Updates to 9/11 mosque terror connections, Pelosi firestorm
When the story first broke concerning the Obama endorsement of the 9/11 mosque at Ground Zero, Conservative Examiner was one of the first to report terrorist connections on the part of the Imam and other groups that are pushing to build the mosque.
For that Conservative Examiner took a considerable amount of heat and harsh criticism, with claims that these allegations were 'lies, 'falsehoods,' 'senseless attacks against Islam,' and the like.
However, new, updated information confirms the allegations, from the very mouths of the officials who wish to build the mosque.
Oz Sultan, spokesman for the mosque, stated yesterday that the group 'will not rule out' accepting funds from state sponsors of terror, such as Iran, or Islamic nations that have been known to be breeding grounds for terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia.
15 of the 19 terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia.
It will take 100 million dollars to build the mosque, according to officials. The mosque official refused to comment on other Mideast sources of funding, although it is common knowledge that Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf--the mastermind behind the mosque--has connections with CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood, and HAMAS, all of which are implicated in the most extremist elements of the Muslim world.
Rauf is also on the record stating that the ultimate goal of his group is the implementation of 'Sharia Law' in the United States.
In a related development, the developer of the mosque told NBCNewYork that, contrary to numerous reports during the week, there are no plans to move the mosque to a different location.
While the group may be willing to consider a meeting with New York Governor David Patterson concerning the issue, it has rejected outright any calls for a relocation of the mosque.
A late-breaking poll of New York City residents by Sienna College shows that 63% oppose the building of the mosque.
Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has hit back in response to her call for an investigation into those who oppose the building of the mosque.
Refusing to back down from her call for such an investigation, Pelosi attempted to tout the 'religious liberty' issue as an excuse for supporting the construction of a center that symbolizes the very antithesis of freedom of religion. Anyone who supports Sharia Law cannot support religious liberty.
Yet extremist Muslims have become known for using the religious liberty clause in the Constitution to make their case AGAINST freedom of religion--a most curious contradiction. A terrorist-connected group that uses the religious liberty clause to advance an ideology that OPPOSES freedom of religion for anyone but Muslims, is the very epitome of anti-freedom. The argument is contradictory and fails to pass the 'logic' test.
While Pelosi conceded that an investigation is needed into the sources of funding of the mosque, she reiterated her position that those who oppose the mosque also need to be investigated.
Yet the Speaker says nary a word about the fact that the State Department is spending $16,000 of taxpayer funds to send the extremist Imam Rauf on an 'outreach tour' of Middle Eastern Muslim nations.
A few minority voices within the conservative movement view the 9/11 mosque flap as a mere distraction from more important issues. Yet there is no issue any more important than preventing the creeping crawl of Sharia Law and extremist Islam within the United States.
This in no way minimizes nor ignores other highly important issues, such as the economy and jobs, the growing sense that worldwide conflict is firing up, and the attacks on the liberties of the people. All of these issues deserve close scrutiny. But this in no way means that the fight against extremist murderers should be placed on the back burner.
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.