Going off the Cliff

Inside a CAIR ‘Civil Liberties’ Lecture (Family Security Matters)

Community Event means Muslim Community Only.

Only in the whacky world of Islam  would a ‘civil liberties’ event involve curtailing First Amendment freedom. (ROP)

“Notes for personal purposes exclusively are allowed, other than that they are not allowed.  So for personal education purposes, so you understand.  Anyone writing for the purposes of defaming the Muslim community or writing about the Muslim community or like, that would be considered trespassing, thank you.”

“You can stay but no cameras, no recording….you are welcome to listen, there is nothing secret about it but we will not allow cameras or recording.”  –(very informative article worth reading!)

I must be an Espositophobe

Esposito  sees nothing but “Islamophobia” wherever he looks. Al Ahram tells us that he  “stands among the handful of Western scholars able to take a deeper look at the scene and resist the tide of Islamophobia”.  We have exposed Espostio many times as a shameless prostitute on this blog and will continue to do so.

In “AP’s war on national security” at WND, Pamela Geller discusses AP’s avid quest to destroy the NYPD’s counterterror program, and criticizes the Obama DOJ for engaging in collusion with Islamic supremacist groups:

The Associated Press, in a crushing violation of journalistic integrity, has filed suitagainst law enforcement to disarm the greatest counter-terrorism unit in the world, the New York Police Department (NYPD). It is bent on shutting down a counter-terror program that is entirely legal and legitimate, because it involves surveillance of Islamic supremacists such as the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Muslim Students Association.

Even New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has never met an Islamic supremacist he didn’t bow to, has stood by this program and defended it, but that is not good enough for AP. Read more AP’s war on national security

At Atlas Shrugs Monday I took National Review to task for an article downplaying the Sharia threat:

Last week National Review published an article by Matthew Schmitz, deputy editor of First Things, claiming that “the anti-sharia movement in this country…endangers our national security by alienating loyal Muslim citizens and assaults religious liberty.”

Sharia obviously does not grant religious liberty, so why is Schmitz so eager to accommodate a parallel  justice system that won’t tolerate him? There is more

Sharia, a  parallel legal system:

It’s not as if a radical Muslim will refrain from jihad or honor killings or polygamy or spouse abuse simply because it’s illegal