Thursday, October 04, 2007

Pentagon Infiltrated by the Borg

If you want to measure the progressive success of what the Muslim Brotherhood calls in its manifesto “Civilization Jihad” (or what Steven Emerson or Robert Spencer would call “cultural jihad”), one need look no further than the front page of The Washington Times of October 3rd. At the bottom is the headline, “Pentagon observes Muslim holy month,” accompanied by a color photograph of several people, some in uniform, others not, bowing east to Mecca. Up front are all the shoeless men; far in the rear, women in hijibs and caftans.

“Navy imam Chaplain Abuhena M. Saifulisam lifted his voice to God as he called to prayer more than 100 Department of Defense employees Monday at a celebration of Ramadan at the Pentagon.

“’God is most great,’ sang the lieutenant commander and Islamic leader, in Arabic, as iftar – the end of the daily fast – began.”

Isn’t that what Mohammad Atta and his fellow kamikaze “warriors” yelled as they flew their hijacked planes into the Pentagon, the World Trade Center, and a Pennsylvania field on 9/11? So, the religion that was “hijacked,” according to President Bush, has penetrated the Pentagon again.

“As the Pentagon celebrated Ramadan, the White House is in preparations for an iftar feast tomorrow, said Lt. Commander Saifulislam, who will be participating at the White House events.

“’President and Mrs. Bush host an iftar dinner every year because they want people around the world to know how much they respect Islam and the many Muslims living in the U.S. who are free to worship as they want, and are an integral part of our society,’ said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the White House National Security Council.”

Consider the “war against terrorism” lost then. After all, President Bush not only “respects” Islam, the born-again Christian also hears God speaking to him.

“’We live in a great nation,’ said master of ceremonies Lt. Col. Timothy Oldenburg, a Muslim. ‘Yes, it is our First Amendment right to do that – to practice our religion the way we feel, to worship God and to come to the Pentagon and celebrate Ramadan.’”

Timothy Oldenburg? He must be a convert who “embraced” the creed. Does he have a secret Arabic-style name? Most Western Islamic converts usually adopt one. A photo of him also accompanies The Washington Times article. It shows a beardless, smiling face, bland except for glassy eyes sparkling with flinty, defensive sanctimony. Why is demonstrating his obeisance to Allah in the Pentagon so important to him? Aren’t taxpayers’ dollars already being wasted in the “war on terror”? Must they also subsidize multi-denominational chapels and a wayside mosque, as well?

If Sharia law gains legal ground as a legitimate moral code and begins to insinuate itself into American civil law – as various American Muslim groups are working to do – of what value will be the First Amendment?

Once upon a time, there was a separation of church and state. Doubtless in less religion-conscious times, Pentagon employees practiced their “faith” elsewhere, that is, outside the Pentagon. I have not been to the Pentagon, but there were and probably still are multi-denominational “chapels” throughout the maze, but before 9/11, not one Muslim prayer room, outfitted with prayer rugs and whatever other paraphernalia Muslims need to do the Holy Hokey-Pokey.

If the establishment of Muslim prayer rooms in the Pentagon post-dates 9/11, it must be a consequence of President Bush’s “outreach” policy to the moderate Borg.

Here is the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting the 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 to freely assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

It could be argued that the taxpayer subsidy of the means with which Oldenburg and his fellow Muslims can freely exercise their Islamic Druidism in the Pentagon constitutes a de facto establishment of religion. The same argument can be made against the Christian chapels. If they want to freely assemble to freely exercise their various ghost-worshipping delusions, they can do it elsewhere, not on property taxpayers are maintaining with their confiscated dollars.

(Coincidentally, when I was in the Air Force, I questioned the propriety of churches on military bases.)

“’We do all we can to help meet the religious needs of our soldiers,’ said Deputy Pentagon Chaplain Army Maj. Alan Pomaville, a Christian, who attended the iftar alongside the Muslim chaplains. ‘The leadership in the [Defense Department] wants to care for the body of the whole soldier.’”

But, apparently, not care enough to win a war. Not even the wrong one.

“The Navy’s chief of chaplains, Rear Adm. Robert F. Burt, reminded those attending the ceremony that American men and women, regardless of their religious background, should be honored because all ‘are willing to put their uniform on and lay down their life for this country.’” [Sic]

The egregious grammar aside, what is the rear admiral’s point? Should it make a difference to anyone whether these soldiers are Methodists, Muslims, Catholics, or members of some other sect of ghost-worshipers?

“Lt. Cmdr. Saifulislam said he has presided over funerals of young Muslims service members who have given their lives in the fight against terrorism.” Did he mention they were killed by fellow Muslims? No.

“The first Muslim U.S. congressman – Rep. Keith Ellison, Minnesota Democrat – also attended the iftar, along with Imam Sheik Rashid Lamptey, executive director of the Muslim Association of Virginia….

“As the night’s festivities concluded, Lt. Col. Oldenburg presented Sheik Lamptey with an American flag that flew over the Pentagon on September 7.”

Doubtless the sheik will use it as a prayer rug, first having a humble Muslim seamstress alter it to replace the 50 stars in the blue canton with a big white crescent on a green canton (Saudi colors).

“’It is not a choice for us to know each other,’ said Lt. Cmdr. Saifulislam regarding the diversity in the U.S. and military. ‘It is a necessity for us to know each other.’”

I must agree, but with the proviso that I like to know my enemy. All things are not bright and beautiful, least of all Islam.

Speaking of Virginia, there was a minor flap over Governor Timothy Kaine’s appointment of a Muslim, Dr. Esam Omeish, a northern Virginia surgeon and president of the Muslim American Society, to the Virginia Commission on Immigration. When someone reminded the governor that MAS is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, the mother of all Islamic jihadist organizations, Omeish was asked to resign from the appointment.

Omeish claimed that he was forced out as a result of a “right wing” smear campaign and “Islamophobia.” But, he “smeared” himself when excerpts of his speeches, which called for violent jihad – the “jihad way” – against Israel in support of the Palestinians, appeared on YouTube, and were communicated to Governor Kaine and widely publicized.

In an Associated Press article in the Daily Press (Newport News, Va) of September 29, “Right-wing campaign blamed for ouster,” Omeish is reported to have said at a September 28 press conference that his use of the term “jihad” was misinterpreted. “’It is not a call for violence. We never condone terrorists,’ Omeish said of his speeches on behalf of the Palestinians. ‘We have been very clear from the beginning. It is the same every time we speak. It’s consistent based on our beliefs.’”

This man is blessed with the “gift of tongues.”

“Jihad,” insists Omeish and his brethren, merely means a personal “struggle.” But, a “struggle” against what? Reason? Freedom? Being Westernized? Succumbing to the liberty of smoking, eating, drinking, ogling beautiful girls, and chewing gum during Ramadan? It’s a “spiritual” struggle, they claim. Well, Atta and his fellow zombies won their “spiritual struggle” and attained a complete state of self-annihilation, together with the annihilation of 3,000 people.

That is “the jihad way” in its most personal, essential, and fundamental meaning.

No, activist Muslims never “condone terrorists,” not publicly. That is part and parcel of their Janus-like practice of taqiya, or Mohammad-sanctioned dissimilation for the infidels and the dhimmis, current and future. Among themselves, and in mosques, their rhetoric is fiery and more to the point. He is right that what he said in his speeches is “consistent” with his beliefs. Orwell had a term for that kind of consistency: doublethink.

“Some anti-terror groups [read Steve Emerson, Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, God forbid they get the free publicity that “moderate” Muslims get],” goes the AP article, “have for years been critical of the Muslim American Society, alleging that it is essentially a front group for Islamic radicals and citing links to the Muslim Brotherhood, a popular movement in the Muslim world that advocates the formation of Islamic governments in the Middle East.”

This piece of news must take the award for disingenuous “reporting.” The “alleged” links have been thoroughly documented by Emerson, Pipes, Spencer, Wafa Sultan, and others. And, the Brotherhood advocates not only forming Islamic governments in the Middle East, but in the West, as well.

Again, from the Muslim Brotherhood’s manifesto:

“The Ikhwan [invaders, the Borg, the Orcs, fifth columnists, what have you] must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ their miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all religions.”

Apparently, when discussing the “alleged” links to such a program of conquest, the reporter didn’t want to “go there.” Congress doesn’t need to abridge freedom of speech or the press, not when most of the press abridges its own freedom in the name of political correctness [otherwise called self-censorship] and reports only the news that fits a multicultural mantra. To report the “alleged” facts might upset CAIR, MAS, Oldenburg and Omeish. Not to mention the Saudis, the Taliban, Ahmadinejad, and the Brotherhood itself. The reporting of the facts about the Brotherhood they would all characterize as “Islamophobia.”

The Washington Times of October 3 also carried a long commentary by Cal Thomas on Omeish’s resignation, “The Jihad Way.” While Thomas makes many of the same points that are made here, he errs when he employs the terms “extremist,” “radical” and “moderate” when describing Muslims who are in the public eye (and not the poor saps who run the local 7/11 or Citgo station). Apparently he doesn’t get it either, that Islam is neither “radical” nor “extremist,” that it is what it is, a political-theological ideology of conquest and reverse assimilation which the rank-and-file lack either the brains or spine to repudiate. His “heart” is in the right place – he sees the danger of taking creatures like Omeish for their word – but his mind is elsewhere.

“Former Pakistani President Benazir Bhutto, a moderate Muslim, was in Washington last week. I asked her how concerned the United States should be, especially when we see and hear radical talk from people such as Dr. Omeish.

“Speaking of the radicals, she told me ‘They are infiltrating [the United States and England]. What I am hearing is that they are now wanting to buy people off [and] plant people in intelligence and the military….’” After reminiscing about how “moderate” Islam was when she was a girl, she added that the “West is losing the war against radicals.”

Buying people off with Saudi and United Arab Emirates petrodollars, and planting people in the Pentagon? Unthinkable! What a slanderous thought!

I have said it before many times: Excise the fundamentals from the fundamentalist nature of the creed, and there would be no Islam, radical, extremist, moderate, or otherwise.

In the meantime, Hirsi Ali, the Dutch member of parliament who repudiated Islam, fled the Netherlands for the U.S., and was hired by the American Enterprise Institute, has been forced to return to the land of Dutch dhimmis because while the U.S. issued her a green card for permanent residency, it shortly afterwards refused to offer her protection from Islamic assassins for “legal reasons.” Up to now, the Dutch government had paid for that protection, and now is withdrawing it. According to DutchNews.nl of October 3, she will continue her work with the AEI from a secret address. That is, from hiding.

Her implicit expulsion doubtless was a coordinated effort of the State Department and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, not a part of Bush’s “outreach” policy. After all, if she were allowed to stay, that might have offended “moderate” Muslims. One supposes that Emma Lazarus’s inscription at the base of the Statue of Liberty can’t apply to Hirsi Ali.

Yes, we will allow countless semi-literate, politically clueless, tribalist Mexicans into the country (and not utter a word to them about how and why the country was founded, that would be “racist” or “cultural imperialism”), but not welcome anyone with brains, principles, character and courage.

By the way, October 12 will be a red-letter day for the U.S. It marks two holidays, neither of them American: Eid al Fitr, the end of Ramadan, and Dia de la Raza, or the Mexican “Day of the Race.”

Let the festivities begin.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Another great post Ed. Thanks. By the way, I don't know if you know this but Lt. Cmdr. Saifulislam's name (Saifulislam) translates to "the sword of Islam". Can you imagine a man with a name like that is a lt. Cmdr. in the American military especially when we are at war with Islam. Its simply unbelievable.

Also, I see that you are familiar with Robert Spencer's work. Have you read his latest book "Religion of Peace, Why Christianity Is and Islam Is Not"? I have learned allot from Spencer but his Christian apologism is too much to take sometimes. If you have time, I would love your take on not only Spencer's pro-Christian views but on the state of the anti-Islam movement itself. Thank goodness for it, but it does seem like many of these writers (not all though) ultimately come down to "my religion good (Christianity) your religion bad (Islam)."

John Kim

Edward Cline said...

John Kim: Thanks for enlightening me on the Lt. Cmdr's name. Will pass it around. About Spencer, Emerson, et al. Spencer's pro-Christian views are his pitfall. Yes, I agree that his basic opposition to Islam is that it's an enemy of Christianity -- whereas Bush believes there's no conflict between Islam and Christianity. Spencer is half right -- Islam is an enemy of Christianity; Bush is all wrong, and we're paying the price for that.

Pipes's pitfall is his assertion that there can be "moderate" Muslims or a "moderate" Islam. That's where I part from his otherwise excellent and reporting. He ought to know better. I once exchanged emails with him; I said that there cannot be any such thing as a "moderate" Islam, and that I really didn't give a damn what happens to Muslims. He repllied that there are over a billion Muslims on the planet, and that's something I'd have to live with.

I don't know Emerson's religious profile; it hasn't manifested itself in his reporting.

So, the upshot is that while there are honest reporters out there concerning Islam, they're weighed down by mixed premises. One must just sift through their errors and adopt a "Just the facts, m'am, just the facts" policy and disregard their errors.

Ed Cline

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the reply Ed. I totally agree. Spencer may not be perfect but you have to give him credit for exposing the malevolence of Islam even under constant death threats.

Oh and here is more about the Ramadan dinner attended by Bush:

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DianaWest/2007/10/05/guess_who_came_to_iftar_for_dinner

Its a link to a Diana West column. Even though she is a conservative, IMO Diana West is the best (ie most Hawkish) war / Islam commentator around (well OK, she ties with Caroline Glick).

John Kim

Anonymous said...

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DianaWest/
2007/10/05/guess_who_came_to_iftar_for_dinner

Sorry, the link got cut off.

John Kim

Anonymous said...

John Kim:

Thanks for the West link, but I'd already read it. Sent her the text of the Pentagon/Borg piece. No response yet.

Ed

Muslims Against Sharia said...

Emerson, a Jew who gets it
A perspective of a moderate Muslim

At the risk of sounding anti-Semitic, I want to say this: either American Jews are completely clueless about the internal struggle inside Islam or they are so cowardly, that they are even afraid to voice their opinion. Or maybe it's a combination of both.

Every time there is a development that involves radical Islam, be it a Mayor of New York attending an Islamist parade, DOJ's officials attending an Islamist conference, or a protester being sued for having the balls to expose an Islamist-sponsored event at an amusement park, the American Jewish community is as quiet as a church mouse. It's like it is not even there.

The effect of this silence is devastating. Not for the Jewish community, not yet. That time is still to come. The silence affects the American Muslim community. Every time moderate Muslims are ignored and Islamists are legitimized (by either direct support from government representatives or silent support of the ADL), radicals gain ground. In the current PC climate, moderate Muslims have pretty much no choice but to keep their mouths shut.

Luckily for us, not everyone in the Jewish community is like that. There are some Jews that are speaking out. One of them is Steven Emerson, who has been warning the West about the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism since before PanAm 103. Most of his current work is focused on exposing the radicals masquerading as the moderates – those radicals who are embraced by the DOJ and the Pentagon, by the mayor of New York Bloomberg (Rudy would never get into bed with terrorist supporters) and the Treasury Department, by the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, by the Congress and the White House.

There is a war of ideas within Islam, and moderate Muslims are losing. Most of Muslim clergy and Muslim establishment are paid for by the Wahhabis. Moderate Muslims are being run out of Mosques and community centers, and in many cases are physically threatened. Moderate Muslims have no place in the media or public debate, because the place reserved for Muslims is filled by Islamic radicals, who attempt to make criticizing anything Islamic a taboo. According to the Islamists, a Muslim can do no wrong.
1. When a non-Muslim criticizes Islam or Muslims, he/she is an Islamophobe.
2. When a Muslim criticizes Islam or Muslim, he/she is not a real Muslim, therefore see #1.

This is a tactic used by "moderate" Muslims, the darlings of the government and the media. But how can you call someone who praises bin Laden, or has ties to Hamas, or calls for the elimination of Israel, or wants to replace the Constitution with the Koran a moderate? They are anything but moderates, however nobody except for a few people like Steven Emerson seems to notice that. But even when the Emersons of America appeal to the public, they are often being dismissed as alarmists and racists. Well, they are anything, but. You don't have to be a clairvoyant to predict the future when it comes to expansion of radical Islam and extinction of moderate Muslims. All you need to do is get your heads out of the sand.

Why our government is so forgiving and forgetful when it comes to individuals or organizations with known terrorist ties and anti-American views is beyond me. Why the Jewish leaders are so timid when it comes to the subject of radical Islam is incomprehensible.

I thank God every day for people like Steven Emerson, because they are the last glimmer of hope for moderate Muslims.

K.M.

Original post