbit out of the free speech hat.

“That gave a platform to a website called "Revolution Muslim" to direct a threat against the South Park writers. Which gave a platform for a couple of scary-looking guys with beards to go on TV and talk about how Muslims are required to terrorize people (how kind the media is to radical Muslims: so much free air time, and they don’t have to pay a PR company). Which gave the industry of Islamophobia a platform to say, "See, didn’t we tell you their religion makes them violent?" Which made Americans scared of Muslims, again.”

So, we can have our little civilization, if only we refrain from offending Muslims?  Otherwise the (self) Righteously-Angered-Ummah ™ will give us something  (spontaneously of course!) to REALLY be afraid of?  And it is OUR FAULT if that happens because we will have insisted on actually IDENTIFYING the reasons you are attacking us?  Do you EAT with that mouth?

Eboo, Eboo, most of those “scary-looking guys with beards” you are speaking of are the MAINSTREAM SCHOLARS of Islam! You are insulting virtually ALL of the traditional, and current, interpretations held dear by the MAINSTREAM schools of thought in Sunni, Shi’a AND Sufi Islam!  Name ONE school, other than the hunted-and-killed-by-the-mainstream Amadayia that does NOT support violence in response to things like the South Park incident! Just ONE!

“It’s a too-familiar story, so familiar, in fact, that it just about writes itself.”

Too true, Eboo Patel shows us how easy it is to follow the formula and excuse the criminal and demonize the victim.

“And that’s the problem, actually. The arsonists want you to associate Islam with flames — that’s why they light it on fire whenever they send it out to the public. They are masters at manipulating media, from newspapers to videos to cartoons.”

You see Virginia, if a Muslim beats or kills a Jew or homosexual or kills his “erring” daughter because ALL OF HIS Imams TOLD him he should do things like that, it is YOUR FAULT if you DARE to think that maybe the Imams and their religion had ANYTHING to do with the corpses piled at your feet.

“But there are other Muslims who are mastering media and who are telling different stories. Meet Dr. Naif al-Mutawa, founder of the Muslim cartoon series The 99. He is an Arab educated in America, a psychologist who went to business school, a Muslim aghast at how Islam is viewed as violent and hateful by Muslims and non-Muslims alike, a father of five boys, and one of the most impressive cultural entrepreneurs of our times.

Naif had just been accepted to Columbia Business School when 9/11 happened. There was the horror of the terror that had hit the land that had educated him. There was the double horror of the hijacking of his religion. And there was the triple horror that there was no alternative message about Islam even a fraction as powerful as the ugliness that Al Qaeda was offering.”

I went and read all the posts on Dr Mutawa’s site and have to say that if there are truly moderate Muslims out there HE is one of them.  Other than a not surprising inability to see the facts on the ground relating to Israel’s birth, everything he says is so modern and moderate that I am surprised al-Jazeera has not denounced him as a Zionist plant!

(brief interlude; Jeopardy theme)

Well, it seems that 99 is banned in Saudi Arabia and, according to students at Kuwait University’s Shari’a School when visited by PBS’s Frontline to investigate the Muslim world’s reaction to the wildly popular comic, the biggest threat to Islam.

“…we visited the Sharia — or Islamic law — school on the other side of the campus. Not surprisingly, these students were far less inclined to share their opinions about The 99 with us. But one …said he believed he spoke for all Muslims when he said that The 99 was wrong and misguided. Yusef felt that The 99 was part of a post-9/11 response in some parts of the Islamic world to make Islam more palatable to 21st-century sensibilities. He said that efforts to give women more religious authority and the new interpretations of the Koran are reforms that are diluting the message of the prophet Mohammed. “This is the greatest threat to Islam today,” he said.”

The fact is that Naif is…a tad naive.  The real mutawa have no patience for his kind, Westernized Muslims who really DO want to reform Islam.  Unfortunately the actual religious leadership do NOT see things his way.

I also wonder just what Mr Mutawa thinks of much of what Mr. PATEL writes?  Naif strikes me from his writing as truly uninterested in getting drawn into the fanatics debate while enjoying the feeling that he is doing something to promote Islam… I have not yet read any of the actual comics, so I do not know if this trend continues or if Mr Patel’s brand of Taqqiya and Kitman win out.  But, from what I have read in his web site, if someone can enlighten him as the actual history of Israel, he is one of the good guys. Mr Patel on the other hand I still do not see as anything but a white-washer and apologist.

My fear is that the Wahabis will win out and intimidate Mutawa into giving them writing control. I certainly believe that Patel and other like him are waving Mutawa with one hand and CAIR’s hate mongering with the other. But Naif better watch his back.

Stay Tuned…

For My New Friends at Scripps; Run With It Girls!

 

hereticscrusadethumb

Hear now the words of Kipling, as he reminds America that colonialism was more of a burden than a benefit to Western cultures:

(I make one small change, in the common language of Kipling’s time the difference between race and culture was very blurred if seen at all. If you change the words White Man to Westerner I believe you free the full truth of Kipling’s poem without tainting it with racism.)

Take up the Westerner’s burden–

Send forth the best ye breed–

Go bind your sons to exile

To serve your captives’ need;

To wait in heavy harness,

On fluttered folk and wild–

Your new-caught, sullen peoples,

Half-devil and half-child.

 

Take up the Westerner’s burden–

In patience to abide,

To veil the threat of terror

And check the show of pride;

By open speech and simple,

An hundred times made plain

To seek another’s profit,

And work another’s gain.

 

Take up the Westerner’s burden–

The savage wars of peace–

Fill full the mouth of Famine

And bid the sickness cease;

And when your goal is nearest

The end for others sought,

Watch sloth and heathen Folly

Bring all your hopes to naught.

 

Take up the Westerner’s burden–

No tawdry rule of kings,

But toil of serf and sweeper–

The tale of common things.

 

The ports ye shall not enter,

The roads ye shall not tread,

Go mark them with your living,

And mark them with your dead.

 

Take up the Westerner’s burden–

And reap his old reward:

The blame of those ye better,

The hate of those ye guard–

The cry of hosts ye humour

(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:–

“Why brought he us from bondage,

Our loved Egyptian night?”

 

Take up the Westerner’s burden–

Ye dare not stoop to less–

Nor call too loud on Freedom

To cloak your weariness;

By all ye cry or whisper,

By all ye leave or do,

The silent, sullen peoples

Shall weigh your gods and you.

 

Take up the Westerner’s burden–

Have done with childish days–

The lightly proffered laurel,

The easy, ungrudged praise.

 

Comes now, to search your manhood

Through all the thankless years

Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,

The judgment of your peers!

To the common political “wisdom” these days, the words of Kipling seem to be the crowing of a classically arrogant, Dead White Man. But, when analyzed they show not a single lie, distortion, or untruth.

Today the term racism has been co-opted by the other side, and is now used mostly BY racists to demonize their opposition and mask their own agenda.

I was fortunate enough to have been raised in an environment that was very colorblind. Not in a hyper-PC “Oh, we NEVER talk about the color of Johnny’s skin” way, but more as in no one around me ever made any big deal about it; people were people, and that was about that.

As a result, I was puzzled on hitting college age when people put such an emphasis on NOT seeing the obvious when it came to cultural differences. What can there possibly be wrong with noting that say, the North Korean culture is seriously inferior to just about all other modern cultures?

Just who is racist, the one who sees people of all color as good, bad, and sometimes indifferent, or the one who sees their own RACE, not only culture, as the villain and excuses ALL other races with an argument that amounts to “they don’t know any better, so we can’t hold them to our high standards.”

Who is racist when every single sign in the Wal-Mart near my house (with many Hispanics in the area) has duplications of all signs in Spanish, while the Wal-mart in Diamond Bar, where there are a great many Asians, the signs are only in English?

Is it not an insult to put “Cosmeticas” under the word cosmetics? Even tourists are not usually THAT clueless.

To me it smacks of an arrogance that assumes certain races are less able to “cope” with our society than others.

On the other hand, if the impetus for these signs comes from the Hispanic community itself, it is also just another form of arrogance. It is then saying “hey, we don’t care HOW close your stupid English is to the Spanish, we do not want to have to even pretend to think we are not in a Hispanic country if we don’t want to.”

Just imagine a white American expressing that attitude. The Leftist lynch mob would be after them in a flash.

We have a term in America that we apply to, among other things, the kind of American who lives in a foreign land in an American enclave, and ignores the culture and language of their hosts…

We call them assholes. Unless they are from a developing land and act that way IN the West. Then we call them oppressed.

Is it not racism to think that Westerners should completely adapt to cultures wherever they go but, non-Westerners are not required to do the same, when THEY travel to the West?

What other than racist arrogance (on one side or the other, if not both), would make anyone think that ONLY the Spanish speakers need to have a special option on phone lines?

And on that note, what about the racism of the Spanish speakers toward all the Portuguese speakers? ALL anyone ever talks about in California is Spanish this, and Spanish that. Do we not get immigrants from Brazil, and the other Portuguese countries?

The HiSPANIC issue has been taken over by those who speak Spanish, and the entire Portuguese based culture has been suppressed in America. The general public is hardly aware that there are TWO major cultures in South America, not just one.

At some point simpleminded Humans seem to became confused about the difference between skin color and culture. As an American though, I have grown up with the glaring example of a place where about the only thing that really controls how a person lives is the cultural face they choose to show the world.

A Hispanic man, who dresses and acts like he wants all the world to know that he could have been type-cast in a remake of Zoot Suit will not have the opportunities given to him that a man who is assimilated (into WHATEVER country he lives in) and happens to have been born in Mexico will have. Or one born in China, or one born in America for that matter.

Even keeping to just white Americans, who will deny the profound differences between people who grow up in inner city Brooklyn, and those who grow up in suburban Southern California? Which one would you rather hire for a job dealing with customers in Japan?

Culture matters. Culture is values, and traditions, and ethics. One culture says stealing is not a crime when a person is legitimately desperate, while another says that a man raping his wife is no criminal.

Both think the other society is wrong. Who wins? In the West it is the one that provides the most freedom and opportunity to all, while oppressing none, is the best regardless of the details.

In the East it is one that protects the status quo, and those who fall between the cracks are just collateral damage in the pursuit of a pure society that will be completely benign; once all opposition is removed.

Yeah, right, we have heard that one before.

But if you take a person from ANY culture that is willing to adapt, and put them in ANY place where they are given the opportunity to do so, they will thrive and their children, and children’s children will be of the new country, not the old “race”.

So, what is the point of all this PC pretense that all cultures are equal and valid, and no one’s “cultural experience” should be held as less than any other’s?

Good question. I do not see how it can be anything that is meant for the good of all involved.

Anyone who travels far enough from their home culture will be seen as “wrong” in their ways.

Take two examples: A bunch of random California college students dumped in Saudi Arabia would be seen as tainted and evil and inferior to the locals, not for their race (which could be anything, including Arab), as much as for how they acted, and their moral, and ethic values, and what religion they belonged to.

And a bunch of the elite of Saudi Arabia let off the leash in America would offend MANY people with THEIR actions and values.

As an example, not too long ago a Saudi Prince was caught beating his servants in Switzerland and he was arrested. The Saudi Government’s response was to put political and economic pressure on the Swiss until THEY apologized.

Is this the response of a civilized nation? No, it is the response of a tribal mindset; A mindset that sees “us” as always to be protected right or wrong and “them” as always worth less than any of “us” regardless of actual individual merit.

I for one refuse to apologize for acting with vigor to defend against the destruction and defamation of the cultural paradigm that has brought the world from violence, ignorance and superstition to the point where the only thing keeping most people’s down is their own lack of commitment to those same ideals.

This is not to say that the West is perfect. There never has been a perfect society, and I do not expect to see one any time soon. I am content with protecting and improving the only one that has actually had significant results in improving the lot of all humanity.

To those who accuse me of only talking about non-Western tribalism I would like to say that I have spent a lot of my time highlighting the aspects of our own culture that retain tribal elements.

The deep South in America is one place where Tribalism is still fairly strong for a Western land. The Us and Them factor is ever present there in way a Californian like me finds boggling.

Institutional prejudices that I grew up thinking only were seen in the movies and on TV were shoved in my face when I had been living there for less than a month. I did not respond by assuming the locals knew best, and that I was just an interfering outsider.

I stood up for the values that made the West, and America, what they are. But even the worst of rural Louisiana culture has risen far above the level of the highest of the non-Western lands.

To pursue civilization means to pursue, fair, consistent laws for ALL people, instead of privilege for a few, with subservience for the rest, in pursuit of a FUTURE paradise that is promised to be “worth” the unfortunate “deviations” of the present.

So, do not be ashamed to stand up for the West. Do not be afraid to call non-Westerners to task for their barbaric treatment of minorities and women.

Stand for the West, and world civilization or you can be sure your apathy will be used by those who promote tribal and totalitarian thought to take your power away and use it ON you, instead of FOR you.

Bottom line, freedom of religion and conscience gives you a right not to be oppressed by others as you pursue your business, it does not give you a right to make others dance to your tune, or allow you to break commonsense laws protecting public health and safety simply because you do not “believe” in doing things that way.

The PC paradigm says we should pretend that the U.S. and Iran are equal in “civilization”, and that it is wrong and evil to even TRY to judge which might be the “better” culture.

But that attitude denies the three thousand years of developing human rights and government for the People we find in the West. If the values of the West; freedom of speech and religion and conscience, and Constitutional government designed to limit the excesses of individuals are not meaningless mental masturbations by a timid people somehow afraid to “deal with the nitty gritty real world”, then the “values” of Iran, and North Korea, and such places can ONLY been seen as evil, and inimical to those who are unfortunate enough to grow up in them, or are subject to their power.

To get any other answer is to say that all of the West’s evolution toward dealing with other nations and individuals humanely has been a meaningless game that has no moral ramifications at all in the eyes of any hypothetical “objective” observer”.

How did the progress of the West toward equal rights for all get derailed into favoritism to favored minorities, disdain for the un-favored, and outright institutional contempt for not only the indigenous peoples but, the entire indigenous culture of the West?

I think Neville Chamberlain could explain the phenomenon if he were here; in every group there are Hardliners, and Compromisers, and Appeasers.

Hardliners will not see the brick wall in front of their face if it means giving up one iota of their agenda but, the Appeaser willingly sacrifices, one by one, every vital aspect of their psyche and security for the promise of peace in the future, and to be seen as the “good guy”.

But, the Compromiser weighs each path in relation to the situation, and THEN chooses to compromise or to stand firm. Unfortunately Hardliners and Appeasers seem to be the dominant breed in politics today, and the result is hardly more than a tug of war between the hardliners and appeasers on BOTH sides of the political spectrum.

In the terror wars the appeasers seem concentrated in the West, and the hardliners are almost all on the Islamic side, when it comes to foreign policy.  But in domestic policy, the Appeasers of the West turn Hardliner towards their own people, and conspire toward the downfall of our culture as a means of “humbling” the “arrogant Colonial Powers”.

This is how we ended up with a “separation of church and state” that allowed the government to pay for Muslim footbaths at a state university.

This is how we see a couple in England put on trial for criminal racism, merely for responding to statements by a Muslim woman about THEIR religion, that TO THEM, Mohammed was a warlord, and Muslim traditional dress is oppressive to women.

For stating two truths that any third grader with a copy of the Koran and Ahadith could confirm, these people may lose their Bed & Breakfast (yep the woman was a GUEST under their roof when she initiated a conversation about their Christian beliefs), because they “insulted and offended” a member of the only religion that demands that YOU follow THEIR customs at all times when they MIGHT be present, or AWARE of your activities.

When was the last time a Jew, or Christian, or Hindu demanded co-workers refrain from eating in front of them during a fast? Why do they not? Because they subscribe to the ethics of the West when in the West, not the tribalism of the East.

Civilized people tend to not like appearing uncivilized, even when presented with those who are truly barbaric. We tend to give the benefit of the doubt, and bend over backwards to excuse the behavior of non-Westerners (in this Japan, and South Korea, and others like them are in “the West”), no matter how horrific, simply because at one time in the past our culture had “taken advantage” of them.

That the non-Western countries that were colonized are all dramatically better off (at least, as far as the people in the street are concerned), with the influx of Western Law, and Western Science, and Western concepts of Human Rights is deemed irrelevant.

That they treat their own people, or foreigners with no power, in ways that make the WORST of the colonial excesses look tame, also means nothing.

If you say that the English were preferred employers to the local Indian rich folk during The Raj because they treated their servants more humanely, and that Islamic attacks over centuries cost the lives of MILLIONS of Indians by DIRECT violence, you are called racist or Islamophobic.

Yet the fact remains, the English actually freed India from despotism, and the Islamics brought eventual barbarism wherever they won.

So, why are the English demonized as the oppressors of India, and the Islamics, who conquered with blood half of that ancient land, seen as “victims”?

Things like this happen because the Appeasers are not half as afraid of having their civilization destroyed as they are of being seen as barbarian themselves. They will excuse time and again those from non-Western nations that seek to bring their customs into our lands no matter how many laws are broken, or how many people, Western and Non-Western alike, have to suffer or even die so they can pretend that “all cultures are equal”.

So, what makes a civilized culture as opposed to a barbarian one? To the ancient Greeks who coined the word barbarian it meant any who were so benighted that they did not speak Greek. To the Shogun Japanese, it was anyone who was not Japanese, no matter how high their technology or cultural achievements.

To me, civilized cultures are those that allow their individual members the stability and safety to build their lives in peace, and a consistent and humane system of laws that apply to all people equally, so that all, rich and poor know where they stand in regard to acceptable behavior toward each other as humans, regardless of their “station” in life.

When these criteria are met a society can start building “civilizational equity” that grows over time.

Without them, a society will remain stuck in a feudal or tribal mode that has no checks and balances against abuses of personal power.

When every functionary, officer, and elected official seeks to build their own power base without duty to the people, and the people are expected to obey without question any who have power over them, cooperation drops to a minimum and consistency in law and its application are hard to find.

Let us come right out and say it, today “World Civilization” IS Western Civilization.

The most universal aspects of our world today, those of culture, and technology, and law, that are shared and sought by the people of almost every nation are almost exclusively the brainchildren of Western civilization.

We can fantasize all we want about how the many things the ancient Chinese invented, or how the many Greek and Indian works the Islamics preserved (and modestly improved) makes them the equal of the West, but it does not change the truth.

The Chinese invented things but, then used the knowledge as a means to horde power. Their lack of sharing of information between scientists and innovators caused many discoveries to either languish unused, like deep ocean navigation, or the secrets were never spread. When the inventers and their people disappeared, so did the knowledge.

The printing press was invented in China a thousand years before Gutenberg made his but, the Chinese still mainly used the older wood block printing when the Europeans were printing books by the gross.

Individual innovation inherent in the Chinese culture did not take up, and improve, and spread around the new ideas and inventions. Instead technology was horded like a secret weapon, to be used only for the benefit of the owner.

And because of this, most of the innovation by individuals in ancient China came to naught over time.

But in the West, with a different way of looking at power, the rate of progress, sustained, accelerating progress, has been unparalleled anywhere in human history.

Starting with the traditions of the Greeks and Phoenicians, and developed by the Romans, Western European – council based (as opposed to those controlled by kings and priests) tribes adopted many of the new ideas from their Roman conqueror, and blended them with their own rough and ready form of democracy and individual rights.

Westward rolled the tide of humane civilization. At the high tide of the changes and innovations from the Italian renaissance European thinkers shifted to an even higher civilizational gear and began what came to be called the Enlightenment. No longer would priests and kings be obeyed simply because they were priests or kings. With this evolution the value of ALL people came into its own, and then the tide jumped the ocean to America.

There all bets were off, as the West turned fully away from the old Eastern paradigm of the individual existing only to serve the society. Instead the West had recognized that all societies only exist to serve the people that make them real in the first place.

The most significant difference between the West and the East is this concept.

To a Chinese gentleman I once chatted up the nation of China is more important than the individual rights, or desires, or even the oppression of any of the subject peoples of that nation.

This man was not a bad person. In fact he was so nice and reasonable that when he said the above, as though it was completely obvious, it shocked me.

But to him, growing up in the East, people only had worth as they contributed to the WHOLE. To him, anyone who in any way diminished the whole was simply wrong, no matter what the reason.

To him, if Taiwan or Tibet once were “China” they always should be, and individuals who happened to live there needed to act like it.

In contrast the West sees the WHOLE as sick unless it promotes the well being of the individual, as well as the whole!

In the East, the state may oppress the people to keep order, in the West the people may dispense with the state if it does not serve them.

This was the whole premise of the American “revolution” and has spread all over the Western world. It is now “common sense” in the West that a people have the right to create a government that benefits them, and that The State has no right to put stability ahead of the law.

In the East, the only people who have the right to overthrow the government, are the people who belong to the winning faction in said revolution. “Treason doth never prosper, for if it does, none dare call it treason”.

To take power for “us”, for the “right thinkers”, is seen as a “legal” violation of the principal of putting the state first.

But, all this does is replace one set of thugs with another, then another, then another.

So now, let us compete abandon any pretence of PCism and declare that it is ONLY the hated values of the West that keep non-Western nations from barbarism and political instability.

Even China and India, the most advanced non-western cultures, routinely sacrifice the rights of the person to pursue the prosperity of the whole. India does it much less than China due to their greater orientation toward the West, and as a result is a “freer” place to live for its citizens (at least in comparison with completely non-Western countries that take our technology and try to ignore the rest).

As a result, the people in these lands do not know where they stand from year to year, and it is next to impossible to build stable institutions.

India especially has been a textbook of the evolution from a tribal society to a Western one based on law.

Compare its evolution to that of Pakistan, which retains its attachment to the tribal past.

When there is no underlying structure to the law, when each new ruler acts by whim, and not in accord with agreed rules, the citizen is left adrift in a sea of uncertainty and corruption.

Making nice with evil men is seen as simply the price a person must pay to be allowed any life at all. Success comes not from values but, from a willingness to compromise ALL values on the altar of the local boss’s power, and his ability to pull the strings of influence.

In the West, we know from experience that a few humane rules that apply to everyone produces more prosperity and stability and opportunity for all than all the strong arm rulers in history ever managed to give their people.

Those in the East know this too. But in their paradigm power is not to be shared lest someone else take it all and leave you nothing. Do unto others before they do unto you is the rule in lands that do not accept Western ethics.

Their leaders are willing to see their people live forever in fear and oppression,, as long as they can feel secure in their power as leader.

But this fails the very task of a leader, to protect and provide security for their people since to promote Western values is to undermine everything that made them powerful in the first place.

In these lands each time the people can stand no more and rebel the only point on the agenda for the new regime is to consolidate power in the same way that those who oppressed them consolidated it: By force, and without mercy for dissent.

By contrast the more a nation has embraced Western Values the more stable and prosperous that nation becomes. Nowhere is this more blatantly obvious than in Israel, and the Arab states surrounding it.

How can a tiny, oppressed, besieged people be the world’s most innovative and inventive nation? How can this tiny land produce so much good for all humanity in medicine and agriculture and science while surrounded by lands where civilization is something to be had only by those who can afford to import it from the West?

How can Israel give citizenship to Muslim Arabs and retain its integrity and yet Saudi Arabia will not even accept as citizens fellow Arab Muslims from neighboring Arab nations lest they lose some sort of Holy “Saudiness”? And of course, non-Muslims are far from equal to Muslims there in rights and privileges.

Power, and how it is used and protected, is what it all boils down to.

In the West, governing power is seen as naturally belonging to all of us, and is to be used for the benefit of everyone.

In the East, this power belongs to the collective group, be it nation or tribe, and is to be used to further the nation’s or tribe’s wellbeing.

However, the individuals of the East are seen as replaceable parts in a machine they serve rather than being served by. In the West it is the rulers who are seen as replaceable. Judging each paradigm by its fruits it is clear which one is better at delivering its promise of a stable, prosperous culture.

So, why do so many in the West trip over themselves to allow Non-Westerners to practice any and all of their tribal “values” in our lands, even when those practices are illegal, and universally condemned for Westerners?

How can a civilized Westerner ever allow things like forced marriage, and genital mutilation, and honor killings to resurface in the West.

Did all those who fought and died to make these horrors go away in the West act in vain? Is it our duty as “civilized” folk to allow “underdeveloped” people to re-establish in our own lands every horror we ourselves have outgrown?

About the only even partially reasonable answer I can come up with as to why this happens is that people are so scared of being seen themselves as uncivilized that they will not make ANY judgment on another person’s culture lest they somehow be tarred with the same brush as REAL oppressors from the past.

In embarrassment at the excesses of Western civilization (which are not very “excessive” compared to social policy outside the West) they will not only excuse, but PROMOTE worse excesses in their own lands by those who are less civilized.

It is somehow culturally insensitive for a Westerner to tell an immigrant they can’t keep their women ignorant and enslaved.

But it is not insensitive for that same immigrant to demand that the Western women in their new land conform to his notion of proper dress in order not to provoke rape (yes, that came from an actual Australian Imam, who said that Western woman should veil in order to get along better with the Muslim immigrants who were treating Western Women with violence and contempt).

We in the West need to get over this over-developed sense of guilt, and start acting with more responsibility to our hard won values.

We need to stop applying double standards to the values of Dead White Men (and women, Queen Elizabeth I and others made huge contributions; Q.E. I pioneered the concept of consolidating ruling power by serving the interests of the people instead of the nobility) and stop protecting those who want to strip away 500 years of advancement in favor of a return to tribalism, with them at the top of the pecking order.

IF you don’t know about the flight 93 controversy GET INFORMED!!!

(HH here: go to you tube or google and look at the info about the proposed memorial for flight 93. The 9/11 plane that was brought down by passenger intervention on it’s way to the White House. Anyone who didn’t get an F in geometry can see that the memorial is symbolically honoring the terrorists, not the passengers and that it is 100% pointing at Mecca. IF you don’t know about this, find out! If you do, WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT IT?)

A full review

Friday, February 20, 2009 7:26 PM EST
To the editor:

Today, I am adding my voice for a full and transparent review of the National Park Service and Flight 93 design selection process that produced Crescent of Embrace. Does it have Islamic symbols or doesn’t it? Let’s settle this once and for all.

Why do you think Tom Sr. opposed this design? It is pretty simple; Tom Sr. saw the Islamic symbols and knew those symbols did not belong at the crash site of Flight 93.

Tom Burnett Sr. traveled to Pennsylvania last August to attend the Task Force Meeting to voice his opposition to the memorial design. A Family Board member as well as a commissioner accused Tom Sr. being “just like the Islamic terrorists” that killed our son.

Why didn’t someone speak up and defend Tom Sr.’s right to voice his opinion?

….

How many of you know that NPS and Flight 93 hired a full time lobbyist? This lobbyist paid a visit to our congressional representatives to discredit Tom Sr.’s claims?

This lobbyist told them that Tom Sr. didn’t know what he was talking about and that he did not see what he saw.

Does the public want their donations for the Memorial going for a full time lobbyist to discredit family members and lobby Congress? I don’t think so.

Beverly Burnett, mother of Tom Burnett Jr. who was on United Flight 93

Bloomington, Minn.

Please read it all by clicking on the title