Muslim “child-marriage” — euphemism for pedophilia — is making headlines again, at least in Arabic media: Dr. Salih bin Fawzan, a prominent cleric and member of Saudi Arabia’s highest religious council, just issued a fatwa asserting that there is no minimum age for marriage, and that girls can be married “even if they are in the cradle.”

Appearing in Saudi papers on July 13, the fatwa complains that “Uninformed interference with Sharia rulings by the press and journalists is on the increase, posing dire consequences to society, including their interference with the question of marriage to small girls who have not reached maturity, and their demand that a minimum age be set for girls to marry.”

Fawzan insists that nowhere does Sharia set an age limit for marrying girls: like countless Muslim scholars before him, he relies on Koran 65:4, which discusses marriage to females who have not yet begun menstruating (i.e., are prepubescent) and the fact that Muhammad, Islam’s role model, married Aisha when she was 6-years-old, “consummating” the marriage — or, in modern parlance, raping her — when she was 9.

The point of the Saudi fatwa, however, is not that girls as young as 9 can have sex, based on Muhammad’s example, but rather that there is no age limit whatsoever; the only question open to consideration is whether the girl is physically capable of handling her husband/rapist. Fawzan documents this point by quoting Ibn Batal’s authoritative exegesis of Sahih Bukhari:

The ulema [Islam’s interpreters] have agreed that it is permissible for fathers to marry off their small daughters, even if they are in the cradle. But it is not permissible for their husbands to have sex with them unless they are capable of being placed beneath and bearing the weight of the men. And their capability in this regard varies based on their nature and capacity. Aisha was 6 when she married the prophet, but he had sex with her when she was 9 [i.e., when she was deemed capable].

Fawzan concludes his fatwa with a warning: “It behooves those who call for setting a minimum age for marriage to fear Allah and not contradict his Sharia, or try to legislate things Allah did not permit. For laws are Allah’s province; and legislation is his excusive right, to be shared by none other. And among these are the rules governing marriage.”

Fawzan, of course, is not the first to insist on the legitimacy of pedophilia in Islam. Even the former grand mufti of Saudi Arabia supported “child-marriage,” since “the Koran and Sunna document it.”

Muslim “child-marriage” II

Nor is this just some theoretic, theological point; the lives of many young girls are being destroyed because of this ruling. Recall, for instance, the 13-year-old girl who died while her much older husband was copulating with her (it was later revealed that, due to her reluctance, he was tying her up and “raping” her — as if there is another way to describe sex with children); or the 12-year-old who died giving birth to a stillborn; or the 10-year-old who made headlines by hiding out from her 80-year-old “husband.”

Then there are the countless anonymous girls who do nothing to warrant any media attention — such as die — and have learned to live with their elderly husbands pawing at them, like, no doubt, the girl who married Islam’s most popular cleric, Yusuf Qaradawi, when she was 14.

What do we make of the fact that it is always Islam’s religious, authoritative voices — not aberrant voices, not “terrorists,” “extremists,” or any other euphemism coined for the occasion — that are constantly demonstrating Sharia’s savageries? Weeks before this fatwa, a female politician and activist in Kuwait called for institutionalizing sex-slavery (recommending that Muslims buy and sell female Russian captives from the Chechnya war); a popular Egyptian preacher not only said the same thing, but added that the solution to Islam’s poverty is to go on jihad and plunder the lives and possessions of infidels.

Sounds odd?  Perhaps; but it is perfectly consistent. After all, distilled and in the eyes of the non-believer, Sharia law is nothing less than a legal system built atop the words and deeds of a seventh-century Arab, whose behavior — from pedophilia and sex-slavery to war mongering and plundering — was very much that of a seventh-century Arab. Having enticed or enslaved his contemporaries into following him, his teachings continue to entice and enslave their descendants; and, now as then, it is always the innocent who suffer.

Shenonymous, July 25 at 7:57
Own up to what .... a phrase you took out of context and felt it necessary to attack it in typical fashion? ....... Please. I hadn’t meant to exclude you, should I have found an apology to have been necessary, but I truly didn’t feel one was warranted. I didn’t mean to “offend” anyone; after all, this is just a discussion board where we can air our views on politics and world views. So, I could apologize; I do, actually, but in the end, only YOU can be responsible for your own feelings and, more importantly, how you react to things.

With that, I have withdrawn my numerous refuting points of commentary because, in the end, we all have to learn to practice tolerance as the heat gets turned up. More and more, people will start to become unglued as their visceral fears express their inadequacy to deal with the increasing rate of change in the world.

When the truth hurts, the hurt git goin.  I hardly flew off the handle,
but I did point out your completely insensitive remark about taking
out human beings, and I explained calmly what underlies that
statement.  But you took issue and with feigned piety, you defended
that the emotionally charged remark.  You had made a completely
brutish comment and refused to see it for what it is. To me, it showed
a subliminal tendency for barbarity, as featherweight as it looked, but
your large explanation tried to hide the fact of its existence. 

I pursued this skirmish with you, BR549, because I was disappointed in
the comment but even more so in your inability to own up to it.  But what
weight would my disappointment have to someone on a blog, for who
am I but an electronic ghost who has no further existence other than an
occasional comment and who is not compelled to interact with you nor
you with me?  But I can state my disappointment anyway for it clarifies to
me what is really the meaning of morality and how we see our fellow
humans, that for you, the ones that you find disagreeable ought to be
taken out!  That gave me pause to stop and think about it!  I am not on a
high horse but you certainly put me on one in your self-defensive
rationalization. And I guess if I were in your shoes, I would also run
away.

Of course it is not such a big thing!  Is it?  A remark in passing on a blog
has no measurable consequence, does it?  Flippant remarks that at
bottom is really a remark of violence, even though not of the magnitude
of a war, and has no gravity!  After years of studying human nature,
Ernest Becker in his book “Escape from Evil,” wrote about the dilemma of
man’s truly vicious behavior.  And what is most disturbing is so many
men’s inability to self-reflect on what belies their seemingly innocent
remarks, and then because of this inability, they are further unable to
take responsibility for what fundamentally is callous.  It is this tendency
and behavior that is at the essence of human destructiveness.  It isn’t
those who openly declare horrid intentions, those who overtly rant and
rail against each other, but it is those who with a seething unconscious
sense of violence that goes unsaid except at time when it slips out and
one is caught.  You have offered not one word of contrition, as if it was
just a “casual” remark that had no meaning.

If you are not concerned with the enormous problem that man is truly an
evil causing creature in much of his motivation, I am.  Too much, and I
see all the time, almost constantly on these forums, the moaning about
the terribleness of the state of the world, particularly is this country
criticized mercilessly, but it is nearly always only moaning and bitching
as one commenter recently put it, and no self-reflection to reform one’s
own shortcomings.  If any self-reflection does go on, the evidence shown
in comments is that it is shallow and goes only as deep as egotism will
allow.

Why this long post about what appears to be a really small matter?  I see
it as a paradigm of the problems with the pseudo-intellectuals who
populate these forums.  More discussion is needed not less.  So I take
this opportunity to say that if there is genuine concern for the world,
instead of the miles and miles of facile lip service, not only looking
inward into oneself first to see what is really latent in the minds but
admitting it to the world needs done before seeing folks like me as
“the alien out there instead of dealing with one’s own inner problems.”

And a good day to you too.

Go Right Young Man has been guilty of falsehoods and distortions many times here on truthdig, he has long been a supporter of destructive U.S. policies that have resulted in the deaths of millions and human suffering incalculable. He is a constant critic of all efforts to end these insanities; his tactic is to point to the extremes of Islamic thought and behavior and to imply that these extremes are typical of all Muslims. He exaggerates the Muslim threat at every opportunity and offers these exaggerations as a justification and rationale for continuing the death and destruction.

The influence of Christian Dominionists, and powerful Jewish organizations on our political process is real, the idea that Muslim Extremists have any ability to influence our politics in favor of Muslim extremism is absurd beyond belief, and the product of anti-Muslim lunatics, or those who reach for any rationale for continuing the cruel folly.

Well, I am consciously choosing to take a different path than the one you find it so necessary to travel. Good day.

So you need a consensus to say when you have made a foul
remark, BR549?  Your defensiveness only adds to its degree of
nastiness.  Your self-righteous indignation seems out of character.

Shen,
I made a statement, and apparently, you decided that you had the whole interpretation thing down pat. I attempted to clarify it, albeit in somewhat lengthy fashion. You responded again as you had the first time, either not agreeing with it or, what appears to be more the case, not understanding it, which is fine, but I just wish you’d be a little less judgmental before flying off the handle.

Had other people responded that I was out of line with those two posts of mine, then perhaps an apology might have been in order on my part.

No, I do not think you were “slamming” me, and I admit that I took
you to task for what I saw was a call for violence. Was that too reactive?
How should one interpret what you said, “take out all the current idiot
decision makers ?so the rest of us can get back to evolving the human
spirit” when you did not specify what you meant by “taking out” where
the current slang means to bomb or destroy something.  Might you not
be somewhat more careful in your recommendations?  I can get past
this bit of space opera, can you?  I will still look forward to your more
circumspect comments.

Shen,
Huh?
At one point, I thought we had some level of understanding, at least enough to stop slamming each other. I don’t believe that anything I had said recently was in any way critical of you or your previous commentary.

You commented about my previous post, “It looks as if you are trying to incite more murderous crazy sociopaths who feel powerless.” Quite the contrary and I would have thought that you could see that by now considering the dialogues we had had.

And, “What a crappy defense you’ve made!  Okay, don’t take responsibility for your irresponsible and really stupid remark, but do not try to shift your malevolent remark onto me!  It is cowardly of you and I usually hold your comment far above that!” What malevolent remark? ....... Whatever. (I’m still shaking my head about how you arrived at that.)

Sometimes you are a treasure trove of patience and wisdom, while at other times you seem very bitter and easy to lash out. Stress, particularly in these difficult times, rears its ugly head in a number of different ways. You have exposed to the rest us here that softer side of yourself in the past, so I will no longer allow myself to feel slammed by the commentary above only to engage at that level. I’ll still be here when you return. If I have any criticism of anyone, it is for those in power and the mindless sheep that allow themselves to be trampled by them; certainly, there was none made or implied against you.

BR549 July24 6:14am ” C’mon ....... really? We are living in a world
of many possibilities and I know I don’t I have a crystal ball. I doubt
you do, either.”

Excuse me!  I am not suggesting any solution at all!  And I’ve never
claimed to.  What a crappy defense you’ve made!  Okay, don’t take
responsibility for your irresponsible and really stupid remark, but do
not try to shift your malevolent remark onto me!  It is cowardly of you
and I usually hold your comment far above that!

Your pathetic hypotheticals are absurd.  Who knows?  Who knows
if the ocean won’t dry up tomorrow?  Who knows if the Lakers can win
even one game the next season?  Who knows is exactly what Las Vegas
gets saps to spend their trillions of dollars saying to themselves, Who
knows?  Who knows if your blood hasn’t turned to brine?   

So you want to be counted among all the other defensive/offensive jerks
that show up on these forums who are so arrogant that it is impossible
for them to see their own acrimony?

You really only have to hold yourself accountable to yourself.

Shen, July 24 at 2:12 am
“What, BR549, exactly are you telling readers to do?  What method of “taking out” do you prefer?  It looks as if you are trying to incite more murderous crazy sociopaths who feel powerless.”

C’mon ....... really? We are living in a world of many possibilities and I know I don’t I have a crystal ball. I doubt you do, either. No one knows the outcome. Maybe no one should, at least not at this stage in our evolution. People are allowed to vote and yet they continue to let their fears guide them to push buttons that perpetuate one bad choice after another. The system doesn’t suck; it’s the fact that the integrity of the individuals using that system for their own gains does. The forefathers accounted for this in having those people take an oath, using as its basis, the bible; at that time, and still, considered to be a foundation for moral and ethical behavior.

Who knows? There is the real likelihood that enough politicians will grow a set of testicles over the next year and realize what the hell is going on at work and decide they need to steer things back toward what the Constitution had been originally espousing. The second part of this requires them to tell the banks to go pound sand and that, with all the wealth they have acquired, they have parasitized enough of that wealth to keep them going on their own for a long time to come. So, let them do their own thing. No violence, sweetie, but it does take a bit of fortitude.

If the politicians, let’s say, demanded a real 9/11 investigation and it was shown how much complicity came from within this country, and those responsible were brought to justice ......... AND it was shown to the American people on the news every day that our governmental process still DOES work and, that instead of anesthetizing the populace with Dancing With the Stars crap, the viewing audience was treated to politicians speaking about and honesty and integrity, why can we not have that as a solution? No violence.

The conversation on anarchy has been a very interesting one and kudos to all those who have shared here. It does not, as has been said, mean that violence and total chaos must erupt in the streets, because if everyone just “woke up” tomorrow, corrupt politicians and meatheaded reality show and ball game fanatics included, this could all change overnight and so peacefully. No politician need lose their job or position in their gang of thieves; but their motivations would have to necessarily change and they would realize that higher sense of purpose that they were all voted into office to exercise.

I think what we are seeing as the craziness in the world today is nothing more than an increasing number of social “miner’s canaries” showing us that something has gone terribly wrong with the way this planet is being stewarded and that those in charge haven’t got a freakin’ clue about how to fix the problems they created without knocking off a few million people here and there, and don’t think for one moment that that isn’t part of a large plan. All of the numerous false flag events aside, the craziness should be seen as a human barometer and, unfortunately, those in charge have created a Category 5 Hurricane and only know how to leave town when the disaster comes to town.

Personally, I think that if enough honest politicians and leaders stood up to the corruption, got on the air and told the public the truth for once, the populace would dutifully follow and do what was expected of them to contribute to bettering our society and the planet. Am I holding my breath .... ? No one knows how far down the leaders will drive this current state of failure while they scramble to take care of their own. They are, after all, masters of stealing the life jackets from children as the ship goes down by the bow.

What “vision”, as a large group of voters, are we going to collectively hold these politicians and leaders to uphold?

“ there’s the solution; take out all the current idiot decision makers
so the rest of of us can get back to evolving the human spirit, whether
that’s in Shiraz, Sharm-el-Sheikh, or Sheboygan.” 

What, BR549, exactly are you telling readers to do?  What method of
“taking out” do you prefer?  It looks as if you are trying to incite more
murderous crazy sociopaths who feel powerless.

Son of Palestine,

No one denies that psychopaths and fanatical extremists exist in every group.  What good does it do to blame the whole group for the actions of a few?  Not much.

It seems that society has to expect that the isolated fanatic will occasionally jump out of the woodwork and commit some terrorist act, but how is it that society can legitimately protect itself from these terrorist acts? 

It really becomes a “frequency and severity” issue.  If a group murders 1 person every 50 years, they are not going to get as much law enforcement attention as a group that murders 10 persons a week

I guess another consideration would be the nature of the source which generates these fanatics.  How outrageously inflammatory is the source of generation, and what are the rates of generation?  Any group who turns out a large number of intensely motivated fanatics annually is going to get a lot more attention than that who turns out a couple a year.

My point is, what the hell does this have to do with BIGOTRY?  Nothing at all. 

Bigotry is not the word which is appropriate for society’s focus on any group which is a source of extreme inflammatory rhetoric and which produces a relatively large number of fanatics and commits an average of 1 terrorist act per week and kills an average of 5 people per act.  (these are all arbitrary numbers and do not refer to any particular group)

If Islamic extremists or Christian extremists or any extremists commit a large number of acts, they will be subject to a large amount of law enforcement and public discussion, especially where free speech is the ideal.

This is not bigotry, because the discussion would die down immediately as soon as the acts are discontinued.  Bigotry might be seen as the case where the discussion and law enforcement are not in proportion to the acts committed. 

No doubt innocent, peace-loving Muslims are stigmatized by their fanatical brothers.  I would think that they would want to seriously step up their anti-fanatical efforts to minimize the effect these fanatics are having on Islam as a whole.  Otherwise, it will be inevitable that society will be increasingly likely to judge Islam as a religion of extremism.  This is not bigotry either.

It seems that the world has already judged Christianity and Judaism as religions of extremism, and I don’t think their acts of terrorism are any more than Islam, if not much less.  I have not actually made a count.  But in this regard, do the Christians and Jews have a case that this judgement is due to bigotry? 

I just know that the discussion will ramp up in direct ratio to the number of acts and numbers of dead, and there is nothing unnatural or bigoted about that fact.
I’ll leave it up to others to do the counting and figure out the motivations. 

If there is a case for bigotry, what are the actual numbers that would support that?

Anarcissie,

Oh stop.  In no way do I ridicule or denigrate Islam on the whole.  Either you failed to listen or you’re purposefully changing the subject.  Either way your comment is absurd.

Take some time and read Nasrallah, Zawahiri and Rahman.  Then return here and apologizes like an adult should.

Son of Palestine—I noticed that in the story on the Norwegian terrorist attack in The Daily Beast, the reporter managed to ring in Muslims at the end even though none were involved.  I guess reporters are not allowed to write up a terrorist attack without referring to them.

By Go Right Young Man, July 23 at 3:54 pm
=========================================

As GRYM continues to display his unbound bigotry and hateful false propaganda against Islam and Muslims, a fellow right-wing Christian fundamentalist, named Anders Behring Breivik, from Norway, has made international news by killing over a hundred humans, most of them children. There is a story on Truthdig about this right-wing Christian fundamentalist terrorism, which the likes of GRYM would like to ignore, focusing instead on their bigotry against Islam and Muslims.

If Anders Behring Breivik turned out to be, say Muhammad Ali, then the airwaves will be inundated with hateful speech and intensified bigotry against Islam and Muslims, as being bloody-thirsty terrorists who should be eliminated from existance.

However, because Anders Behring Breivik turned out to be a right-wing Christian fundamentalist, like GRYM, you can rest assured that the label of “terrorist” will not apply to him. Lame excuses will be found for him, such as being a “deranged sociopath” or of being a man disturbed by being sexually molested as a child.

This terrorist act that killed over a hundred in a small Western country like Norway, does exceed in the scale of population-ratio comparison the horrors of the 9/11 event in the U.S.

Now, the question is this: Is Norway going to forge an alliance with all Christian Western countries to launch a war against the terrorism of all right-wing Christian fundamentalists and their close allies the Zionist-Christian fundamentalists, who are preparing the ground for what the call the “Rapture” by helping Israel kill the Palestinians in their homeland?!

The Muslim activity brought up here is matched only by an equal amount of human injustice and cruelty from the West. It just shows up in ways that “play better” during prime time TV so as not to offend any viewers who might have a hard time seeing themselves in the mirror.

The other half of that issue is that many people do, indeed, care about what is happening and feel powerless to do anything about it. They feel continually lied to by the media and Washington’s pathetic string of sociopaths and may fear for their lives, their families, their jobs if they say anything ....... no matter which side of the pond we are talking about, because, in the end, it is the murderous crazy sociopaths that are causing the problem.

I’ll finish off with neurobiologist Robert Sapolski’s observation one year, while following up on his annual study of a troop of babboons, that when the cruel and fanatical alphas had died off from stealing fatally tainted food all for themselves, the rest of the troop’s members went back to nurturing each other. So, there’s the solution; take out all the current idiot decision makers so the rest of of us can get back to evolving the human spirit, whether that’s in Shiraz, Sharm-el-Sheikh, or Sheboygan.

GRYM—Proggies can count on you guys to pillory the Muslims.

I’m certain it’s obvious to over six billion people that Islam has it’s fair ratio of fanatics. - Islam is not unlike any other religion (including progressive-ism). - I’m sure it’s equally obvious to all but a miniscule minority, mainly Westerners, that Islam is currently witnessing a particularly virulent and violent strain of fanaticism amongst its followers. - Homosexuals are hung in Iran. Woman are stoned around the world. Several thousand Christian churches burned all over the globe. Not one church in all of Saudi Arabia, etc..

It’s well known amongst all who pay attention that some Muslims desire a global Sharia government.  Zawahiri, bin Laden, Nasrallah, Rahman, Nosair, al-Awlaki, al-?adr, Omar and dozens of other current high profile clerics and adherents have all stated the same goals. The idea, however, is not a new one.

Nasrallah, Zawahiri, Rahman and bin laden have all preached that to accomplish such a goal the United States would, very necessarily, have to be torn down and rebuilt.  It’s important to remember that this is what each of them believe and have said and written as much on numerous occasions.

Zawahiri and Nasrallah have both written at length on the subject of slowly building on a presence inside American neighborhoods, the education system, the judicial system, the lending system, and state level politics.  Again, their words, not that of this writer.

Yes, Islamic radicals hold the goal of establishing Shariah Law as the governing law of the United States and the rest of the West. They claim they will not not be satisfied until the globe as a whole steps back into the 7th century.

Would establishing a Sharia socioeconomic system be easy within the boundaries of the United States?  Absolutely not. I have great doubts that such a system would ever take hold in the U.S., however, that does not prevent many from talking about and attempting to do exactly that. - I have never met a Muslim that did not acknowledge this small but deadly strain of Islam.

-

I find it fascinating that nearly every “progressive” on this Web space will to go terrific lengths to ridicule and demonize Western religions but will drop their collective starry-eyed pants for Islam’s most fanatical believers. - Ironically enough it would be the liberal intelligentsia that would be subjugated first if such a tragedy were to befall the world.

Why, I ask, why do Western liberals never take up for the rights of Muslims who put themselves in danger for freedom?  It seems their collective defense is nearly always for those who wish to impose their will on others as if it’s their inherent “cultural” right to hang homosexuals and stone woman?

coyotewise, July 22 at 10:52 am:

“I don’t need a book to do simple logic and common sense”.

Truth be damned, you have your beliefs instead.

Logic?  You’ve used quite a few logical constructs to
support your argument, nearly all them categorized as
logical fallacies in any 101 course in Logic.  Straw
men and ad hominem attack appear to be your logical
strong points.  And now we know why.  Because you do
not let facts get in the way of your beliefs. ...

Saying it doesn’t make it so.  But if you think I have written fallacies, all you have to do is point them out.  I’ve already pointed out the obvious logical contradictions in your argument; the least you could do is return the favor, that is, if you can find any.

RE: coyotewise

“[David] Gaubatz, who has long warned about the threat of Islamism in the United States, has claimed that he found Saddam’s long-lost WMDs while in Iraq and has labeled Obama “Muslim” and a ‘self-admitted ‘crack head.’” Gaubatz claims in his book “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America,” That CAIR planted Muslim intern spies on key National Security Committees. His book was published by World Net Daily Books, a right-wing organization that has been forced to settle suits out of court. Gaubatz claimed there was a connection between CAIR and the Fort Hood Shootings. Gaubatz is a moron, and anyone who gives credence to his screeds is a moron too.

Sue Myrick a Republican Congress woman, who wrote the forward for Gaubatz’s book said as an example of the Muslim threat here in the U.S., “Look at who runs all the convenience stores across the country.”

This is old news, the charges against CAIR were investigated and CAIR was exonerated. CAIR has associations with people who support Palestinians, this is their great crime.

JDmysticDJ, July 22 at 9:56 am

I agree 100% about getting out of foreign lands.  I believe the figure was 84% of Americans favored getting out of the middle east asap in the last poll I saw. 

Average Americans have this desire to trust their government, even when they know they are being screwed.  This is because it takes all their energy just to make ends meet, bring up families, etc.  There is little energy left to march on Washington. 

In good faith, Obama was given a fairly good mandate to make some changes, and even a lot of conservatives I knew initially were optimisic, saying a change would not be bad.  I think people really do want to get behind their leaders and support them.

But this Libya thing.  No one I knew supported that.  Everyone said that was Libya’s affair, and we had no business bombing anyone over there, especially when it was not clear who the rebels were.  We remember getting in trouble for jumping in on civil wars and uprisings in other countries.  I found absolutely no support for that Libyan action.  But Obama did it anyway, and we are still at it there.  Your point is valid, that why only Libya? Why are we not supporting other uprisings?  Because we have no business in civil wars, no ones, including Libya. 

But there is another answer, and it is obvious, as I and many others have been posting on these pages for months.  The POTUS is not in command of American foreign policy, if he is really in charge of anything significant.  There is a larger international shadow government which plays all these chess pieces.  It is the big money globalists who meet at all the secret meetings and decide all these things.  It is probably five levels above Obama.  I think he is a minor player. 

And when you get to thaose really high levels, you find that the common denominator is money.  These people control the worlds money, and they call all the shots.  Everybody below that level does their bidding, either directly or indirectly, knowingly or unknowingly.  That is the way the world works, though they are not exactly united at the top and do have fallouts. 

I think the Arab Spring has been manipulated, I think all the middle east wars have been manipulated, I think the siezing of Jerusalem by the UN is manipulated,  I think they manipulate us all against each other. 

My problem is that everybody jumps all over the little guys, as though we have something to do with it.  We just see stuff, and ignorantly react. 

You hardly ever see any of the big, big money guys being complained about in these blogs.  How about the Saudi royals?  They are involved with a lot of high level stuff.  And all those European bankers, the IMF, World Bank, Bilderbergers, etc, etc.  Why are these guys never named by name?  That is who runs the show don’t you know, not the USA.

Herman Cain is a nobody.  I am a nobody.  We are not the threat.  We are the ignorant, assuming your information is correct.  We see stuff and react, thinking the stuff represents reality. 

This is really where all this argument loses credibility, is when no one attacks at the real source of the problem.  Because the argument could be made that all is just perception, the US has nukes, so everyone is intimidated, but maybe it is just in their imagination.  US Corporation abuse nations, but someone in that country had to sign some kind of contract and made tons of money.  Many of these country’s leaders take advantage of their people and blame it on the US.  The whole story is simply too diverse and complicated for the average person to digest.  People may just hate the US because they are the most visible target, while all these others hide in the shadows and call the real shots. 

This is not to say that I doubt your word, but how average Americans can become targets such as the Times Square Bomber, does not lend any credibility to the story.  The Jihad targets the small guy, why???  It’s not making sense, Sorry!!

RE: DaveZx3, July 22 at 2:43 am

“I proposed this simpleton idea only because it would be quick and definitive confirmation of your assertions.  In truth, Americans in general are ignorant of the idea that the whole world hates them and wants them out of every country that they are in.”

The “whole world hates Americans” would be a stupid contention, the people of the world like American culture and American ideals, but not American foreign policies.

Overseas publics continue to distrust U.S. policies, despite high approval of Obama.
WorldPublicOpinion.org. Released 7 July 2009

“A new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll finds that around the world US foreign policy continues to receive heavy criticism on a variety of fronts, even though in 13 of 19 nations most people say they have confidence in President Obama to do the right thing in international affairs.

The US is criticized for coercing other nations with its superior power (15 of 19 nations), failing to abide by international law (17 of 19 nations), and for how it is dealing with climate change (11 of 18 nations). Overall, views are mixed on whether the US is playing a mainly positive or mainly negative role in the world.

Asked whether they have confidence in Barack Obama to “do the right thing regarding world affairs,” for all nations (excluding the US) an average of 61 percent say they have some or a lot of confidence.

But asked how the US treats their government, few—on average just one in four—say it “treats us fairly,” while two-thirds say that it “abuses its greater power to make us do what the US wants.” Overall, these views are no better than they were in 2008. Only three countries diverged from this view (Kenya, Nigeria, and Germany).

In all nations polled, majorities say that the US “use(s) the threat of military force to gain advantages.” Majorities range from 61 percent in India and Poland to 92 percent in South Korea and include America’s close ally Great Britain (83%). On average, across all nations polled, 77 percent perceive the US as threatening. Even 71 percent of Americans agree….

Views of Obama are especially positive among Europeans including 92 percent of the British, 89 percent of the Germans, and 88 percent of the French. Even a majority of the Chinese concur (55%). The exceptions are majority-Muslim nations and Russia. Those saying they have not too much confidence or no confidence at all include majorities in the Palestinian territories (67%), Pakistan (62%), Egypt (60%), and Iraq (57%) as well as Russia (55%).

But on average, only one in four agrees that the US is “an important leader in promoting international laws and sets a good example by following them,” while two-thirds say “the US tries to promote international laws for other countries, but is hypocritical because it does not follow these rules itself.” Here too, overall, there has been no significant change from 2008. The most negative are France (79%) and Egypt (78%). Even in America’s close ally Britain three-quarters say the US is hypocritical. Kenya and Nigeria are the only nations that give the US good grades (55% and 52% respectively) on complying with international law.

RE: DaveZx3, July 22 at 2:43 am (cont.)

“Your whole argument is muddied by the recent request of Libyan rebels to have US planes fly cover for them.  It is events like this that have the American public confused.”

My argument is only “muddled” from your perspective. Why Lybia? Why not defend other countries where popular movements are attempting to overthrow or change their governments? Why are we not flying air support and firing cruise missiles into Syria in support of Hezbollah rebels? Why are we not flying air support missions for popular movements in Bahrain, Yemen, or a number of other countries around the world? The hypocrisy is clear, and the answer to these questions has to do with U.S. goals of hegemony and perceived national self interest. Espousing humanitarian goals is convenient, but empty when the hypocrisy is so evident.

The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases
The Global Deployment of US Military Personnel

by Prof. Jules Dufour

“The Worldwide control of humanity’s economic, social and political activities is under the helm of US corporate and military power. Underlying this process are various schemes of direct and indirect military intervention. These US sponsored strategies ultmately consist in a process of global subordination.”

More than 1000 US Bases and/or Military Installations

“These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The underlying land surface is of the order of 30 million acres… the US is thought to own a total of 737 bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide (Gelman, J., 2007).”

“Washington keeps a close eye on countries opposed to US corporate control over their resources. Washington also targets countries where there are popular resistance movements directed against US interests, particularly in South America.”

The governing consideration in U.S. foreign policy is hegemony and Empire.

“My point is, people cannot be held responsible until they are given a chance to understand the true nature of the situation.  Americans have ample reason to believe that there is a war going on between radical Islam and the west.  It is all over the internet.  I recently have seen photos of some large demonstrations in England which clearly showed signs stating their violent intentions.  It is fairly easy to get this idea from multiple sources.  That is why the public is confused.”

You illustrate the problem perfectly, but your premise is wrong, some Americans, such as you, believe there is a war going on between “Islam” and the west, not “radical Islam” and the west. There are platitudes offered, but this belief in war between Islam and the west is “all over the internet” and it’s all over the media, news and entertainment, the propaganda and prejudice directed at Muslims is reminiscent of the hatred and prejudice directed at Jews in 1930’s and 40’s Germany. Muslims are constantly portrayed as villains in the entertainment media, Muslims have been the butt of stand-up comedian’s jokes for two decades, cartoons seen in America directed at Muslims are similar to cartoons seen in Nazi Germany directed at Jews. This kind of prejudicial propaganda is insidious and powerful, but it nearly escapes notice to those who have been acclimated to it, and it is people such as you and Herman Cain who reinforce these stereotypes.
 
How would you propose to reverse all of this?

I’m not sure what you’re asking here. The first thing that would be helpful in my opinion would be to reverse this astoundingly absurd contention that the U.S. is in danger of being taken over by Muslims, but most important to rational people would be the immediate cessation of U.S. occupations of foreign lands.

coyotewise, July 21 at 4:26 pm:

“Do you have a magic code ring from a box of Islamo-wheaties, or what?”.

School yard play, eh?  Sorry, no magic ring.  Just a
very interesting book written by a couple of fellows who go by the names of David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry.
Really, if you don’t understand the difference
between goals and methods, I’m not sure if you’re up
to this conversation.

Really, why would people join an organization, if
they did not, at some level subscribe to the purpose
and goals of that organization?  The only one I can
think of is in the case of an agent provocateur, but
that is generally a tactic of the political left, not
conservatives. ...’

An agent-provocateur is a person working for the authorities, usually the police, who infiltrates a group practicing some form of opposition to them to inspire them to foolish actions, especially violence, which can be used by the authorities as a pretext to attack the target group.  In the U.S., the Left is small and powerless and clearly does not have any influence on the authorities, and does not have the power to operate agents-provocateurs.  The fact that you don’t know these simple facts is discouraging, but I’ll press on a little.

I don’t need a book to do simple logic and common sense.  According to you, group mind exists in organizations because those who join all believe the same things.  When I pointed out that CAIR does not openly profess the things you say it desires, your answer is that they are all conspirators.  But obviously it is impossible to maintain a secret conspiracy among hundreds or thousands of people.  Clearly, if CAIR proposes some sort of liberal Islam publicly then the sort of people attracted to it will be liberal Muslims, who will be at odds with the secret core of conspirators you propose.  So—no group mind after all, and a divided organization hardly capable of achieving anything.

Indeed, you should try getting out of the schoolyard, but it is probably more gratifying to you to make things up about your imaginary boogie-men.

By JDmysticDJ, July 21 at 10:40 pm

“Yes it does need to be reversed, but the method of reversal you offer is one of the most simple minded, sophomoric, solutions to the problem I have ever encountered”
——————————

I proposed this simpleton idea only because it would be quick and definitive confirmation of your assertions.  In truth, Americans in general are ignorant of the idea that the whole world hates them and wants them out of every country that they are in. 

Your whole argument is muddied by the recent request of Libyan rebels to have US planes fly cover for them.  It is events like this that have the American public confused. 

My point is, people cannot be held responsible until they are given a chance to understand the true nature of the situation.  Americans have ample reason to believe that there is a war going on between radical Islam and the west.  It is all over the internet.  I recently have seen photos of some large demonstrations in England which clearly showed signs stating their violent intentions.  It is fairly easy to get this idea from multiple sources.  That is why the public is confused.

How would you propose to reverse all of this?

RE: DaveZx3, July 21 at 8:22 pm

“To be called a bigot simply for expressing an opinion is unwarranted, mainly because the idea of being utterly intolerant, the main component of bigotry, has not been demonstrated simply by expressing an opinion.  Neither Herman Cain, nor myself have said that we are not open to overwhelming evidence of some sort which would show that Islam was not out to dominate and destroy western culture.”

Expressing a bigoted opinion makes one a bigot. Perhaps you haven’t noticed but it is “western culture” occupying Muslim lands, not vice a versa.

“I originally stated that Herman Cain should be given a break because he was merely believing the hundreds if not thousands of examples available everywhere which seem to document that at least the radical element of Islam IS here in America to destroy American culture.”

“You cannot deny that evidence of this is everywhere, including coming out of the mouths of radical Islamists themselves.  They say these things daily.  I cannot believe that someone could deny that this evidence exists.” 

“Hundreds if not thousands of examples available everywhere.”? I deny that this evidence exists anywhere. The only thing you’ve been able to come up with is an innocuous statement made in 1993. If you want to talk about threats and actual acts of violence, you need to take a look at “The Insurrection Timeline,” the Insurrection Timeline documents the violence fueled by the comments of bigots like Herman Cain. 

“Nothing I have said above makes me a bigot, because I am very willing, if not hopeful, to receive compelling other evidence that convinces me that radical Islam is actually peaceful and tolerant of my views and culture. Or that radical Islam does not actually exist.”

No one has said that “Radical Islam” does not exist. Your contention is that all Islam is “Radical,” and that is what makes you a bigot.

“This idea that America deserves to be destroyed due to her imperialist actions is not valid.  America, rightly or wrongly, has assumed this world policeman’s role, most of us believe, because a world policeman was required, desired and invited by the world itself.”

Pew Global Research has documented the “worlds” disapproval of our actions in Muslim lands. America has assumed the “world policeman’s role” in order to enforce hegemony contrary to the wishes of the U.N. General Assembly. The history of the U.S. over the last 60 years, and from the time of our inception, has been one of interfering with and overthrowing popularly elected governments we disagree with, and subjugating indigenous peoples and nations. Did the world “desire and invite” these actions? You are one of the many who believe that the U.S. can do no wrong and has done no wrong. You appear to be ignorant of history as well as current reality. It’s time that your American exceptionalism bubble be busted, Uncounted millions of dead along with massive human suffering are the result of U.S. global intrusions, but these facts of history are ignored or falsely justified by you and you ilk, and the above paragraph by you illustrates your ignorant, blindly patriotic thinking. You think yourself noble and moral, but you are the patriotic scoundrel Samuel Johnson wrote about. You share in the responsibility for incalculable suffering.

RE: DaveZx3, July 21 at 8:22 pm (cont.)

“Probably we were fooled in this regard by extremists in our own midst, and this needs to be reversed.  I think I can speak for most Americans in saying that if it needs to be reversed, it would take no more than an official document of dismissal from the world’s governments, including the UN, addressed to the citizens of the US, thanking us for our past services, and explaining that our services were no longer required.  This is required immediately.”

Yes it does need to be reversed, but the method of reversal you offer is one of the most simple minded, sophomoric, solutions to the problem I have ever encountered.

Dave,
One doesn’t have to be Islamic to hate what US foreign policy has done to rape any number of countries’ resources and assassinate anyone who got in our way. While there are radical Islamists who would like nothing better than to blow up the Capitol Building, how is that any different than the Chileans, Guatamalans, Ecuadorans, and Panamanians ranting Yankee Go Home? And that is just a small number in this hemisphere alone?  And how is that any different than our fringe extremists in the Democrat or the Republican Parties who are cut from the same spiritual stock as our Nazi sympathizers and militant bible-thumpers?

We seem too easy to justify usurping other peoples’ sovereign resources because it happens to fit in OUR version of what WE think foreign policy should be ........ and then we vilify anyone who then disagrees with that policy. The Islamists are the least of our worries. Our real terrorists all wear suits and ties.

To be called a bigot simply for expressing an opinion is unwarranted, mainly because the idea of being utterly intolerant, the main component of bigotry, has not been demonstrated simply by expressing an opinion.  Neither Herman Cain, nor myself have said that we are not open to overwhelming evidence of some sort which would show that Islam was not out to dominate and destroy western culture. 

I originally stated that Herman Cain should be given a break because he was merely believing the hundreds if not thousands of examples available everywhere which seem to document that at least the radical element of Islam IS here in America to destroy American culture. 

You cannot deny that evidence of this is everywhere, including coming out of the mouths of radical Islamists themselves.  They say these things daily.  I cannot believe that someone could deny that this evidence exists. 

Nothing I have said above makes me a bigot, because I am very willing, if not hopeful, to receive compelling other evidence that convinces me that radical Islam is actually peaceful and tolerant of my views and culture. Or that radical Islam does not actually exist. 

This idea that America deserves to be destroyed due to her imperialist actions is not valid.  America, rightly or wrongly, has assumed this world policeman’s role, most of us believe, because a world policeman was required, desired and invited by the world itself. 

Probably we were fooled in this regard by extremists in our own midst, and this needs to be reversed.  I think I can speak for most Americans in saying that if it needs to be reversed, it would take no more than an official document of dismissal from the world’s governments, including the UN, addressed to the citizens of the US, thanking us for our past services, and explaining that our services were no longer required.  This is required immediately.

The American people, like the Islamic people, have a problem in that they must find better ways to control the extremists among them.  But the average American would be happy at this point to bring all the troops home, close all the overseas bases, and go into a prolonged period of semi-isolationism in order to get her act back together, and pay off some bills.

I can coexist with my peace loving Islamic friends forever.  We both have a common ancestor and worship the same God.  We are in fact brothers.  The problem is the extremists among us, whoever they may be.

Herman Cain is not one of the extremists, and I am not one of the extremists.  We represent those who will continuously work to minimize the threat of extremism wherever it shows its ugly head, in Christianity or in Islam or wherever.  It is just a matter of acquiring all of the pertinent evidence and weighing it carefully to find out where the truth lies.  This is not an easy process in an age where lies, and deceptions are the norm.  We are all in a process of weighing the evidence and sometimes make decisions based on incomplete evidence, but only when a decision is urgently needed, and you must go by what you have.  You cannot show indeciseveness as a presidential candidate, so Cain goes by what he has.

None of this makes anyone a bigot.  And name calling serves no purpose in the process of discerning truth.  In fact when you resort to name calling, it throws your whole argument and all your evidence into a state of disrepute. 

So, be wise.  Present evidence for your case which can overwhelm evidence to the opposite.  This would mean that if I were to do a Google search regarding the “intentions of Islam in the West” I should be able to find 10 moderate articles for every extremist article.  This is what it takes to turn the tide of extremism, which is for the moderates and the peaceful to overwhelm the impact of the extremists.  This is true both for Christianity and for Islam, as well as anything else.  The preponderance of evidence is what swings minds, not nasty name calling.

Though traditionally bigotry and racism have been the hallmark of the “white trash” of America, Cain’s only merit, as a mentally-sick black man, is to prove to the world that the sickness of the heart, called bigotry and racism, is not always a monopoly of the whites, but there could be also “black trash-” based bigotry and racism!

Now, if there is a chance that such bigot, racist-in-reverse Cain can win the presidency-God forbid-, that would indeed mark the official collapse and rapid disintegration of America as a political, economic and social order.

“American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)has the private parts of the US Congress in such a vice-like grip that the Zionist regime’s interests come first in Washington.” (Stewart Littlewood writing in Sabbah Report)

The same situation applies to the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI), led by Cameron of Britain.

My point is that the danger to America and the West in general will not come from some 5 million Muslims; few hundreds of which might be fanatics, but rather from such groups as the (AIPAC) and (CFI)who rule over the politicians in both bankrupt America an bankrupt Britain, the two evil empires of of the 19, 20 and 21st centuries.

And by bankrupt I mean both moral bankruptcy and material bankruptcy.

By True Believer, July 21 at 12:10 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Christian sometime in the future, but I’m not going to do anything violent to promote that. I’m going to do it through education.”

*********************************************************************

People, who believe as True Believer believes, are annoying, infuriating even. True believer and his ilk are much in evidence, a significant part of the electorate, and according to my perspective, they are a threat to the ideals on which our nation was founded and our best aspirations, but not a mortal threat.

It was Ibrahim Hooper the National Communications Director and spokesman for CAIR who “candidly” said in 1993 in an interview with the Star Tribune, a Minnesota News Paper:

“I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future, but I’m not going to do anything violent to promote that. I’m going to do it through education.”

According to my assessment, this comment made by Ibrahim Hooper in 1993 is annoying and wrong headed, but I think the most serious threat to our ideals and best aspirations comes from the Christian Right, but still not a mortal threat.

According to my perspective, the mortal threat comes from Muslim extremists and people like Herman Cain, DaveZx3, coyotewise and others who’s unwarranted fear and hatred leads to persecution, war most cruel, and death, and not to peaceful coexistence. Muslim extremists get their justification for their cruelties because of people like Herman Cain, DaveZx3, coyotewise, and others, and vice a versa.

(I saw a mid-level Taliban leader on a Frontline documentary the other night who said, [Paraphrasing] “there will be no peace until you leave our country, we want to die, it is our holy cause.” The Frontline documentary pointed out that the war is getting worse, not better, and that U.S. policies are creating a seemingly endless supply of Taliban.)

coyotewise, July 20 at 6:54 pm:

‘“Well, here’s what CAIR says about itself, copied straight from its web site…”

I have never said that publically stated positions are, in fact, actual positions held by any organization.  Many groups have been shown to hide their true intentions with public policy statements that are diametrically opposed to their actual goals and policies.  ...’

Oh, I see.  Everyone in CAIR thinks alike, and they’re all uniformly lying and carrying on a secret agenda when they publish a web page like the one I quoted.  And you, somehow, know this, even though it’s a big secret.  Do you have a magic code ring from a box of Islamo-wheaties, or what?

”The most notable [expression] of this, today, is seen when…” Fox
News and Rush Limbaugh, Clear Channel and Sinclair Broadcasting,
and the rabid Christian Right KAWZ, the American Family Association
Radio, Bott Radio Network, Bible Broadcasting Network, and Moody
Bible Institute of Chicago, and their clones, get to vomit all over the
aethernet.  You did forget to include these miscreants.

coyotewise, July 20 at 9:45 am:

‘... Or Anarcissie’s silly quote, “CAIR is an organization.  Unless it practices group mind, it doesn’t mean anything”. An organization is formed by a group of like minded folks who share the same ideals and goals.  So, of course it means something when someone is cited as belonging to a certain organization. ...’

Well, here’s what CAIR says about itself, copied straight from its web site:

Core Principles
  1. CAIR supports free enterprise, freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
  2. CAIR is committed to protecting the civil rights of all Americans, regardless of faith.
  3. CAIR supports domestic policies that promote civil rights, diversity and freedom of religion.
  4. CAIR opposes domestic policies that limit civil rights, permit racial, ethnic or religious profiling, infringe on due process, or that prevent Muslims and others from participating fully in American civic life.
  5. CAIR is a natural ally of groups, religious or secular, that advocate justice and human rights in America and around the world.
  6. CAIR supports foreign policies that help create free and equitable trade, encourage human rights and promote representative government based on socio-economic justice.
  7. CAIR believes the active practice of Islam strengthens the social and religious fabric of our nation.
  8. CAIR condemns all acts of violence against civilians by any individual, group or state.
  9. CAIR advocates dialogue between faith communities both in America and worldwide.
  10. CAIR supports equal and complementary rights and responsibilities for men and women.

I would have said this was boilerplate, but now that you’ve assured me that everyone who joins CAIR fully believes in and pursues its principles, I see even less of a case for Cain.

I still have my doubts about group mind, however.  Have you experienced it?  Want to tell us about it?

If those Islamic fundamentalists want their own country or
land.. I found this site which lists American owned land
that is not populated…I mean empty!
Why not give it to them? here is the link! Let them live happily ever after in one of these places.
http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/15509

Again DaveZx3 cites an example of Muslim extremism implying that Muslims are colonizing America with the hope of creating an Islamic state here in the U.S. If I were so inclined I could provide thousands of statements asserting that Mossad and/or the Bush Administration are responsible for 9/11 along with a multitude of conspiracy theories, including comments from Americans about using violence to overthrow the U.S. government; are such comments proof that all Americans are planning to overthrow the U.S. Government? DaveZx3 has allowed his fear and hatred of Muslims to remove his ability to think and argue rationally. The real issue here is DaveZx3’s desire to deny Herman Cain’s obvious bigotry, and his arguments in that respect are futile, leading to his irrational and hateful dialectic. 

Organizations in the US started by activists involved with the Muslim Brotherhood include the Muslim Students Association in 1963, North American Islamic Trust in 1971, the Islamic Society of North America in 1981, the American Muslim Council in 1990, the Muslim American Society in 1992, and the International Institute of Islamic Thought in the 1980s.[15] According to the Washington Post, Muslim activists say MSA’s members represent “all schools of Islam and political leanings – many are moderates, while others express anti-U.S. views or support resistance against Israelis.”[

Maybe Heman Cain read this quote from Mohamed Akram, a.k.a. Mohamed Adlouni of the Muslim Brotherhood of America.  (All spelling from original document)

“The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Proecess” with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes”

Or he could be a subscriber to “islam-watch.org”.

Hey, maybe it is possible that all the 963 quotes that I have are all fake.  I actually have not checked back on all of them, as it is very time consuming.

However, I do fully agree that any Jew not totally loyal to the US Constitution should never be appointed to a cabinet position. 

It is not about the law abiding Muslims or any other minorities.  It is about Americans or other people who come to America to overthrow the constitution, whoever they may be. 

There are a number of sources one could google to show that it is not even really challenged that Islam radicalism is here to overthrow the great satan.  But that might be fake too.  I mean if everybody is lying, then where can I get information? 

I also will grant that radical Islam is not the only group seeking to undermine the American Constitution.  But, whoever they are, I don’t want them in our government, and that is not bigotry.

I have Muslim neighbors in this college town who are concerned about radical Islam messing up the good life that they have going here in America. 

So quit hyper-ventilating.  I am not saying anything that is not common knowledge.  (other than I have to check back to see if any of my quotes have been declared fake)  It’s so hard to keep up on all that stuff.

RE; DaveZx3, July 19 at 2:26 am

This entire discussion has been conducted under the dominance of a false premise. DaveZx3 has provided a long list of falsehoods that have been unchallenged, and apparently, many here have accepted these falsehoods as being truth. DaveZx3’s false accusations here regarding CAIR are very much like the false accusations made against ACORN and Shirley Sherod.

Shouldn’t DaxeZx3 and Herman Cain be equally concerned with: the United Jewish appeal, The Anti-Defamation League, The American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish committee, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, Zionist Organization of America, Americans for a Safe Israel, B’nai B’rith, and Agudath Israel.

DaveZx3 writes:
“Give Herman Cain a break.  He actually listens to what Muslims themselves say about these issues:…”

Herman Cain is not, “listening to what Muslims themselves say about these issues…” 

“It is well documented that Omar M. Ahmad, founder of CAIR, has stated, ’Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant.  The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth’”

It is not “well documented” that Omar M. Ahmad stated the above. The only source for this comment comes from one reporter, Lisa Gardiner, reporting for the “Fremont Argus” in California” and also published in the “San Ramon Valley Herald,” also in California.

“Ahmad told [the] Muslim leaders… the attribution is a ‘total fabrication’ and assured them the newspaper, the Fremont Argus in California, issued a ‘clarification’ after he ‘challenged’ reporter Lisa Gardiner.”

“’She’s lying,’ Ahmad said upon hearing Gardiner’s defense of the story. ‘Absolutely, she’s lying…”

“Ahmad said it was only in 2003 that he learned of Gardiner’s story, and by then it was too late to press any legal action.
‘I would have gone there and sued them if I had known about it,’ he said.”

‘I know I didn’t say that,’ he said. ‘How could anybody believe that when I say Muslims enjoy freedom here to worship, and it’s better for them than anyplace in the world.’”

“He [Ahmad] was one of several contributors to an editorial published by the San Jose Mercury News, April 27, 2003, titled, “We need a conversation on the post-9/11 world; What does allegiance in a time of war mean?
Ahmad began his piece saying, ‘America is one nation out of many peoples. Many of us from diverse backgrounds and diverse experiences can band together around a common theme: freedom. The protection and preservation of freedom should be the mission of all of us today.’”
At the same time, he entered into another flap over explosive verbiage, protesting Rev. Franklin Graham’s invitation to hold a Good Friday service at the Pentagon after calling Islam a ‘very wicked and evil religion.’”

(Cont.)

Much as I do not always agree with him ““Robinson has his head
up his ass,” is not guaranteed in the US Constitution.

#2

DaveZx3 continues with his distorted diatribe against Muslims by citing a false accusation made against Mosab Hassan Yousef:

“A consultant to the Holy Land Foundation terror-finance trial, Mosab Hassan Yousef, has stated that, ‘Americans must understand that the ultimate goal…(of Islam).. is to establish a global Islamic state over the entire world. ...they are required by the Quran to establish this global Islamic state on the rubble of every civilization, every constitution, every government.’  ‘This is not a doctrine of some freak Muslim,’ Yousef observed. ‘It’s the doctrine, the requirement, of the god of Islam himself and his prophet, whom they praise every day.’”

“Mosab Hassan Yousef … known as Joseph, is a Palestinian and son of a Hamas founder and leader Sheikh Hassan Yousef. From 1997 to 2007, he worked undercover for Israel’s internal security service Shin Bet that considered him the most valuable source within the Hamas leadership.”

“In 1999, Yousef met a British missionary who introduced him to Christianity. Between the years 1999 and 2000, Yousef gradually embraced Christianity. In 2005, he was secretly baptized in Tel Aviv by a Christian tourist. He left the West Bank for the United States in 2007 and lived some time in San Diego, California, where he joined the Barabbas Road Church.”

Ouwais Yousef, Mosab’s brother, denounced the report of his brother’s activities, saying “It was full of lies – it’s all lies”;

“The Haaretz report on Yousef was described by Hamas MP Mushir al-Masri as ‘psychological war being waged against the Palestinian people… [it] did not deserve a response.’”

Based on available information, my own appraisal is that Mosab Hassan Yousef’s activities to prevent violence are worthy of the highest commendation, but it seems apparent to me that Mosab Hassan Yousef has become an extremist, holding extremist views regarding Islam. He states:

‘Americans must understand that the ultimate goal…(of Islam).. is to establish a global Islamic state over the entire world. ...they are required by the Quran to establish this global Islamic state on the rubble of every civilization, every constitution, every government.’  ‘This is not a doctrine of some freak Muslim,’ Yousef observed. ‘It’s the doctrine, the requirement, of the god of Islam himself and his prophet, whom they praise every day.’”

The above can only be the statements of an extremist. Mosab Hassan Yousef was a captive of Shin Bet for a number of years; I’ll suggest that he has been indoctrinated into extremism by both Shin Bet, and by his fundamentalist Christian beliefs. It is also clear to me that what Mosab Hassan Yousef asserts regarding the beliefs of all Muslims, which might be of true of the most extreme Muslims, do not at all represent the views of the vast majority of Muslims, and that these claims are especially untrue of American Muslims.

Herman Cain acknowledges that the the following events are actually happening in the US: 

“*A U.S. judge refused a protection order for a woman raped by her husband, ruling the man’s abuse is allowed under Shariah Law.”

The above was a clear miscarriage of justice. This miscarriage of justice was not the first instance of miscarriage of justice in American Courts, and not at all exclusive to Muslims. The Drudge Report that first reported this incident further stated that, “Luckily, the appellate court overturned this decision, and a Shariah ruling by an American court has not been allowed to stand. This time.” This statement by the Drudge Report is a fear tactic, designed to create an unwarranted, and rediculous fear, that Shariah Law will come to take precedence over U.S. Law.

(Cont.)

#3

“*An American cartoonist is in hiding after a tongue-in-cheek “Everybody Draw Mohammad Day” promotion earned her a fatwa death order”

“Everybody Draw Mohammad Day” was inflammatory, and insensitive, affectively an attack on the traditions of Islam which would naturally elicit a defensive reaction from Muslims, however, the implication by DaveZx3 is that all Muslims believe that this cartoonist should be killed, which is absurd. “A fatwa has been issued against her and anyone who participated in Everybody Draw Mohammad Day. It appeared in an Al Qada online “magazine” and was issued by a former American turned Muslim cleric, Anwar Al-Awlaki, who now lives in hiding in Yemen.” Anwar Al-Awlaki is representative of only a very small percentage of Muslims, an extremist who advocates terrorism and is currently a target for assassination by the U.S. Government.

“*The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is blocking efforts to keep Shariah Law out of U.S. courtrooms”

“Muneer Awad, head of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations [CAIR] wasn’t surprised at the Nov. 2 vote — but he was sad and worried.
“You have a state-endorsed amendment in our Constitution that isolates, targets and marginalizes Muslims as a threat to the American way of life,” says Awad. “We would be stigmatized by this amendment as being an unequal member in the political community in the state of Oklahoma.”

“Marc Stern, a First Amendment lawyer with the American Jewish Committee, says there’s no way that fundamentalist Islamic law will be imported here.
So what would the new amendment do? Stern says it would favor other religious practices over Islamic ones. For example, Stern says, it is common for a court to accept a will, a prenuptial agreement or a contract based on religious law.
‘This amendment seems to say the courts can take no notice of Shariah law,’ he says. ‘It doesn’t say you can’t take notice of canon or Jewish or any other form of religious law that imposes requirements on religious believers. That, alone, would seem to be grounds for throwing this out.’”

“The amendment opens a Pandora’s box of legal problems aside from the First Amendment issues, says Joseph Thai, a law professor at the University of Oklahoma’s College of Law.”

“It’s difficult to find anyone who believes Oklahoma’s new law will survive.”

Federal Judge Preliminarily Enjoins Oklahoma Anti-Sharia / Anti-Foreign-Law Constitutional Amendment
Eugene Volokh • November 29, 2010 8:01 pm

The Oklahoma Law is now being considered by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“*Islam still has not banned “honor killings,” genital mutilation, pre-teen marriages, polygamy and a host of other rules that undercut the standing of women”

CAIR has a no tolerance policy for honor killings. Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for CAIR declares, “So-called ‘honor killings,’ female genital mutilation and not allowing women to drive are not part of Islam.”  Clearly these practices are evident to some extent but saying they are not part of Islam is technically correct. “Although there is no reference to circumcision at all in the Qur’an, there is a well-established tradition of male circumcision in Islam as a “sunnah” act. In the Abrahamic tradition this act is understood as a fulfillment of a covenant with God, but there are numerous health reasons for the practice. There is no mandate at all for female circumcision, however, neither in the Qur’an, the traditional reports (called hadith), nor medical theory.”

(Cont.)

#4

From the Book of Leviticus in the Bible:

“If you have sex with a slave woman, you must then scourge her. 19:20”

“Children who curse their parents, adulterers, and homosexuals must be killed. 20:9-12”

“Woman with “familiar spirits” must be stoned to death. 20:27”

“The unchaste daughters of priests must be burnt to death. 21:9”

Obviously modern day Christians do not adhere to the laws of the Book of Leviticus, nor do all Muslims adhere to the practices of some Muslims. The implication by DaveZx3 here is that all Muslims, including members of CAIR and American Muslims ascribe to the most barbaric practices of some Muslims; which is demagoguery of the worst sort.

“ [Our ally] Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that prohibits women from driving.” 

“The deaths of at least 10 women in the U.S. and Canada in the last seven years have been linked to Islamic ‘honor killings’”

The deaths of those ten women represent .001% if the total numbers of people murdered in the U.S. in the last 7 years. Muslims have no monopoly on violence committed against women, “According to FBI statistics, 30% of female murder victims… were killed by their husbands or boyfriends.”

“More than 200 women in the United States kill their children every year according to aaanet.org. [American Anthropological Association].”

“*A California elementary school has revised its instructional schedule and added a 15-minute “recess” after lunch to allow Muslim students to pray in a separate room and pork was removed from school-lunch menus”

Bad School policy, or enlightened policy to accommodate the cultural and religious practices of students, but this is certainly not an indication that we are in danger of becoming a nation governed by Shariah Law, or that our schools are promoting Muslim extremism or terrorism.
“*A Massachusetts public middle school decided to take a “cultural diversity” field trip to a local mosque, where the boys participated in Islamic prayer while girls were excluded.”

Clearly DaveZx3 is citing anti-Muslim talking points from an anti-Muslim website, or he went to great lengths to find examples of a perceived Muslim threat. 

“*One public university spent $25,000 to install foot-washing stations on campus”

Accommodating the needs and desires of students with expenditures for non-educational items can be legitimately criticized, unless those criticisms are directed at items specifically for one ethnic or religious group. DaveZx3 is displaying xenophobic prejudice.

DaveZx3 concludes his anti-Muslim diatribe by exposing himself completely and absolutely as being an anti-Muslim zealot, and bigot.

“So, it would appear from these and hundreds of other similar events or quotes, that Islam is getting some special treatment from public institutions.  Herman Cain has every right to comment on this without it making him a bigot.  These are legitimate legal considerations which have the potential for severe consequences if not handled properly.”

Herman Cain goes far beyond objecting to special treatment by proclaiming, any community has the right to ban a Mosque. DaveZx3 states these are “legitimate legal considerations” “with a potential for severe consequences if not handled properly” “Proper handling” appears to be the suppression of religious freedom and the propagation of fear and hatred to DaveZx3.

(Cont.)

#5

DaveZx3’s distortion, vile nature, fear and hatred are openly displayed: 

“Robinson has his head up his ass.  Even his Jewish analogy is bullshit.  If a presidential candidate said, “I would not feel comfortable appointing a Jew who advocates Israeli interests above American interests” no one would have any problem.  That is what Cain meant regarding a Muslim.  He meant a Muslim with a CAIR agenda.”

The CAIR agenda is, improving American-Islam relations, and promoting civil liberties and human rights. CAIR has been accused and absolved of nefarious activities, and can only be considered an evil organization by fear mongering, Muslim hating, bigots.

DaxeZx3 might be cogent when he writes:   

“Robinson says, “Freedom of religion is, of course, guaranteed by the Constitution.”  Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.”

Unfortunately, the Constitution does not guarantee anything. The authority of the Constitution has been undermined by politics and pronouncements such as “The Constitution is just a God Damned piece of Paper,” (As reportedly said by George W. Bush,) but the First Amendment to the Constitution is quite clear:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

DaveZx3 offers an absurd and ignorant statement:

“Nowhere in the Constitution does it say religions are free to do whatever they want in the name of Jesus or Allah or anybody else.  That is an absurd statement, that there is freedom of religion.  If there was, Christians would not get in trouble for wearing “Jesus” T-shirts to school or getting arrested for peacefully handing out literature in public.  And Muslims would not get in trouble for
praying in school or excluding women on field trips.”

Again the Constitution is quite clear regarding Religious freedom, that those freedoms have been violated does not change the intent or meaning of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that “Separation between Church and State” was the intention of the founding fathers, and the First Amendment to the Constitution but, according to my interpretation, allowing the free practice of religion does not establish a state religion, far from it, it only allows freedom of religion (All religions.)

“Eugene Robinson continously reveals himself as nothing but a lackey for the elite, whose immediate goals include keeping Americans hopelessly divided and impotent.”

Robinson is clearly partisan, he might well be described as a lackey for the elite [?] but his intention is not keeping Americans “divided and impotent” his intention is to unite Americans to his perspective, and to make his perspective potent. 

“Thanks Eugene for being such a ‘champion’ of the people.  You are not even worthy to carry Herman Cain’s luggage.”

This is DaveZx3’s clearly stated opinion, mine is that Herman Cain is a lackey for the most tangible and powerful elite, and that he is very much attuned to, and in sympathy with, the powerful elite’s prejudices and unjust practices.

My crooked fascist mentality notwithstanding, I never have to resort to the calling of names to make my points.  You may be enlightened, but you have incredibly bad manners.

Son of Palestine, stupidity cannot see any way to give breaks,
the mind just isn’t there.  We must give ourselves the breaks by
thoroughly discreditiing the stupidly bigoted.

To DaveZx3:

If you are not capable, in your crooked fascist mentality, to recognize the evil bigotry of Cain, then you must be yourself the epitome of bigotry.

It’s your stupidity that needs to give Robinson and all of us who are enlightened a break!

Cain represents a Republican Party that has been rabidly
anti-intellectual for half a century.  Robinson’s comparatives
of what the reaction would be using other religions in lieu of
Muslims has limited justification, but not really very much.  It
is not even that much racist.  The real argument is that Herman
Cain has decided to steal his way into national politics on a
religious issue with which all of the Republican candidates are
attempting in one guise or another to seduce the moral minded
population. He has nothing else to offer.  It is the exploitation of
religion once again rearing its beastly head.  Isn’t it really the work
of Satan?  And that should tell you exactly what the Republicans are
up to.  Evil and nothing else.

Gene, Gene, Gene,
When will you ever get with the issues? There are socially responsible Democrats AND the Republican counterparts; albeit too few of both sides. Bigotry is not solely a Republican trait. But it’s the others on BOTH sides of the aisle who are destroying this country. If you want to focus on bigotry, fine, but why not also address the erosion of civil liberties and and attempted destruction of the Bill of Rights? I didn’t think you would go there, because then you have to also implicate your star Wall Street shoe shine boy as well.

Elizabeth Warren, probably one of the most important candidates this country will ever see, has just been snubbed by your buddy Obama and you are once again plunking away on your keyboard avoiding the real stories.

Anarcissie,

From the Christian standpoint, all the end times ‘justice’ is instigated by Christ.  There is nowhere in the teachings of Christ that his earthbound followers are obligated or instructed to instigate any of that apocalyptic violence.  The war that Christ initiates against Satan is never considered to be fought with humans fighting on the side of Christ.  I have never seen that alluded to.

Any Christian who has the idea that it is up to him or them to bring about the conversion of the world is incorrect in his thinking.  They are commanded to preach the gospel or good news to the world, and that it is.  Even the conversions of those who hear the word are the responsibility of the Holy Spirit in strict Christianity.  The believers are mostly in a ‘waiting mode’.  And their real purpose is to aid in bringing in the millenium, a thousand years of peace and love.  The Christian is never commanded to attack an enemy, period. 

Muslims on the other hand do have a different take.  Their prophet commands them, apparently, to bring about the conversion of the world.  And in this respect, though I agree with you that the overwhelming majority of Muslims, pretty much ignore this, as most Christians ignore the teachings of Christ, there are the lesser numbers of the dedicated who must be treated differently. 

Cain, I believe, clarified that he would not appoint someone whose full allegiance was not to the US Constitution, which I do not think should be seen as a bigoted statement.  He was speaking about those who are actively seeking the absolute authority of the Koran and Sharia law in America.  Few that they may be, they do seek an unnacceptable goal, IMO, and I hope yours. 

I do agree that there are many incorrectly thinking pseudo-Christians, who think they have to take matters in their own hands as well, and they are a separate problem, as are the peaceful Muslims who are recruited by the radical Muslims against their will. 

It is not helping anyone to avoid addressing the presence of a multitude of radical elements in this country, and as I said, I don’t think it is bigoted to do so.  Nor is Cain.

DaveZx3—I don’t see how my views are delusional.  Abrahamic scriptures and religious writing in general are full of violence and hatred for infidels, and prescribe totalitarian imposition of beliefs on the world.  Fortunately, most of those who subscribe to these religions don’t take their holy books and prophets very seriously, at least not when it comes to doing harm to their neighbors.  That includes most Muslims.  So there is no particular reason to exclude Muslims as such from political office, and Cain’s promise to do so is clearly an exercise in playing to religious bigotry.

It is because Cains head is up AIPAC’s collective ass.

I am not arguing for religious discrimination.  I am just being honest enough to admit that those who believe in ideas similar to those expressed by Anarcissie in her post below are delusional. 

—————————
By Anarcissie, July 19 at 1:23 pm

“CAIR is an organization.  Unless it practices group mind, it doesn’t mean anything.  What the individuals mean who say such things varies.  A lot of Christians and Muslims profess belief in the total conquest of everybody by their religion, but they don’t seem to relate it to the everyday world.  For them, the drama of world conquest seems to take place on another plane, as remote from daily life as the legends of antiquity.  It’s there but it isn’t tangible.”
—————————-

It may be true that these words don’t affect you down at the laundramat, but somewhere in the world today, someone actually strapped bombs to themself, or at least planned to strap bombs to themself, and went out and killed a bunch of people in the name of Allah, or Jesus Or Yahweh, or whatever. 

This happened because they believed in the words they heard as a result of belonging to an organization, such as CAIR or whatever.  You are absolutely incorrect to think that the words don’t mean anything, in spite of the fact that it is true that probably 90% or more of those belonging to such organizations do so in a totally uncommitted way.  But that statement is more about the schizophrenia of the 90% rather than the dedication of the 10%. 

I don’t fear the 10%.  I just think we have a right to restrict their ability to have their way when it is oppressive to our freedom.  I don’t care whether they are Christian, Jew, Muslim or whatever, they have no right to force their ideologies against the will of the communities they live in.  Communities should resist intolerant, dominating ideologies. 

This used to be a hallmark of progressive thinking, but strangely it is being waived with regards to Islam. 

When I said there was no freedom of religion, I meant that religions do not have a free pass to do whatever they want in violation of secular law or community standards.  You do not have a right to build a church or a mosque wherever and whenever you want.

Religions being subsidized by taxpayers, means that citizens do have a say.  Freedom to worship as you please does not extend to freedom to expand, monopolize, proselytize and dominate at will.  It is not granted to Christianity, nor should it be granted to Islam.  There are absolute secular restrictions on religions, at least until one of their gods actually comes down and reveals himself.

We are not required, in the name of freedom or the first amendment, to open up the gates without restriction to individuals who say things like:  “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant.  The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth”. 

That oversteps the personal worship anticipated by the first amendment, and it enters the realm which is restricted by that amendment, which is for any organized religion to usurp the state and attempt to become the “highest authority in America”, essentially displacing the constitution. 

Wherever and whenever religion attempts that, they should be squashed in accordance with secular law, and that happens regularly, and is what organizations such as the ACLU are all about.

I am not a Herman Cain supporter, but I do support his contention that the dedicated forces of Islam do intend to dominate and control America and the rest of the world.  I know that, because I listen and read the words which they, themselves say and write, granted only the 10%. 

Going back to Anarcissie’s point, if no actions were ever taken with regards to words, then the words themselves are not offensive.  It is the actions that accompany the words which are offensive.

One thing that is so bitterly ironical is that while many of us are worried about
being “taken over” by religious laws prescribing obedience to irrational
restrictions, we are acting oblivious to our own political and judicial officials as
they systematically encroach upon our democratic civil and political rights
under the guise of “protecting” us from “terrorism.” 

One vitally important example:  Many if not most of us have already forgotten
that under Bush the ancient and honorable right of habeas corpus was almost
totally taken away and has not been restored. Many other so-called
“inalienable” civil rights are being breached (example:  extraordinary rendition
and torture) by the very organizations who tell us they are protecting us from
losing our democracy.

The details of proscription may be different but the resulting damage to human
rights, and the destruction of the human spirit,  is all too similar.

DaveZx3, July 19 at 8:40 am:

By Anarcissie, July 19 at 8:16 am Link to this ent

Almost all religions say stuff like that, especially -Christian sects.
—————————————————-

So you are saying that Cair does not mean what they said?  Then why did they say it? ...

CAIR is an organization.  Unless it practices group mind, it doesn’t mean anything.  What the individuals mean who say such things varies.  A lot of Christians and Muslims profess belief in the total conquest of everybody by their religion, but they don’t seem to relate it to the everyday world.  For them, the drama of world conquest seems to take place on another plane, as remote from daily life as the legends of antiquity.  It’s there but it isn’t tangible.  Hence we all get along most of the time in spite of our religions.  I notice the Bengalis, Albanians, Uzbeks and Bosnians in my neighborhood (in Queens, New York) haven’t made the slightest effort to convert me or bring down Shari’a on the laundromat.  I’m hopeful that we can continue rise above our savage gods.

Both Cain and Eugene Robinson appear to have lost touch with reality.  At least Cain has an excuse being tortured as a prisoner of war.

The article otherwise is infantile and divisive.  It reminds me of a schoolgirl running to her elementary teacher to tell on a classmate for saying a naughty word.  Or just plain stupid gossip.

One religious goon (christian) saying something demanding upon another religous goon (muslim) who makes demands upon another religious goon (jew).  Do you see the circularity and positive feedback of this loop Eugene?  Can you not see the antidote?

In this case I’d have to side with Cain. The Govt is throttling back on everything that is “God” in a public domain so why should Islam be any different? Any religion that tries to put itself in front of the Constitution and Bill of Rights in any way should be stopped dead in its tracks. The building of a mosque is one thing, trying to impose Sharia Law in America is unacceptable.

By Anarcissie, July 19 at 8:16 am Link to this ent

Almost all religions say stuff like that, especially -Christian sects.
—————————————————-

So you are saying that Cair does not mean what they said?  Then why did they say it? 

Besides, I have never seen any quote like that from a Christian organization.  Nothing at all like that quote from CAIR.

Herman Cain is absolutely right.  Why would a president of the US appoint someone to his staff who has loyalties to an organization which has goals such as that stated above?  Political correctness can go only so far.

DaveZx3, July 19 at 2:26 am:

Give Herman Cain a break.  He actually listens to what Muslims themselves say about these issues:

It is well documented that Omar M. Ahmad, founder of CAIR, has stated, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant.  The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth” ....

Almost all religions say stuff like that, especially Christian sects.  That doesn’t exempt them from the protection of the First Amendment.  All that we observe here is the incapacity of Mr. Cain to process simple logic.  Unfortunately, that won’t disqualify him for high office; quite the contrary.

it is time to vigorously promote disorganized religion/piety and to utterly destroy all vestiges
of organized religion.
so, i wld not want a church,mosque,or synagogue on this planet let alone in my
neighborhood.

i also suggest that mosheists wld like to utterly destroy mohammedans,islam, and all
mosques and vice versa.
christians wld love to destroy islam and mosheism and vice versa. we’ve known this for at
least 3 kyrs

and there is not much hope, if any, that the three mafia-structured orgs and ogres, wld ever
cease with own respective dissemination of hatred/intolerance/fear/falsehoods against
equality builders and one another.

so, what’s so novel ab. a christian politico spewing hatred towards islam, yet much frightened
to attack mosheism; which,to me,is as a vitiating ism as is capitalism,
americanism,mohameddanism,catholicism,sybaritism,jesusm,meritocracism,serbianism,
russism?

robinson needs badly to cast the widest/longest look possible; only such a look can bring us
an elucidation and an adequate freedom. tnx

Eugene Robinson labeling someone but himself a bigot?  Apparently Mr. Robinson owns no mirrors.

Give Herman Cain a break.  He actually listens to what Muslims themselves say about these issues: 

It is well documented that Omar M. Ahmad, founder of CAIR, has stated, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant.  The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth”

A consultant to the Holy Land Foundation terror-finance trial, Mosab Hassan Yousef, has stated that, “Americans must understand that the ultimate goal…(of Islam).. is to establish a global Islamic state over the entire world. ...they are required by the Quran to establish this global Islamic state on the rubble of every civilization, every constitution, every government.”  “This is not a doctrine of some freak Muslim,” Yousef observed. “It’s the doctrine, the requirement, of the god of Islam himself and his prophet, whom they praise every day.”

Herman Cain acknowledges that the the following events are actually happening in the US: 

*A U.S. judge refused a protection order for a woman raped by her husband, ruling the man’s abuse is allowed under Shariah Law

*An American cartoonist is in hiding after a tongue-in-cheek “Everybody Draw Mohammad Day” promotion earned her a fatwa death order

*The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is blocking efforts to keep Shariah Law out of U.S. courtrooms

*Islam still has not banned “honor killings,” genital mutilation, pre-teen marriages, polygamy and a host of other rules that undercut the standing of women

The deaths of at least 10 women in the U.S. and Canada in the last seven years have been linked to Islamic “honor killings”

*A California elementary school has revised its instructional schedule and added a 15-minute “recess” after lunch to allow Muslim students to pray in a separate room and pork was removed from school-lunch menus

*A Massachusetts public middle school decided to take a “cultural diversity” field trip to a local mosque, where the boys participated in Islamic prayer while girls were excluded.

*One public university spent $25,000 to install foot-washing stations on campus

So, it would appear from these and hundreds of other similar events or quotes, that Islam is getting some special treatment from public institutions.  Herman Cain has every right to comment on this without it making him a bigot.  These are legitimate legal considerations which have the potential for severe consequences if not handled properly. 

Robinson has his head up his ass.  Even his Jewish analogy is bullshit.  If a presidential candidate said, “I would not feel comfortable appointing a Jew who advocates Israeli interests above American interests” no one would have any problem.  That is what Cain meant regarding a Muslim.  He meant a Muslim with a CAIR agenda. 

Robinson says, “Freedom of religion is, of course, guaranteed by the Constitution.”  Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say religions are free to do whatever they want in the name of Jesus or Allah or anybody else.  That is an absurd statement, that there is freedom of religion.  If there was, Christians would not get in trouble for wearing “Jesus” T-shirts to school or getting arrested for peacefully handing out literature in public.  And Muslims would not get in trouble for
praying in school or excluding women on field trips.
 
Eugene Robinson continously reveals himself as nothing but a lackey for the elite, whose immediate goals include keeping Americans hopelessly divided and impotent. 

Thanks Eugene for being such a ‘champion’ of the people.  You are not even worthy to carry Herman Cain’s luggage.

And Obama can get away with murder in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and now Somalia. The whole rotting corpse of a system needs to be set aflame.