Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 18, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

Star-Spangled Baggage
Science Finds New Routes to Energy

The Divide

Truthdig Bazaar
Past Imperfect

Past Imperfect

By Julian Fellowes

more items

A/V Booth

‘Daily Show’: Islamophobiapalooza

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Sep 14, 2010

Several of Bill O’Reilly’s colleagues at Fox News clearly don’t subscribe to his patented “No Spin Zone” formula, as the spinnage happening on the Murdochian channel about the Islamic cultural center near Manhattan’s Ground Zero is enough to power a generously proportioned dynamo.

And Fox isn’t the only media outlet with problems focusing on actual news, as Jon Stewart points out in this clip from Monday’s “Daily Show.” —KA

The Daily Show:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical HumorTea Party


Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Veruca, April 27, 2011 at 9:06 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m out of leuage here. Too much brain power on display!

Report this

By Silence Do Good Gauge, September 15, 2010 at 6:52 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Instead of being presented with stereotypes by age, sex, color, class, or religion, children must have the opportunity to learn that within each range, some people are loathsome and some are delightful.—Margaret Mead

Report this
Arraya's avatar

By Arraya, September 15, 2010 at 8:13 am Link to this comment
Suicide terrorism is rising around the world, but there is great confusion as to
why. In this paradigm-shifting analysis, University of Chicago political scientist
Robert Pape has collected groundbreaking evidence to explain the strategic,
social, and individual factors responsible for this growing threat.

One of the world’s foremost authorities on the subject, Professor Pape has
created the first comprehensive database of every suicide terrorist attack in the
world from 1980 until today. With striking clarity and precision, Professor Pape
uses this unprecedented research to debunk widely held misconceptions about
the nature of suicide terrorism and provide a new lens that makes sense of the
threat we face.

FACT: Suicide terrorism is not primarily a product of Islamic fundamentalism.

FACT: The world’s leading practitioners of suicide terrorism are the Tamil
Tigers in Sri Lanka–a secular, Marxist-Leninist group drawn from Hindu

FACT: Ninety-five percent of suicide terrorist attacks occur as part of coherent
campaigns organized by large militant organizations with significant public

FACT: Every suicide terrorist campaign has had a clear goal that is secular and

Report this
Arraya's avatar

By Arraya, September 15, 2010 at 8:10 am Link to this comment
These regional currents tend to be couched in terms of religiosity. Suicide
bombers invoke the name of God; women are veiled in the context of Quranic
stricture. But the stimulus that is catalyzing this behavior is largely external,
driven purely by economic and political objectives in Washington, and has little
to do with spirituality. Furthermore, the number of people this behavior
describes is a minority. Much of the Arab world instead longs for a more
secular, democratic system of governance, a reality that is adeptly examined in
Juan Cole’s book Engaging the Muslim World.

On the American side we see what we are shown. And what we are shown is
what makes compelling television. At the networks and cable news outlets, the
Middle East is strictly associated with weapons, explosions, anger, men wearing
scarves over their faces, and individuals talking nonsense about suicide
bombers receiving virgins upon arrival in heaven. The reportage implies that
the Middle East just happens to be that way, and that the United States and
Western Europe simply have to do their best in dealing with it.

The reigning paradigm in American mass journalism is encapsulated in noted
political scientist Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” hypothesis. This
postulation suggests that conflict between civilizations rather than ideologies
(e.g., communism versus capitalism) will become the primary global form of
confrontation. In his renowned 1993 article in Foreign Affairs, Huntington
states, “the efforts of the West to promote its values of democracy and
liberalism as universal values, to maintain its military predominance and to
advance its economic interests engender countering responses from other

Put another way, the West (read the US) will have to keep its guard up
(“maintain military superiority in East and Southwest Asia”) and look sharp as it
demurely looks out for its own enlightened interests and tries to help others.
But despite best intentions, there will be “countering responses” to be dealt
with. What the CIA calls “blowback,” Huntington (quoting historian Bernard
Lewis) chalks up as “an ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian heritage.”
Naturally, power is partial to retaining both viewpoints, depending on the
occasion: Those at Langley provide the unvarnished reality; those in the Ivory
Tower furnish the acquittal.

The “ancient rival” reasoning dovetails neatly with the orientalist assumptions
mentioned above, and general dismissal of the Middle East as hopeless. In turn
it allows the news reportage to make sense, because the same amount of
history is disregarded in both: most of it. This thinking is also quite attractive -
- as is the coverage and commentary—to the foreign policy establishment and
planners, for self-evident reasons.

Current Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak—a former prime minister and the
most highly decorated soldier in the country’s history—stated in a 1998
television interview, “If I were a young Palestinian, it is possible I would join a
terrorist organization.”[6] What Barak revealed was his understanding of the
situation the Palestinians are forced to live in, and the responses such
circumstances can inspire. What is at work is political, military, and financial
power. The byproducts are indignity, anger, and resentment. Because what is
desired is freedom from coercion. It’s not about religion.

Report this
Arraya's avatar

By Arraya, September 15, 2010 at 8:07 am Link to this comment
It is forbidden to attempt to impose Islam on other people. The Qur’an says,
“There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has become distinct from
error.” (-The Cow, 2:256). Note that this verse was revealed in Medina and was
never abrogated by any other verse of the Quran. Islam’s holy book forbids
coercing people into adopting any religion. They have to willingly choose it.

2. Islamic law forbids aggressive warfare. The Quran says, “But if the enemies
incline towards peace, do you also incline towards peace. And trust in God! For
He is the one who hears and knows all things.” (8:61) The Quran chapter “The
Cow,” 2:190, says, “Fight in the way of God against those who fight against
you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! God loveth not aggressors.”

3. In Islamic war, not just any civil engineer can declare or launch a war. It is the
prerogative of the duly constituted leader of the Muslim community that
engages in the war. Nowadays that would be the president or prime minister of
the state.

4. The killing of innocent non-combatants is forbidden. According to Sunni
tradition, ‘Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first Caliph, gave these instructions to his
armies: “I instruct you in ten matters: Do not kill women, children, the old, or
the infirm; do not cut down fruit-bearing trees; do not destroy any town . . . ”
(Malik’s Muwatta’, “Kitab al-Jihad.”)

5. Muslim commanders must give the enemy fair warning that war is imminent.
The Prophet Muhammad at one point gave 4 months notice. Sneak attacks are

The World Trade Center had a mosque in it, which Bin Laden destroyed, and he
killed dozens of innocent Muslims in the attack along with thousands of others.
All of this is an abomination in Islamic law.

By the laws of classical Islam and the instructions of the Quran, then, the
September 11 act of terrorism was illegal. It is not an affirmation of Islam but a
departure from its laws of war. That is why, contrary to popular belief, Muslim
authorities have roundly condemned al-Qaeda’s actions in no uncertain terms.
See also the Amman statement, to which large numbers of prominent Sunni and
Shiite leaders subscribed.

Report this

By call me roy, September 14, 2010 at 9:06 pm Link to this comment

By the way, who really cares about Comedy Central and Jon Stewert’s opinions. It just hit me, I know what kind of television comedy / reality show that could become #1, let’s have Jon Stewert interview Barry Barak Hussen Soetoro Obama, Karzai, Karza’s brother, and the Taliban while their picking the poppys in the fields for the heroin that they ship to America. What do ya think people? Since Jon and Comedy Central have proven that nothing is sacred for satire and that they will even give in to the threat by a group of radical muslims (like the press likes to call them) or just “the un-named” (like Barry “the Anointed One” likes to call them) or toilet paper (like Americans over the ages of twelve like to call them), it could be a hit. Hollyweird would go wild. One additional thought, to make it hit #1 internationally over the globe, let’s have the United Nations thrown in to be interviewed. Well, come to think of it, maybe that’s not such a good idea, if the U.N. is involved, they will steal everything and then say the the US took it.

Report this

By call me roy, September 14, 2010 at 9:03 pm Link to this comment

No, Professor Ahmed, the Founders Were Not So Fond of Islam

While doing the MSM circuit this week, American University professor Akbar Ahmed told some whoppers about Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin.
September 10, 2010 - by Laura Rubenfeld
To oppose the “burn the Quran” event planned by Pastor Terry Jones, Ahmed wrote an editorial for CNN in which he stated: not only are the actions of Jones contrary to the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, but they are also against the ideals of the American Founding Fathers.

The Founding Fathers read and honored the same Quran that Jones is now seeking to burn.

[John Adams, America’s second president] showed the utmost respect for Islam, naming the Prophet Mohammed as one of the greatest truth seekers in history.
These statements are utterly opposed by the facts.
John Adams said absolutely nothing of the kind. Correspondence from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson on July 16, 1814, reveals John Adams’ true feelings about Islam: Adams states that Mohammed is “a military fanatic” who “denies that laws were made for him; he arrogates everything to himself by force of arms.”
John Adams did indeed own a Quran — the copy he owned contained the following in the preface:
This book is a long conference of God, the angels, and Mahomet, which that false prophet very grossly invented; sometimes he introduceth God, who speaketh to him, and teacheth him his law, then an angel, among the prophets, and frequently maketh God to speak in the plural. … Thou wilt wonder that such absurdities have infected the best part of the world, and wilt avouch, that the knowledge of what is contained in this book, will render that law contemptible … (Continued)

Report this

By call me roy, September 14, 2010 at 9:02 pm Link to this comment

No, Professor Ahmed, the Founders Were Not So Fond of Islam (Continued)

Perhaps Akbar Ahmed misspoke, and was referring to John Adams’ son, John Quincy Adams? The sixth president, not the second?
No. Here is what John Quincy Adams wrote about the Islamic prophet Mohammed:
In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust, by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE. [emphasis in the original]
John Quincy Adams also described the Quran in one of his essays as follows:
The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.
Ahmed also claims in his editorial that “Benjamin Franklin called the Prophet Mohammed a model of compassion.” Ahmed made similar claims on The Daily Show:
I quote the Founding Fathers. … John Adams on the Prophet of Islam: He called him one of the greatest truth seekers in history. (Ben) Franklin called him a model of compassion. And Jefferson had the first Iftaar … and owned a copy of the Quran. … Those Americans who are attacking Islam simply as a terrorist religion or a religion of evil, really need to go back to their own Founding Fathers.
In a March 23, 1790, letter to the editor of the Federal Gazette, Ben Franklin wrote:
Nor can the Plundering of Infidels be in that sacred Book [the Quran] forbidden, since it is well known from it, that God has given the World, and all that it contains, to his faithful Mussulmen, who are to enjoy it of Right as fast as they conquer it.
Thomas Jefferson? Like John Adams, he did own a Quran, one translated by George Sale. Here are some of Sale’s comments on the Quran, included by Sale in his introduction:
It is certainly one of the most convincing proofs that Mohammedism was no other than human invention, that it owed its progress and establishment almost entirely to the sword.
In his editorial, Akbar Ahmed claims:
Thomas Jefferson kept the … Quran in his personal collection and it informed his decision to host the first presidential iftaar during Ramadan.
President Obama repeated this claim — that Jefferson hosted the first presidential iftaar — at the most recent White House Ramadan dinner. (Continued)

Report this

By call me roy, September 14, 2010 at 8:59 pm Link to this comment

No, Professor Ahmed, the Founders Were Not So Fond of Islam (Continued)

Let’s review the facts.
During the Barbary Wars, in 1805, the bey (i.e., monarch) of Tunis threatened war with the United States after the U.S. had been successful in capturing some Tunisian pirate ships. The bey sent an envoy to the United States to negotiate for the return of the ships. This envoy stayed in Washington for six months, during which the month of Ramadan passed.
One of Thomas Jefferson’s many invitations extended to this envoy to meet with him at the White House was during the month of Ramadan. To accommodate the envoy’s religious obligation, Jefferson changed the time of dinner from the usual “half after three” to “precisely at sunset.”
Jefferson was being polite — not celebrating the first White House iftaar, as Akbar Ahmed suggests.
The first Ramadan iftaar was not actually held at the White House until 1996.
Indeed, in a letter dated June 26, 1822, Jefferson had this to say about Islam in a passage regarding Calvinism:
Verily I say these are the false shepherds foretold as to enter not by the door into the sheepfold, but to climb up some other way. They are mere usurpers of the Christian name, teaching a counter-religion made up of the deliria of crazy imaginations, as foreign from Christianity as is that of Mahomet.
For good measure, Akbar Ahmed also mentioned John Locke:
The Founding Fathers were also inspired by Christian thinkers like John Locke, who declared that the true Christian’s duty was to “practice charity, meekness, and good-will in general toward all mankind, even to those that are not Christians.”
Akbar Ahmed is currently Ibn Khaldoun chair and professor of Islamic studies at American University. Ibn Khaldoun was a 14th century Islamic philosopher and scholar, a man about whom Akbar Ahmed has written. Ibn Khaldoun advocated for violence against non-Muslims as a religious duty, in order to achieve the larger goal of dismantling non-Muslim civilization and imposing an Islamic caliphate.
Ibn Khaldoun makes it clear that holy war is the duty of every Muslim. From his most famous work, Muqaddimah:
In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.
Akbar Ahmed is, as previously noted, an advisor to General Petraeus. One wonders if General Petraeuss has been influenced by the false teachings of this professor.

Report this

By call me roy, September 14, 2010 at 8:57 pm Link to this comment

Christians Warn Against Double Standard in Wake of Quran Burning Row

The head of the world’s largest evangelical body said Friday that he welcomed the unanimous condemnation of one church’s plan to burn copies of the Quran but challenged world leaders and the media to do the same for radical actions committed against Christians.
“Speaking out strongly against the proposed burning of Korans was the right thing to do and we warmly welcome the unanimous condemnation from politicians, religious leaders and the global media in this case,” expressed Dr. Geoff Tunnicliffe, international director of the World Evangelical Alliance.
“As we consider the outcry against this one small, obscure group, we now plead that the world’s leaders and media demonstrate the same kind of outspoken condemnation when radical actions on an equal or larger scale are committed against Christians.”
Over the past several weeks, media and leaders around the world have brought attention to the 50-member Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Fla., which had scheduled a “Burn a Quran Day” for Saturday’s anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
President Obama exhorted the church’s pastor to “listen to those better angels” and call off his plan. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned the plan as “disrespectful, disgraceful.” And the United Nations said such an act would be “abhorrent.”
“On behalf of the United Nations and the whole international community present in Afghanistan, I would like to express in the strongest possible terms our concern and indeed outrage at the announcement by a small religious group abroad of their intention to burn copies of the holy book of the Quran,” Staffan de Mistura, head of the United Nations Mission in Afghanistan, said in a statement issued in Kabul.
“If such an abhorrent act were to be implemented, it would only contribute to fueling the arguments of those who are indeed against peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan,” he added.
Notably, however, while the Gainesville church has called of Saturday’s burning (without ruling out future burnings), the violent onslaught by anti-West, anti-Christian Muslims is not expected to abate.
As Christian leaders have noted, some radicals and ill-informed individuals overseas don’t need such an act to provoke them.
“Every day, Christians in Indonesia, Pakistan, Sudan, and elsewhere in the Islamic world face oppression and persecution brought about without the assistance of Quran-burning clergymen,” noted Faith McDonnell, religious liberty director at the Institute on Religion and Democracy.
“The list of violent acts committed against Christians in recent years goes on and on,” added Tunnicliffe, noting that attacks on Christians are not perpetrated by Muslims alone.
In India, for example, radical Hindus waged a campaign of sustained violence against Christians in 2008 that left at least 70 people dead, more than 4,000 homes burnt down, at least 149 churches destroyed, and some 54,000 Christians homeless.
That same year, the deputy mayor of the central Israeli town of Or Yehuda incited hundreds of people to burn hundreds of copies of the New Testament. (Continued)

Report this

By call me roy, September 14, 2010 at 8:55 pm Link to this comment

Christians Warn Against Double Standard in Wake of Quran Burning Row (Continued)

And in recent years, churches in Sri Lanka have been burned to the ground, pastors have been assassinated, and radical Buddhist politicians have called for a new law that would significantly restrict the activities of local churches.
“Christians have reacted to these attacks with an attitude of non-violence but should their peaceful response mean that the rest of the world feels no need to cry out,” posed Tunnicliffe. “Are actions only deemed wrong when there is a good chance that the victims, or those connected to them, will react in violence?”
For IRD’s McDonnell, the “greatest tragedy” in the Quran burning frenzy is greater risk it posed Christians in Muslim-dominated areas.
While American Christian leaders this week flocked to defend American Muslims from physical threats, persecuted Christians find themselves precariously at risk due to the offenses of one tiny church, she noted.
“Just as we do not hold all Muslims responsible for the September 11 attacks, Muslims should not hold Christian minorities responsible for the actions of one tiny Florida church,” McDonnell pointed out.
With the controversy over Dove World Outreach expected to subside in the coming days, Tunnicliffe said it will be interesting to see how the world responds to the violent acts committed against Christians in the future.
“Will leaders react with the same kind of justifiable outrage as they have against the proposed burning of the Qur’an? If so, will they have the courage to speak up, not only out of some concern for reciprocity or a fear of repercussions, but simply because it is the right thing to do?” WEA’s leader posed.
Notably, while much attention was placed on Dove World Outreach in the months leading up to Saturday’s 9/11 anniversary, a similar stunt in 2008 went largely unnoticed. But organizing that burning was the Westboro Baptist Church from Topeka, Kan., an almost universally condemned group of fundamentalists who also protest at military funerals.
Though Dove World Outreach is non-denominational, it could be considered by some to be on the “fringe” of the evangelical church. For this reason, among others, the WEA felt it had a responsibility to intervene.
Aside from the possible ties to evangelicalism, Tunncliffe said the WEA spoke out clearly against the proposed burning because “it was simply the right thing to do.”
It also wanted to prevent the almost-certain violence by radicals that would result from such an act as was witnessed during the Danish cartoon crisis in 2005. At least 150 people were killed around the world and thousands injured over the publication of cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.
Muslims condemn the depiction of any of its prophets, from Adam to Moses to Jesus to Muhammad.

Report this

By call me roy, September 14, 2010 at 8:50 pm Link to this comment

Exposing Radical Islamist Hypocrisy at Ground Zero

There are many reasons to doubt the stated intentions of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the Ground Zero mosque. After 9/11 he did not hesitate to condemn the United States as an “accessory” to the attacks but more recently refused to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization. This is unsurprising considering he has well-established ties to U.S. branches of the Muslim Brotherhood. He has also refused to reveal the sources of funding for the mosque project, which is projected to cost $100 million.

More importantly, he is an apologist for sharia supremacy. In a recent op-ed, Rauf actually compared sharia law with the Declaration of Independence. This isn’t mere dishonesty; it is an Orwellian attempt to cause moral confusion about the nature of radical Islamism.

The true intentions of Rauf are also revealed by the name initially proposed for the Ground Zero mosque—“Cordoba House”—which is named for a city in Spain where a conquering Muslim army replaced a church with a mosque. This name is a very direct historical indication that the Ground Zero mosque is all about conquest and thus an assertion of Islamist triumphalism which we should not tolerate.

They say they’re interfaith, but they didn’t propose the building of a mosque, church and synagogue. Instead they proposed a 13-story mosque and community center that will extol the glories of Islamic tolerance for people of other faiths, all while overlooking the site where radical Islamists killed almost 3,000 people in a shocking act of hatred.

Building this structure on the edge of the battlefield created by radical Islamists is not a celebration of religious pluralism and mutual tolerance; it is a political statement of shocking arrogance and hypocrisy.

We need to have the moral courage to denounce it. It is simply grotesque to erect a mosque at the site of the most visible and powerful symbol of the horrible consequences of radical Islamist ideology. Well-meaning Muslims, with common human sensitivity to the victims’ families, realize they have plenty of other places to gather and worship. But for radical Islamists, the mosque would become an icon of triumph, encouraging them in their challenge to our civilization.

Apologists for radical Islamist hypocrisy are trying to argue that we have to allow the construction of this mosque in order to prove America’s commitment to religious liberty. They say this despite the fact that there are already over 100 mosques in New York City.
In fact, they’re partially correct-this is a test of our commitment to religious liberty. It is a test to see if we have the resolve to face down an ideology that aims to destroy religious liberty in America, and every other freedom we hold dear.

Report this

By call me roy, September 14, 2010 at 8:49 pm Link to this comment

From the report:
Page after page of municipal health records examined by The Record show repeated complaints ranging from failure to pick up garbage, to rat and bedbug infestations and no heat and hot water.
Cynthia Balko, 48, of Union City—a longtime tenant of Rauf’s—said she’s had to live with rats, leaks and no heat: “I don’t have anything nice to say about the man.”
Despite having received over $2 million in public funding for renovations, Rauf’s tenants were forced to file municipal health complaints to seek relief. One such single mother living in a Rauf-owned apartment in Union City said Rauf has not answered complaints.
From an additional story in The Record:
To understand her perspective, you need to go to a forlorn corner on the Jersey side—to 22nd Street in Union City and a four-story apartment building owned by Rauf. The locks on a front door are broken and the hallway leading to [Melba] Lopez’s two-bedroom apartment smells of urine.
Looking east on 22nd Street—back across the Hudson—the Empire State building pokes the sky. On that side of the river, New York’s mayor speaks of Rauf as a symbol of religious freedom and last week invited the Imam’s wife, Daisy Khan, to dinner at Gracie Mansion to honor the Islamic celebration of Ramadan.
But in Union City, Lopez, a single mother, has another way of describing the man who has time to promote the so-called Ground Zero mosque, but does not seem to have time to answer her complaints about leaks in her toilet.
Lopez said in the report she has never met the would-be Ground Zero mosque imam but she says she has met Rauf’s wife Khan.
Lopez said she remembers Khan telling her that she and her husband did not have enough money to fix her leak and other problems in the building. What Lopez did not know was that at the same time, Rauf and Khan were trying to raise money for their mosque project on the other side of the Hudson.
According to the new reports, Rauf has a long history of taxpayer subsidies and grants for slum properties. There’s even a new revelation of a lawsuit settled in June over what the report terms a suit alleging fraud.
From the link:
[T]he suit alleged Rauf and Khan transferred ownership to another firm they owned and then obtained a $650,000 mortgage on the same building from a bank. After the building was damaged by fire in February 2008, Rauf and Khan stopped making mortgage payments to Cockinos, a former key executive at Daibes’ Mariner’s Bank. When Cockinos tried to foreclose, he discovered Rauf and Khan had switched ownership and filed suit alleging “fraud.”
The case was settled shortly before a June 28 trial, with Rauf and Khan agreeing to pay off the mortgage to Cockinos within the next few years, said the couple’s lawyer, Richard Rosa of Hackensack.
There is much more on Rauf and Khan’s current financial woes at the link.
The New York Post reported the site’s developers owe hundreds of thousands in back taxes:
The mosque developers are tax deadbeats.
Sharif El-Gamal, the leading organizer behind the mosque and community center near Ground Zero, owes $224,270.77 in back property tax on the site, city records show.
El-Gamal’s company, 45 Park Place Partners, failed to pay its half-yearly bills in January and July, according to the city Finance Department.
Sounds like a good time to raise $100 million for a mosque.
Oh, by the way. Isn’t one of Barry Hussein’s “Advisors” Valerie Jarrett a former slumlord from Chicago? How Sweet? Maybe they could have lunch?

Report this

By call me roy, September 14, 2010 at 8:48 pm Link to this comment

Ground Zero Imam a Taxpayer-Subsidized Slumlord
The elitist, media-generated grand illusion of the Ground Zero mosque imam has begun to collapse under scrutiny.
New reports from The Record out of Hackensack, N.J., reveal Feisal Abdul Rauf, the would-be Ground Zero imam, owns taxpayer-subsidized apartment buildings in Hudson County where the tenants have made municipal health complaints including rat, roach and bedbug infestations, seeping toilets, leaks, urine-soaked hallways, no heat and no hot water.
Despite millions of dollars in government subsidies, Rauf has trouble maintaining several small apartment buildings in North Bergen, Palisades Park and Union City.
Despite having received over $2 million in public funding for renovations, Rauf’s tenants were forced to file municipal health complaints to seek relief. One such single mother living in a Rauf-owned apartment in Union City said Rauf has not answered complaints.
According to the new reports, Rauf has a long history of taxpayer subsidies and grants for slum properties. There’s even a new revelation of a lawsuit settled in June over what the report terms a suit alleging fraud.
The New York Post reported the site’s developers owe hundreds of thousands in back taxes: The mosque developers are tax deadbeats.
Sharif El-Gamal, the leading organizer behind the mosque and community center near Ground Zero, owes $224,270.77 in back property tax on the site, city records show.
El-Gamal’s company, 45 Park Place Partners, failed to pay its half-yearly bills in January and July, according to the city Finance Department.
Sounds like a good time to raise $100 million for a mosque.

Report this

sign up to get updates

Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.