Yearly Archives: 2010


The True Face of Radical Islamism Revealed in Recent Poll

Posted by Dr. Marc Weisman Dec 20th 2010 at 8:47 am in IslamIslamic extremismMedia Criticism,ObamaTerrorismUncategorizedshariaComments (82)

When undeniable information is released that reveals the true radical face of Islamism at home or abroad, leftists simply cannot accept it for what it is—the truth. They say that even if a link between Islam and violent action can be incontrovertibly proven “over there,” in America there is no such problem. We are at the crossroads of the same path that Europe traveled a few years ago; we can choose to move right or left. Western Europe turned left on that path, and it led to a radical Islamization of much of the continent. I pray that we have the wisdom to turn right.

For those of you who do not know, there is a somewhat rare type of stroke that leaves a patient completely unaware of their entire right side. In the medical profession, we call it Right Hemiagnosia, or more colloquially, “right neglect.” I finally figured out what the heck is wrong with the Obama administration: they suffer from right neglect.

Last month, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel had this to say about Islam in Germany: “Our experiment with [Islamic assimilation and] ‘cultural pluralism’ has utterly failed.” Other European nations have begun to reaffirm this. Sweden recently passed laws outlawing minarets, France has enacted tough new laws limiting the immigration of Muslims who do not seem to desire assimilation into French society, and the Danes are looking to similarly restrict radical Muslim immigration.

This month, the Pew Research Center provides some interesting information, specifically with regards to why Islamic multiculturalism has failed. Their most recent poll on this subject is titled, “The Great Divide: How Westerners and Muslims view each other.” Two distinct populations were surveyed: six Muslim-majority countries and four Western European countries, each with large and growing Muslim minorities.

Many of its findings are unsettling to say the least. In every Muslim nation surveyed, the majority does notbelieve that Arabs carried out the September 11 terrorist attacks against America. They actually believe that Americans, Israelis, or some other undefined group of people carried out the attacks. Just think about the level of disinformation and mind-boggling self-deception that must prevail throughout the Muslim world to generate this wacky notion. As Daniel Pipes alluded to in an essay earlier this week, Islam remains immersed in conspiracy theories and other wild acts of collusion. Because this fiction is far more palatable than the truth—apparently to a majority of Muslims—one sees how today’s brand of Islam has been slow to embrace modernity.

On the ever-popular and revelatory subject of terrorism, there is a host of troubling poll findings. Osama Bin Laden is still widely revered in most Muslim communities. Favorable views of Al Qaeda, although down considerably, are still nearly 20% in Pakistan and Egypt, 23% in Indonesia—which is the most populated Muslim country—34% in Jordan, and nearly 50% in Nigeria. Muslim support for suicide bombings, although lower than previous polls in some countries by double digits, remains ominously popular. Amongst German Muslims, there is still a 13% approval rating of suicide bombings; in Lebanon, 39%; in Nigeria, 34%; in Egypt, that figure is just over 20%. Let’s not forget that the PEW poll two years ago in America revealed that among young U.S. Muslims, 1 in 4 approve of suicide bombings.

Even more disturbing to the discerning reader are the responses to questions that undeniably reflect the chasm between the modern world and much of Islam. Hundreds of millions of Muslims reject civility for the crude violence of yesteryear. 80% of Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan, as well as 70% of those surveyed in Jordan and 56% in Nigeria, are supportive of ferocious whippings and the cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery. 82% in Pakistan and 77% in Egypt favor making this type of punishment the law in their countries, as do 65% of Muslims in Nigeria and 58% in Jordan. Even more revealing is that more than three-quarters of all Muslims in Jordan (86%), Egypt (84%), and Pakistan (76%) say they would favor a law that would kill any Muslim that forsakes Islam. Is it really any wonder why so many Muslims have difficulty assimilating?

Is anyone shocked that there has been a lack of worldwide press coverage of these damning findings?  I think not. We have grown so accustomed to this bias that we barely recognize it anymore.  This complacency actually worries me more than the senselessness of these Muslims themselves. I am still waiting to hear from the “moderate” Muslims that I know are out there (although many of you disagree). Frankly, I’m also waiting for more of us to scream from the rooftops that this is a serious problem—one that requires our attention, not our appeasement.

Instead of common-sense action and shouts of righteous indignation, I awakened yesterday to an almost unbelievable story that involves U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. His Justice Depatment is suing a suburban Chicago public school system for declining the outrageous demands from a Muslim teacher, Safoorah Kahn, of just 9 months employment to take a three-week hiatus from school to attend “The Pilgrimage,” or Hajj: a trip to Mecca, Saudi Arabia, which is a tenet of Islam. He is demanding they reinstate Khan with back pay and pay her compensatory damages. Are you kidding me? Can you imagine Holder taking to task a school that denied a Christian a 4-week trip to the Vatican for Lent?  Or a Jew demanding a trip to Jerusalem for the High Holidays? I have come to expect Islamist appeasement from this president, but this is beyond the Pale. I ask again: is anyone surprised at this outrageous action? Where is the mainstream media in covering this latest abomination (or Obama-nation)? Again, I suggest that we have grown so accustomed to the media’s and this administration’s right-neglect that we barely react to it anymore.

We need to urge our president and left-leaning Americans to wake up, smell the Turkish coffee, and join us in national conversation on how we can avoid the disaster unfolding in Europe. I can assure you that this administration’s unabashed mollification to slow (stealth) Jihad is exactly the wrong thing to do.

2010-12-21T17:27:25+00:00 December 21st, 2010|

Who CAIRs?

Posted on BigPeace 11.19.2010

Posted by Dr. Marc Weisman Nov 19th 2010 at 8:29 am in Homeland SecurityIslamic extremism,ObamaTerrorismshariaComments (8)

All over the planet, Islamic extremists are plotting the murder of Americans by blowing airplanes out the sky. “Aviacide” seems to be the preferred method of terror by these hateful idiots whose minds have been poisoned by jihad. In recent years (and at a rapidly increasing rate) we have seen  planes crashed into skyscrapers, underwear bombs, shoe bombs, bombs shoved into the rectums of both people and dogs, bombs in luggage, bombs in printer cartridges—and who knows where else. Pardon the apophasis, but if it weren’t such a serious subject I might quip about how writing about these kinds of assorted explosives feels like writing part of a Dr. Seuss book.

While there exists no way to fully protect us from these murdering zealots, we do have new technology and a new approach to this problem that the Obama Administration has apparently sanctioned. On the technological side are two new scanning devices: the millimeter beam and the backscatter. While these technologies appear to be safe, I am a seasoned enough physician to know that everything deemed to be safe is only really safe until the inevitable next study that refutes its safety.

I am pleasantly surprised that the President—in between mea culpa’s and apologizing to Muslims around the world for the horrors that America has allegedly perpetrated against them—approved aggressive but respectful “pat-downs” of passengers who refuse scanning.

It comes as no surprise that The Council on American-Islamic (Islamist?) Relations, CAIR, recently issued a travel caution to Muslim airline passengers on U.S. aircraft in response to the Transportation Safety Administration’s heightened “pat down” policy that went into effect in October. In the “special recommendations for Muslim women who wear hijab,” it advises: “Before you are patted down, you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down.”
It also points out that: “Instead of the pat-down, you can always request to pat down your own scarf, including head and neck area, and have the officers per form a chemical swipe of your hands.”  So, it seems, if any Muslim terrorist wants to be certain to escape either scanning or a body pat down—they now simply need to wear a hijab. Thanks again CAIR, for doing what you do best: exploit the American obsession with appeasement. Can we blame CAIR? They know from our pattern of response that we’ll trip over ourselves to provide extremist Muslims with special privileges if they fall under the umbrella of bogus religious protection or “tolerance.”
Many conservatives have come out strongly against both airport scanning and pat-downs. It seems that for these folks, the “small and unobtrusive government” tenet of conservatism wins over the overarching responsibly that every government has to protect its citizens. While I generally denounce what I believe to be the more destructive and divisive ideology of the left, in this instance, the right is wrong. I understand that most conservatives oppose having “choices” made on our behalf by the hand of government, but life is full of contradictions; in this case, one of the screening technologies (scanner vs. pat-down) should be mandatory if one is to fly to or within the US. While I’m well aware of Ben Franklin’s well-known adage, “He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither,” in the real world compromise is necessary. As I point out in my book, Re-United States, while most Americans object to the inconvenient sacrifices of certain privacies associated with air travel, we would object much more to being blown out of a plane’s fuselage at 35,000 feet above the ground.

In summary: we should ignore CAIR, get our priorities straight, and welcome the greater scrutiny that just may prevent the next tragedy.

2010-11-19T17:34:26+00:00 November 19th, 2010|

Juan Williams and the Twisted Minds of the Super-Tolerant

Posted at by Dr. Marc Weisman Oct 23rd 2010 at 8:30 am

IslamIslamic extremismMedia Criticism,PoliticsTerrorismshariaComments (19)

As a few of you may already know, Juan Williams, the liberal Fox News commentator and civil rights champion, wasabruptly and rudely fired on Thursday after the Council of Arab Islamic Relations (CAIR) not-so-subtly urged NPR to cut him loose.

What egregious act caused the axe to drop on Williams? The Monday before Williams was fired the commentator appeared on The O’Reilley Factor. Responding to a question posed to him by O’Reilley, Williams said that he, too, experiences anxiety about flying in a Post- 9/11 world. “When I get on a plane ,” Williams said, “I’ve got to tell you—when I see people who are in Muslim garb, and I think, you know, they’re identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”

Williams’ statement was an attempt to demonstrate that people’s fears—fears many of us hold, regardless of how rational they may be—need to be reconciled with the rights afforded to us under the constitution. However, in the twisted minds of the super-tolerant left, the die was cast.

But let’s really examine how illogical or prejudiced William’s admission actually was. Are we to forget that there have been at least six credible attempts to blow up airplanes by Islamic extremists in the past few years alone? Should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the current administration and the “mainstream” media have never pushed the silent majority of so-called moderate Muslims to speak out against extremism?  Or that they castigate those who do?

The Williams affair comes on the heels of an episode of the view, where those oftentimes less-than-irreproachable women from ABC’s The View—Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Beyhar— literally got up and walked off their live set on October 15th. The stunt was an attempt to paint Bill O’Reilley a xenophobic bigot by feigning disgust.

As I think the entire world now knows, The View incident occurred when O’Reilley had the audacity to point out that the 9/11 terrorists were actually Muslims.

Now, we have this equally bizarre incident with Williams. I must admit that I’m both puzzled and delighted by these stories. I am puzzled because no matter how hard I try I just cannot wrap my head around the naïve, Islamist-denying drivel that is flooding America today. I am delighted because this provides yet two more indefensible, ideology-driven, and irrational examples of the political left attempting to exercise their self-appointed roles as the politically correct guardians of radical Islam.

Let’s recap: CAIR, a Muslim activist group widely acknowledged as an Islamist organization itself, calls upon NPR to discipline a liberal, black commentator and champion of civil rights for sharing his widely-held fears about Muslims in the post 9 /11 world. They demanded this in response to his candid and reasonable admission that he feels angst when boarding a plane if fellow passengers include traditionally-garbed Muslims.  Then—the unabashedly liberal (and partly federally funded) NPR—terminates Williams’ ten-year employment with a text message followed by a phone call. Being the class act they are, they declined to meet him face to face to discuss his termination.

Maybe it’s just me, but this seems odd. Especially when Williams clarified on the same program that “We have an obligation as Americans to be careful to protect the constitutional rights of everyone in our country and to make sure that we don’t have any outbreak of bigotry—but that there’s a reality. You cannot ignore what happened on 9/11 and you cannot ignore the connection to Islamic radicalism.”

What Williams’ termination proves once again is that any dissent or outrage to Islamic extremism won’t be challenged in an open forum. Instead, the debate will be limited and the entire thing will be swept under the rug. And if you don’t think it will ever happen to you, let me share a story of my own:

As some of you know, I spent two years writing a book, Re-United States, which was recently published. The entire book is dedicated to exactly this issue: divisions within America and among Americans—some of which are real and some of which are imagined—and how these divisions cripple our approach to understanding radical Islam. I just learned that Re-United States will not be endorsed by my local community’s Jewish Book Fair this fall and that I, a new local author, will not even be listed in the new local authors section. No one had the civility to notify me or explain to me why I am being excluded, so I can only speculate. Could it be that my book’s message is incongruent with the local ideology?

My situation is not unique, and Williams’ termination is only the most recent example of it to grace national headlines. Dissent, even when it applies to opinions that the left is quick to label with ugly words like “xenophobic” or “fear mongering,” lead to a more mature national dialog. The left needs to be held to the fire and forced to defend their beliefs rather than allowed to (literally) walk off the set.

In fact, this kind of discourse might lead to Americans stop appeasing and start demanding the “silent majority” of Muslims to pick a side–hopefully ours. Many believe there is no moderate majority of Muslims, but I vigorously demur. Muslims the world over may be taught far too frequently to feel superior, to promulgate Islam by hook or by crook, and even to abhor infidels, but they are not all buying into this. It is this silent majority of which I speak. I believe that if we engage them, hold them accountable and even shame them to join the battle, we can defeat Islamic extremism. If you look at the numbers, it’s the only chance we’ve got, folks.

Juan Williams spoke his mind truthfully, and as an American, and he was silenced. I am not sure if we have yet reached peak awareness on this dangerous, self-destructive, politically correct and politically motivated bullying but we must be getting close. Williams may be fired, but I’m just getting fired up. How about you?

2010-10-23T20:56:30+00:00 October 23rd, 2010|

Half-Ass Backwards

Posted on BigPeace by Dr. Marc Weisman Oct 11th 2010 at 11:29 am in IslamIslamic extremismMedia Criticism,TerrorismshariaComments (36)

Earlier this week in New York, the former British Prime Minister Tony Blair stated in no uncertain terms that radical Islam has been winning several battles against the West. Blair cited that in Islamic theocracies, there exists a growing misconception that the West is attacking Islam as a whole rather than simply its extremist, more virulent strains.


And why does this misconception exist?

According to Blair, it’s because of a total absence of any kind of rebuttal from the Western media. “Measure, over the years, the paucity of our counter-attack in the name of peaceful coexistence,” Blair said. “We have been outspent, outmaneuvered and out-strategized.”

Blair said that the West’s tendency to “sympathize” with extremism was not only dangerous, but disempowering for moderate Muslims; the failure to differentiate between the two builds mistrust towards all Muslims as extremists. Siding with Blair, I would add that the only way the West can triumph over radical Islam is by encouraging the silent majority of moderate Muslims to speak out against Islamic extremism wherever it occurs.

By not holding extremists accountable—and make no mistake, we do this every time we apologize for and rationalize their heinous behavior—we absolve them of their wrongdoing. By the same token, when we do not hold moderate Muslims accountable for their apathy and indolence, we squander an opportunity to encourage them to join a fight that is in both of our interests. Without this urging, such moderates will continue to watch from the sidelines.

President Obama’s unprecedented levels of appeasement have removed any and all pressure on these non-extremists, which leaves us to do all the heavy lifting alone. This of course provides more fodder to the spin doctors, who brand us as anti-Muslim hate mongers—which in turn cause the ranks of Jihadists to swell with fresh recruits.

We’re not really anti-Islamic here in the West, but the left-leaning, apologist media is inadvertently feeding that image when we are left to combat Islamism without any significant assistance from so-called moderate Muslims. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy!

It bears mentioning I had to cross the pond to the UK’s online version of the Daily Telegraph to even find an article on Blair’s speech. The only media source that covered the speech was ABC online of Australia, which saw fit to cover the speech with a negative angle; author Amin Saikal criticized Blair’s comments, stating that “many extreme elements in the Muslim world could take heart from Blair’s condemnation of ‘radical Islam’, enabling them to sharpen their argument that the West is against not only Muslim extremists but the religion of Islam itself, and thus widen their circles of recruitment and sympathy in the Muslim world.”

To recap: we cannot fight the extremists directly, we cannot condemn their actions, and we cannot condemn our own liberal press when they fail to provide coverage to those who do speak out —to do any of this is evidence, apparently, of Islamophobia. I think Mr. Blair is right: if these are the constraints of the world we live in, we have clearly been out-strategized. Fighting a war on terror under these circumstances is destined to be both half-assed and ass-backwards unless we change the rules.

2010-10-11T19:17:57+00:00 October 11th, 2010|

We Need to Stop Apologizing for Our Anti-Terror Efforts

Posted at by Dr. Marc Weisman Sep 28th 2010 at 3:39 am as Featured StoryIslamIslamic extremismMedia CriticismObamaTerrorismshariaComments (58)

I am struck by the glut of recent examples of how incredibly biased our mainstream media remains vis a vis radical Islam. To be frank, an ideologically driven obsession with not appearing intolerant has crippled our nation’s ability to report anti-Islamist activities.

Few Americans realize how dangerous this is. Consider the following: the press is given broad legal protections in order to protect us by performing investigative functions. It would be bad enough if their misguided sentiment simply prevented their diligent scrutiny of all things Islamist in America, but such is the least of our nation’s worries. Currently, we are finding that the media is overreacting and vehemently attacking those who dare speak out against radical Islam, branding them xenophobic, far-right bigots!

Granted, political partisanship is nothing new, but it is heightened in today’s climate for two reasons. First, PresidentObama is widely seen as inappropriately placatory to Islam. Second, the Ground Zero Mosque debate—which also includes a component of presidential appeasement—has lit a fire under the entire issue of non-violent Islam in America and the West. The press is absolutely horrified that the apparent majority of Americans seem to understand and sympathize with those who are openly resisting stealth Jihad. As a case in point, nearly 70% of Americans oppose the GZM. There exists a large, vocal, and increasing minority of us who oppose “special privileges” for Muslims in America; as a group, we’re simply calling it as we see it: a slow, Jihadist strategy to undermine our secular but Christian-founded society. Meanwhile, the elitists within American media find themselves wondering how they have lost control of this national discussion to these “Right Wing nuts.”

Consider these three media examples, each of which relates to the story of two men who were detained in Amsterdam earlier this month on a flight from Chicago on suspicion of a trial run for a terrorist attack. The two men were apparently allowed to board an Amsterdam-bound plane from O’Hare airport despite “security concerns.” What were those concerns? Both men are Muslims whose original flight path routed through Yemen (a known haven for Islamist airline terror), both were wearing suspiciously  bulky clothing, they were carrying $7,000 in cash and—get this—between the two men, authorities found a cell phone duct taped to a Pepto-Bismol bottle, box cutters, and at least one knife.

Seems pretty reasonable to check these guys out a little more closely, no? They were, however, eventually released due to a lack of evidence and no apparent ties to terrorists. I have little problem with the circumstances of their release—after all, we’re innocent until proven guilty—but here is where I get incredulous: the following week’s Sunday edition of the New York Times included two editorials; the first was titled “My Nine Years as a Middle Eastern American,” in which the author lamented the Islamophobia of America. The second ran under the headline, “Is This America,” wherein the author lambasted the extremists in our midst—and not the Islamist ones—the anti-Islamist ones. The recent Detroit Free Press’ article on this case showcased not the angle of terrorism, but the horror of profiling and the damage done because of it.

Does any American actually believe that we should apologize for detaining these two men? I mean, really: I’m to believe that detaining Middle Eastern men with Yemeni ties, box cutters, and sham radio-activated liquid-based bombs from boarding a commercial airplane was a bad thing?

I have stated before that the mainstream media in America is the unwitting abettor and mercenary army of radical Islam, and here again my point is proven. Am I alone in recognizing the desperate attempt by the media to derail the progress made by those who shine a light on the shadowy and well-defended world of slow Jihad? What we are witnessing is a battle in which reason and logic are struggling to break free from the iron grip of the mainstream media’s toxic ideology of concilliation.

2010-10-10T21:36:00+00:00 October 10th, 2010|

Meet Imane Boudlal, the Muslim Woman Battling Disney Over Hijab (

Posted at by Dr. Marc Weisman Sep 13th 2010 at 8:35 am in Culture/ArtIslamJustice/LegalComments (202)

The most recent attack from within is a seemingly benign story about a Muslim woman who just wishes to be treated fairly in America. In reality, this is just another example of the slow Jihadists’ deliberate, Trojan horse-like tactics.

Meet Ms. Imane Boudlal, a moderately devout Muslim woman allegedly claiming discrimination in a lawsuit against the Storyteller’s Café, a Disney property in California. Ms. Boudlal has been working at the café for two years and only recently requested that she be permitted to wear a traditional Muslim headscarf known as a hijab. She made this appeal some two months ago, but never received an official answer to her inquiry.


On August 19th, Boudlal decided to arrive at work in her hijab — along with an entourage of photographers, camera crews, and reporters to accompany her to the café. Disney claims it repeatedly tried to accommodate Ms. Boudlal by suggesting that she wear her hijab with a Disney character hat over it, work in a number of backstage roles until a permanent position could be established for her, or remove her hijab and continue her job in accordance with the dress standards she had accepted for the two years prior to drafting her letter.

She would have none of that. Clearly, Ms. Boudlal is less interested in working and more interested in moving the ball forward on advancing the place of Islam in America. With this in mind, Ms. Boudlal represents another example engaging in the popular and growing activity of how non-violent Jihad operates—it’s a lot like playing a game of “chicken,” as the loser is the one who turns away first.

Over the last several years, Americans have been extremely poor chicken players; we always flinch first when threatened with the politically incorrect label of bigotry, which occurs every time we try to defy this slow variety of Jihad. Here again, we have what appears to be a relatively appealing Muslim person who feigns cultural or religious insult in order to introduce some kind of Islamic privilege into a western nation. The phenomenon has become so prevalent that it has been given a name: “lawfare.”

What are some of the examples of Islamic lawfare so far? For starters, there’s the now-infamous and appallingly triumphant Islamic Center and mosque at Ground Zero in New York, the elimination of pork products from all school cafeterias in Denmark, the exemption of Muslim cab drivers from servicing patrons who use or carry Islam-prohibited alcohol in Minneapolis, and the allocation of private time exclusively to Muslim women in public facilities, as was the case with basketball courts at Harvard University and a public swimming pool in Mississauga, Canada.

Perhaps one of the more horrifying examples of recent lawfare is the case of a Muslim man who was considered guilty in a New Jersey court of raping his own wife, but the charges were dismissed by the judge because he felt that the man’s belief in Shari‘a law (which subjugates woman to “their men”) trumped her constitutional privileges under the laws of the United States. The appellate court did finally overturn this atrocity, but if this outrage fails to raise one’s ire, nothing else will.

Ms. Boudlal is demanding that she be exempt from the terms of her own agreement with Disney—an agreement that she signed willingly two years prior to her feigned indignation and claims of religious persecution. Unlike every other Disney employee, she says she should be exempted from being held to the dress code that helps Disney maintain its unique and magical identity. In translation, Boudlal is claiming that Islamic law should have the power to tell American businesses what they can and cannot do.

It should surprise no one that a staff attorney for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Ms. Ameena Qazi, represents Boudlal. The FBI, many US Representatives, and virtually all moderate Muslim-American leaders considerCAIR an Islamist organization which practices deception (Al-Taqiyya, in Arabic) and lawfare to wield our own tolerance and civil liberties against us. CAIR famously attempts to lull Americans into the trap of conciliation in the name of “religious understanding” as they support nearly every effort to Islamicize us.

Let’s not turn away so early in this new round of chicken. Instead, I say we bring on the debate, as this insidious and painstaking type of jihad represents a far greater long-term danger to America than a violent terrorist strike. I am optimistic that with the veil lifted—pun intended—in the light of day we will defeat these tactics through honest, didactic, and respectful debate.

2010-09-19T19:14:32+00:00 September 19th, 2010|

Insidious, Non-violent Jihad–More Dangerous than Violence

Insidious, Non-violent Jihad–More Dangerous than Violence

Posted by Dr. Marc Weisman Aug 28th 2010 at 12:04 pm in Islamic extremismTerrorismground zero mosqueshariaComments (54)

I am enormously thankful that the Ground Zero Mosque (GZM) debate is still raging. It is the first “stealth Jihad” issue that promises to help bridge the gap between Right and Left. If we check our egos at the door, right and wrong will trump Right and Left every time.  As I pointed out in “Black and White,” my first blog for BigPeace, this GZM issue is so black and white that even left-leaning independents and liberals cannot in good conscience support it. There are already one hundred mosques in Manhattan; the only reasons to place a giant mosque at Ground Zero are built on a foundation of inexcusable insensitivity or non-violent Islamic extremism.

The far left ideology that encourages a Muslim center, mosque, shrine, or triumphalist structure of any kind at this consecrated ground is simply wrong. There, I said it. It’s not really a partisan issue; it’s a lucid, rational, and logical one. It’s a sad commentary that even when we know right from wrong, we are pulled Right and Left. The New York Times Magazine Sunday and TIME (current cover story: “Is America Islamophobic?”), both media giants with “Time” in their name are embarrassingly anachronistic with this week’s articles accusing all of us critical of a Muslim shrine at Ground Zero as being xenophobic. They will fail to deflect the real issue with their blatantly false charges of bigotry as their magic pens of influence finally wane due to this lightning rod GZM issue awakening America.

I beseech conservatives to refrain from gloating now that a clear majority of Americans are on their side of this issue; it isn’t easy for liberals to embrace the right position when it is the Right position. In fairness, conservatives would struggle if the situation were reversed. With this in mind, a little humility can help narrow an ideological chasm that is truly our greatest threat to establishing a re-united America that can never be defeated.  (Re-United States, CamHouse Press 2010)

However, and for our less conservative brethren who don’t quite get it yet, I’d like to present a little Poli-Sci lesson:

One of our greatest misconceptions in America is that Islamic extremism is defined by terror. In fact, it is not. Terrorism is just one tool in the Jihadist’s armament. Jihad has two faces: violent and nonviolent, but each shares the same goal or world vision—that ancient Shari’a law and culture must have dominion over all peoples. This is non-negotiable and America is the greatest impediment to this vision; this therefore places us squarely in the gun sights of all Islamists.  The impatient Islamist uses terrorism, but the patient Islamist uses slow cultural transformation and “lawfare” to steadily erode the West’s mostly Christian culture and replace it with one that is progressively more Islamic in nature.

I believe that this slow Jihad poses the greater threat. Terrorism elicits some type of reaction from us; slow Jihad rarely does. Although terror is frightening, deadly to its ill-fated victims, and capable of causing serious economic havoc, it does not pose an existential threat to us. This is not say that we are not in danger of losing a city—or more likely, two or three, as Al Qaeda loves simultaneous strikes—to a radiological-dirty bomb or some other nefarious act, but they will never defeat us militarily. Slow Jihad flies under the radar and therefore fails to cause us to react—this is a perilous strategy that does threaten our freedom and our way of life.

The GZM is a great example of the slice-by-slice approach to defeating a much stronger enemy; slice-by-slice doesn’t elicit much reaction from us. Toss in a little politically-correct appeasement and accusations of anti-multiculturalism or bigotry, and we barely react at all. And when we do, the mainstream media just labels it “Islamophobia.” The way I see it, the Left can either continue to function as the unwitting mercenary army of our Islamist enemy, or they can do the right thing—in this case, join us in vigorous opposition to the GZM. Lesson over

2010-08-29T20:42:21+00:00 August 29th, 2010|

Black and White

As Posted at

The Cordoba House Ground Zero mosque issue has drawn a line in the proverbial sand. With all that we now know, this issue is black and white. The only gray is the gray matter, or lack thereof, of Americans who cling to their liberal ideology as if it were a life raft slamming against 10-foot waves of logic and reason. President Obama finally stepped out on this bellwether issue. He states that Muslims “have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country,” and also: “this is America and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.” Not surprisingly, he is sadly misguided. He and the few remaining Americans who support this abomination are obfuscating the subject with the specious notion that this is about religious freedom.


The real issue here, of course, has nothing to do with religious freedom or American tolerance. This also isn’t a matter of American law; it’s a matter of Shari’a law. We finally have an issue that shines the bright light of day on the fact Jihad comes in two flavors, violent and nonviolent and most Americans are just warming up to this reality.

My introduction to the Cordoba Project occurred when I was in New York promoting my book Re-United States in May of this year. The television was on in the background of my hotel room when a representative of the Mosque project was interviewed on the local New York ABC affiliate station. He said, and I paraphrase, “If Americans are to learn tolerance, what better way than a mosque at Ground Zero?” With all due respect, it is not Americans who need a lesson of tolerance—it is these 200 million Muslims the world over (very much including America) whose textbooks, state-controlled media, royalty, and leaders of all walks teach and promote hatred, intolerance, anti-Semitism, Shari‘a dominion over all peoples, and, not as rarely as many would have us believe, violence. I was shocked at the audacity of this man to lecture Americans on tolerance. There is no limit to the demands of so-called “moderate” Muslims here and abroad. In my estimation only a Muslim with an extremist ideology (nonviolent, perhaps, but extremist for sure) could ever support the building of a huge mosque at the 9/11 site. It is the height of insensitivity. To nonviolent Jihadists, who share the same goal of imposing global Islam as their terrorist counterparts differing only in their methodology, absolutely anything and everything that advances Islam everywhere on earth is not just acceptable, it is mandated.

Let’s review what we know about Faisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind the Cordoba House Project.

Imam Rauf has promoted the center as a place to foster religious tolerance and a bridge to heal the divide between Muslims and non-Muslims. In fairness, he is known to have spoken out against the 9 /11 attacks, but consider all of the following comments made by Rauf:

Just weeks after the attacks, during a CBS 60 Minutes interview he said that “United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened [on 9/11] … Because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent [Muslim] lives dying in the world.” Later in that interview he added that that “in fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.”

More disturbing is this comment: “The U.S. must acknowledge the harm they have done to Muslims before terrorism can end.” Perhaps this is why President Obama is traveling the world apologizing for the supposed harm the U.S. has inflicted upon Muslims.

Even more recently during a June 18, 2010 interview with WABC radio, Rauf repeatedly declined to depict Hamas as a terrorist organization. In response to Aaron Klein’s question on whether he considered Hamas a terror group, he replied, “The issue of terrorism is a very complex question.” He went on to say that “there was an attempt in the ’90s to have the U.N. define what terrorism is and say who was a terrorist. There was no ability to get agreement on that.” When pushed again by Klein to agree with the State Department’s assessment that Hamas is indeed a terrorist group, the imam responded, “Look, I’m not a politician.” Any Muslim leader that does not categorically condemn Hamas and Hezbollah as terror organizations is, by definition, an Islamic extremist.

This mosque, if built, will likely broadcast the Muslim call to prayer within earshot of the Twin Towers Memorial and the grieving families of the loved ones lost on this now hallowed ground. Any reaction by Americans to this audacious Ground Zero mosque proposal other than complete indignation would be an abomination. This is political Islam cloaked in the protective garb of religion in America. It is politically correct appeasement to the point of madness. The time has come to finally check our conciliations to political Islam at the door. Blind tolerance of the pathologically intolerant blazes a path to self-destruction. Only when Americans finally reunite and persuade our leaders to demand that the silent majority of moderate Muslims join us in defeating the extremist ideology in their body politic, will we rid ourselves of this bane called radical Islam. Muslims will benefit from this exorcism at least as much as us infidels. The undeniable facts surrounding the Cordoba House Project provide a rare opportunity to shed light on “stealth Jihad” which is so truly black and white that it promises to “awaken the sleeping giant.” Let’s hope so.

2010-08-20T00:42:32+00:00 August 20th, 2010|

What does NASA and Islam have in common?


Charles Bolden, NASA’s Administrator, gave an interview with Al Jazeera’s Imran Garda on June 17th during a Middle East trip. Consistent with a comment he made last February to a group of engineering students, he stated that President Obama directed him to make “reaching out to the Muslim world a priority for the space agency”. I don’t know, maybe it’s me but this seems like a very odd directive. What on earth (or above earth) does space exploration have to do with Muslim outreach? Only one thing; this president’s pre-occupation with appeasement to Islam in the false belief that doing so will neutralize the Islamist’s goal to have dominion over the world.


“Former NASA Director Says Muslim Outreach Push ‘Deeply Flawed’

this article

2010-07-11T13:15:27+00:00 July 11th, 2010|


Mosque at ground zero is simply wrong

The Cordoba House plan would build a 15-story community center including a mosque, swimming pool, performing art center, gym, and “other public spaces” at the ground zero site. The project is a collaboration between the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Initiative, both of which exist to “improve relations with followers of the religion”. Sounds reasonable, no? Well, no—not at the hallowed ground where 3,000 innocent people were murdered by a group of Jihadists representing a large minority of Muslims—yes a large minority although politically insensitive to say so.

I was in New York promoting my book Re-United States last week when a Muslim representative of the project was interviewed on the local New York ABC affiliate station. He said, and I paraphrase, “If Americans are to learn tolerance, what better way than a Mosque at ground zero”. With all due respect, it is not Americans who need a lesson of tolerance—it is Muslims the world over (very much including America) whose textbooks, state controlled media, Royalty, and leaders of all walks teach and promote hatred, intolerance, anti-Semitism, Shari’a dominion over all peoples, and not as rarely as many would have us believe; violence. There is no limit to the demands of so-called “moderate” Muslims here and abroad. In my estimation only a Muslim with extremist ideology (non-violent, perhaps-but extremist for sure) could ever support the building of a huge Mosque at the 9 / 11 site. It is the height of insensitivity. To non-violent Jiahdists, who share the same goal as their terrorist counterparts of worldwide Islam differing only in their methodology, absolutely anything and everything that advances Islam everywhere on earth is not just acceptable, it is mandated.

Any reaction by Americans to this audacious proposal other than indignity is politically correct appeasement to the point of madness. I beseech America to wake up. Blind tolerance of the pathologically intolerant is a path to self-destruction. Only when we the people finally re-unite and through our expectations force our pundits and politicians to demand that the silent majority of moderate Muslims join us in defeating the extremist ideology in their body politic, will we rid ourselves of this bane called radical Islam. Muslims will benefit from this exorcism at least as much as us infidels.  T0  invoke Nancy Reagan; “just say no”.

2010-06-05T15:43:18+00:00 June 5th, 2010|