Guardians of Jihadist Virtue Say Soccer Is Un-Islamic

For the No Fun in Islam file…

Much of the non-USA world is going gonzo over the the soccer World Cup now taking place in South Africa. The sport is nearly universally popular because it requires very little in the way of equipment and is easy to play.

However, in Somali territory run by al Shabaab, the Jihadist enforcers are telling local fans to enjoy at their peril:

Somali militants threaten World Cup TV viewers, BBC, June 14, 2010

Somali militants have threatened football fans they will be publicly flogged – or worse – if they are caught watching the World Cup on TV.

Gangs of Islamists are reported to be patrolling the areas they control looking for people watching games.

Dedicated fans are watching matches in secret, or in the few areas controlled by government forces.

On Saturday militants killed two people as they attacked a house where people were watching a game.

Militant group Hizbul-Islam also arrested 10 others at the house north-east of the capital Mogadishu where fans were watching the game between Argentina and Nigeria.

Keep in mind that Washington has imported more than 83,000 Somalis in the last 25 years (according to Refugee Resettlement Watch).

In the example of Somali Islamic justice pictured below, the local assassins executed a man for adultery (see In Somalia, “Stoner” Has a Different Meaning).

Public Recognizes a Problem with Democrats in Charge

There’s been a substantial change in how Americans see the Democratic Party in the two years since they have been running the legislative and executive branches of government. Liberal priorities have been on clear display with Obama and his Chicago cronies in charge, and the people have noticed.

The headline of the new Gallup poll emphasized that nearly half were critical of the extreme leftward nature of the party (“too liberal”), but what’s more interesting is how rapidly that number has shot upward, from 39 to 49 percent in just two years.

Near-Record 49% Say Democratic Party “Too Liberal”, Gallup, Inc, June 14, 2010

PRINCETON, NJ — In the past two years, Americans have become increasingly likely to describe the Democratic Party’s views as “too liberal” (49%), and less likely to say its views are “about right” (38%). Americans’ views of the Republican Party, on the other hand, have moderated slightly, with a dip in the percentage saying the GOP is too conservative from 43% last year to 40% today, and an increase in the percentage saying it is about right, from 34% to 41%.

Also fascinating is how the proportion of people who regard the Democrats as “about right” went from 50 percent to 38 percent in the same two-year period.

Gallup’s identical questions about the Republicans showed little change in opinion (see the link).

Interestingly, a Rasmussen poll from last week showed more inclusive disgust: 65% Say Country Better Off If Most in Congress Defeated This November.
.

Texas GOP Simulates Arizona Law in Platform

It’s no secret that Governor Rick Perry is an open-borders guy, so it’s good to see his party show their independence. Plus, Arizona has gotten no end of grief because of standing for borders and sovereignty, from shrieks of racism from the Raza crowd and the corrupt dinosaur media, to the boycotts from left-wing local governments like San Francisco.

But despite the full-court press against Arizona by the usual suspects, the enforcement-only law has remained popular among the American people, which must be seen as a huge failure in the White House propaganda wing.

So patriots who are also politically inclined sense a winning strategy. Way to go, Texans!

At Convention, Texas GOP Passes Immigration Plank Similar to Arizona Law, Fox News, June 13, 2010

Republican delegates at the state party convention bucked Gov. Rick Perry’s opposition to Arizona’s immigration law and voted Saturday for a platform plank advocating a law that would bar illegal immigrants from living in Texas and allows local police to verify U.S. residency.

Fired-up Republican activists in no mood for compromises threw out their party chairwoman Saturday, then bucked Texas Gov. Rick Perry by pushing for a crackdown on illegal immigration similar to Arizona’s new law. […]

The immigration proposal, a hard-line approach that Perry has said isn’t right for Texas, was one of several initiatives debated as delegates wrapped up the two-day convention. The Republican Party platform is a blueprint of the policies that GOP activists want elected officials to pursue.

Delegates voted to include a plank advocating for a state law that would bar illegal immigrants from “intentionally or knowingly” living in Texas. Similar to Arizona’s strict law that has sparked nationwide debate, the proposal would require local police to verify U.S. residency when making arrests.

Perry has said the Arizona law, if adopted in Texas, would unduly burden police.

Hey, Perry! We’re trying to save the country here.

Family Togetherness Defined Sensibly

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has her head on straight regarding the mythical family values about which we hear so much from invasive Mexicans: when somebody who is part of a “mixed” status family (usually jackpot kiddies), they can all go live in Mexico (or wherever) together. No problema!

No sympathy from governor for families separated by deportation, KGUN 9 TV, June 9, 2010

On Thursday afternoon Tucson area congressman Raul Grijalva (D-Arizona) will help lead a congressional hearing on immigration enforcement.  Among the issues to be examined is the effect that Arizona’s immigration crackdown might have on families.  Grijalva is specifically looking at the controversial immigration sweeps conducted by flamboyant Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and will examine what life will look like if more law enforcement officers begin to conduct similar sweeps under the terms of SB 1070.

Whatever the hearing finds, it’s likely to fall on deaf ears as far as Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is concerned.   In an interview with KGUN9 News on the eve of the hearing, Governor Brewer’s message was clear: if you’re here illegally, go back home.  Her answer does not change in the case of families who might be separated by deportation or repatriation.  Brewer said, “It is illegal to trespass into our country.  It has always been illegal.  And people have determined they want to take that chance, that responsibility…. They made a decision.  And you pay those consequences, unfortunately.” […]

As for Sheriff Arpaio, the man whose practices will be in the spotlight Thursday afternoon, the family separation issue does not sway him either.  Arpaio told KGUN9 News, “I feel sad for that situation.  But let’s not forget the 10,000 people I have in jail.  What about all those parents that are in jail that have been taken away from their kids?  No one seems to care about the homes being broken up by other people who have committed violations of law. It’s a sad situation, not only for the illegal immigration situation.  It’s a sad situation for all those people who are taken away from their kids because they violated the law.”

Sheriff Arpaio is exactly right. Nobody made much noise about the effects of families being separated until the Raza gang thought it would be a useful ploy. Prisons are filled with persons who are also parents, and the kids suffer on account of the separation, but the bad guys should have thought of their kids before they committed the crime.

The clip below shows Governor Brewer opining that illegal aliens may take their families with them when they leave. Simple!

Interestingly, Governor Brewer’s re-election campaign was tanking before she signed SB1070 into law and became an outspoken advocate for border enforcement. Since then, she has skyrocketed into favor:

Immigration Law Breathes Life Into Brewer’s Re-Election Campaign, Fox News, June 12, 2010

Only nine months ago, politically speaking, Jan Brewer had flatlined; the Arizona governor’s approval rating was at 22 percent. And as recently as three months ago, a Rasmussen poll of likely voters showed her trailing her likely opponent, state Attorney General Terry Goddard, by nearly 10 points in the runup to November’s gubernatorial election. […]

Just one month after signing the law, Brewer had taken a 13-point lead over Goddard, with 52 percent of likely voters backing her candidacy, according to Rasmussen Reports.

Immigration-Fueled Overpopulation Noted in Britain

It’s interesting that there is growing concern in the UK about the general increased crowdiness that is an unavoidable result of unsustainable immigration. The place was already crammed when the Labour Party purposely turned the I-spigot on full blast more than a decade ago.

But now the United Kingdom has reached nearly 660 residents per square mile, and average Brits can see that their country has rapidly become more crowded. People are talking about the need to stop importing more inhabitants.

Britain will struggle to handle ‘catastrophic’ population growth unless changes are made, Daily Mail, June 9, 2010

Britain will struggle to handle ‘catastrophic’ population growth in future unless urgent action is taken, a report has warned.

The predicted increase to 70million by 2029 will put unsustainable pressure on housing, schools and hospitals as well as natural resources such as food and water, experts said.

Current trends will see a city the size of Bristol added to the population of the UK every year for the next two decades.

But sustainable development group Forum for the Future said vast growth would cause huge rises in pollution and waste.

Its report called for urgent action to stop numbers reaching the expected highs and causing a fall in quality of life levels.

And it urged a ‘rethink’ of the policy of importing labour to take skilled jobs. […]

The number of people in Britain shot up by more than three million under 13 years of Labour government.

Around 70 per cent of the increase was due to immigration – either directly through new arrivals or their children.

The count is now 61,398,000 – up by 3,084,200 since 1997.

In the world population density map below, you can see that the UK is among the most dense nations, and the United States has entered the mid-range (83/square mile) with no end in sight.

Gangster Deportee Makes Good!

There’s nothing like a story of hard luck, struggle and eventual success to illustrate the resilience of the human spirit.

Indeed, the experience so far of Tuy “K.K.” Sobil (pictured) also shows how being deported need not be a sentence to misery at all, but instead opens a potential door to discovering one’s ethnic roots and developing a far more meaningful life. If K.K. had remained in southern California as a member of the Long Beach Crips, he would have been just another violent thug with prospects of prison and an early death.

But because of the kindness of a deportation order, he was able to remake his life into one of service to others, helping many street kids of Phnom Penh by teaching them break-dancing, as well as more traditional coping skills.

He flips, spins, turns his life around, Los Angeles Times, June 10, 2010

Reporting from Phnom Penh, Cambodia — His arms and chest coated with gangland-style tattoos, his eyebrow pierced, Tuy “K.K.” Sobil sits in a cafe in Phnom Penh beside his 5-year-old son, Unique, adopted from drug dealer parents who couldn’t cope.

“I’m trying to get him to eat his vegetables,” he said. “He gets his bad habits from me.”

K.K., short for “Krazy Kat,” knows all about bad habits: The onetime member of the Long Beach Crips served eight years in prison for armed robbery before being deported in 2004 to Cambodia, his parents’ homeland.

Now, six years after he found himself abandoned, impoverished and largely unwelcome in an ancestral land he’d never seen, the 32-year-old has tapped into long-forgotten break-dancing skills to become one of Cambodia’s unlikeliest role models.

His goal: to keep thousands of street children from making the same mistakes he did.

K.K.’s life was upended by a U.S. law that authorized deportations of noncitizens with any criminal conviction, from murder to shoplifting. Although he was born in a Thai refugee camp, never visited Cambodia and lived in the United States since he was 4, neither K.K. nor his illiterate parents formally applied for citizenship after he turned 18.

But K.K. reckons the deportation pulled him out of a life that probably would have led him back to prison, or possibly to his death by now. “Doper, may he rest in peace, Doper passed away,” he said of one former gang member.

When K.K. landed, shellshocked, in Phnom Penh and looked around at the impoverished, war-torn country, the last thing he envisioned was a return to break dancing, which he hadn’t done since he was 13. But after another deportee who knew of his reputation spread the word of his skills, street urchins badgered him until he finally agreed to give lessons in his living room.

“There were 40 kids in the room every night,” said Michael Otto, K.K.’s best man at his wedding to a Cambodian woman. “It was like a sauna.”

Working with youngsters left little room for self-pity. Sure, he’d had it tough. But at least the United States had public schools and welfare departments, both sorely lacking here.

“I realized I needed to help out,” he said.

Before long, he left his job at Korsang, a nonprofit drug treatment center, to start the Tiny Toones youth center, housed in a run-down building with surging electricity, rats and leaking walls. Poverty, gangs, drugs and family abuse, a legacy of decades of war and dysfunctional government, left thousands of orphans and street children badly in need of help.

Although rapping, break dancing, beat boxing, and deejaying — and K.K. — are the center’s trademark, its real mission is to empower youngsters, help them kick drugs, and teach basic language, arts and computer skills.

Congratulations to K.K. for turning his life around and showing how deportation is a good thing!

New Democrat Strategy: Sound Tough on Immigration

Do we detect desperation here? Consultants recommending that craven Dems “talk more like Republicans”?

And say, isn’t that the same language that was deemed racist for criticizing lawbreaking foreigners?

Hey, even John McCain has been taking a stricter line about law and borders recently, so maybe he is on to something.

On the other hand, it’s hardly news that politicians lie all the time about their positions to get elected, then do whatever they damn well please in office. Look at Obama — he campaigned as a moderate, but has run the country like he was Lenin’s long-lost nephew.

(That’s why it might be better to yank politicians’ leashes more often: Should Elections Be Held More Frequently?)

Anyway, the Dems are plotting out loud about how to lie more effectively to destroy the country and advantage themselves in the process. Nobody is listening, right? It’ll work out fine, sure.

Dems’ tough new immigration pitch, Politico, June 10, 2010

Long pilloried for being soft on illegal immigration, top Democratic officials have concluded there’s only one way they can hope to pass a comprehensive immigration bill:

Talk more like Republicans.

They’re seizing on the work of top Democratic Party operatives who, after a legislative defeat in 2007, launched a multiyear polling project to craft an enforcement-first, law-and-order, limited-compassion pitch that now defines the party’s approach to the issue.

The 12 million people who unlawfully reside the country? Call them “illegal immigrants,” not “undocumented workers,” the pollsters say.

Strip out the empathy, too. Democrats used to offer immigrants “an earned path to citizenship” so hardworking people trying to support their families could “come out of the shadows.” To voters, that sounded like a gift, the operatives concluded.

Now, Democrats emphasize that it’s “unacceptable” to allow 12 million people to live in America illegally and that the government must “require” them to register and “get right with the law.” That means three things: “Obey our laws, learn our language and pay our taxes” — or face deportation.

“We lost control of the message in the 2007 debate,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, a pro-immigrant rights group that worked with Center for American Progress founder John Podesta on the messaging overhaul.

“We were on the inside fighting off amendments, and the other side was jacking up their opponents and getting Rush and Hannity and O’Reilly on fire about this. We needed to do a much better job on communications.”

President Barack Obama uses the buzzwords. So does the congressional leadership. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), author of the Democratic immigration plan, scolds advocates who refer to illegal immigrants as “undocumented workers.”

The revamped message may not face the real-world test anytime soon. The appetite to take on immigration before the November elections has faded as the political environment for incumbents grows increasingly hostile. Supporters of comprehensive reform plan to continue to exert pressure, but privately they say legislative action will need to wait until next year.

Coming Soon from Obama: Alien Detention Centers with Continental Breakfasts

For the you-can’t-make-this-up file: the Obamanistas are turning illegal alien jails into resorts in part to make up for not passing an all-inclusive amnesty during the President’s first year.

Along with relaxed security, the illegal alien detainees will have bingo games, free phones, internet access, art and dance classes, and hanging plants to cheer them up.

Of course, reducing security measures like pat-downs will make everyone less safe since criminals will bring their weapons: that part could end badly. And proponents say that the improvements won’t cost the taxpayers any more money, but how likely is that?

ICE to make detention centers more humane, Houston Chronicle, June 8, 2010

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials are preparing to roll out a series of changes at several privately owned immigration detention centers, including relaxing some security measures for low-risk detainees and offering art classes, bingo and continental breakfast on the weekends.

The changes, detailed in an internal ICE e-mail obtained by the Houston Chronicle, were welcomed by immigrant advocates who have been waiting for the Obama administration to deliver on a promise made in August to overhaul the nation’s immigration detention system.

The 28 changes identified in the e-mail range from the superficial to the substantive. In addition to “softening the look of the facility” with hanging plants and offering fresh carrot sticks, ICE will allow for the “free movement” of low-risk detainees, expand visiting hours and provide unmonitored phone lines.

ICE officials said the changes are part of broader efforts to make the immigration detention system less penal and more humane.

But the plans are prompting protests by ICE’s union leaders, who say they will jeopardize the safety of agents, guards and detainees and increase the bottom line for taxpayers. Tre Rebstock, president for Local 3332, the ICE union in Houston, likened the changes to creating “an all-inclusive resort” for immigration detainees.

“Our biggest concern is that someone is going to get hurt,” he said, taking particular issue with plans to relax restrictions on the movement of low-risk detainees and efforts to reduce and eliminate pat-down searches.

The changes outlined in the ICE e-mail are planned for nine detention centers owned and operated by Corrections Corporation of America, including the 900-bed Houston Contract Detention Facility on the city’s north side.

Some of the changes will be implemented within 30 days; others may take up to six months, said Beth Gibson, ICE’s senior counselor to Assistant Secretary John Morton and a leader of the detention reform effort. […]

Some of the improvements offered at the CCA facilities counted as hard-fought victories for immigrant advocates, including plans to improve visitor and attorney access.

“A lot of these measures are what we’ve been advocating for,” said Lory Rosenberg, policy and advocacy director for Refugee and Migrants’ Rights for Amnesty International.

“Many of these points are very important to changing the system from a penal system, which is inappropriate in an immigration context, to a civil detention system.”

Union members said they have concerns about the plans, primarily focusing on safety.

Rebstock said some detainees may be classified as low-risk because they have no serious criminal history but still may be gang members that “haven’t been caught doing anything wrong yet.”

Below, Sheriff Arpaio’s tent jail in Maricopa County, Arizona, makes illegal aliens feel unwelcome in America — a good thing in the minds of many citizens.

Rasmussen Poll: Voters Prefer Arizona’s Approach to Washington’s

The polls keep rolling in and mounting up with the same message: Americans want an enforcement approach to solve border anarchy, and reject the craven surrender to Mexico that Obama prefers.

Today’s example notes that just over a third of voters (34%) agree with President Obama, while 56% prefer Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who met with the President in the White House last Friday. They discussed her state’s new legislation that has caused so much alarm among open-borders types that immigration laws were actually going to be effectively enforced.

The curious headline below refers to an imaginary 2012 Presidential match-up between the two politicians:

Obama 44%, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer 39%, Rasmussen Reports, June 9, 2010

Fifty-six percent (56%) of U.S. voters say their views on illegal immigration are closer to those of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer than to the views of President Obama. The two finally met last Friday at the White House to discuss Arizona’s tough new immigration law which the president opposes.

A new Rasmussen Reports nationwide telephone survey finds that only 34% say their views on illegal immigration are closer to the president’s. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.

Eighty-one percent (81%) of the Political Class say their views are closer to Obama’s, while 72% of Mainstream voters say they think more like Brewer.

Given a 2012 election contest for president between Obama as the Democratic candidate and Brewer as the Republican, 44% of all voters support the incumbent, while 39% prefer the governor. Nine percent (9%) like some other candidate, while eight percent (8%) more are undecided.

But since 54% of voters don’t know enough about Brewer to venture any kind of opinion of her, this finding is more of a reflection on the president than any possible match-up with Brewer.

Twenty-six percent (26%) of voters have a favorable opinion of Brewer, while 20% view her unfavorably. These figures includes 12% with a Very Favorable opinion and nine percent (9%) with a Very Unfavorable opinion. The question about Brewer did not indicate that she was Governor of Arizona and was asked before the question about a possible match-up with President Obama.

Sixty-four percent (64%) believe the federal government by failing to enforce immigration law is more to blame for the current controversy over Arizona’s new statute than state officials are for passing it. Only 27% blame Arizona officials more for passing the law. […]

Since signing it in late April, Brewer has strongly championed the law which requires local police to check the immigration status of anyone stopped for a traffic violation or some other kind of violation if the officer suspects the person is an illegal immigrant. Supporters of the law say it’s necessary because the federal government is not enforcing immigration policy and illegal immigrants are an increasing budget and public safety burden on the state.

Since signing the immigration law, Brewer has seen her approval ratings soar in Arizona and her prospects for re-election have improved.

The president and others, including Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard who is the likely Democratic nominee for governor this year, oppose the law, saying it encourages racial profiling. The U.S. Justice Department is considering challenging the Arizona law in court, and a high-level official with the Department of Homeland Security has said the department may not process any illegal immigrants arrested by Arizona police.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters nationwide now favor passage of an immigration law like Arizona’s in their own state. Fifty-six percent (56%) oppose a Justice Department challenge of the state law. Continue reading this article

Polygamy in France: Islamic Family Values

This video (Polygamy in France) tells a lot about Muslim immigration math: one husband, two wives, 17 children. The first wife came legally as a spouse, while the second came via a tourist visa and remained unlawfully. Polygamy is illegal in France, but families like the one profiled get all the benefits of the French welfare state while breaking its laws.

Interestingly, the French authorities in this case are disturbed because the mega-family has inadequate housing, according to government standards.

In 2005, when French cities were being torched by angry Muslim “youth” roaming the boulevards, one report noted that in overpopulated polygamous families the “kids sleep in shifts, and when others are asleep, they are on the streets because there is nowhere else to go” (In France, Malaise Tops the Dish).

Interestingly, in 2008 NPR (!) reported on multi-wifing in this country, although it hedged by emphasizing the colorful aspect of diversity:

Some Muslims in U.S. Quietly Engage in Polygamy.

Although polygamy is illegal in the U.S. and most mosques try to discourage plural marriages, some Muslim men in America have quietly married multiple wives.

No one knows how many Muslims in the U.S. live in polygamous families. But according to academics researching the issue, estimates range from 50,000 to 100,000 people.

You can see some of the women involved in polygamous marriages in the lobby of Sanctuary for Families, a nonprofit women’s center in New York City. It bursts with color as a dozen women in bright African dresses and head wraps gather for a weekly noon meeting for West African immigrants. The women come each week to this support group where they discuss hard issues, such as domestic abuse, medical problems, immigration hurdles and polygamy.

Obama Administration Protects Mexican Drug Cartels

Sometimes it’s hard not to think that the current government isn’t one big criminal enterprise.

Today’s example is all the more remarkable because it came from the Obama-worshipping New York Times. Apparently the Obama henchmen are frightened that Americans might somehow connect criminal drugs with Mexico (!) We wouldn’t want anyone to think ill of Mexico after all, since it is such a loyal friend and never asks anything of America.

Mexico is only one of the most violent countries on earth because of its drug cartels warring with each other over influence and territory, which has caused the violent deaths of more than 20,000 in the last three years.

U.S. Delays Release of Report Tying Meth to Mexico, New York Times, June 8, 2010

WASHINGTON — In an apparent effort to minimize diplomatic turbulence with the Mexican government, the Obama administration has been delaying for weeks the release of a Justice Department report that describes a “high and increasing” availability of methamphetamine mainly because of large-scale drug production in Mexico.

The report, obtained by The New York Times, is called the 2010 National Methamphetamine Threat Assessment by the National Drug Intelligence Center of the Justice Department. It portrays drug cartels as easily able to circumvent the Mexican government’s restrictions on the importing of chemicals used to manufacture meth, which has reached its highest purity and lowest price in the United States since 2005.

Completed in mid-May, the report — which in previous years has been distributed to state and local police forces and posted online without fanfare or controversy — has not yet been released, partly because of the increasingly delicate politics of the United States-Mexico border and drugs.

At one point, copies of the report were printed and boxes of it were shipped to San Diego to be distributed to law enforcement officials at a meth conference. But White House officials raised concerns because that same week President Felipe Calderón of Mexico was coming to Washington for a state visit. The release of the report has since been repeatedly delayed.

The report was particularly touchy because it came less than two months after the distribution of another National Drug Intelligence Center study that had portrayed the drug trafficking situation in Mexico in stark terms, prompting complaints from the Mexican government. […]

The internal wrangling over the center’s Mexico-related drug reports traces back to March 23, when a delegation of top Obama administration officials — including Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton — went to Mexico City for a show of solidarity in fighting drug cartels.

But the positive diplomatic feelings that resulted from that meeting were soon marred by an apparent coincidence. On March 25, two days after the trip, the National Drug Intelligence Center — which is based in Johnstown, Pa., and led by a career official, Michael Walther — publicly distributed its annual National Drug Threat Assessment.

It portrayed the Mexican drug cartel situation in a harsh light, describing a surge in production of heroin and marijuana due to “greatly reduced efforts to eradicate drug crops” in Mexico. An Obama administration official and an official in the Mexican government each said that Mexico raised concerns with the United States about the report.

And so it goes. The Times story delves at length into the diplomatic intricacies and in doing so misses the bigger picture: Obama’s fear of offending Mexico only serves to make like easier for Mexican organized crime. A bracing shot of plain talk might possibly wake up Mexico’s somnambulant rulers.

Instead, Washington thinks it should help uphold the fantasy that Mexico City is fighting the drug cartels. But to what end? Kicking the can down the road for a few months longer? Obama would be wise to lay out a Plan B of what to do in case the Mexican state collapses under the onslaught of its failing drug war.

And what about the American people? Don’t we need to know how dangerous a neighbor lies right next door? As usual, the well being of the American people is ignored by the Obama gang in favor of political machinations.

Rally against Ground Zero Mosque a Great Success

In New York City, June 6 (a date chosen for being D-Day) was observed by a rally against the construction of a territory-marking mega-mosque near Ground Zero. Organizers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer expected a turn-out of 500 or so, and were thrilled when more than 10 times that number showed up.

Below is a shot of the crowd…

Looking at the Left has some great photos: Stop the Mosque.

Robert Spencer, the director of JihadWatch, pointed out that the man behind the mosque does not have a history of promoting tolerance, but instead is an anti-American sharia subversive:

Danish activist Anders Gravers founded Stop the Islamization of Europe, the model for Stop the Islamization of America, which organized Sunday’s event:

There are additional videos at No Mosque at Ground Zero, as well as on Urban Infidel which also has many fine photos. The People’s Cube has dozens of pictures with the usual attitude.

There was no coverage on the big cable news channels that I saw, but the CBN put on a very affecting piece…

Thousands Protest NYC Ground Zero Mosque, CBN, June 7, 2010

More than 5,000 people from all over the United States gathered in the Big Apple to protest the building of a 13-story mega-mosque two blocks from Ground Zero.

Organizers say the man behind the mosque – Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf – is not the man of peace he claims to be.

“He says he advocates for tolerance, but in his book he advocates for Sharia law which is radically intolerant,” said Pamela Gellar, who leads the organization Stop Islamization of America. “We have no idea where the funding is coming from. We know his father built an Islamic Center on 96th street and was funded by 49 Muslim countries. Who’s funding this $50 million monster? We want to know.”

Several members of families who lost loved ones in the World Trade Center attacks on September 11, 2001, were among the protestors. They displayed photos of their family members who died. They said building a mosque so close to their loved ones graves is an insult.

“This is my only son,” said Eileen Tallon, who lost her son in the attack. “He was a firefighter and he went into rescue people that day. I’m upset about the building of the mosque, because Muslim terrorists murdered my son and 3,000 Americans at this site.”

“Such was the violence on 9-11 that my brother’s remains were never found,” said Christina Regenhard said. “He was killed by Islamist and now they want to build a mosque on his grave. Their victory will be complete.” […]

The proposed mosque is slated to be built in the old Burlington Coat Factory building, just 600 feet from where the towers fell. Mosque supporters say their hope is to bring something good out of 9-11.

But for people like Lee Henson – who lost his son, daughter-in-law and granddaughter that day – a mosque near Ground Zero is unacceptable.

“They were on United Airlines Flight 175,” Henson said. “My son called, he said, ‘Don’t worry Dad – it’ll be quick.’ I heard ‘Oh my God, oh my God, oh my God’ – then I looked at the TV screen and saw the plane hit the tower.”

Of related interest is the fascinating photo essay by El Marco, Prayer Time at the Ground Zero Mosque, showing the building which is now a scruffy-looking mosque (where diverse worshippers wash their feet in the street), located next to a saloon, to be remodeled into something far more grand by wealthy jihadists.

Page 259 of 268« First...102030...257258259260261...Last »