Now that the Republicans will control the House of Representatives, we finally will have some serious discussions within the government regarding the issue of Muslim radicalization and terrorism. Representative Peter King (R-NY), the incoming chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, has vowed this to be the case.
For too long, the Obama Administration including Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano as well as Congressional Democrats have gone to great lengths and recklessly denied any possible connection between Islam and terrorism. This is an absurdity that defies logic but also places our nation at greater risk.
Finally, we can expect a rational assessment and some concrete suggestions that may afford us more protection and preparedness.
Incoming House Homeland Security Chair Plans Hearings on Muslim Radicalization
Wes Barrett Dec. 20, 2010
Representative Peter King (R-NY) says he'll call for hearings into the radicalization of Muslim Americans when he takes over as chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security in the new congressional term.
In an interview on FOX's "America Live," King said "We have to break through this politically correct nonsense which keeps us from debating and discussing what I think is one of the most vitally important issues in this country. We are under siege by Muslim terrorists and yet there are Muslim leaders in this country who do not cooperate with law enforcement."
And he also notes a rise in terrorist recruitment in the United States saying, "We have the reality that Al-Qaida is trying to recruit Muslim-Americans, and yet we have people in the Muslim community who refuse to face up to this."
King cites foiled terror plots to bomb Times Square and the New York Subway, the 2009 Fort Hood shootings, and arrests of who he calls "homegrown Muslim terrorists" in Texas, Chicago, Virginia, New Jersey, San Diego and Portland, Oregon as examples of the type of radicalization on which the hearings would focus.
But some Muslim groups have said such hearings would be an anti-Muslim witch hunt and lead to an era of McCarthy-type hearings.
"Rep. King has dedicated years of his career peddling extremist rhetoric and baseless claims concerning the Muslim community and its leadership," said Faiza Ali, community affairs director of the New York chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations [1].
"Instead of promoting counterproductive strategies that risk alienating partners within the community, Rep. King would better serve our nation if he actually engaged mainstream American Muslim leaders and organizations on issues related to national security."
But the congressman says he'll use the hearings to drill deeper into the divisive issue and points out that Muslims themselves are most susceptible to being victims of terrorism. "The immediate victims are Muslims themselves, whose sons and daughters could end up being killed as suicide bombers," he said.
We are being herded like sheep through airport security with Big Brother subjecting us to privacy robbing humiliating inspections either through digital means (and irradiating us as well) or multiple digit means (government sanctioned sexual assault). This is government imposed soft tyranny all in the name of security where we are all supposed to be treated equally.
Wrong!
There is an element of subjectivity that allows for inappropriate targeting of victims (see Baywatch babe for example) which clearly violates one’s personal rights.
The Obama Administration and Democrats support this egalitarian approach so as not to offend “Muslims” – the same group of people who have been shown to have a near total monopoly worldwide on terrorism.
They are blatantly stating that it is OK to offend, humiliate and violate the rights of tens of millions of innocent American travelers instead!
This is an abhorrent and perverse abuse government power and we should not continue to acquiesce.
Outrageous as this is, new evidence reveals that we have been duped all along regarding the true level of true security realized by these combined approaches despite the abuses and dehumanizing sacrifices that we have had to make in return. Independent research has revealed that these scanners can miss massive quantities of explosives such as PETN which could easily be smuggled aboard a plane and used to cause catastrophic damage.
The following article details these findings and the false sense of security that the scanners provide.
Journal Article: New Graphic TSA Scanners May Not Detect Powerful Explosive
Jonathon M. Seidl December 12, 2010
A new peer-reviewed journal article by a pair of University of California-San Francisco researchers reveals that the TSA’s new x-ray body scanners may not be as safe as the government agency wants the public to think. In fact, the scanners might not even detect pancake-sized bombs containing PETN, the explosive used in the failed “underwear bomb” last Christmas.
According to Leon Kaufman and Joseph W. Carlson in the Journal of Transportation Security, the scanners could miss PETN bombs if they were taped to a person’s body in a flattened, rounded manner.
The researches write about their findings in the article “An evaluation of airport x-ray backscatter units based on image characteristics.”
From the introduction:
We show that the body is exposed throughout to the incident x-rays, and that although images can be made at the exposure levels claimed (under 100 nanoGrey per view), detection of contraband can be foiled in these systems. Because front and back views are obtained, low Z materials can only be reliable detected if they are packed outside the sides of the body or with hard edges, while high Z materials are well seen when placed in front or back of the body, but not to the sides. Even if exposure were to be increased significantly, normal anatomy would make a dangerous amount of plastic explosive with tapered edges difficult if not impossible to detect.
The article goes on to explain the pancake explosive theory:
It is very likely that a large (15–20 cm in diameter), irregularly-shaped, cm-thick pancake with beveled edges, taped to the abdomen, would be invisible to this technology, ironically, because of its large volume, since it is easily confused with normal anatomy. Thus, a third of a kilo of PETN, easily picked up in a competent pat down, would be missed by backscatter “high technology”. Forty grams of PETN, a purportedly dangerous amount, would fit in a 1.25 mm-thick pancake of the dimensions simulated here and be virtually invisible. Packed in a compact mode, say, a 1 cm×4 cm×5 cm brick, it would be detected.
The article, as is common in journals, is rather technical. But the conclusion remains: the “backscatter” technology has its limits and its loopholes, and may not be the savior of airport security.
The Washington Times goes as far as to call the new scanners a “fraud” in an editorial last week.
“Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano insists the public should trust her when she says the expensive airport scanners are safe and effective,” the editorial says. “Until now, there has been no way to verify this claim because the TSA and the scanner manufacturers have cloaked key operational data behind a veil of purported ‘national security.’”
It continues:
The researchers pointed out that the manufacturers of airport scanners positioned contraband like guns, knives and drugs in unnatural ways to conceal the limitations of their device. For example, the simulated drugs are always packed into tight rectangles that show up distinctly on the machine. TSA employees would have a far more difficult time spotting less tidy terrorists. “The eye is a good signal averager at certain spatial frequencies, but it is doubtful that an operator can be trained to detect these differences unless the material is hard-edged, not too large and regular shaped,” Mr. Kaufman and Mr. Carlson wrote.
The editors’ conclusion calls for the scanners to be scrapped:
In the end, this false sense of security creates a blindness that real terrorists will exploit. Continuing to rely on this fundamentally flawed technological crutch makes air travel more dangerous. The plug must be pulled on these invasive and ineffective machines.
In the following eloquent editorial, Pamela Geller decries our Nation’s ostensible unilateral surrender to Islam without a fight. It is not due to the complaisance of the general public – at least those that are not Progressives.
No, most Americans are very angry – livid - at what is going on, what they are seeing and the consequences of “political correctness” as judged by the Left.
It is not our military either. Most of them believe in the defense of freedom and liberty and not the subjugation of fellow citizens.
The reasons that we are experiencing an insidious invasion and transformation in this country with Islam taking center stage is because of our liberal and progressive politicians who can’t seem to believe that some people can harbor such deep seated hatred of us and our way of life and that a religion is based on, preaches and rewards hate, intolerance, violence and domination. This is despite countless wanton attacks committed on innocent people throughout the world involving myriad disparate societies, governments and socioeconomic levels.
Strongly supporting this perverted tack is the news media in general. In fact, they provide further motivation for these jihadists.
“No profiling” they assert.
“Let the Muslims practice their religion (which is an all encompassing way of life).”
“To hell with Jews and Christians” they are in effect saying.
So, for example, we now have the outrageous body searches of old ladies, cancer patients and children so as not to offend the “kind” Muslims and single them out.
These jihadists don’t mean us any harm” these Progressives claim. “They are just a little misguided.”
“Brainwashed.”
The American public vehemently disagrees with this ideology, attitude and approach. They are tired of acquiescing to the unrelenting complaints and endless list of demands of Muslims which all come at the high price of our freedom and rights. They want special rights and preferential treatment which is not granted to any other groups.
We MUST to put our foot down NOW, draw a line in the sand and not yield another inch to these terrorist and this religion of hatred, intolerance and subjugation.
We must fight this incursion relentlessly as well as oppose, thwart and oust the politicians who support this appeasement.
Starting with Obama!
Surrendered Nation
Pamela Geller November 28, 2010
The turkey being served up last Thursday by the ruling elite was the American people. Because she was wearing a panty liner that obscured the screener's view of her genitals, a TSA official subjected a menstruating woman to a fondling "so invasive that I was left crying and dealing with memories that I thought had been dealt with years ago of prior sexual assaults."
When did we agree to surrender to Islam? Seriously. Whom did we appoint or elect to negotiate this surrender? Our surrender has been parceled out in loss of freedom, accommodation, and submission to Islamic supremacist demands, and in foreign policy that is supine before Iran and cozying up to the Taliban.
Explain to me how -- after 9/11 and the tens of thousands of Islamic attacks across the world that have been committed in the name of jihad since then, as well as the myriad Muslim insurgencies in numerous countries, the accelerating destruction of Western civilization in Europe, and the hundreds of jihad plots that have been thwarted in the West -- the American people were sacrificed without being consulted.
We cannot address jihad or the teachings that mandate Islamic imperialism and violence for the glory of Allah. Nothing is being done to defeat that which inspires the enemy. Barack Obama has banned words relating to Islam and jihad from the anti-terror lexicon. When in India, he was asked for his opinion, his "take" on jihad, and he surrendered in his response, saying, "Islam is one of the world's great religions."
Every day we are forced to submit to some form of Islamic law, the Sharia, in businesses like Disney, Wal-Mart, Target, Rising Star Industries, and J.B. Swift. Individuals are losing their jobs for insulting Islam -- we see the mosqueing of the workplace, Islamic finance, academic jihad, virulent Islamic anti-Semitism, historical revisionism, and other advances of Islamic supremacism in every aspect of our daily lives.
Meanwhile, those who speak out against all this are marginalized, vilified, and silenced. My website, Atlas Shrugs.com, has just been banned from Veterans Administration computers, along with my colleague Robert Spencer's JihadWatch.org. Both were banned for giving voice to "controversial opinions."
I wonder how veterans feel about that. Fighting jihad is controversial? So what are our soldiers doing in Afghanistan and Iraq? It's a real head-scratcher.
And it all represents a massive societal surrender by the Obama administration and our political elites. And who softens us up for this civilizational suicide? The media.
Who chose the media to negotiate the surrender?
NBC is naming a waiter-turned-thug-turned-impostor developer, Sharif El-Gamal, as "person of the year" because he is behind building a triumphal mosque at Ground Zero, the site of the largest, most heinous attack on U.S. soil in American history.
Then there is this outrage: one of TIME magazine's "Person of the Year" candidates is the radical Ground Zero mosque imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who has said that "the U.S. has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaeda has the blood of innocent non-Muslims on its hands" and that Osama bin Laden was made in the USA. His mosque initiative, remember, is named the Cordoba Movement; Cordoba is a city that in the Islamic world is iconic of Islamic conquest over the West.
Meanwhile, once again we have to look north for leadership with a moral compass. Canada will boycott a planned antisemitic U.N. conference on racism in New York in September 2011, Durban III, because it promises to be nothing more than a "hatefest," directed largely at Israel.
G¬_d bless Canada. Obama, you shame us yet again.
The U.S. should have been the first to take a stand against genocide and apartheid. But Obama won't; he'll be at Durban III, dragging the U.S. down even farther than he already has. And we will be there, too: my group, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, is already planning to protest Durban III. We will be there with thousands of defenders of freedom and Western values and those who refuse to allow a second holocaust. Evil will not win this time. Six million Jews will not be sacrificed to Islam.
Plan your vacation, time off, sick leave for September -- stand with us against Islamic supremacism.
And at some point, all lovers of America and of freedom will have to go on a massive apology tour to the free world for the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama.
We have seen virtually no repudiation of Islamic terrorist acts and “jihad” by the world Muslim community in general or important religious figures in specific. Our country is despised by these individuals because of our lifestyle and laws: personal freedoms, rights, and liberties. These are extremely unlikely to change to any significant extent – particularly since the basic tenets of Islam are based on intolerance, control and indoctrination.
Why then should we give away billions of taxpayer dollars that have had little positive effect on their perception of and attitudes toward the Western World, and more specifically, the United States? Evidence is irrefutable that the situation is worsening rather than improving. Much of this money and other aid is ultimately used against us in one form or another.
Furthermore, in attempts to appease these Muslims, we are sacrificing valuable and important relations with other countries, most notably Israel, and we are being made more vulnerable to terrorist acts, other violence and abridgement of freedoms.
Let’s keep our money (and the lives of our soldiers) and not give it away to these intransigent hate-mongers. We have far better uses for it here.
Unrequited Muslim Outreach
Investor’s Business Daily 10/29/2010
Foreign Policy: A new international poll shows the folly of Washington's strategy of winning Muslim "hearts and minds." Despite all our help, Muslims still hate us.
Titled "The Great Divide: How Westerners and Muslims View Each Other," the new Pew study reveals that Muslim countries generally view Westerners as violent and immoral. Large majorities of even British Muslims think Westerners are "selfish" and "arrogant."
Above all, foreign Muslims hate American foreign policy, which in a disturbingly large share of their minds justifies terrorism.
Fully 57% of Jordanians think it's OK to attack civilians in jihad. A simple majority of Egyptians agree.
Even so-called moderate leaders are against us. "Yes, Muslims are against the West," responded Adnan Abu Odeh, 73, former political adviser to Jordan's King Hussein. "Why? Western foreign policies, especially on two issues: the Palestinian issue and now Iraq.
"These are the issues people talk about day and night. And which the news focuses on day and night. And they come to the eyes and ears of the Muslims who have been surveyed, daily in the bloodiest way — it's killing, women screaming and yelling, and soldiers frowning. So what they hate is American foreign policy."
Muslims also blame us for their lack of prosperity. Nearly half of Turks, among the better educated of Mideast Muslims, say Western policies rob them of wealth. This Jordanian pharmacist is typical of respondents:
"There is no prosperity because the United States has seized all our products, all our oil and all our wealth. All of it goes to the United States and the West," Hassan Omar Abdel Rahman said. "It is not about the internal politics. Look at Saddam, you see what happened to him — did he come out with anything?"
Agreed Mohsen Hamed Hassan, a Cairo doctor: "I believe the American foreign policy is responsible for the greedy image. They support dictatorships because they want their oil."
A majority of Americans more accurately blame Muslim government corruption and a lack of education for chronic Muslim poverty.
Though they are beneficiaries of $10 billion in direct U.S. aid since 9/11, Pakistanis still hold us in contempt. Pew found that most think we are "selfish, immoral and greedy." "The West has an expansionist policy and they want to get hold of this portion of the world," said Sadia Omar, a 34-year-old housewife from Rawalpindi. "They will never be friends with us."
Laughably, majorities of Muslims in Pakistan and the Mideast think we are less "respectful" of women than they are. But perhaps the biggest divide comes over who's responsible for 9/11.
Americans overwhelmingly blame Arab Muslims, while Muslims abroad, including 56% of British Muslims, insist someone else carried out the attacks. Denial, as they say, is not just a river in Egypt.
We suspect Pew would find similar hostility among the American Muslim community if it had included it in its survey. A recent Gallup poll of U.S. Muslims found that, despite herculean outreach efforts and remarkable tolerance toward them, "Muslims are the most likely group to report feeling anger compared with the overall population."
America has gone trillions in debt and sacrificed thousands of its sons and daughters saving Muslims from tyrants and terrorists in Kosovo, Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan. And this is the thanks we get?
Why are people and politicians in particular so fearful of being P.C.? Are they so afraid of the media and liberals that they don’t have the backbone to stand up for what they believe?
Furthermore, these politically correct “standards” are opinions only … and those borne of liberal ideology. They are not factual. It is only because the media is so far-left, still somewhat influential and shrill that “violations” of their diaphanous tenets garner high decibel effects.
Why can’t conservatives fight more vociferously for their convictions and not succumb to or be apologetic to liberal attacks? It is not a matter of being nice. Their yielding to political correctness just further weakens our social fabric, economic conditions and even national security.
This leads us to the “quandary” of Islam. Is it a religion of peace with only a few radicals who are giving the religion a cosmetic blemish as believed by and vocalized liberals including the news media, liberals and most Democratic politicians? Or, is it an inherently intolerant, brutal “religion” that subjugates and abuses women and non-believers and calls for wanton violence against and death to those who refuse to succumb to its authoritarian, restrictive and all encompassing tenets and mandates and rewards those who commit such heinous acts in the name of their religion? This is largely the position of conservatives and many independents.
We believe the latter is the absolute irrefutable truth as evidenced by the writings of the Koran, the actions of tens of thousands of terrorists, and the tacit and overt support of their actions and proclamations by tens of millions of Muslims worldwide.
If we want to protect America and our country from terrorist attacks and even thwart the slow and insidious loss of our rights and freedoms as a consequence of our being too politically correct in order to avoid offending Islamic “sensibilities” (quite an oxymoron), we must recognize this inherent violent and intolerant nature of Islam.
We also must be relentlessly intransigent in defending our position and acting accordingly.
Perfect Muslim Soldiers
Investor’s Business Daily 10/25/2010
Islamofascism: O'Reilly, Whoopi and Joy are all wrong. The 9/11 terrorists weren't "Muslim extremists" or just plain "Muslims." A liberal newspaper reporter says they were model Muslims.
More precisely, they were "perfect soldiers" for Allah, says Los Angeles Times national correspondent Terry McDermott.
He would know. After traveling to the hometowns of the Muslim hijackers and investigating their family backgrounds, McDermott discovered they were not heretics or even "extremists," but in fact good, pious Muslims.
And their families and communities encouraged them to join the never-ending Islamic holy war, or jihad, against us.
The lefties at NPR who fired analyst Juan Williams and the cackling hens on "The View" who walked out on his Fox colleague Bill O'Reilly would benefit enormously from reading his book, "Perfect Soldiers: The Hijackers: Who They Were, Why They Did It." It would open their PC-encrusted eyes to a truth that is already self-evident to most Americans.
The detail-rich book — which is endorsed by anti-war gadfly Seymour Hersh, no less — reveals that the 19 hijackers did not "hijack Islam," as conventional East Coast wisdom would have it. They weren't career criminals using the religion as an excuse to wantonly murder people. Nor were they misled into martyrdom by Osama bin Laden or other Svengali personalities.
On the contrary, they were deeply religious Muslims following the tenets of their faith, McDermott found. Most of them were from well-off families.
"Several were described as among the best boys — bright, respectful — in their towns," he reports in his book. "Many had gone to university," he adds. "Three had studied Islamic law." At least one, Ahmed al-Haznawi, had memorized the Quran, a sign of deep devotion much respected by Muslim elders. In fact, he earned the honorary religious title of "hafiz" at a young age.
McDermott describes how another hijacker, Wail al-Shehri left home to train for jihad in Afghanistan after a long period of recitation of Quranic verses. He had the approval of a local imam.
But he wasn't the only one who knew what they were planning. "Two-thirds of them told their families they were leaving to join the jihad," McDermott writes, adding that their families did not discourage them. "They went where they were called by their religion."
That's not the story we heard after 9/11. In media interviews, the parents of the hijackers expressed shock about the deeds of their sons. We must have the wrong men, they insisted. Their boys could never do such a thing. Jihad? What jihad?
Take Egyptian Mohamed el-Amir, father of 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta. Right after 9/11, he denied knowing anything about his son's activities. Then in 2005, after the London bombings, he confided to a CNN producer in his apartment in the upper-class Cairo suburb of Giza that his son had done a good thing and that the London suicide bombers were following in his footsteps. He said all this was just the start of a 50-year religious war, and that there would be many more fighters like his son.
El-Amir, a "skilled lawyer" by McDermott's account, declared that terror cells around the world were a "nuclear bomb that has now been activated and is ticking." He passionately vowed that he would do anything within his power to encourage more attacks.
Instead of mouthing tolerant-sounding platitudes and misleading their audiences about the true nature of the threat we still face, Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar and NPR's executives should educate themselves. They can start with McDermott's "Perfect Soldiers," which punctures the politically correct mythology surrounding 9/11.
The Obama Administration seems incapable of identifying any foreign enemy of the United States, most notably Islamic terrorists. On the other hand, it has no problems identifying those Americans who oppose its extremist policies as “domestic terrorists”. This can also occur at the state level.
This is just one more sign of a government that is too powerful, arrogant and more authoritarian in nature.
And a sign that we need to oust those ascribing to these policies and take back our rights and Country.
Lawsuit planned after protesters put on terror list
Andrew Conte, Mike Wereschagin and Brad Bumsted
PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW September 15, 2010
An activist who believes he was improperly included on a state terror threat list said this morning he is preparing a federal lawsuit.
"When people's civil rights are trampled it's a federal issue," said Gene Stilp of Harrisburg, who holds a Virginia law license but does not practice as an attorney.
Gov. Ed Rendell, speaking Downtown this morning, said he does not believe activists' Constitutional rights were violated.
The statement was a reversal from what he said yesterday. Asked in Harrisburg on Tuesday whether monitoring activists was "tantamount to trampling" on their Constitutional rights, he said: "I would say so."
Rendell said he is "deeply embarrassed" by the disclosure that state Homeland Security officials included information about protesters on what was supposed to be a list of possible terrorist threats.
"Being embarrassed doesn't cut it," Stilp said.
The list, which included information on public hearings that opponents of Marcellus gas drilling might attend, was sent to drilling companies.
Stilp said he believes he was among those monitored, based on Rendell's comment that a 25-foot inflatable "pink pig" Stilp takes to rallies was included in the monitoring.
"The pig! They were after the pig," Rendell said Tuesday. "That pig is what makes Harrisburg a very special place."
Stilp owns the pig and frequently displays it at the Capitol at protests over what he sees as government excesses.
Stilp said an outside investigation is warranted, by the attorney general or federal authorities.
The state paid a Philadelphia-based nonprofit $125,000 to compile the list as part of the state Homeland Security's federally mandated mission to protect public infrastructure.
The list included a Washington County meeting that Rendell attended to discuss Marcellus shale gas drilling, a screening of a documentary on the industry, a rally supporting Rendell's education budget and anti-tax protesters who took an inflatable pig to Harrisburg.
Homeland Security officials distributed the list in a security bulletin to government and law enforcement officials — including Pittsburgh City Council members — as well as universities and gas drilling companies.
City Councilman Doug Shields said he was "flabbergasted" about the bulletin he received by e-mail last week.
"The governor was outraged. I'm outraged. I'm glad this was put an end to, but we will be seeking answers. ... There will be requests of information from the state government for an explanation of who these people are, who made the decision to essentially engage in espionage and who is behind it."
Shields said he wants to see the financial statements of York-based Institute Of Terrorism Research And Response, a registered nonprofit, according to state records.
"Am I on a list somwehere? Am I on someone's dossier?" Shields said.
"If there's a list I hope we're all on it," said Councilwoman Theresa Smith.
Rendell said he "should have been notified" about the contract, but that it didn't warrant firing Homeland Security director James Powers. It was a "cumulative responsibility" and it would do no good to "make him a scapegoat," Rendell said.
The state will not renew its one-year contract with the Institute of Terrorism Research and Response when it expires in October, Rendell said.
The nonprofit, which has offices in Washington and Jerusalem, provides "actionable intelligence briefings" and "threat and hazard monitoring," among other services, according to its website.
"We maintain confidentiality with our clients, and we respect that confidentiality," said Mike Perelman, co-director of the institute.
The gas industry has to know of physical threats to its workers and equipment, but it supports people's right to discuss the issues, said Kathryn Klaber, president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry trade group in Cecil.
"Where we have to be vigilant, I believe, is ... if infrastructure is being targeted and the safety of employees and the communities we operate in are at risk," Klaber said.
Drilling industry opponents said they pose no danger. Barbara Pribila, 45, a founder of the anti-drilling Lincoln Place Action Group, said she never considered herself a rebel — and certainly not a threat to homeland security.
"I thought this was a free country and I was allowed to have my own opinion," Pribila said. "Now what, you're going to watch me and every move I make? That's not right."
In the following incisive video, Pat Condell from across the Pond, rebukes both Americans who support the Ground Zero Mosque as well as those who are not vocal enough in expressing their opposition. He also elucidates the modus operandi of Islam and its evil, violent, destructive, intolerant and insidious nature.
As has been stated numerous times before, this mosque is a Trojan Horse and will be an icon for the ascendancy of Islam and the defeat and subjugation of the West.
The delays in deciding upon and constructing a Post 9/11 Memorial are inexcusable. Even more outrageous is the spinelessness of countless politicians and bureaucrats in not legally making it a National Historic Landmark and allowing a trojan horse leviathan of a mosque to be built nearby.
Americans are overwhelmingly and vehemently against this mosque being constructed which purportedly is being financed by supporters of terrorism and will represent the subjugation and defeat of the West by Islam.
And why isn't "president?" Obama weighing in on this issue in support of America, for the symbolic preservation of liberties and freedoms and for remembrance and honor of the 3000 victims who tragically were murdered by Islamic terrorists?
Print This Post
Subscribe to Our RSS Feed
Follow Us on Twitter
Comments