The Obama Administration’s taxpayer-funded Islamic defense program has been quite busy this week, filing several discrimination lawsuits on behalf of Muslims in different parts of the country and holding Justice Department meetings to discuss prosecuting “anti-Muslim hate speech.”
The legal actions come on the same week that the White House and various federal agencies—including the Department of Homeland Security—hosted a special workshop to provide members of radical Islamic groups with direct access to U.S. government funding, assistance and resources. Read all about that here.
Now the administration is flexing its legal muscle in its ardent quest to befriend the enemy. A federal civil rights agency known as the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed discrimination lawsuits against companies in Nebraska, California and Colorado for discriminating against Muslims by not accommodating prayer breaks and forbidding a headscarf on the job.
The government sued meatpacking plants in Greeley Colorado and Grand Island Nebraska for religious and racial harassment because dozens of Muslim employees were “denied prayer time” during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. The lawsuit seeks changes to policies and procedures to accommodate Muslim workers, payment for past and future damages and punitive damages.
In a third lawsuit filed this week the EEOC claims that an outdoor apparel store discriminated against a Muslim female job applicant in northern California because she wore a headscarf known as a hijab. The company has a longstanding employee dress code banning any sort of head covering but the government asserts that in this particular case it’s discriminating on the basis of religion.
Also this week, the Justice Department met with a coalition of Islamic groups that demand the administration criminally prosecute anti-Muslim rhetoric as hate speech. Besides investing more resources to combat discrimination against Muslims, coalition leaders want Attorney General Eric Holder to “make a strong public statement” condemning hate crimes, harassment and discrimination against Muslims.
Showing posts with label "What's Right with Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West. Show all posts
Showing posts with label "What's Right with Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West. Show all posts
Friday, September 3, 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010
Can an obsequious U.S. military win in Afghanistan?
My take: Here's a superb look at the absurd, obsequious posture of the U.S. military in Afghanistan by Diana West. Pay attention to the comments, some written by veterans who are appalled by the scene.
Winning hearts and minds means losing your own. It involves teaching defenders of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to “respect” an Islamic tribal culture (as advocated by Admiral Mullen — below — and other leaders) that subjugates women, girls, boys and non-Muslims (assuming there are any of the last left in the country), while increasingly assuming its customs – from troops adopting native dress to a US admiral involving himself in the ritual slaughter of sheep, to redefining our very perceptions of reality.
Now, it’s part of basic training.
From the Des Moines Register staff blogs (thanks to a vigilant Marine mom):
Camp Shelby, Miss. – Sgt. Eric Campbell did almost everything right in his first try at greeting an Afghan community leader, but he forgot about the gloves.
The Iowa National Guard cavalry sergeant walked confidently into a mock-up of an Afghan police office, where he warmly greeted a commander in a blue uniform shirt and red head scarf. He asked permission to take off his body armor and helmet, and he politely set down his rifle. Then he sat cross-legged on the carpet with his counterpart and an interpreter.
May I be permitted to take off my body armor and helmet?
During a 15-minute conversation, he maintained proper eye contact with the commander, and he used an interpreter to ask appropriate questions about the man’s family and his police force’s needs.
Needs. The continuing theme. Strike that — the eternal theme — of the Great Society in A-Stan.
“We need a lot of training for these people,” the commander replied in Dari, one of Afghanistan’s main languages. “We want lots of soldiers, too.” The previous American unit in town sent over a junior officer who never could deliver on his promises, the commander complained.
At what point — who knows? — does the role-playing commander start to believe this?
Campbell listened patiently and promised to do all he could to help the local police. Then he added, “God willing.”
That would be, “Inshallah.” Allah willing. Redolent of Islamic concepts of pre-destination and all that. Why is an American non-Muslim being steeped in Islamic conventions even as he’s giving away the US store?
In the end, the commander seemed satisfied. “You need to come here often, often,” he said.
“And bring more stuff,” he should have added.
Campbell, 29, of Sioux City, had never done this sort of thing before. He was going through his first exercise in “key leader engagement” during a training session at Camp Shelby.
Engagement? The term implies a measure of equality that is absent in this demeaning training exercise.
Think of it: The young guardsman is trained to enter the Afghan police station, beg permission to doff his armor, ask all the right (read: obsequious) questions of the Afghan police officer, allow the Afghan police officer to run down the guardsman’s American predecessor as a liar, and then offer unconditional aide — that is, utterly fail to extract concessions of any kind, or make aid contingent on anything whatsoever. Who’s the supplicant here — the American benefactor and protector, or the Afghan drag and recipient?
And the critique is (below) that the American didn’t show more ritualistic deference.
One of his soldiers, Spec. Broderick Miller of Sioux City, took notes. Seven other squad members watched, then critiqued the session.
One of the soldiers pointed out that Campbell forgot to take off his gloves before shaking the Afghan commander’s hand, which could be seen as disrespectful. Campbell made a little grimace as he recalled the incident.
A camp instructor, Sgt. 1st Class Gregory Payne, agreed Campbell should have taken his gloves off. But he said overall, the session went well.
“It may not always be that easy,” he warned. “There may be some tension. Sometimes, there may be a lot of tension.” It could take months to build rapport with a community leader, he said. Sometimes, it could prove impossible….
Sometimes.
Some comments by commenters:
KristineFromNYC
Winning hearts and minds does not win wars. It did not work in Vietnam, Iraq, or any other war known to Mankind. Clauswitz had it right, you fight till your enemy has neither the means or the will to fight on. That means killing the enemy, destroy the warmaking capacity, and letting the enemy know that you are the victor. Our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are being used as community organizers and allowing another Shiara Muslim country to recover and continue the fight against the west. Instead of the above scenario, the Officer should have been trained to go into the Afghani Police office as a soldier to make sure the police officer is doing his job or suffer the consequence.
GayboDGaylord
Wow thats a lot different then I remember. We were trained to try and not offend them deliberately but if they made a threatening move to drop them where they stand.
Guess there was early evidence of this nonsense. The Marine sniper that was disciplined for shooting the koran. The Army Officer kissing a copy of it in apology. No wonder they think we are bullsht now, look at how we submit to them at every turn.
Here's an off topic question, where the hell are these northern warlords we had take out the Taliban in the beginning of the war? Why aren't they protecting their border from them anymore?
attila_the_pun
Somewhere, General Patton weeps.
The country is doomed if this kind of garbage continues.
Winning hearts and minds means losing your own. It involves teaching defenders of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to “respect” an Islamic tribal culture (as advocated by Admiral Mullen — below — and other leaders) that subjugates women, girls, boys and non-Muslims (assuming there are any of the last left in the country), while increasingly assuming its customs – from troops adopting native dress to a US admiral involving himself in the ritual slaughter of sheep, to redefining our very perceptions of reality.
Now, it’s part of basic training.
From the Des Moines Register staff blogs (thanks to a vigilant Marine mom):
Camp Shelby, Miss. – Sgt. Eric Campbell did almost everything right in his first try at greeting an Afghan community leader, but he forgot about the gloves.
The Iowa National Guard cavalry sergeant walked confidently into a mock-up of an Afghan police office, where he warmly greeted a commander in a blue uniform shirt and red head scarf. He asked permission to take off his body armor and helmet, and he politely set down his rifle. Then he sat cross-legged on the carpet with his counterpart and an interpreter.
May I be permitted to take off my body armor and helmet?
During a 15-minute conversation, he maintained proper eye contact with the commander, and he used an interpreter to ask appropriate questions about the man’s family and his police force’s needs.
Needs. The continuing theme. Strike that — the eternal theme — of the Great Society in A-Stan.
“We need a lot of training for these people,” the commander replied in Dari, one of Afghanistan’s main languages. “We want lots of soldiers, too.” The previous American unit in town sent over a junior officer who never could deliver on his promises, the commander complained.
At what point — who knows? — does the role-playing commander start to believe this?
Campbell listened patiently and promised to do all he could to help the local police. Then he added, “God willing.”
That would be, “Inshallah.” Allah willing. Redolent of Islamic concepts of pre-destination and all that. Why is an American non-Muslim being steeped in Islamic conventions even as he’s giving away the US store?
In the end, the commander seemed satisfied. “You need to come here often, often,” he said.
“And bring more stuff,” he should have added.
Campbell, 29, of Sioux City, had never done this sort of thing before. He was going through his first exercise in “key leader engagement” during a training session at Camp Shelby.
Engagement? The term implies a measure of equality that is absent in this demeaning training exercise.
Think of it: The young guardsman is trained to enter the Afghan police station, beg permission to doff his armor, ask all the right (read: obsequious) questions of the Afghan police officer, allow the Afghan police officer to run down the guardsman’s American predecessor as a liar, and then offer unconditional aide — that is, utterly fail to extract concessions of any kind, or make aid contingent on anything whatsoever. Who’s the supplicant here — the American benefactor and protector, or the Afghan drag and recipient?
And the critique is (below) that the American didn’t show more ritualistic deference.
One of his soldiers, Spec. Broderick Miller of Sioux City, took notes. Seven other squad members watched, then critiqued the session.
One of the soldiers pointed out that Campbell forgot to take off his gloves before shaking the Afghan commander’s hand, which could be seen as disrespectful. Campbell made a little grimace as he recalled the incident.
A camp instructor, Sgt. 1st Class Gregory Payne, agreed Campbell should have taken his gloves off. But he said overall, the session went well.
“It may not always be that easy,” he warned. “There may be some tension. Sometimes, there may be a lot of tension.” It could take months to build rapport with a community leader, he said. Sometimes, it could prove impossible….
Sometimes.
Some comments by commenters:
KristineFromNYC
Winning hearts and minds does not win wars. It did not work in Vietnam, Iraq, or any other war known to Mankind. Clauswitz had it right, you fight till your enemy has neither the means or the will to fight on. That means killing the enemy, destroy the warmaking capacity, and letting the enemy know that you are the victor. Our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are being used as community organizers and allowing another Shiara Muslim country to recover and continue the fight against the west. Instead of the above scenario, the Officer should have been trained to go into the Afghani Police office as a soldier to make sure the police officer is doing his job or suffer the consequence.
GayboDGaylord
Wow thats a lot different then I remember. We were trained to try and not offend them deliberately but if they made a threatening move to drop them where they stand.
Guess there was early evidence of this nonsense. The Marine sniper that was disciplined for shooting the koran. The Army Officer kissing a copy of it in apology. No wonder they think we are bullsht now, look at how we submit to them at every turn.
Here's an off topic question, where the hell are these northern warlords we had take out the Taliban in the beginning of the war? Why aren't they protecting their border from them anymore?
attila_the_pun
Somewhere, General Patton weeps.
The country is doomed if this kind of garbage continues.
Obama gets broadest support from American muslims
American Muslims -- in the news recently with the controversy over proposed plans to build an Islamic center and mosque near ground zero in New York City -- have given Obama his highest ratings in all three time periods: 86% in the first half of 2009, 83% in the second half of 2009, and 78% so far this year. Mormons have given Obama his lowest ratings across time, dropping from 43% in the first half of 2009 to 24% this year.
In addition to Muslims, Obama receives above-average ratings among Jews, those who identify with other non-Christian religious groups, and those with no formal religious identity. Obama gets lower-than-average ratings among Protestants. Catholics have given Obama slightly higher-than-average ratings last year and so far this year.
Obama has lost slightly more ground than average so far among Mormons, and has lost the least among Muslims.
These findings are based on interviews with more than 275,000 adult Americans conducted as part of Gallup Daily tracking from Jan. 21, 2009, through July 31, 2010. Protestants and other non-Catholic/unaffiliated Christians are by far the largest religious group in America, representing about 55% of the adult population, followed by Catholics, at roughly 22%. About 13% of Americans do not have a formal religious identity or are explicitly atheists or agnostics. Jews, Mormons, and Muslims each represent no more than 2% of U.S. adults interviewed in Gallup's tracking.
President Obama's job approval ratings have fallen significantly between his first six months in office and this year so far, and his ratings among major religious groups have fallen in rough lock step. The pattern that pertained when Obama first took office -- high ratings among Muslims, those with no religious identity, those identifying with non-Christian religions, and Jews; and lower ratings among Protestants and Mormons -- continues today. Although his standing has dropped among Americans in each of these groups, Obama has retained a little more strength among Muslims, the group giving him the highest ratings, and has lost a little more among Mormons, the group giving him the lowest ratings.
In addition to Muslims, Obama receives above-average ratings among Jews, those who identify with other non-Christian religious groups, and those with no formal religious identity. Obama gets lower-than-average ratings among Protestants. Catholics have given Obama slightly higher-than-average ratings last year and so far this year.
Obama has lost slightly more ground than average so far among Mormons, and has lost the least among Muslims.
These findings are based on interviews with more than 275,000 adult Americans conducted as part of Gallup Daily tracking from Jan. 21, 2009, through July 31, 2010. Protestants and other non-Catholic/unaffiliated Christians are by far the largest religious group in America, representing about 55% of the adult population, followed by Catholics, at roughly 22%. About 13% of Americans do not have a formal religious identity or are explicitly atheists or agnostics. Jews, Mormons, and Muslims each represent no more than 2% of U.S. adults interviewed in Gallup's tracking.
President Obama's job approval ratings have fallen significantly between his first six months in office and this year so far, and his ratings among major religious groups have fallen in rough lock step. The pattern that pertained when Obama first took office -- high ratings among Muslims, those with no religious identity, those identifying with non-Christian religions, and Jews; and lower ratings among Protestants and Mormons -- continues today. Although his standing has dropped among Americans in each of these groups, Obama has retained a little more strength among Muslims, the group giving him the highest ratings, and has lost a little more among Mormons, the group giving him the lowest ratings.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
U.S. buying and distributing Imam Rauf's book on Islam
Unbelievable. You're not going to guess what our tax dollars are subsidizing. Actually, in this ObamaNation, maybe you will guess it. It turns out that you and I are funding the State Department to purchase and distribute copies of Feisal Abdul Rauf's book, What's Right With Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West.
Rauf is the imam behind the Ground Zero mosque and is the same imam who won't condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization; the same imam who said on “60 Minutes” that America was an "accessory" to September 11; and, as we reported at HUMAN EVENTS, the same imam who told a college audience overseas that the United States is worse than al Qaeda.
Yep, that dude. And not only has the State Department anointed him as our ad hoc ambassador to the Muslim world, but now they are acting as his personal Barnes & Noble to boot. Good grief! Buried in a recent New York Times article on Imam Rauf's global hopscotch, the paper casually referenced that our government buys and hands out his tome in an effort "to lecture about tolerance" and pursue "interfaith dialogue" with Islamic nations.
Only in the left's strange world does it make sense to support Imam Rauf as a goodwill spokesman for the United States while he's busy trashing the United States. But that aside, did the bureaucrats at the State Department ever take the time to read Rauf's What's Right with Islam? If so, they'll have to justify why they're promoting a book that faults America for stirring up conflict with Muslims, brags that America is "Sharia compliant," and makes excuses for suicide bombings.
Researchers at the American Center for Law and Justice combed through Rauf's 2004 book and found alarming passages. In the Orwellian-named chapter “What's Right with America,” Rauf goes on to—you guessed it—blame America. He writes: "If there is any quarrel Muslims have with America, it is that the United States does not always live up to its own ideal of ethics and values." In the same chapter, Rauf has a section called “America: A Sharia-Compliant State” wherein he contends that the "American political structure is Sharia compliant," especially if it begins to allow "religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws."
As if that weren't bad enough, our bud Rauf goes on to rationalize suicide bombings by blaming societal roots and not the warped Islamic fanatics themselves. Quoth the imam: "The most widely accepted view today in psychoanalysis is that suicide is most often a form of 'displacement.'… the individual inflicts upon himself the result of the frustration and anger caused by the perceived unraveling of the social fabric of his world."
Sounds exactly like the kind of guy best to represent American interests abroad, no? If you disagree, you're probably an Islamophobic racist!
Rauf is the imam behind the Ground Zero mosque and is the same imam who won't condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization; the same imam who said on “60 Minutes” that America was an "accessory" to September 11; and, as we reported at HUMAN EVENTS, the same imam who told a college audience overseas that the United States is worse than al Qaeda.
Yep, that dude. And not only has the State Department anointed him as our ad hoc ambassador to the Muslim world, but now they are acting as his personal Barnes & Noble to boot. Good grief! Buried in a recent New York Times article on Imam Rauf's global hopscotch, the paper casually referenced that our government buys and hands out his tome in an effort "to lecture about tolerance" and pursue "interfaith dialogue" with Islamic nations.
Only in the left's strange world does it make sense to support Imam Rauf as a goodwill spokesman for the United States while he's busy trashing the United States. But that aside, did the bureaucrats at the State Department ever take the time to read Rauf's What's Right with Islam? If so, they'll have to justify why they're promoting a book that faults America for stirring up conflict with Muslims, brags that America is "Sharia compliant," and makes excuses for suicide bombings.
Researchers at the American Center for Law and Justice combed through Rauf's 2004 book and found alarming passages. In the Orwellian-named chapter “What's Right with America,” Rauf goes on to—you guessed it—blame America. He writes: "If there is any quarrel Muslims have with America, it is that the United States does not always live up to its own ideal of ethics and values." In the same chapter, Rauf has a section called “America: A Sharia-Compliant State” wherein he contends that the "American political structure is Sharia compliant," especially if it begins to allow "religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws."
As if that weren't bad enough, our bud Rauf goes on to rationalize suicide bombings by blaming societal roots and not the warped Islamic fanatics themselves. Quoth the imam: "The most widely accepted view today in psychoanalysis is that suicide is most often a form of 'displacement.'… the individual inflicts upon himself the result of the frustration and anger caused by the perceived unraveling of the social fabric of his world."
Sounds exactly like the kind of guy best to represent American interests abroad, no? If you disagree, you're probably an Islamophobic racist!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
