#1 Fox ‘Liberal’ Bob Beckel: No New U.S. Mosques Until Muslims ‘Denounce’ Kenya Attack09-24-2013, 07:08 PM
Tue Sep 24, 2013, 07:00 PM
Fox ‘Liberal’ Bob Beckel: No New U.S. Mosques Until Muslims ‘Denounce’ Kenya Attack
On Monday on Fox News’ “The Five,” ostensible liberal panelist Bob Beckel said that the United States should forbid the construction of any new Islamic mosques until “moderate” Muslims “stand up and denounce what’s happened in the name of your prophet.” Media Matters reported that if he had his way, Beckel would also refuse to let any more Muslim students into the country until such a pledge or apology were made.
The remarks came during a discussion of Saturday’s attack on a mall in Nairobi, Kenya, in which Muslim al Shabaab gunmen attacked the mall and killed more than 60 people, resulting in a days-long siege that ended on Tuesday.
Co-host Eric Bolling said, “They say Islam is the religion of peace, but they have to start proving it. And they are not proving it anywhere.”
“They are not the religion of peace,” agreed Beckel. “Listen, if people who are supposedly peaceful, you moderate Muslims out there. Now listen, I know I have been on this thing for a long time, but the time has come for you stand up and say something.”
He continued, “And I will repeat what I said before: No Muslim students coming here with visas. No more mosques being built here until you stand up and denounce what’s happened in the name of your prophet. It is not what your prophet meant as soon as I know. I don’t know his mother’s name and I don’t care. The point is, that the time has come for Muslims in this country and other people in the world to stand up and be counted, and if you can’t, you’re cowards.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/2...-kenya-attack/May the FORCE be with you!
09-24-2013, 11:01 PM
Hell, pull out the Lib bag o' tricks and go DOJ RICO lawsuit on the whole damn' religion.
09-24-2013, 11:16 PM
He's right. Who needs the first amendment anyway?
If terrorists are after us for our freedom, then ideas like this ensure they'll win.
09-24-2013, 11:29 PM
This is one of the few times that I agree with Beckel. Sometimes things are just so agregious that even super libs can't stomach it anymore. Our real loss of control will come when we all must memorize the name of the mother or know a muslim prayer by heart. Perhaps we should all keep a spare burka, just in case. Now that's when we know that we've lost.
" To the world you are just one more person, but to a rescued pet, you are the world."
"A Nation of Sheep Breeds a Government of Wolves!"
GO CARDS -THERE IS ALWAYS NEXT YEAR
GO ROYALS NOW
09-25-2013, 10:18 AM
The closest that the US has come to dealing with this issue was during the early days of the Church of the LDS, which also tried to set itself up as a law unto itself. One of the requirements for Utah statehood was that the church renounce polygamy and declare that it would obey the laws of the United States. Muslims refuse to do this, and seek to impose Sharia on non-Muslims, even here. The issue is not that we are infringing on their freedom of worship, but that their freedom of worship cannot infringe on our rights.
Before we do anything else, we should look into the ownership of the mosques in the US. The North American Islamic Trust is a subsidiary and front for the Islamic Society of North America, which is itself a Muslim Brotherhood front. The following comes from http://www.strategycenter.net/docLib..._and_ISNA.pdf:
According to the current website, the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) explains itself as follows:
“The North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) is a waqf, the historical Islamic equivalent of an American trust or endowment, serving Muslims in the United States and their institutions. NAIT facilitates the realization of American Muslims' desire for a virtuous and happy life in a hari'ahcompliant way. NAIT is a not-for-profit entity that qualifies as a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. NAIT was established in 1973 in Indiana by the Muslim Students Association of U.S. and Canada (MSA), the predecessor of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). NAIT supports and provides services to ISNA, MSA, their affiliates, and other Islamic centers and institutions. The President of ISNA is an ex-officio member of the Board of Trustees of NAIT.”
The NAIT website goes on to explain:
“NAIT holds titles to mosques, Islamic centers, schools, and other real estate to safeguard and pool the assets of the American Muslim community, develops financial vehicles and products that are compatible with both the Shari'ah (Islamic law) and the American law, publishes and distributes credible Islamic literature, and facilitates and coordinates community projects.”
The NAIT website states that it “holds the title of approximately 300 properties” a figure consistent with a LEXIS/NEXIS search showing 332 properties in the real-estate related database and with a report by the Council on American Islamic Relations which says that NAIT owns about 27 percent of the estimated 1200 mosques in the United States. In a hearing before the United States Senate, witness testimony shows that NAIT holds the deeds to between 50% and 79% of American mosques. (emphasis in original)
NAIT and ISNA were both cited as "unindicted co-conspirators" in the Holy Land trial, in which they were confirmed to have knowingly provided funds which were raised on behalf of terrorist groups. What we have, then, is a Muslim Brotherhood front group, which is seeking to undermine the United States through what the Brotherhood refers to as a "civilizational jihad" (i.e., infiltration and subversion) and which has used its properties to raise funds for terrorists while using the protections of the First Amendment. This is an obvious RICO case.
Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.
09-25-2013, 10:34 AM
I don't know who this guy is but is this another example of a liberal ignoring the Constitution?
09-25-2013, 10:42 AM
If the potential mosque in question is owned or funded by those who are with the Muslim Brotherhood or another terrorist group, then it shouldn't be allowed to be built for national security reasons. If this is an issue of being concerned about the ideology, then we're playing a dangerous game by letting the government dictate it. How long will it take before the government decides that Christianity or another religion is too dangerous because of some aspects of the ideology? You might think it can't happen, but it can. We already have a problem with Christian businesses being told they need to cater to those in which their ideology doesn't agree. People who don't want to do so are being viewed by the government as "imposing their religion."
This is dangerous and we need to get the government out of the business of "not imposing religion" in regards to private affairs because I promise you they'll take it too far. There's a reason for the first amendment. They knew that people felt threatened by the ideology of others and would feel a need to "defend themselves."
If we're talking about national security (funding for a mosque or another religious institution being funded by terrorists), then fine. Let the government get involved. Otherwise, we need to get the government out.
Besides, not allowing more mosques without a legal reason only encourages more extremism because we'll be seen as "at war with Islam."
09-25-2013, 11:33 AM
I'm not big on forcing religious groups to take some kind of loyalty oath. Right now, someone is proposing it for Muslims to build a mosque. It could be turned on Christians or any other religious group very easily. Think of the debates going on regarding birth control coverage in Obamacare, for example.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|