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|

Can you say; J-i-h-a-d?

Daniel Pipes blog regarding the Faisal Shahzad bombing attempt in New York (see link below) is spot on. I find it inexplicable that each new Islamic terror event is described as anything but Islamic terrorism by much of the media and the government. The almost hysterical lengths at which they will go to avoid labeling Jihad as “Jihad” are nothing short of bizarre.  Consider these statements regarding the recent failed attempt to detonate yet another vehicle, this one in Times Square:

CBS News: “It isn’t clear if more suspects are at large OR what the motive could be.”

Nadeem Haider Kiani: spokesman for the Pakistani embassy in Washington: it’s too soon to tell exactly what motivated the bomber but early indications suggest he is “a disturbed individual.”

Law enforcement: (as reported by NY1): “Investigators say they still have no motive for Shahzad’s actions.” (May 5, 2010)

Cable News Network: “It can confirmed that his house has been foreclosed in recent years. I mean, one would have to imagine that brought a lot of pressure and a lot of heartache on that family.”

Attorney General Eric Holder: House Judiciary Committee interview on 5.13.2010: “Do you feel these Islamic extremists such as Shahzad are motivated by radical Islam? Holder: “ There are a number of reasons why these individuals act this way”…Senator Smith-again “ Is radical Islam ONE such reason? Holder: “There are a variety of reasons…..Smith again: “Yes, but is radical Islam is ONE possible reason?…Holder: “I don’t want to say anything negative about a religion…”   This two minute video is uncomfortable to watch but I recommend you DO watch it—see link below.

Talk about connecting the dots. I wonder if the worldwide schooling of Muslims by Imams and Muslim leaders that America, the West, Christians, and Jews are infidels that must be overcome through Jihad has anything to do with it? Or perhaps the stated goal of al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Toiba, Hezbollah, Hamas or the other hundred or so Islamic terrorist organizations and the hatred they spew plays a role? How about the 72 virgins awaiting the killers of infidels? Isn’t it clear yet that our failed strategy of blind tolerance of the pathologically intolerant isn’t working out so well? Unless and until we hold all of the enablers of Jihad, violent and non-violent accountable, we have little hope of stemming the growth of radical Islam. Let’s start with rescinding the pass that Islamists have enjoyed for far too long. This is the core premise of my book, Re-United States.

2010-05-14T15:22:13+00:00 May 14th, 2010|

A Rose By EVERY Other Name…

The New York Times, once again exercising tortured journalistic standards, goes out of its way to avoid labeling Islamic terrorism as… well, Islamic terrorism.   In apparent lock-step with the Obama administration where the War On Terror is now called the Overseas Contingency Operation and Islamic terrorism is now called Man caused Disasters, the NYT is at it again. In the NYT Sunday (March 14) edition an article about the man referred to as the “Russian Osama Bin Laden”, Said Buryatsky, is reported to have been killed by Russian authorities. Buryatsky, a convert to Islam, is believed to be responsible for the deadliest attack in the North Caucasus in the last four years, when a suicide bomber killed at least 20 and injured 138 at a police headquarters in Ingushetia. The NYT, in covering this story, completely left out the “Islamic” part of the story-which, of, course, is the story. No mention of his being a convert to Islam, being an Islamist terrorist, being referred to as Russia’s Bin Laden—nothing at all. Unabashed politically correct appeasement is still alive and well at the NYT. MW


THE New York Times (SANITIZED ) VERSION: March 14, 2010 Sunday Times, Section A, page 12 (No URL for this)

2010-03-15T18:57:42+00:00 March 15th, 2010|

You've Got To Be Killing Me…I Mean Kidding Me

Consistent with the premise of my book, Re-United States, a group of Muslim-American scholars (the Fiqh Council of North America) issued a religious edict this week that counsels Muslims not to submit to body scanner screenings at airports. They say that these imaging devices are contrary to Shari’a law as they interpret prohibitions against nudity in the Quran. “It is a violation of clear Islamic teachings that men or women be seen naked by other men and women,” says the fatwa, which of course was supported by CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations. This is despite the fact that “screening images [which are chalk-like outlines devoid of private parts—not photographs] are automatically deleted, and the officer viewing the image will never see the passenger,” according to the TSA.

Hmm, let me get this straight. The reason we need these scanners in the first place is that roughly 5-10% of Muslims worldwide (PEW poll numbers) support violence against infidels and their preferred terror plot is to blast innocent people out of aircraft traveling 600 mph at 35,000 feet. To these Jihadist scholars, however, the flying public’s irreproachable concerns take a “back seat” to these radical Islamic leaders twisted interpretation of the Quran and total disrespect for the Western world in which they have chosen to live. It would be hard to come up with a better example of “stealth Jihad”—the slow but steady erosion of the West’s freedoms as we are shamed into accommodating more and more of Islamic society in our own lands. I hope and pray that I am not the only one insulted and offended by these Islamists. MW

Detroit Free Press, Niraj Warikoo; Feb 12, 2010

2010-02-12T20:16:09+00:00 February 12th, 2010|