In this week's Jihad Watch videoblog at Hot Air I discuss the DNC's imam and his prayer -- with facts you won't hear anywhere in the mainstream media, liberal or conservative or what have you. Of course, that's what the Internet is for.
In this week's Jihad Watch videoblog at Hot Air I discuss the DNC's imam and his prayer -- with facts you won't hear anywhere in the mainstream media, liberal or conservative or what have you. Of course, that's what the Internet is for.
The DNC's action of inviting a Muslim to give the prayer is an outrage. It's also the height of stupidity (i.e. political correctness). I cannot believe the sawdust for brains these Dems have.
Whaddaya mean, Arnie? Muslims prey all the time.
I guess that is why Nancy Pelosi needs a jet like the President paid for taxpayers, military issue, costing millions of dollars and able to fly cross county non stop.....
She has to attend Muslim prayers.
Who's the naif with the head bowed down to Allah? I'm gonna be sick!
With all the religions in America, they choose to pander to the 2 million muslims in the USA. I have to laugh, gay rights lobby, feminists, animal rights activists, anti defend yourself wacko’s and a hundred other splinter groups, meet the muslims, the dims new stars. A divided house cannot stand, you think there is a rift between sunni and shia, you think Hatfield and McCoy had differences? That’s nothing compared to the loose confederation they have formed. But look on the bright side, even if they do succeed in wrecking the country we will have the satisfaction of knowing we never became one of them. Let them continue stepping further and further out on the limb they have chosen, eventually it will come crashing down, so watch your head.
Robert:
Job well done. A very concise and easy to understand analysis that is still remarkably comprehensive.
I hope Fox News shows some or all of this on TV. If the American people could be shown this clip in its entirety, it would definitely shake things up and force some of the Dhimmicrats to take less pro-jihadist positions.
Kudos for not only giving Debbie credit, but for actually showing her website. Most un-Hannity of you.
JSobieski,
Could you define an acceptable level of pro jihadist activity/support/positions? If a thief breaks into your house and you catch them, just because they say they won’t do it again doesn’t mean you should take their word for it, ever.
Robert:
As always, Excellent! And Well Done! And thanks for giving me credit. I only expected a link, but you also mentioned me and featured my site, which was extremely generous of you. THANK YOU! You are always a class act.
Debbie Schlussel
(This from Specer's piece in frontpage and is credited to Ms. Schlussel.)
In August 2004, “he led anti-Bush, anti-American rallies on the streets of Dearborn,” and at other times “he led a number of pro-HAMAS and pro-Arafat rallies in the area.”
I'm confused; are we talking about Howard Dean or is it someone else?
If it is Al Husainy that Ms. Schlussel is speaking of, then I can see why he would be at the DNC meeting - they share a common cause.
Cheers
Robert,
Thanks for a clear and concise presentation. I hope everyone passes this on to as many people as possible....
A Prayer that is sincere and humble would be for one to bow their head and pray. This guy committed what seemed more like a broadcasting or preaching, not a "prayer." One can detect the deception just in the tone, method, and voice level this Islamist was using let alone the content. Thanks Robert for a clear and concise presentation. You don't need me or any other reader to tell you this, but you are increasingly stepping on Islamists' toes who are wolves in sheeps' clothing and I hope you travel with a tight, talented security team. Thanks again.
The imam's prayer was 'garbage' from beginning to end, and it really set the tone for this so called...MEETING.
I've never been so disappointed in the democratic party in my life!!! How could they sit/stand by and participate in a prayer like that?
Like Robert said, most democrats don't believe in God so they don't know how to pray; which certainly is their choice, but they allowed this imam to SLIGHT AMERICA during his opening prayer -- AMAZING!!!
This is a stupid example, and it hardly compares to what this imam did. But I can just imagine my husband praying over our Thanksgiving feast and then adding a little slight at the end...."and I hope and pray that the turkey is cooked right this time. Amen."
Robert:
As always, Excellent! And Well Done! And thanks for giving me credit. I only expected a link, but you also mentioned me and featured my site, which was extremely generous of you. THANK YOU! You are always a class act.
Debbie Schlussel
Posted by: Debbie Schlussel
Agreed. Ms. Schlussel, how about giving us a disclaimer on the comments section of your web site? Something similar to what Mr. Spencer has here.
Peresonally, I can see why many people do not take your very good work seriously when you allow the kind of comments you do on your site. All of the comments in your comment section must meet with your full approval before being posted. Since you have no disclaimer, you obviously endorse them. And unlike this web site, every comment is reviewed by you and must meet your approval before being posted.
I have read your work. It is very good and worthy of attention. It is a shame to let all of that be spoiled by giving people the wrong impression of you. You are much too intelligent and much too important in the fight against radical Islam to have yourself discredited by some of the literally obscene comments you allow on your site.
This, of course, is only my opinion but I do not think I am alone in this observation. I find it difficult to take you seriously.
Please at least consider that as a possible explanation for why others may not either.
I fully expect to get flamed here at JW for saying all this, but it will be worth it. The cause is worth it.
glass house
How many people are that stupid to think that the postings of commentators on certain websites are that of the owner, even if she's passed it through?
tgusa said:
Could you define an acceptable level of pro jihadist activity/support/positions? If a thief breaks into your house and you catch them, just because they say they won’t do it again doesn’t mean you should take their word for it, ever.
----
Your analogy would be appropriate with respect to Hannity, but not Steyn, since there is no evidence Steyn knew Debbie was the original source.
If someone out in the public domain is making the argument that the Koran is not just another religious book, and that the Koran is the basis for jihadist violence, they are helping the cause. Steyn's book is a valuable book on slow jihad.
If people like Steyn, Debbie, and Robert start stepping over each other, the Jihadists will win.
There is no evidence that Steyn was "in on" the plagiarism--so until I hear otherwise, I will presume him not to be a thief.
Hannity is a thief, and I will treat him accordingly.
Infidel Pride,
There is NO ONE who would like Ms. Schlussel to succeed more than I would. I think it is a travesty that her work is being ripped off. And this is not the first time that has happened to her either.
I am merely suggesting to Ms. Schlussel that not everyone who reads her web site (and I know personally some important people who do) share her "sense of humor." Believe it or not, some people I know have thought her reporting was excellent. Then they read the comments section, are offended by it, then wonder if they can take what they have just read on the main page seriously.
I hate to see her excellent work be tainted by the comments section. Again, I greatly admire her work and am only concerned about the reaction many will have when they read other sections of her web site. That is all.
She can do what she wants, obviously.
JSobieski,
I was referring to the dims.
glass house
When I read the comments section on any site, I assume that those opinions are those of the poster in question. If others on the site, owner included, explicitly endorse it, then and only then do I assume that those opinions are that of the others.
I also think it's silly to be turned off by the comments section because of boorish comments. On Debbie's site, on a thread about wild elephants in Bangladesh, I recall a Bangladeshi poster posting there and complaining (Sorry Debbie, can't dig that up right now, but I might later, if requested). Do I conclude that that complaint is representative of Debbie's views? Do I conclude that Naseem's posts here are reflective of the opinions of Robert or Hugh? If it were, I and a lot of others would have been banned from this site for flaming them day in and day out.
I believe that most people are mature enough to conclude that comments are exactly that, and not to be appended to the hosts of the sites in question.
BRAVO, Robert.
How can we get more people to listen with attentive ears, rather than standing in self-absorbed naiveté?
tgusa:
My apologies--I obviously got your comment mixed up with the some of the anti-Steyn stuff. Time to take the afternoon off and have an adult beverage or two.
In terms of the dhimmi-crats, getting them to at least refrain from things that are pro-jihadist is a good first step. Voting them out office is a better first step, but we can't do that for 20 months.
I am a big fan of what engineers call "directionally correct" changes. Any directonally correct changes we can trigger are small and much needed victories. That is why I am concerned that Steyn is going to be sucked into this Hannity thing.
Anyway, I do apologize for my error.
Infidel Pride,
Let me just say this and I will drop the matter. I will give you a concrete example of what actually happened:
I read one of Ms. Schlussel's reports not too long ago and thought it was important enough to send along to friend of mine in Washington. She works in the office of a Senator who is in a key position to make certain decisions on military affairs. I thought Ms. Schlussel's report definitely warranted attention by him.
I sent the link to the report via email to her. By sending the link to the report on Ms. Schlussel's web site, the comments section was automatically included in with the report.
I waited for some time to get my friend's reaction of what Ms. Schlussel had written and whether or not she would pass it along to the Senator. After some time she emailed me back with her response, which was, and I quote verbatim: "Oh my God, did you see those comments?"
I assured her that those were not Ms. Schlussel's comments and that free speech can have both good and bad results. Her response to that was, "But why does she allow that?" She said she would copy the report herself rather than giving the Senator the actual link to the report.
As to whether she actually did or not, I have my doubts. Being of an overtly sexual nature, I could tell that she was embarrassed.
In any event, such things could easily be remedied by a disclaimer such as the one found here. My main concern is that her excellent work not be hindered. The cause that we all face is too important in my humble opinion. And that is all it is--my humble opinion.
I pass that along as merely a suggestion for her consideration. That is all. Personally, I admire the kind of work she and others are doing. I have certain real interests that she and others be taken with the seriousness they deserve. This is not meant as an insult to her or anyone else helping with informing the general public about our current dangers.
Sincerely,
gh
Yes, that will surely save us, having senators who wilt at the sight of mere words. I can’t imagine what they would do if they had to confront the sheer horror of the islamists, or maybe I can(see dnc prayer). These are the type of weak kneed leaders that could get us all killed or worse. The topics being discussed at these websites are not related to what happened last night at the church social. This is a battle for our right to remain free and whomever can’t handle it or is afraid of anonomous comments on the internet need to find another occupation. Kindergarten Teacher is a safe non offensive job and so is Girl Scout leader.
Don't be offended tgusa. But simply consider that by associating serious work with links to adult web sites that have "explicit material" warnings on them is not a good decision I would think. One cannot help but associate the two when they read a serious piece of work which is then immediately followed by such links.
I can assure you that I am not talking about "Kindergarten" material here. If you are aware of Tammy Bruce's web site, even this web site, and others I could name, such unrelated and explicit material is guarded against and not allowed. And that for obvious reasons.
I suspect that even some web sites that have clear disclaimers would not allow such material. That could easily be put to the test on this web site.
Again, people should be allowed to write whatever they wish. But simply be aware that there is a point at which certain persons (Hannity perhaps?) might wish to use the serious material that someone has written without having such material then be immediately cast into doubt by revealing who the author is. Fair? No, it isn't. But human nature being what it is, that is what can happen and often does happen.
I am sorry if I have offended you by being frank. And as I said, I expected to be attacked here for offering constructive criticism on why I believe some people are not taken as seriously as they should be. And no, it is not that "senators who wilt at the sight of mere words." Mere words have meanings. And rather it is Senators who will not take a serious report seriously when it is mixed in with explicit material. Material that would never be allowed to be posted on, say, Tammy Bruce's web site or dare I say even this one. You obviously have no problem with such material but be aware that many do. Even those who do not attend "church socials."
Let's agree to disagree. It is only opinion but one that I think should be considered. And, by the way, NO ONE believes in free speech. That can be instantly proved by trying to post certain patently offensive language here. It will be deleted and the poster probably banned.
Take care.
gh
glass house,
No offence taken,
Don’t you suppose her detractors might post that stuff to smear her? It sure doesn’t seem like a loyal reader would post that type of link to me. There is nothing wrong with a disclaimer as you state but we need to remember that online you can’t tell the difference between those who wish her good or bad. So it is possible that occasionally we will all come across inappropriate or offensive material on the web, throw malicious hackers into the mix and you never know what might pop up. If you are going to work online you better have good security or you might find yourself hijacked, so to speak. I was not attacking you so please don’t take it that way.
Thank you, tgusa. Let me just say in closing that I wish Ms. Schlussel the respect she certainly deserves. No one as clearly intelligent as she is should be brushed aside. Unfortunately, I know that can happen. Ms. Schlussel is far too important to let that happen to herself. She has certain insider information that few, if any, other bloggers can match. And she obviously does not get the respect she deserves. I think she should have her own radio show and be a frequent expert guest on broadcast television with regard to various Islamic individuals and topics.
I am merely suggesting that her effectiveness could be greatly enhanced by clearly disassociating herself with the comments and links permitted on her blog. Most bloggers already do that. I wish she would too. Just something to consider.
Regards,
gh
glass house,
personally I agree with what you say but there just might be people who like porno with their news. Just a thought. I am joking. Lighten up. :-)
It is good to see conservative bulldog Sean Hannity go after those DNC talking heads who are insisting on defending Husham Al-Husainy for his comments. Even today on his radio show he had as a guest Daniel Pipes, and a DNC representative that insisted on defending the Imans comment and even went as far as to say that she trusted everything that the Iman said and did not believe that he used the word oppressive in his prayer to the DNC even after Hannity played it for her. Pipes said; that Al-Husainy said and meant exactly what he said, but her response was ; well we must of heard other ministers from other denominations giving prayer at the meeting but couldn't say who they where.
"It is good to see conservative bulldog Sean Hannity go after those DNC talking heads who are insisting on defending Husham Al-Husainy for his comments."
haha er, okay. Hannity does some good if only accidentally and covers Bush's hind quarters like toilet paper.
That obscene "prayer" should have got much wider coverage by our sorry ass excuse for a msm. But as usual they are in the pocket of the oil barons from the middle east too.
This Imam just made a lying fool of himself on
H & C a few minutes ago. Best laugh I had all day.
Yes, DCWatson The fool was just on H&C. He steered away from answering the tough 2 questions. He grinned, flailed his arms, spoke in turnspeak, side speak, whatever. He refused to answer whether Hezbollah was a terrorist organization or not, a whole bunch of garbbly gook came out instead, then more grins. He said he did not attend rallys for hezbollah, but rallies were for peace alongside other religious leaders. More grinns. He did finally say America was the occupier in Iraq. Them more grins.
Call him intrepid.
With their moralizing tones, the Imams don't really care if we might be offended.