In a Fit of Rage, the Truth May be Known. | Eastern North Carolina Now

    I heard some disturbing comments by some of our Congressmen. Keith Ellison, an African-American Muslim (D-Minn.) member of Congress, commented to the BBC that the controversy behind the planned mosque at Ground Zero is not about the families of the 9/11 victims, but rather about the people who oppose Obama and question his citizenship. Really?

    ELLISON: "In 1965, we declared that Rosa Parks, a black woman, had the right to sit on a bus anywhere she chose to. Now some people might say, you know, Miss Parks, you're making people feel uncomfortable. The good citizens of Montgomery don't feel comfortable with somebody like you sitting near them, so why don't you go to the back, even though you have the right to sit up front. Hopefully from a 2010 perspective we would all be shocked at such and attitude. But that is exactly the attitude that is being expressed regarding this project."

    BBC: "But isn't this a different thing? You're talking about a Civil Rights movement; a huge swath of the country where blacks and whites were simply not equal. This is about a specific place, which did suffer an attack, where feelings are particularly raw among a wide selection of the American public. Just listen." [Audio plays of a 9-11 victim's family member: "The first concern for the families is that the religious beliefs of the terrorists who struck is going to have sic a prominent place," he says, before insisting he's not anti-Muslim.]

    ELLISON: "I feel horrible for that gentleman. But there are other people, similarly situated, who do not share his point of view. And then let's also point out that his anger is misplaced. The fact is that Al Qaida did this. And Al Qaida murders Muslims all over the globe."

    BBC: "Would it not be sensible, would it not be easier to make these arguments, if the project was put on hold?"

    ELLISON: "I say no, because the fact is that the real driver of this thing is not 9-11 families. The people who are leading the anti-mosque effort -- and again, it's not a mosque, it's a community center that will have a muslim prayer room in it [and] I'm sure that anyone who wants to pray in their with whatever faith will be welcome to do so -- the real drivers of it are people who openly proclaim that Barack Obama is not a citizen. The real organizers of this thing are people who are just proponents of religious bigotry. Nothing more. Nothing less. And around the country this thing is emblematic of a larger issue. There have been anti-mosque efforts in Kentucky. One gentleman wants to burn a Koran in Florida. There have been [anti-mosque] efforts in Wisconsin, in the Chicago area, and others."

    BBC: "Why do you think that's happened? Because if you look at opinion polls just four or five years ago, more Americans said they were favorable towards Muslims, and things have swapped around."

    ELLISON: "It never takes a lot of people. Who was it who said, 'Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world?' I mean the fact is there's a small group of people have decided that the problem with the world is Muslims and have decided to oppose Muslim engagement in American community life at every point. So they're busy. And they're active. But people of good will need to come together to say, you know, this country is founded on religious freedom and we're going to keep it that way."

    When asked about the effect of the Tea Party movement, about Glenn Beck and his rally, in November, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) had this to say: "These people aren't new voters. These are the people who have voted Republicans all their lives. These are the people who were wearing sheets over their heads 25 years ago."

    I don't know about you, but I'm tired of honest, well-intentioned, patriotic Americans being called names, and especially racist ones at that, by the very members of government who are supposed to be serving us. We are not hate-mongers, we are not conspiracy-theorists, we are not kooks, and we are NOT former KKK members. Perhaps Rep. Ellison should take a hard look at the mosque situation. Maybe he should ask himself why Imam Rauf needs to build a mosque in a section of the city, mere yards away from a hallowed burial ground, where there are essentially no Muslims. Maybe he should ask himself why Rauf needed to go on a taxpayer-subsidized trip (compliments of Hillary Clinton) to the Middle East. Perhaps it was to secure additional funding? Could Rauf be courting funding from Iran, the nation which on many occasions has proclaimed ?Death to Israel; Death to America? The Middle East doesn't fund tolerance; it funds terrorism. It plots; it plans; it invests; it waits? There is a ulterior reason for this mosque at Ground Zero and no one should be convinced otherwise. Perhaps Americans simply have the right to demand respect for their murdered countrymen at the Ground Zero site. Perhaps they simply have the right to demand that the religion responsible to inspiring the hijackers to slaughter as many Americans as possible and destroy our national institutions not be flaunted at that particular site. I think these are reasonable requests. For once in our long history of showing tolerance to everyone else, I think Americans have the right to demand tolerance on this issue and at this grave site.

    ADDITIONAL INFO:

    Imam Rauf's Hush-Hush Taxpayer-Subsidized Middle East Tour ? Plus, Inside the Victory Mosque's Shady Washington-Riyadh Finance Trail
Aug. 22, 2010 [ http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/imam-raufs-hush-hush-taxpayer.html ]

    Iman Rauf embarked on a US taxpayer-subsidized trip to the Middle East in an effort to "Americanize Islam," as he said. But what does that mean? And who in the Middle East will buy that? Or even tolerate it? If any Muslim over there even attempted to become ?Americanized,? I?m sure that would not go over too well. Perhaps that would even be a death warrant.

    But the trip makes sense, since the cleric is looking for $100 million large to help finance the Ground Zero Victory Mosque. No doubt sharia finance networks will be coming up with some of that cash, news of which of course wouldn't go over so well with some of the 9/11 families now speaking out in New York. Indeed, opponents of the mosque might not have the full details on the depth of Imam Rauf's scam, which is more fundamentally implicated into the Obama administration than has been noted by most commentators. See, for example, Sharia Finance Watch:

    It is highly likely that the financing from this mosque is coming from one of two sources, or perhaps both: foreign sources and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). NAIT is reported to hold title to as many as 80% of the mosques and Islamic centers in the U.S. There are three things that are especially disturbing about this:

    1. NAIT is at least partially funded by Saudi Arabia (a foreign power with a dismal human rights record and significant portions of its royal family associated with jihad.
    2. NAIT is a Muslim Brotherhood organization. This was stipulated to by the defense in the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history.
    3. In that same terrorism financing trial, the United States v. the Holy Land Foundation, NAIT was named as an unindicted co-conspirator. The prosecution was successful in that case, defendants were convicted on all counts. When NAIT challenged its classification as an unindicted co-conspirator, the Justice department refused to relent and issued a spirited and strong justification.

    Foreign financing for this mosque on this site has implications far beyond building a place where Muslims can go pray. There is reason to believe that this site was chosen with some other purpose in mind. Of all the places to build such a mosque, why Ground Zero? It?s not a residential area. There are no large numbers of Muslim residents in the neighborhood. If foreign powers are behind its financing, then the implications immediately become much more profound and sinister. Nevertheless, Imam Rauf remains tight-lipped on the subject of financing sources, media such as The Economist exhibit no intellectual curiosity on the subject and apologists such as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg refuse to even consider that it might be a bad idea if the Muslim Brotherhood or a foreign Salafi power is behind the project.

    Also, Doug Hagmann reported yesterday on the financial trail tying Imam Rauf's Cordoba Initiative to far-flung financiers in the Persian Gulf and back to the Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton State Department. See, "Report of Investigation Park 51":

    Despite the plentiful amount of information developed by independent researchers, bloggers, and commentators that has been published about the questionable associations of project front man ABDUL-RAUF over the last few weeks, he continues to travel to the Middle East as an emissary of America at the behest of the Obama/Clinton State Department. Ostensibly, his purpose is to ?discuss Muslim life in America and religious tolerance? with Islamic leaders in Muslim countries. Despite his questionable associations, the U.S. State Department is steadfast in their support of his goodwill tour.

    Not only is the U.S. State Department unwavering in their support in spite of such controversy, they are invoking an unprecedented shroud of secrecy over the trip. When questioned about the content and message of Abdul-Rauf?s goodwill tour, U.S. State Department Spokesman Phillip Crowley curiously cited a 62 year-old law, erroneously claiming that the law shields Rauf's message from the American public ? at least by way of government web sites - as cited in this article published Tuesday by the editor of Family Security Matters.

    It is clearly evident that there is something very disturbing taking place behind the scenes that is permitting this "duck or bleed" approach being employed by politicians and lawmakers. It is only when we investigate deeper into the people and groups behind this assault on American sensibilities and "follow the money" do we find the nefarious nexus of "Cap and Trade globalists," Progressives" and Islamic leaders who are pushing for a "one world" religion.

    The latter group, including foreign entities and governments, is working to replace our Judeo-Christian heritage with Islam as the dominant religion of America and Shariah in place of the U.S. Constitution. It is being conducted under the pretext of interfaith dialogue and unity, an objective for which Feisal ABDUL RAUF and his closest associates have been groomed.

    While ABDUL RAUF and his associates are working to install Shariah in the U.S., the former group is engaged in the systematic effort to destroy the current religious and moral structures as a means to facilitate their objectives of control and domination. The Progressives and globalists are exploiting this transformation for their own agenda, which is the implementation of global governance. That is exactly what can be found when the layers of deception and distraction are carefully and methodically pulled back and the prospective money sources are identified.

    But that's only momentarily. This is reality, and information to this effect has been in the public domain for some time. We can even go back and read the words of Imam Rauf himself, "What Shariah Law Is All About":

    At the core of Shariah law are God's commandments, revealed in the Old Testament and revised in the New Testament and the Quran. The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law - that we protect life, liberty and property, that we provide for the common welfare, that we maintain a certain amount of modesty. What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad.

    Where there is a conflict, it is not with Shariah law itself but more often with the way the penal code is sometimes applied. Some aspects of this penal code and its laws pertaining to women flow out of the cultural context. The religious imperative is about justice and fairness. If you strive for justice and fairness in the penal code, then you are in keeping with moral imperative of the Shariah.

    In America, we have a Constitution that created a three-branch form of government - legislative, executive and judiciary. The role of the judiciary is to ensure that the other two branches comply with the Constitution. What Muslims want is a judiciary that ensures that the laws are not in conflict with the Quran and the Hadith. Just as the Constitution has gone through interpretations, so does Shariah law.

    It's almost unconscionable that Imam Rauf places the guarantees of universal moral goodness and inalienable rights found in the Declaration of Independence alongside the commands to crushing violence and the racist/sexist morality of submission found in Sharia. But this is the meme that Americans are being subjected to over and over again. This is the "interfaith" agenda that seeks to subordinate the U.S. Constitution to Islamic law, to have American courts interpret American laws so that they "are not in conflict with the Quran and the Hadith." Of course, it's the other way around in this country, at least according to the 1st Amendment. But you won't get that from the Democrats and the communists and their jihadi enablers in the mainstream press.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FckLO8HcNyo (Ahmadinejad: "Death to Israel"?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hLDjGdJC0Q&feature=related (Ahmadinejad: ?Israel will soon be wiped off the map).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI-DiaBi7VE (Iranian kids deliver message: "Death to Israel and Death to America")