The following are excerpts from a public address delivered by former Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Al-Jaafari, which aired on Al-Alam TV on January 29, 2012. MEMRI provides the transcript and video of Al-Jaafari’s comments in which he references Newt Gingrich and proclaims that America has no history: In some countries, people have been blinded by the truth. Many of the [Republicans] candidates in the coming elections scramble to bring Palestine down. Republican candidate Newt [Gingrich] even said that the Palestinians are an invented, artificial people. The Palestinian people is invented?! Palestine, with its thousands of years, since it was the land of Canaan, which evolved into Palestine – that deep-rooted Arab and Muslim country… That is the invented people?! Or is it, with all due respect to the American nation… I am not a racist, but if I examine the history of the rise of societies, America is not the American people. The American people are the Indians. This is a problem in America. They suffer from a complex, because America has a short history. It has no history. Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1492. That was yesterday. America was founded only recently. The Arabs and the Muslims, on the other hand, are the pioneers of civilization. Watch below, courtesy of MEMRI:
ContributorNetwork – Crockett Keller, the owner of Keller’s Riverside Store near Mason, Texas, offers firearms training for people wishing to qualify for a concealed carry permit. However, no “socialist liberals,” Obama supporters or Muslims need apply.
See the rest here:
Texas Firearms Instructor Will Not Train Socialist Liberals, Obama Supporters or Muslims
(ContributorNetwork)
The ANC [American News Commentary] reported in its September 21, 2011 issue that the ACLU is defending the right of Muslims to exercise prayer in public schools in San Diego… Really? Is that a change of heart or the expression of a cowardly and terrified heart? It is most likely the latter. Let me explain. Over the
See more here:
The ACLU – A Change of Heart or Cowardice?
A screen shot from the Muslims Against Crusades web site

Read the original post:
Radical Islamic Group: We Will ‘Make As Much Noise As Possible’ During 9/11 Moment of Silence
Last year, when protests erupted in Temecula over a planned mosque there, I wrote : Are folks in Temecula a bit intolerant? Or are we now going to prohibit the construction of mosques whenever there’s local opposition? I didn’t follow up so much, but the mosque was approved by the city council in January and construction could begin in February 2012 . And while I could be missing some details of the local protests, I think it’s good. Conservatives must affirm freedom of religion. What gets lost in the debate over New York’s Ground Zero Mosque is that opponents never denied the developer’s right to build. It’s way beyond that, in fact. Clearly it’s been a sham development all along, with the purpose of bilking government and erecting a center for Islamist supremacy. There’s never been concern among Imam Rauf and Daisy Khan for the families of the fallen. The lies have been too blatant and unending. That mosque shouldn’t be built. It’s a question of what is right, not who has the right. That said, I guess I’m still ambivalent, despite my commitment to constitutional principles. Americans aren’t getting the whole story. And those who speak out are branded as vicious racists. For my part I want to be firm but fair. On the one hand, I want to place my trust in people like M. Zuhdi Jasser, who I met at the Horowitz retreat earlier this year. (Recall his essential article from September 2010, ” Questions for Imam Rauf From an American Muslim ,” and here .) On the other hand is someone like UCLA’s Hamzah Baig , the lead organizer for Students for Justice in Palestine. I interviewed him earlier this year. He might as well have been working for Hamas. So, I’ve personally been engaging and interacting with people from the both sides of the religion (the extreme side in the case of UCLA’s quasi-terrorists). At home, in the Irvine community, the Muslims I bump into at my kids’ schools or the playgrounds are mostly to themselves, even self-segregating rather than integrating. And honestly, on occasion I’ll see Islamic women with the full burqa. I literally would not be able to talk to a woman in a burqa, because I read lips and I obviously need to see someone’s face. So of course the burqa is physically intimidating, and it’s a symbol of religious repression. For all that, I appreciate the efforts of some Muslims to work in their communities to build ties and friendships. Yesterday’s Los Angeles Times had another feature in its 9/11 series, and it’s worth a look, ” Thinking outside the ‘Muslim bubble’ “: Maria Khani was at her computer that September morning, working on an Arabic textbook. The small TV on the desk was turned to Al Jazeera. Suddenly, news came: A plane had struck the World Trade Center. Minutes later, she watched the screen as the second plane hit. Khani sat frozen, questions racing through her mind: “Oh, my God, what do I do right now? Is everything that I built … gone?” For five years, she had been planting the seeds of goodwill with Americans of other faiths. What if it was all for naught? Unlike many Muslims who hunkered down after Sept. 11 and let national religious organizations defend their rights and make their case in the public square, Khani resolved not to retreat into the safety of silence, but to press on with her efforts over the years to become a part of her community, one neighbor at a time. When Khani walked out of her house that day in a well-to-do Huntington Beach neighborhood, on a block of large houses and palm-shaded driveways, neighbors approached with no hint of rancor or suspicion. Their message: “We know who you are, we know about your faith, and we support you and we will take care of your kids.” This was not the experience of every Muslim American. Many recall the first months and years after Sept. 11 with dread: the detentions, the airport searches, the suspicious stares, racist epithets and worse. In response, some sought safety in a low profile. The decade since the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon has seen a shift in the way many American Muslims negotiate their delicate position as a minority group associated, fairly or unfairly, with the perpetrators of the deadliest acts of terrorism in the nation’s history. As the years wore on and the hostility continued, even intensified, a number of American Muslims became disenchanted with the official campaigns for acceptance. They began to see that a voice — their voice — was missing from the conversation about Muslims’ place in America. They took matters into their own hands. Their efforts have been as idiosyncratic as the individuals involved. They have been as simple as inviting a non-Muslim neighbor to an iftar, the sunset meal that breaks the fast during the monthlong observance of Ramadan. They have been as life-changing as making a commitment to educate one’s children in a religiously diverse public school instead of a Muslim private school. Khani and others involved in such outreach attempts believe — and this is supported by opinion surveys — that Americans are less likely to harbor anti-Muslim feelings if they get to know even one Muslim. When they do, they find that American Muslims, many of them immigrants or the children of immigrants, share with them many of the same values, including a rejection of extremist violence, appreciation of hard work and support for women taking an active role in society, according to polls. RTWT. I could quibble with a couple of the characterizations (President Bush went out of his way to remind Americans that we’re not at war with Islam). But overall that sound about right to me, and I hope especially that we see more and more examples that Americans Muslims are indeed rejecting extremist violence. For example, at ABC News, ” Cousin of Fort Hood Shooter Speaks Out Against Violent Extremism .” And at the San Bernardino Sun , ” Poll: American Muslims reject extremism .” That’s good news. I’ll have more on this in upcoming posts.

Originally posted here:
9/11, Ten Years After: American Muslims Join the U.S. Mainstream?
The following a guest post from Karen Lugo Earlier this week in New York there was outrage from a Muslim American Society group over the no-headgear policy of the Rye Playland amusement park. Some members of the group had come to the amusement park to mark the end of Ramadan, and though they had been forewarned of the park’s safety policy with regard to headgear, some cried discrimination at not being allowed on certain rides while in hijab. Now, publicly commenting on Muslim female headgear can be a risky proposition. In my case, a statement regarding a hijab-wearer who filed an EEOC action against Disneyland contesting Disney’s refusal to allow her hijab as part of a costume led to charges of hate speech on leftist blogs and became a rallying point for demonstrations demanding my termination as a visiting law professor. However, the point remains that Fourteenth Amendment equal protection for ethnic and religious groups was not designed as a platform to compel preferential treatment. If non-discrimination policies mean anything, they mean that discrimination, whether against — or for — specified groups, is not tolerated. This business of demanding that rules or employment contracts bend to accommodate one group when the regulation is written in terms that apply equally to all does not comport with American constitutional intent. Nor does it sit well with most Americans. To the point of this particular controversy, the idea of demanding a change in an amusement park rules also is not likely supported by many American Muslims; probably a majority. One of the Muslims at the Rye Playland event even acknowledged that “the point could be a safety issue.” Simply stated, Americans have not voted for an affirmative action program on behalf of women in hijab. Even if we did, many affirmative action programs do not survive constitutional review in the courts on the very premise that they call for favorable treatment of one group over another. The alternative of imposing the foreseeable (key word in proving liability for damage awards) risk of fly-away hijabs on the park management would invite a jury finding of negligence in light of the 2005 fatal accident at Rye Playland, as well as other known incidents including the Australian go-kart death of a burq- clad woman. Even worse, rather than wearing the closely wound hijab on this day at the park, most of the women shown in news footage were wearing loose, waist-long scarves that would likely provoke a safety-conscious operator of a fast ride to object – whether or not there was an official rule in place. Apparently the amusement park welcomed the Muslim group, but with the stipulation that Muslim American Society (MAS) activity organizers were aware that there was a prohibition of headgear on risk-related rides. Hijab-wearing women were not excluded from entrance to the park or enjoyment of most rides; nor were they singled out for different treatment. In fact, a Jewish woman told reporters that she had no problem with the way that ride operators asked her three sons to remove their yarmulkes for certain rides. And in a final display of conciliation, the park offered those who expressed surprise and anger over enforcement of the rule a refund of their admission costs. The bottom line is that these women simply had to make the same decision that an observant nun would make: Is the religious observance more important that the ride? People of faith make similar principled decisions every day – that is, when the choice is a matter of principle and not of stagecraft. Considering all of the above facts, the park melee begins to look like an unfortunate grievance play. In the tradition of the Flying Imams, victimization episodes are becoming tedious and they serve to undermine legitimate claims when there is true religious discrimination or persecution. It is also noteworthy that the MAS, an organization described as part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s infrastructure in the United States, was well aware of the rule and, thus, may have been more interested in a controversy than it was in planning a successful mass Muslim outing to celebrate the end of Ramadan. Stay tuned. The last act has likely not been played since videotape has been promised. The Muslims complaining of excessive police force say that the footage will confirm their claims. In the meantime, park management and law enforcement have no way to address the charges or counter the public relations campaign waged on all television networks by enraged Muslim women. Finally, there is a simple solution that has been perfectly acceptable to Americans for centuries: When the rules are legally sound but not personally appealing, vote with your feet and your pocketbook. Plan the next group outing to a park like Six Flags Great Adventure, where the roller coaster policy is less restrictive of women in hijab. Karen Lugo is co-director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and founder of the Libertas-West Project.
Visit link:
Rollercoasters and hijabs: Staged rage?

