Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 46

Hybrid View

  1. #1 Fox ‘Liberal’ Bob Beckel: No New U.S. Mosques Until Muslims ‘Denounce’ Kenya Attack 
    eeeevil Sith Admin SarasotaRepub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Sunny,FL
    Posts
    43,036
    Rut Roh...



    Tue Sep 24, 2013, 07:00 PM
    Purveyor

    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.”

    MORE...

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/2...-kenya-attack/
    Bob is gonna get thrown under da LibTard Express Bus!!!!
    May the FORCE be with you!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member DumbAss Tanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    2,681
    Hell, pull out the Lib bag o' tricks and go DOJ RICO lawsuit on the whole damn' religion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Politically tired. Lanie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,609
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Administrator SaintLouieWoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Sarasota Florida
    Posts
    40,482
    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.
    http://http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/SarasotaRepub/83069bcc.png

    " 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!"


    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    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.
    Islam is not simply a religion, it's a totalitarian political construct with religious aspects. Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and most other religions do not impose their laws on non-believers, unless they are within their jurisdiction. The last time that Christianity attempted this en masse was during the religious wars of the Renaissance. Islam seeks to impose itself on all people, even those who are nowhere near a mosque or Islamic state. Imams routinely issue fatwas calling for the deaths of individuals outside of Islam, and these fatwas have the force, not just of law, but of divine law.

    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.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member Arroyo_Doble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth
    Posts
    3,788
    I don't know who this guy is but is this another example of a liberal ignoring the Constitution?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Politically tired. Lanie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,609
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Islam is not simply a religion, it's a totalitarian political construct with religious aspects. Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and most other religions do not impose their laws on non-believers, unless they are within their jurisdiction. The last time that Christianity attempted this en masse was during the religious wars of the Renaissance. Islam seeks to impose itself on all people, even those who are nowhere near a mosque or Islamic state. Imams routinely issue fatwas calling for the deaths of individuals outside of Islam, and these fatwas have the force, not just of law, but of divine law.

    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.
    Your link didn't work.

    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."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    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.
    This has nothing to do with the First Amendment.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Politically tired. Lanie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,609
    Quote Originally Posted by txradioguy View Post
    This has nothing to do with the First Amendment.
    How do you figure that?

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    How do you figure that?
    Nothing of what Beckel said violates the 1st Amendment.

    No one is stopping Muslims from going to Friday prayers at any current Mosque in the country. No one has outlawed Islam despite the fact they believe every religion except Islam should be outlawed.

    Sent from my Z10 using Tapatalk 2
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •