Imam Rauf’s Newly Discovered Explosive Audio Tapes

Steve Emerson has unearthed 13 hours of audio tape of Imam Rauf. Emerson and his team of investigators has spent the past four weeks going through the newly found material. Rauf is a “radical extremist cleric who cloaks himself in sheep’s clothing.”

Among the shocking revelations Emerson’s team will reveal next week — they found Rauf:

Defending wahhabism – a puritanical version of Islam that governs Saudi Arabia

Calling for the elimination of Israel by claiming a one-nation state, meaning no more Jewish State.

Defending Bin Laden’s violence

Demonstrating that there is a lot more to this man than merely a cleric.

The American public now sees the “deception perpetrated by all these Islamic groups that claim they are against violence and terrorism and insist that their rights be respected but in reality are fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Emerson states there is “definitely fraud involved in the entities that Rauf created in the last decade that are co-mingled.” Emerson took it to the IRS, who said, “you have a case.”

There is intel that the shady developers, the Gamal brothers, will be going to radical Islamic organizations to serve as connectors — CAIR, MPAC — so that they do their bidding for the money.

The mosque “is going to be a magnet for radicals.” Emerson is not opposed to the building of mosques. He is “opposed to the building of radical mosques.” ……”Unfortunately 80% of the mosques in the United States are controlled by the Wahhabists. That’s the reality. No one wants to admit it. They’re the ones that attract terrorists.”

Steve Emerson, head of the Investigative Project, has created a much-needed resource on Islamic terrorism in the USA here. Read this, explore the mosques and understand the fights being waged by concerned Americans against Muslim Brotherhood beachheads under the guise of mega mosque construction.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/08/imam-raufs-newly-discovered-explosive-audio-tapes.html

Post 9/11 we had the sympathy and hearts and minds of the whole world, even the Islamic world, in reaction to what a few religious extremists had done in attacking the World Trade Center. And the Republicans and the Bush Administration went about squandering that asset immediately with their anti-Islamic rhetoric and the Blunder in Iraq, using anything and everything in their propaganda effort. Who can forget the immediate anti-drug commercials linking the war on drugs to the terrorists? “If you buy illegal drugs, you’re supporting terrorism.” They’ve never stopped and now fools like Gingrich and O’Reilly and Peter King and so many others, including Harry Reid in this instance, are ginning up a 21st Century Great Crusades movement. When The Right Wing/Republicans/Tealiban will not fare well in the history books. And America will not fare well because of those idiots.

In today’s column Rich focuses less on the First Amendment or property rights that have been predominant in the mosque debate, and instead goes straight for an angle that has received somewhat less coverage but was a top concern to the administration following 9/11, namely that this anti-mosque fervor may be putting both American troops in the Middle East, as well as our national security at home, at risk.

That’s only among the ill-informed wannabe Constitutionalists who don’t understand what the Constitution does. There is no Constitutional issue whatsoever, as there is no government interference with the developers plans.

Pablo said:
That’s only among the ill-informed wannabe Constitutionalists who don’t understand what the Constitution does. There is no Constitutional issue whatsoever, as there is no government interference with the developers plans.

So you agree that Obama and Blumburg did their jobs correctly, according to the Constitution?

This Steve Emerson? http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/05/steve-emerson-wowser/

Fits right in with my original post.

Will the ginned-up furor over the Park51 Lower Manhattan mosque threaten the county’s national security in the long-term?

Will Glynnis MacNichol open yet another post with a bad-faith accusation?

Oh, sorry: MacNicol.

I don’t see why we don’t slam the gate on these guys . We don’t need any more Muslim “students ” . These Al Qaeda chumps don’t respect weakness , and letting them plant a victory flag is seen as weak . You can’t play nice with predators . This is the United States of America . If we let you in , you play by our rules , see ?

bill you just love being a victim dont you? munchhausen syndrome much?

I disregard anyone using the new big Dem term “ginning up”… It says one thing and one thing only… No brain of their own to come up with an actual, factual opinion of their own… Which is my longggggg way of not wanting to call them the other too oft used term… KOOL-AID DRINKERS !!!

Great to hear from the brilliant Frank Rich, a bastion of support for the war in Afghanistan:

“If he adds combat troops, he’ll be extending a deteriorating eight-year-long war without a majority of his country or his own party behind him” 9/26/09

“Many Americans at home have lost faith and checked out.” 7/31/10

“3) The present strategy has produced no progress in this nearly nine-year-old war, even as the monthly coalition body count has just reached a new high.” 6/26/10

“Finally, the notion that we are still fighting in Afghanistan because the 9/11 attacks originated there is based on the fallacy that our terrorist enemies are so stupid they have remained frozen in place since 2001.” 12/05/09

The country was waiting “breathlessly” for Frank Rich to weigh
in! Who is Frank Rich?

“How do you win Muslim hearts and minds in Kandahar when you are calling Muslims every filthy name in the book in New York?

An America at war with Islam plays right into Al Qaeda’s recruitment spiel. This month’s incessant and indiscriminate orgy of Muslim-bashing is a national security disaster for that reason — Osama bin Laden’s “next video script has just written itself.”

Oh, for God’s sake, Frank you are such a lib wuss. The terrorists have been attacking the USA since at least 1998 and you think this will augment recruitment? What a feeble joke you are.

You say “Folks, Muslims are so peaceful” and then ya turn around and warn “Don’t do that, the Muslims will kill us!!” Which is it Frankfurter?

Indiscriminate Muslim bashing? Where? Show me that Frank. All I see are Americans exercising there Constitutional right to tell YOUR intolerant “peaceful” Muslims that building a center so close to GZ is insensitive. Surely, your peace-loving Muslims would not want to do something so insensitive as they try to build a bridge between Islam and America would they, Frank?

And what filthy names have Muslims been called , Frankfurter?

The only filthy names I have heard hurled around are from libs.

@MichelleF, “Imam Rauf’s Newly Discovered Explosive Audio Tapes”

Maybe I missed it, but has Rauf ever been interviewed and questioned about these specific things? If the intent behind the building of this mosque is so “innocent” why isn’t he demanding to go on all of the cable news channels to defend it and himself?

“supporters of the mosque…taking this line of attack; it’s one that would likely be unwelcome by a slew of conservatives running for reelection this fall.” Glynnis MacNichol

Only an intellectual could believe something so stupid.

@notsofast, “The terrorists have been attacking the USA since at least 1998 and you think this will augment recruitment? What a feeble joke you are.”

Why doesn’t Frank list all of the muslim terrorist attacks worldwide for the last ten years and compare it to the non-muslim terrorist attacks during the same time period so that we can see just how peaceful they are.

And where are all the muslim leaders condemning those attacks and threats? Nowhere to be seen or heard.

Rich talks about Al Qaeda ‘ s recruitment spiel regarding the mosque . Just like Guantanamo Bay prison ‘s use as a recruitment tool was the only reason liberals had to close it . So , the replacement prison at Thompson , Illinois would certainly never be known as Guantanamo North ? Ridiculous .

‘If this controversy continues on, and it looks like it might barring another big end-of-summer news story, one imagines supporters of the mosque and/or opponents of the opponents taking this line of attack; it’s one that would likely be unwelcome by a slew of conservatives running for reelection this fall.”

Yes, what conservative in his right mind would want to run on an issue supported by nearly 70% of the people?

Imagine!

libra blue said:
@notsofast, “The terrorists have been attacking the USA since at least 1998 and you think this will augment recruitment? What a feeble joke you are.”

Actually, I forgot about their first US soil attack: The 1993 WTC attack.

Frank needs to come up with an excuse for that one too!

Yes, Frank, please explain to all the dead people around the world killed in terrorist attacks that Muslims were not responsible.

No Blue, you didn’t miss it because it didn’t happen!! Just more proof of a negligent media NOT doing it’s job.

I just heard President Obama is planning a major speech on the Combat Troop pullback in Iraq!
Finally, he is going to give President Bush credit for the Surge Strategy and
withdrawal schedules planned by the Bush Adminstration while most Dems
including himself were very vocal in bashing that very same strategy!
President Obamba WILL admit he was wrong and happily apologize during
this address!!! I know he will. HE WILL ! He is a fair man !

JimBob said:
I just heard President Obama is planning a major speech on the Combat Troop pullback in Iraq!
Finally, he is going to give President Bush credit for the Surge Strategy and
withdrawal schedules planned by the Bush Adminstration while most Dems
including himself were very vocal in bashing that very same strategy!
President Obamba WILL admit he was wrong and happily apologize during
this address!!! I know he will. HE WILL ! He is a fair man !

Sorry, VP Bite Me has already declared Iraq as one of Barry’s great accomplishments.

The speech is scheduled for sometime later next week!
I really DON”T think he is going to give President Bush credit for
the BUSH SURGE that got us to this point in Iraq.
Just joshin’ ya’ !

No, NSF.
VP Bite Me, is going to be standing behind Obama shaking his head
up an down like a “Bobblehead Doll” Isn’t that what he always does?

JimBob said:
The speech is scheduled for sometime later next week!I really DON”T think he is going to give President Bush credit forthe BUSH SURGE that got us to this point in Iraq.Just joshin’ ya’ !

yep – this point in Iraq – as if Bush ever had a point in Iraq.

@MichelleF, “No Blue, you didn’t miss it because it didn’t happen!! Just more proof of a negligent media NOT doing it’s job.”

Well then, how many members of the media have requested an interview with Rauf about this? Every night Anderson should do what he did to the BP executives and request an interview with Rauf to respond to these controversial comments he has made and questions about the building of the mosque on that particular site.

valkyrie101 said:
So you agree that Obama and Blumburg did their jobs correctly, according to the Constitution?

I don’t know that either of them have done anything other than talk about it. I doubt Bloomberg signs off on every building permit, but maybe he did on this one. He also had the capacity to interfere with the permitting process, which he didn’t and shouldn’t have, so he got that right.

Obama had no job to do in this, and he still screwed it up. The only thing he’s accomplished is unleashing a media shitstorm and landing himself at odds with 70% of the country on the issue. I’m beginning to think Obama might be a plant in Karl Rove’s plot to kill the Democrat party once and for all.

Pablo said:
I don’t know that either of them have done anything other than talk about it. I doubt Bloomberg signs off on every building permit, but maybe he did on this one. He also had the capacity to interfere with the permitting process, which he didn’t and shouldn’t have, so he got that right. Obama had no job to do in this, and he still screwed it up. The only thing he’s accomplished is unleashing a media shitstorm and landing himself at odds with 70% of the country on the issue. I’m beginning to think Obama might be a plant in Karl Rove’s plot to kill the Democrat party once and for all.

Obama is a man of principle. He is will defend the Constitution even if it is unpopular.

oops, He will…

JimBob said:
No, NSF.
VP Bite Me, is going to be standing behind Obama shaking his head
up an down like a “Bobblehead Doll” Isn’t that what he always does?

Last SOTU Address, he outblinked Nancy. That’s gotta be worth something.

valkyrie101 said:
Obama is a man of principle. He is will defend the Constitution even if it is unpopular.

Let me know when he does it. That wasn’t it.

QUITE THE CONTRARY, MR. RICH!

Whatever the intentions of this Imam, this mosque would be seen as a monument to the conquered infidels of the West, by the terrorist supporters of those who attacked us!

That’s not my belief system, Mr. Rich – IT’S THEIRS!!!

Capitulating on this LOCATION would initiate massive recruitment amongst desperate and impressionable muslim youth – and diminish the legitimacy of our principles and politics!

Your perspective on this, Mr. Rich, is as predictable as the fawning way it’ll be received by your fellow Professional Left JournOlists!!

Bill Adkins said:
This Steve Emerson? http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/05/steve-emerson-wowser/

Fits right in with my original post.

Oh, so if you hear the Imam speaking in his own voice, it won’t matter because you don’t like Steve Emerson. Is that about it, Bill? From your link:

Steven Emerson, a pillar of the Islamophobic movement, promotes himself as an “Investigative journalist” exposing terrorism and the supposed “fifth column activities of American Muslims” through his Orwellian organization, The Investigative Project.

That pillar of the Islamophobic movement is a Muslim. Maybe you shouldn’t read this, Bill. Your head might explode. Those folks are the kinds of Muslims we need. They’re building bridges and forcefully rejecting jihad and Islamism. But since you’re such a bright boy, you just go ahead and mock them. Idiot.

Pablo said:
Let me know when he does it. That wasn’t it.

So you feel that Obama has not defended the Constitution? What was that statement he made about preserving the 1st Amendment?

valkyrie101 said:
So you feel that Obama has not defended the Constitution? What was that statement he made about preserving the 1st Amendment?

Talk. And it was fairly stupid talk, because the project was already permitted, thus there was nothing to talk about that wasn’t already in the past. Did he actually do something that I missed?

Pablo said:
Talk. And it was fairly stupid talk, because the project was already permitted, thus there was nothing to talk about that wasn’t already in the past. Did he actually do something that I missed?

Besides defending the first amendment rights of moderate Islamics? He also affirmed the state authority in the matter.

valkyrie101 said:
Besides defending the first amendment rights of moderate Islamics?

How? Defending them from what?

He also affirmed the state authority in the matter.

What state authority and how did he affirm it, other than perhaps by mentioning it? Did he actually DO anything?

I’m assuming that you understand the difference between talking and doing, val. Am I making a mistake in assuming that?

Pablo said:
How? Defending them from what? What state authority and how did he affirm it, other than perhaps by mentioning it? Did he actually DO anything? I’m assuming that you understand the difference between talking and doing, val. Am I making a mistake in assuming that?

State and Local authority is vested by the 10th Amendment. Had Obama exercised his power under the Patriot Act to declare the situation to be a danger to national security, then he could have over ruled state law and prevented the mosque on the theory of it being, in these troubled times, an unnecessary security risk by a nation still licking the wounds of 911. If you think that was not being suggested, that Obama get heavy handed with the matter, then you checked into this story after it began. Obama went states’ rights. That was a decision. And for the state’s rights advocates, an indicator that Obama is not oblivious to the rights of states, and the importance of preserving them.

libra blue said:
@MichelleF, “Imam Rauf’s Newly Discovered Explosive Audio Tapes”

Maybe I missed it, but has Rauf ever been interviewed and questioned about these specific things? If the intent behind the building of this mosque is so “innocent” why isn’t he demanding to go on all of the cable news channels to defend it and himself?

I don’t know about those issues in particular, but when asked whether Hamas is a terrorist organization, he refuse to answer on the grounds that he’s a bridge builder and will not allow himself to get caught on one side or the other of a complex issue like terrorism. So, if you need a bridge to Hamas, I know a guy who will build one for you.

valkyrie101 said:
Had Obama exercised his power under the Patriot Act to declare the situation to be a danger to national security, then he could have over ruled state law and prevented the mosque on the theory of it being, in these troubled times, an unnecessary security risk by a nation still licking the wounds of 911.

That is hogwash. Cite the power you refer to. I’m sure you can find it here, if it exists. And cite the available evidence that would trigger an action under the PATRIOT Act.

Obama went states’ rights.

How? By not intervening in an issue that 1. He has no power to intervene in and 2. was already a settled matter? Is that how he “went states’ rights”?

That is a GREAT AMERICAN HERO. We should scrub Lincoln off of Rushmore and replace him with Baracky after this noble and wondrous thing he’s done, while driving a stake through the heart of his party 3 months before midterms. America thanks you, President Obama!

Pablo said:
That is hogwash. Cite the power you refer to. I’m sure you can find it here, if it exists. And cite the available evidence that would trigger an action under the PATRIOT Act.

Did I mention, I do not do other people’s research when the answer is point, querie and click away? But here is a simple place to start: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=powers+under+the+patriot+act&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=powers+under+the+patriot+act&gs_rfai=C9iOOK3FxTLOBB4jwzASAlbHoDwAAAKoEBU_Qzppj&fp=ad526d12389e3c08

The power you’re suggesting does not exist. You can’t find it and I can’t either. A google search does not refute that argument. Do better or shaddap.

Pablo said:
The power you’re suggesting does not exist. You can’t find it and I can’t either. A google search does not refute that argument. Do better or shaddap.

Wow, you digested all the research in what, nine minutes? I’ll give you a few minutes to retrace your steps.

valkyrie101 said:
Wow, you digested all the research in what, nine minutes? I’ll give you a few minutes to retrace your steps.

No, nine years. I’ll give you a few minutes to catch up. Seeing that you brought it up, you already know what you’re talking about, right? You shouldn’t need more than a few minutes to locate the section your argument rests on.

Wait, you don’t think you just invented Googling the PATRIOT Act, do you, val?

Pathetic Little People.

Pablo said:
No, nine years. I’ll give you a few minutes to catch up. Seeing that you brought it up, you already know what you’re talking about, right? You shouldn’t need more than a few minutes to locate the section your argument rests on.

What are the arguments being used against the mosque organizers? Potential funding coming from terrorist organizations. That is covered by the Patriot Act; The fact that the mosque could be a place where terrorists or radicals plan actions against the US, that is also covered by the Patriot Act. If the feds believed either of those two were happening, the feds have authority to take action.

It’s great to see Frank Rich defending people’s religious rights in the New York Times. Of course, only for Muslims who want to practice their religion at Ground Zero. Rich, well known for his bigotry against believers, would never say a kind word for the rights of Christians or — heaven forbid! — defend a Nativity scene in a public place. As regular readers of the New York Times well know, a religion doesn’t get favorable coverage in its pages unless it produces fanatics who fly planes into buildings. Then Frank Rich finds that, despite his well-known hatred for believers, he now has found a religion he must support at all costs. But it’s only because he has confused Islam with anti-Americanism, and if Muslims weren’t associated in his mind with his personal hatred of George Bush, he wouldn’t care in the least about their rights to practice their faith.

valkyrie101 said:
What are the arguments being used against the mosque organizers? Potential funding coming from terrorist organizations. That is covered by the Patriot Act; The fact that the mosque could be a place where terrorists or radicals plan actions against the US, that is also covered by the Patriot Act. If the feds believed either of those two were happening, the feds have authority to take action.

You’re going to have to back up your last argument before you start a whole new one. Unless you know something about the mosque you’re not telling us, in which case, you should dish.

felixw said:
or — heaven forbid! — defend a Nativity scene in a public place.

And you consider that necessary for the free pracitce of religion? A nativity scene in a government place? Without that you are being discriminated against? There is nothing wrong with setting a high standard with regard to establishment clause issues. We are a people governed by a secular law and Constitution, not churches or other religions. The framers intentionally did that because many of them harbored fear of church control ala the Church of England. Jefferson said: “And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.”

valkyrie101 said:
We are a people governed by a secular law and Constitution, not churches or other religions.

Val, I know you hate religions and people of faith (except for your well known love affair with Muslims who want to practice their faith at Ground Zero), but the freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights (yes, that inconvenient document for Democrats) is not about protecting people from religion, but about protecting people’s right to practice religion. Nothing in the Constitution prevents a Nativity scene in a public place. Then again, maybe if some Christian started flying planes into buildings you would support Nativity scenes too.

felixw said:
It’s great to see Frank Rich defending people’s religious rights in the New York Times. Of course, only for Muslims who want to practice their religion at Ground Zero. Rich, well known for his bigotry against believers, would never say a kind word for the rights of Christians or — heaven forbid! — defend a Nativity scene in a public place. As regular readers of the New York Times well know, a religion doesn’t get favorable coverage in its pages unless it produces fanatics who fly planes into buildings. Then Frank Rich finds that, despite his well-known hatred for believers, he now has found a religion he must support at all costs. But it’s only because he has confused Islam with anti-Americanism, and if Muslims weren’t associated in his mind with his personal hatred of George Bush, he wouldn’t care in the least about their rights to practice their faith.

You really are a clown with head firmly up your ass. It’s pathetic and embarrassing (you really should be embarrassed) to see this kind of incomprehensible stupid but if anyone is up for it, its you nit-wit tea-baggers. Good Christ, how dumb can you get? Were you home-schooled?

Ted- said:
You really are a clown with head firmly up your ass. It’s pathetic and embarrassing (you really should be embarrassed) to see this kind of incomprehensible stupid but if anyone is up for it, its you nit-wit tea-baggers. Good Christ, how dumb can you get? Were you home-schooled?

Ted,vyour comments show exactly why the Left has no credibility these days. When people result to insults it’s an admission that they have lost the argument.

felixw said:
Val, I know you hate religions and people of faith (except for your well known love affair with Muslims who want to practice their faith at Ground Zero), but the freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights (yes, that inconvenient document for Democrats) is not about protecting people from religion, but about protecting people’s right to practice religion. Nothing in the Constitution prevents a Nativity scene in a public place. Then again, maybe if some Christian started flying planes into buildings you would support Nativity scenes too.

I certainlty do not hate religion or people of faith. I am a people of faith. It is the right of free men to practice their religion. That is what the free exercise clause does. But the government is not controlled by any religion. That is what the establishment clause does.

felixw said:
Ted,vyour comments show exactly why the Left has no credibility these days. When people result to insults it’s an admission that they have lost the argument.

felix – To be this stupid must take a lot or practice; you’ve been practicing and your previous comments about Rich are ignorant in the extreme. Then again, you are a tea-bagger, you deserve the insults.

Ted- said:
felix – To be this stupid must take a lot or practice; you’ve been practicing and your previous comments about Rich are ignorant in the extreme. Then again, you are a tea-bagger, you deserve the insults.

More brilliant commentary from you, Ted. Did you learn your debating skills in first grade or kindergarten?

valkyrie101 said:
So you agree that Obama and Blumburg did their jobs correctly, according to the Constitution?

I missed where anyone said that Bloomberg or obama had violated the Constitution.
What many have said (including myself) is that it was a real dumbass thing for them to decide to insert themselves in the controversy if the only thing that they were going to do was to point out that they have a right to build there.
No one, and I mean no one, has argued that they didn’t.

There is a big difference between having a right to say/do something, and having sensitivity/humanity.

Many people have made the point: should you build a museum that is dedicated to the B-29 superfortress across from Hiroshima?
Surely, not all B-29s dropped the atomic bomb. Why would that be any more ‘wrong’?

How about building a Nazi community center across from Auschwitz? No?

The problem isn’t with the people who have reservations with the Mosque being built near where 3,000 people were crushed to death in 10 seconds.
The problem is with the people who are too fucking insensitive to understand why it might bother a few people.

felixw said:
Nothing in the Constitution prevents a Nativity scene in a public place. Then again, maybe if some Christian started flying planes into buildings you would support Nativity scenes too.

Its so creepy to me that the left only seems to get upset by an attack on religion when its a religion that has been associated with terrorist attacks.

Pablo said:
That pillar of the Islamophobic movement is a Muslim. Maybe you shouldn’t read this, Bill. Your head might explode. Those folks are the kinds of Muslims we need. They’re building bridges and forcefully rejecting jihad and Islamism. But since you’re such a bright boy, you just go ahead and mock them. Idiot.

I like it. YOu should sign all your posts “idiot.”

Remember when Frank Rich was actually relevant? Yeah, neither do I.

ChicagoJohn said:
I missed where anyone said that Bloomberg or obama had violated the Constitution.
What many have said (including myself) is that it was a real dumbass thing for them to decide to insert themselves in the controversy if the only thing that they were going to do was to point out that they have a right to build there.
No one, and I mean no one, has argued that they didn’t.

I am glad to hear, then, that you do not think that Obama violated the Constitution. Any statement to the effect that the mosque must be stopped, or they must prevent the building of that mosque, etc., early on a common sentiment, then that is a suggestion of religious discrimination. Obama addressed that, as the leader of our country, and that was appropriate.

ChicagoJohn said:
There is a big difference between having a right to say/do something, and having sensitivity/humanity.
Many people have made the point: should you build a museum that is dedicated to the B-29 superfortress across from Hiroshima?
Surely, not all B-29s dropped the atomic bomb. Why would that be any more ‘wrong’?
How about building a Nazi community center across from Auschwitz? No?
The problem isn’t with the people who have reservations with the Mosque being built near where 3,000 people were crushed to death in 10 seconds.
The problem is with the people who are too fucking insensitive to understand why it might bother a few people.

There is another mosque already, about 4 blocks away, and another couple more within 12 blocks. Two blocks in NYC translates into millions of tons of concrete and steel separating the mosque from the 911 site. They are not anywhere near ground zero. They are a couple blocks away from ground zero. There is another mosque 4 blocks away. So, “insensitive”, like Beck holding a rally to retake the civil rights movement on King’s day, at the Lincoln Memorial? What does sensitivity have to do with it. Rights are rights. Does that enter into capitalist motive? No. So why should the Islamics back down? I wouldn’t.

What is singularly interesting here is that Mr. Rich fails to mention–and Mediaite fails to notice–that Imam Rauf has a book that is written with an English and Arabic translation. In the English version, the Imam implies a desire for peace with the United States, but in the Arabic version, he demands jihad. You are smart folks, if you don’t believe me, look it up.

…Nor would I back down if I am Glenn Beck.

Bill Adkins said:
I like it. YOu should sign all your posts “idiot.”

In other words, you’ve got absolutely nothing, Bill. Nice work, idiot.

MichelleF said:
Imam Rauf’s Newly Discovered Explosive Audio Tapes Steve Emerson has unearthed 13 hours of audio tape of Imam Rauf. Emerson and his team of investigators has spent the past four weeks going through the newly found material. Rauf is a “radical extremist cleric who cloaks himself in sheep’s clothing.” Among the shocking revelations Emerson’s team will reveal next week — they found Rauf: Defending wahhabism – a puritanical version of Islam that governs Saudi Arabia Calling for the elimination of Israel by claiming a one-nation state, meaning no more Jewish State. Defending Bin Laden’s violence Demonstrating that there is a lot more to this man than merely a cleric. The American public now sees the “deception perpetrated by all these Islamic groups that claim they are against violence and terrorism and insist that their rights be respected but in reality are fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood.” Emerson states there is “definitely fraud involved in the entities that Rauf created in the last decade that are co-mingled.” Emerson took it to the IRS, who said, “you have a case.” There is intel that the shady developers, the Gamal brothers, will be going to radical Islamic organizations to serve as connectors — CAIR, MPAC — so that they do their bidding for the money. The mosque “is going to be a magnet for radicals.” Emerson is not opposed to the building of mosques. He is “opposed to the building of radical mosques.” ……”Unfortunately 80% of the mosques in the United States are controlled by the Wahhabists. That’s the reality. No one wants to admit it. They’re the ones that attract terrorists.” Steve Emerson, head of the Investigative Project, has created a much-needed resource on Islamic terrorism in the USA here. Read this, explore the mosques and understand the fights being waged by concerned Americans against Muslim Brotherhood beachheads under the guise of mega mosque construction. http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/08/imam-raufs-newly-discovered-explosive-audio-tapes.html

If someone has actual tapes of the Imam saying such things, WHY is he waiting week to reveal them?
This Imam worked with the Bush Administration for 4 years as an envoy to Islamic Nations to help smooth relations between the US and those nations

Pablo said:
That’s only among the ill-informed wannabe Constitutionalists who don’t understand what the Constitution does. There is no Constitutional issue whatsoever, as there is no government interference with the developers plans.

The First Amendment of the Constitution gives ALL citizens of this country the freedom to practice their religion of choice when and where they want.

Bill Adkins said:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/05/steve-emerson-wowser/

Wowser, that guy is a TRUE idiot.

notsofast said:
Yes, Frank, please explain to all the dead people around the world killed in terrorist attacks that Muslims were not responsible.

Oklahoma City, the Unibomber

valkyrie101 said:
What are the arguments being used against the mosque organizers? Potential funding coming from terrorist organizations. That is covered by the Patriot Act; The fact that the mosque could be a place where terrorists or radicals plan actions against the US, that is also covered by the Patriot Act. If the feds believed either of those two were happening, the feds have authority to take action.

Some of the provisions in the Patriot Act have expired:
Under PATRIOT §224, several of the surveillance portions of PATRIOT will expire on December 31, 2005.
. The provisions that expire include:
•§201. Authority To Intercept Wire, Oral, And Electronic Communications Relating To Terrorism.
•§202. Authority To Intercept Wire, Oral, And Electronic Communications Relating To Computer Fraud And Abuse Offenses.
•§203(b), (d). Authority To Share Criminal Investigative Information.
•§206. Roving Surveillance Authority Under The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Of 1978.
•§207. Duration Of FISA Surveillance Of Non-United States Persons Who Are Agents Of A Foreign Power.
•§209. Seizure Of Voice-Mail Messages Pursuant To Warrants.
•§212. Emergency Disclosure Of Electronic Communications To Protect Life And Limb.
•§214. Pen Register And Trap And Trace Authority Under FISA.
•§215. Access To Records And Other Items Under FISA.
•§217. Interception Of Computer Trespasser Communications.
•§218. Foreign Intelligence Information.
•§220. Nationwide Service Of Search Warrants For Electronic Evidence.
•§223. Civil Liability For Certain Unauthorized Disclosures.

These provisions WERE extended, but expired on March 10, 2006.

felixw said:
Nothing in the Constitution prevents a Nativity scene in a public place.

REALLY?:
Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.

THE VERY FIRST LINE: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

valkyrie101 said:
So you feel that Obama has not defended the Constitution? What was that statement he made about preserving the 1st Amendment?

Is -0bamacare constitutional? If so, where is socialized medicine in the Constitution? How about the redistribution of wealth? Promote the general welfare does not mean promote the general welfare state!!

MoDans55 said:
REALLY?:Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.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. THE VERY FIRST LINE: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

So, you’re against having a copy of the ten commandments (now referred to by many as the “ten suggestions”), in a courthouse, even knowing that our system of laws are founded on those ten commandments, Hammurabi, and Erishkegal

MoDans55 said:
The First Amendment of the Constitution gives ALL citizens of this country the freedom to practice their religion of choice when and where they want.

It gives all citizens freedom from government interference in the practice of religion. It restrains government. It recognizes that we have rights, and protects them from the government. It does not give them.

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.

MoDans55 said:
Wowser, that guy is a TRUE idiot.

I know that Inspector Gadget cartoon is captivating, but you should probably have a look at Emerson’s Wiki. If you make it down to the bottom of that page, you might find yourself interested in a PDF or two from the 15 times they have selected and listed where he’s testified before Congress.

MichelleF said:
Imam Rauf’s Newly Discovered Explosive Audio Tapes

Steve Emerson has unearthed 13 hours of audio tape of Imam Rauf. Emerson and his team of investigators has spent the past four weeks going through the newly found material. Rauf is a “radical extremist cleric who cloaks himself in sheep’s clothing.”

The same Steve Emerson who tried to blame the Oklahoma City bombing on Muslims? HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!

Um, no.

In the wake of the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building, Emerson said, in what a The Boston Globe article termed a “shrill prediction”, that it bore the “trait” of “Middle Eastern terrorists” because it “tried to kill as many as possible.”[40] Emerson responded to criticism of his comment by saying that he was referring only to a fanatical minority in the Islamic community, and pointed out that he was one of many experts interviewed after the bombing who concluded that there were similarities between Oklahoma City and Middle Eastern terrorism.[41]

‘Post 9/11 we had the sympathy and hearts and minds of the whole world, even the Islamic world’

Complete and utter nonsense. That ‘the world’ had sympathy for us is pure fairy tale. Much of the world was quietly or not so quietly gloating and the Islamic world was dancing in the streets and handing out sweets.

MichelleF said: “…they found Rauf: Defending wahhabism – a puritanical version of Islam that governs Saudi Arabia….”

Not likely since wahhabism does not govern Saudi Arabia and is the puritanical version of Islam that’s followed by Bin Laden and many of his ilk, you know, the ones who want to take the Saudis down.

This points to the ignorance of Geller, author of Atlas Shrugs.

pyrope said:
Is -0bamacare constitutional? If so, where is socialized medicine in the Constitution? How about the redistribution of wealth? Promote the general welfare does not mean promote the general welfare state!!

We know for certain that socialism is permitted under the Constitution because early on George Washington’s administration formed a government owned bank, the “First Bank”. The charter of that bank was not renewed under Jefferson, who opposed it. But no one argued the First Bank was unconstitutional.

valkyrie101 said:
We know for certain that socialism is permitted under the Constitution because early on George Washington’s administration formed a government owned bank, the “First Bank”. The charter of that bank was not renewed under Jefferson, who opposed it. But no one argued the First Bank was unconstitutional.

Nor is the consititutionally mandated socialist military, and the post office.

kit9 says: “Complete and utter nonsense. That ‘the world’ had sympathy for us is pure fairy tale.”

Written without a trace of irony. There were some anti-American Arabs dancing in the streets right after the attacks, to be sure; but you seem to get your information from World Net Daily or some like “thinking” source.

MoDans55 said:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Hey genius, explain how a Nativity scene in a public place relates to Congress establishing a religion. If anyone wants to know how the Left distorts the Constitution, they merely need to look at your nonsensical post.