The nonprofit organization, the Alavi Foundation, may be owned by the Iranian government. Details here.
Feds seize four mosques, NYC skyscraper belonging to Iran-linked nonprofit organization
60 Comments
Leave a Comment
NOTE: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.
OMG ... This should prove to be interesting!
LOVE IT!
One of the centers involved is here in Houston.
http://www.iec-houston.org/
I have never personally been to this center but I have usually heard good things about it in the past. If the allegations in the article are true, then I am happy to see our government working to thwart Iran.
"Feds seize four mosques" ...YAY!
look out for kidnappings of Westerners from Iran, which is the next scene in this movie…
I doubt that Sunni Mahoundians living in the US will shed many tears over Shia Iran losing these properties...
The Alavi Foundation is funneling money back to Bank Mellat (the AP article calls it Bank Melli), which has its tentacles spread across the earth. The seizure is a good start, but other countries (like Malaysia for starters) need to follow suit and shut down Bank Mellat's cohorts ASAP.
Good.
Seizing and freezing enemy assets.
That's what was done in World War II, I understand.
Great googley moogly!
That is sweet!
No more than they deserve. If not less.
Dumbledoresarmy--freezing enemy assets is good, of course, but Nidal Malik Hasan showed jihad can be waged without much financial backing. Kudos to prosecutors for attacking the finances, but its a moot point if our government officials (especially the president) won't confront the ideology behind the money.
Only four?
How about ALL? Just think what Saudi Arabia or Egypt have done to churches and synagogues.
Oh, well. It's a start.
When The Jihadist-In-Chief and A.G. Holder find out about this, heads are gonna roll at The Justice Department and The FBI for those agencies doing their jobs, protecting The USA and Americans.
Kenny Solomon
Senior Expediter
The 72 Virgins Club Travel Agency
Ralph Peters was asked about it and he had a great answer: He said something to the effect that he'll get excited or take the government seriously when they start shutting down mosques with ties to Saudi Arabia.
I agree, and will go one further: I'll know they take the threat from Iran seriously when the Iranian nuclear weapons facilities have been destroyed. However, it's a good, if small, start!
After the Shah fell from power and the Iraian revolution
swept the country Iran become rabidly anti-American. Why
wasn't that building confiscated by the US government back
the 70s? Why would you let a country that you know dam
well hates your guts own a building or land in your country?
Every mosque in America is a symbol of most everything America has always been squarely against. There's nothing about any mosque anywhere which would make me think that the ideology for which it was built is prepared to accept real religious freedom, freedom of the press, true democracy or free speech. Mosques are monuments to the lesser angels of our nature.
During wartime, the assets of enemy aliens, as well as enemy governments, are seized. In the absence of a declaration of war, it is harder, and special legislation -- as there has been in the case of Iran -- may be necessary. So pass all necessary legislation, with the understanding that all of those Sunni mosques that are bought-and-paid-for, and then maintained, by Saudi and other foreign Arab money, as well as the assets of rich Arab individuals, are eminently seizable --once assorted corporate veils are pierced -- if the occasion warrants. And given the world-wide distress, but especially the distress being caused non-Muslims, as well as the terrific expense involved in monitoring Muslim populations within our own lands, and even world-wide, it's beginning, and how, to warrant.
Is there, can there be, anyone in this country (that is, among those who wish this country well) who isn't cheered up by this?
Um, Abdullah Mike?
Congratulations to the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for diligently "following the money" to its source and uncovering its intended consequences to undermine American efforts to guarantee the continuance of freedom for all citizens of the USA.
The reporter (Adam Goldman) notes that "It is extremely rare for U.S. law enforcement authorities to seize a house of worship, a step fraught with questions about the First Amendment right to freedom of religion." It should be kept in mind that the DOJ would not have instituted legal seizure proceedings against the four "houses of worships" if worship had been the only activity there. It can be presumed from these seizures that the DOJ believes that it has incontrovertible proof that these mosques were being used as covert military bases by the Islamic Republic of Iran, and that rental revenues from the 36-story office building were a source of active financial funding and support for these bases.
I am hopeful that the upshot of this action will be that all mosques in the USA come under the same close investigation, and that all properties and accounts owned by mosques, imams, Islamic agitators, and Islamically-governed foreign states receive the same jaundiced eye of suspicion. I am also hopeful that any individual charged with knowing cooperation in any of these "schemes" be subject to confiscation of all his properties and assets and to be deported at the earliest opportunity. American citizens so charged should be offered the option of renouncement of citizenship, forfeiture of all assets, and leave the country immediately at their own expense.
It is time to declare anti-American Islamists and their quisling associates persona non grata and seek their immediate removal or departure from this country.
Isabellathecrusader : Um, Abdullah Mike?
I think Hugh meant human.
The 'Islamic Schools' should be next.
Ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali - who herself knows exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood revivalists of That Old-Time Religion teach, and how they appeal to the young Muslims, since in Kenya it was a Muslim Brotherhood sista who convinced her, yes, *her*, when she was a young idealistic teenager, to wear full Arab-type Islamic dress - has plainly and bluntly advised the Dutch government, the UK government, and the USA government, to ban Islamic schools, period. Such schools are not at all the same kind of innocent thing as Jewish or Catholic or Anglican schools (or, say, the Coptic schools that the emigre Copts have established in Australia), although they will pretend that they are.
Islamic schools, if one looks steadily and rationally at the ideology of hatred and aggression taught therein, are similar to what one would have if the NeoNazis were running schools - only in Islamic schools the object of hatred and contempt and the intended object of aggression and destruction, absorption or subjugation is 'Anyone Who Is Non-Muslim', rather than 'Anyone Who is Non-Aryan', and the text is the Quran rather than Mein Kampf and the Dear Leader Who Can Do No Wrong is a dead man, Mohammed, rather than Der Fuehrer.
During World War II we would not have allowed German foreign funds to finance schools in Allie countries, in which the primary textbook was Mein Kampf, learned and recited in German, and in which Der Fuehrer was slavishly adored.
During the Cold War we would not have allowed Soviet Russia or Maoist China to fund 'Russian' or 'Chinese' schools on the soil of the free countries, schools in which Das Kapital and the writings of Lenin and Mao's Little Red Book were the primary textbooks, learned and parroted unquestioningly, and in which children swore themselves to serve the Revolution by any and all means necessary.
So why do we permit the Quranic Society this, or the Islamic Centre that, to set up schools all across the USA and UK and Canada and Australia and continental Europe, and presumably also in India and the Philippines and in other places, in which Muslim children will be steeped in the hate teaching with which the Quran is suffused from beginning to end? In which they will learn Loyalty (to Muslims only) and Enmity - permanent, unremitting, sometimes incapable of active outward expression but always to be inwardly harboured - to everyone else?
A propos what is taught to Muslim schoolchildren: here is what Tawfiq Hamid, child of lax or nominally Muslim parents in supposedly-less-fanatical Egypt, a few decades ago, absorbed not from immersion in a purely-Islamic milieu, but from attending private schools in Egypt run by Catholics, but in which the Muslim students had regular classes on Islam.
"I was born in Cairo to a secular Muslim family. My father was an orthopedic surgeon and an agnostic at heart; my mother was a French teacher and a liberal. Both considered Islam to be, primarily, an integral part of our culture. With the exception of my father, we would fast on Ramadan. Even though my father was not religious, he understood our need to fit into the community and never forced his secular views on us. He espoused diverse philosophical ideas but encouraged us to follow our own convictions. Most importantly, he taught my brother and me to think critically rather than to learn by rote.
"I never had any doubt, however, that we were Muslim - that Allah was our creator, Muhammad his messenger and the Koran our book.
" I believed that if I performed good deeds, I would be admitted to paradise where I could satisfy all my personal desires.
"I also knew, alternatively, that my transgressions would be punished by eternal torture in hell.
" I absorbed these beliefs largely from the surrounding environment rather than from my parents; they were shared by most children around me.
"I attended the private Al-Rahebat primary school in the area of Dumiat, which is about 200 kilometers north of Cairo, when I was six years old.
"Though managed by Christian nuns, *the school was supervised by the Egyptian government and required its Muslim students to attend classes on Islam* {my emphasis - dda}.
'Before each Islamic lesson began, the teacher would dismiss the Christian students, who were then obliged to linger outside the room until the lesson was over.
'Adding salt to the Christian children's wounds, many Muslim pupils would tease them for their faith - telling them that they would burn in hell eternally because they ate pork and were "infidels."
'This made a strong impression on me. I felt sorry for the Christians, sensing that they must be hurt by being treated as an inferior minority in an Islamic society.
'In my short life it was the first time I perceived that my Christian friends were not my equals. My parents had never suggested that we were superior to Christians, and I counted many among my friends. We used to play hide-and-seek and other games together.
'*Not only Christian children in the school were persecuted, however; non-practicing Muslims were scorned as well* {nota bene - dda}.
' Observant Muslim children would gather around those who did not fast during Ramadan and sing, "You who eat or drink during Ramadan are the losers of our religious... the black dog will tear apart your guts."
'Such treatment of Christians and non-practicing Muslims encouraged us to think that nonbelievers were inferior creatures and that it was right to hate them -
'they did not follow Islam and the Prophet Muhammad and, therefore, deserved to be tortured in hell forever.
'Though my secular upbringing prevented these thoughts from entirely dominating my mind at the time, other children were affected even more.'
...
When I was nine, I learned the following Koranic verse during one of our Arabic lessons: "But do not think of those that have been slain in God's cause as dead. Nay, they are alive! With their sustainer have they their sustenance. They are very happy with the reward they received from Allah [for dying as a shahid] and they rejoice for the sake of those who have not joined them [i.e., have not yet died for Allah]" (Koran 3:169-70).
It was the first time I was exposed to the concept of shahid (martyr), and naturally, I began to dream of becoming one. The thought of entering paradise very much appealed to me. There I could eat all the lollipops and chocolates I wanted, or play all day without anyone telling me to study.
'What made the concept of shahid even more attractive was its power to quell the fear I experienced as a young boy -
'for we were taught that if we were not good Muslims (especially if we did not pray five times a day), a "bald snake" would attack us in the grave.
'The idea of dying as a martyr provided a perfect escape from the frightening anguish of eternal punishment. Dying as a shahid, in fact, was the only deed that fully guaranteed paradise after death.
'*In secondary school {he doesn't say if this was a private or a state-run school - dda} I watched films about the early Islamic conquest.
'These films promoted the notion that "true" Muslims were devoted to aggressive jihad.
'While jihadi seeds were thereby planted in my mind, they did not yet seriously influence my personality or behavior. I was mostly occupied with schoolwork and such hobbies as sports, stamp collecting, chess and music. My father actively encouraged my brother and me to participate in ordinary activities...
'During my last year of high school, I began to ponder seriously the concept of God while reading about the molecular structure of DNA in a biology book.
'These thoughts prompted me to learn more about Islam and to devote myself to serving Allah.
'I remember one particularly defining moment in an Arabic language class when I was sitting beside a Christian friend named Nagi Anton.
'I was reading a book entitled Alshaykhan by Taha Hussein that cited the Prophet Muhammad's words: "I have been ordered by Allah to fight and kill all people [non-Muslims] until they say, 'No God except Allah.'"
'Following the reading of this Hadith, I decisively turned toward Nagi and said to him, "If we are to apply Islam correctly, we should apply this Hadith to you."
'At that moment I suddenly started to view Nagi as an enemy rather than as a longtime friend.
'What further hardened my attitude on this matter was the advice I received from many dedicated Muslim fellow students, who warned me against befriending Christians.
'They based their counsel on the following verse: "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends: They are but friends to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them [for friendship] is of them [an infidel]. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust" (Koran 5:51).
'In view of this verse and the previous one, I felt obliged as a Muslim to limit my relationships with my Christian friends.
'The love and friendship I once felt for them had been transformed into disrespect, merely because I wished to obey the commandments of my religion.
'*The seductive ideas of my religious studies had diluted the influence of my secular upbringing* {nota bene - dda}.
' By restricting my contact with Christians, I felt that I was doing a great deed to satisfy Allah."
END EXCERPT.
Now - imagine a little Muslim born in the West, but who is immersed in Islam right through from primary to secondary school, in 'Islamic schools'. That child's indoctrination will be far more thorough and intense even than was Mr Hamid's in Egypt, where his Islamic religious study class and peer pressure from more-observant Muslim classmates still overrode the counter-programming he absorbed from his MINO father, from the example of the Catholic nuns teaching general subjects, or from his non-Muslim childhood friends and classmates.
The curbing of the sharia-pushers shouldn't stop at banks and skyscrapers and mosques; a clear case can be made for shutting down the Islamic schools. There is already a mountain of evidence from the UK and USA and even seeping out in one or two news reports from Australia, that what is taught in those schools is...classical mainline Islam instinct with Quran/Sira/Hadith-inspired hatred for non-Muslims.
That was funny.
Right idea but..
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/Mosques_preach_jihad/2009/11/10/284270.html?s=al&promo_code=9099-1
10% now..100% after this? Better to confront the BS now rather than later before it's too late.Do we get protection from "backlash"? Obama is sunni right? Don't tell me he's actually going to get something done. Time for "The Donald" to jump on it.
It's a good start. The Sunnis will probably hesitate before condemning this action against the hated Shias, but even they will surely perceive this as threatening to them, too. Hopefully the Feds are systematically building the case needed to shut down the Wahabbi financed mosques, soo, where zakat is collected and sent to finance terror groups. And as DDA so eloquently argues above, the Islamic schools also need to be shuttered if it can be proven that they poison the minds of young children with concepts of hate.
I have developed considerable respect for you, Eastview, as well as for dda, but I feel compelled to point out to both of you that poisoning "the minds of young children with concepts of hate" will not meet the muster to close Islamic schools here in America (I confess my ignorance of present Australian law on this matter). Virtually any speech which is not accompanied by overt and imminent calls for violence is protected speech under the First Amendment. Adult Muslims here in America teaching children to hate, to despise non-believers, is repulsive but not unconstitutional. Of course, if such institutions can be determined to be actually funding terrorism (e.g., zakat), that is a different matter.
Speaking from a legal standpoint, private Muslim schools in the United States have a right to preach their hate as long as it is not acted upon in a myriad of violent ways. This is dispositive of how Muslims will use Western freedom to end Western freedom if they can (besides, what makes this all the more formidable for those who cherish liberty is that Islam can claim 1st Amendment religious freedoms, contra secular totalitarian ideologies). The way to end all this rot coming out of Islam is not the prohibition route (this would fail dismally in American courts) but rather discreditation of all of Islam in the eyes of the body politic. After all, and as I have written here before at JW, being a Nazi or a Marxist (and even indoctrinating children in these twisted ideologies) is perfectly legal. Ditto for being a Muslim, including one who instructs children in the warped creed of Islam. It's a very thick problem. It's capable of being solved but not by pursuing the banning of what is taught to little kiddies in private Muslim schools.
Ask yourself these questions:
If this Shia organization has been using assets and mosques in America to help terrorist activities, is it not likely that Sunni groups are doing the same? (I suspect so)
If Sunni groups are doing the same, have we heard of any seizures of Sunni assets and mosques?
If not (I suspect not) what does that say about the relationship of the U.S. Federal Government to Sunni Islam?
I am troubled while contemplating these questions.
Set me straight, if possible.
Economic Jihad
In case you missed my prior posting re: Hasan and follow the money:
Hasan was receiving what was reported as a 6 figure income with no wife, no kids, etc. He lived in a $300 a month apt. Besides dropping cash at a local strip club where he was called a big tipper by the dancers, he had little expenses due to his lifestyle and military profession.
In my posting I observed that investigators should follow the money. Quite possibly this would lead to those that were directing Hasan, or other members of a terrorist cell Hasan was supporting, or links to charities that are financing other terrorist acts around the world.
Turns out someone in law enforcement had the same idea, and now it is found that Hasan was sending money to Pakistan.
see this link for video and await details
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/11/12/report_major_hasan_may_have_wired_money_to_pakistan.html
Yes a good start, if successful..The mullahs are conniving
snakes and this will give them a good reason to get their last licks in claiming legitamacy before they pop off to paradise.
The saudi academy in Fairfax VA got permission to expand not long ago even after vehement eloquent and passionate speeches in protest to the Council. It was out of their power to deny it said they, the State Department decides they said. So why even allow the people to protest it? Nuts..The principal failed to report a child molestation and a previous "Valedictorian" graduate was arrested for plotting to kill Pres.Bush. Some "school"!
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/07/valedictorian-of-saudi-islamic-academy-gets-life-in-prison-for-plot-to-kill-president-bush-urge-fair.html
I wonder what they're teaching these days?
Oh yeah, the "maps" were conspicuously missing Israel..No cartographers as yet produced by this Institute of Hate and Immorality.
Golly. Must be hard to "seize" a skyscraper...Wonder where they impounded the thing...
An excellent start but there is a long way to go.
Wellington, As much as I do not like what
you have stated, it is in fact, true. The 1st
Amendment does give all freedom of speech.
I dislike many things that said, printed by
many groups and organizations. That right is
protected under the 1st Amendment.
The attacks against the financial tentacles of
Islam is great BUT we need to educate people
about what is contained within Islam, the Koran
hadith etc. No enemy can be defeated unless it
is understood, inside and out.
Old News about 650 Fifth Avenue. Maybe this time, somebody will actually follow through and do something about it.
Not likely, knowing our recently elected (term limits be damned) Mike Bloomberg.
Just saying.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=9067533
Wellington, I'm sure you know what you are talking about but there are a few issues relevant to muslim education that continue to baffle me. Didn't the United States invest millions/billions to shut down madrassas in Pakistan and other islamic dungeons to stem the radicalization of children? Isn't there an ongoing controversy about the text books used in the Saudi Academy in Virginia because they teach students to hate Jews and Christians (and everyone else who isn't muslim)? Obama has mentioned the sinister effects of "radicalization" by "extremist" imams and even a few on the far left in Congress agree that the inculcation of hate and militant jihad in muslims creates terrorists.
Doesn't religious freedom have any limits? How could it be legal to brainwash children to hate their country, their fellow citizens, and their government, and to instill in them the imperative to spread islam and wage violent jihad if their efforts are unsuccessful or obstructed? How could this be considered anything other than sedition? Are you saying that the United States is obligated to commit suicide because of the First Amendment?
Stay tuned for hostage taking and kidnappings of Westerners from the Islamic republic of Ayatollahs.
The 'backlash' is in the making.... how will the muslim POTUS Hussein Obama deal with it?
Like peanut Khadr?
Many issues you bring up, Susanp. Encouraging and paying Pakistan to shut down those disgusting schools of hate, madrassas, has nothing to do with our First Amendment. As for the textbook issue here in the US, the American government can complain about it, expose it, give the wretched Saudis hell, even engage in some kind of economic tit for tat, but there are no legal or constituitional prohibitions to such venom being spewed here in America. Controversial matters, no matter how repulsive, are not in and of themselves illegal, as in this instance concerning the putrid Saudi-funded texts. What's really sad is that children can be taught to hate and it's deuce difficult to find anything illegal about this. If a parent wants to tell his child that another race, say blacks, are inferior, this is really sad but still legal. Same for those who would tell their children that those who don't believe in the religion they do are the equivalent of human waste (which is exactly what Islamic law maintains).
Religious freedom has virtually no restrictions under the 1st Amendment respecting what is believed, only in some instances what is acted upon. For example, if someone if ridiculous enough to be a Satanist and worship the devil, that is his right. And he can express his views about this widely. But if his "religion" requires a human sacrifice once a year to appease Satan, well, no, that is not permissible under the First Amendment. Ditto for American Indians who might want to use banned hallucinatory drugs because doing so is part of their nativist religion. Nope, can't do that either. In short, belief under the 1st is absolute. Action upon belief has some restrictions placed upon it. Muslims have an advantage on us here and, like the parasites they are, will use our freedom to destroy our freedom if posssible (and frankly, so-called moderate Muslims who would themselves never be violent or advocate the worst of what Islam does are nonetheless in league with an evil ideology and receive no respect from me).
Same thing applies to devoted Marxists or Neo-Nazis. They're protected too in believing in their nonsense. Only if felonious action occurs can the government then move. The Consitution of the United States is an experiment in freedom still in the making and freedom will be abused at times. It's the risk we take to remain really free. And again I would argue that the route to destroying those who would destroy freedom is through discrediting their belief systems. Mock them. Point out how evil (and stupid) what they believe in is and hope that the bulk of the American citizenry will listen and learn and so marginalize warped ideologies that they are protected but only adhered to by handfuls of loonies. I look forward to the day when this happens to Islam. It's a day I think will come but not before many more tragedies and the death of two of the greatest idiocies of our time, polticial correctness and multiculturalism, occurs.
Now, what was Armadillojad sayin' about the US having to make a choice between Iran and Israel? I guess Iran won, so we'll take a mosque here, a skyscraper there, maybe an Islamic Center and a masjid or two...
My delight would be more complete if the Muslims in my neighborhood weren't Shiites, though.
This is part of the AP story:
"At the Islamic Institute of New York, a mosque and school in Queens, two U.S. marshals came to the door and rang the bell repeatedly. The marshals taped a forfeiture notice to the window and left a large document sitting on the ground. After they left a group of men came out of the building and took the document."
What type of persons would not answer the door, feign not being home, hide and wait, with US Marshals ringing the bell? I cannot think of any reason to do so unless one is hiding something and is afraid of its discovery. That behavior alone would suggest that a warrant be served and the premises searched.
From story: "The action against the Shiite Muslim mosques is sure to inflame relations between the U.S. government and American Muslims, many of whom are fearful of a backlash after last week's Fort Hood shooting rampage, blamed on a Muslim American major." Delayed reaction backlash. Or DRB.
Sharia is Tolerance
Dhimmitude is Diversity
Islam is Peace
I wonder what kind of treasure the Feds will find when and if they start seaching inside of the buildings...
Wellington, couldn't agree with you more about the key being to "discredit the ideas of their belief systems". And, I also couldn't imagine a much more effective "dis-creditor" than Robert, his writings and this site and it's participants (deluded contributors and all). I happen to believe that this site and ALL of Mr. Spencer's ENTIRE library of writings should be required reading for any self-professed muzlim immigrant (ya gotta read it and ya gotta explain it to a panel of knowledgeable non-muzlim judges) But - just a rhetorical question: "How can there be such a thing as a moskk or an izlumic school that DOESN'T support terrorism?" I mean, with what we know about the true nature of izlum, and about the true nature of izlum's 'holy' book, what in the world sez there can be any such thing as a moskk or izlumic school that's NOT focused on destroying free societies? Anyway, a personal THANKS to you for participating here. May Mr. Spencer and all of us followers rage against the izlumic machine until it dissolves into rust and dissipates in the fresh breeze of freedom.
Wonderin1
So the US has officially entered the Sunni Shia divide. Let me guess, Saudi royalty is losing patience with such American tolerance on soon to be conquered soil? Obama follows up his bending gesture with some action - eh?
Meanwhile, the fifth column at CAIR is getting nervous - more likely, putting forward appearances of such - as folks are tiring of the preposterous msm 'denial-of-jihad' meme. See this report from NorthJersey.com:
Saudi's (Sunni) intent on heading off any such Federal raids of their interests? R I C O
"That could leave a major void in Shiite communities, and hard feelings toward the FBI."
. . . . WAAAAA. I’m shedding tear after tear . . . someone might not like us after all. Boo-hoo. I’m just devastated.
ABOUT FRICKIN TIME! They should have done the same thing to GE years ago for doing biz with Iran. Dumb A****!
We need to start using the word “Traitor” more in this country.
Hands in the air all: “Raise the roof” FBI agents!
Hey.......did they ask Mr O before seizing stuff?
Tomorrow morning he will be at the battle-station proclaiming..........sorry, reading from his teleprompter about how islam is a religion of peace and all this was an error on part of law enforcement agencies and he will start apologising to all muslims - shia as well as sunni.
Oh........and next time he goes to saudi arabia, he will bow even lower to the king to apologise for this misbehaviour by America.
As much as I would like to think that the FEDS are looking out for our safety this is probably more about a potential revenue source for our tax hungry government than the fight against jihad. I don't know who is potentially the biggest hypocryte here, NY or the FEDS.
When do we seize the Kaaba? And the "Grand Mosque?" And when does the al-Aqsa mosque get dismantled and its stones reused to build pig sties???
I am trying desparatly to post here, how do I do It , where do I look to see my post....Tom
It is always nice to get some good news. This story is great news as long as the feds don't turn around and rent the mosques out to al-Quaeda.
Wellington and PatriotUSA,
"Virtually any speech which is not accompanied by overt and imminent calls for violence is protected speech under the First Amendment. Adult Muslims here in America teaching children to hate, to despise non-believers, is repulsive but not unconstitutional. Of course, if such institutions can be determined to be actually funding terrorism (e.g., zakat), that is a different matter. "
"I dislike many things that said, printed by
many groups and organizations. That right is
protected under the 1st Amendment."
With Islamic speech, it's not merely a matter of what you "dislike" or what you find "repulsive" -- it is a matter of speech that is directly related to deadly sedition against the USA. That is not protected under the Constitution. The only thing preventing us from stopping that speech and its speakers through any necessary means is our PC MC-addled will based on the PC MC paradigm that obstructs from view the data that would lead to the conclusion that Islam is in fact deadly sedition and all Muslims who follow Islam are aiding and abetting deadly sedition.
Close them down for whatever reasons given. It must be done, for it is written.
It is Allah's will...
Actually, Hesperado, seditious talk is pretty much protected under the 1st Amendment. What isn't protected is seditious action. Can't get much more seditious than calling for the Constitution of the United States to be replaced by Sharia but doing so is still protected speech. The 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio case, coming after a long line of similar cases, by common legal consensus, essentially abolished any seditious libel prosecution. The only way I see any possibility of proceeding legally along the lines you would prefer is to show that certain speech presents a "clear and present danger" to the Republic and that is, legally and constitutionally speaking, a very, very high bar to meet, one which would demand, among other things, imminent action on the horizon and not just words spoken.
I think Wellington may be wrong on this one, because "teaching children to hate" is very close to the Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), which is a condition calling for legal action to protect the children from this kind of mental abuse and alienation. In the case of Muslim child mental abuse, it is teaching hate to alienate them from the predominant culture of where they reside in the West. When children try to rebel against this sort of abuse, they are either ostracized by their Muslim elders, or abused to the point of being murdered, such as in 'honor' killings. So PAS may be used as precedent to take legal action against Muslim hate indoctrination of children, though it may take some fancy legal work to get there from here.
BTW, as follow up, read up on the Obsessed PAS, which fits the bill to a T on Muslim obsessions with hate:
Viz., "They will often seek support from family members, quasi-political groups or friends that will share in their beliefs that they are victimized by the other parent and the system. The battle becomes "us against them." The obsessed alienator's supporters are often seen at the court hearings even though they haven't been subpoenaed.
The court's authority does not intimidate them.
The obsessed alienator believes in a higher cause, protecting the children at all cost.
The obsessed alienator will probably not want to read what is on these pages because the content just makes them angrier."
Amazing at the similarities between PAS and Muslim hatred obsessions.
Your examples, Battle of_of_Tours, really only apply to when one one parent is abused by the child by way of the other parent's actions. I don't see how this would apply to the situation at hand, especially if both parents are devout Muslims and are teaching their children all the ugliness found in Islamic doctrine with enthusiasm. On top of all this, freedom of religion would come into play big time. Don't think there is much value in pursuing this course of action, sad though that may be.
Wellington, the picture you have presented is that it may be well nigh impossible to shut down the Islamic propaganda machine because of various constitutional protections based on free speech and equal protection, and you cite case law and precedents to back your position. I think everyone here understands these arguments, but most of us lack your specialized knowledge of how the legal machinery actually works that would allow us to offer constructive suggestions that are within the bounds of the law. But, as has been stated before, the Constitution isn't a suicide pact. You're the lawyer, so why don't you plot a path for us through the legal thicket that would help blunt the effects of Islam we see appearing with increasing frequency in the West?
I should have added "nonestablishment" to free speech and equal protection. Note to self: Take a break before hitting the "send" button.
Thank you for your explanations, depressing as they are! I understand that our efforts in Pakistan have nothing to do with our own Constitution. However, I was under the mistaken impression that if we would invest huge sums to cut off the Taliban assembly line in Pakistan, surely our government would take some interest in stopping the radicalization that is occurring right here in American mosques. Muslims in America are more of a threat to us than those in Pakistan.
I have heard "experts" bloviate on the limitations of free speech like screaming "fire!" in a crowded theater. If that is illegal because it might cause a stampede resulting in injuries and mental distress, I just can't fathom how the exhortation of hate, violence, muslim supremacy, and sedition could be legal free speech, especially when young children are literally brainwashed with this crap. Doesn't it stand to reason that after years of inculcation, some of them will animate what has been pounded into their brains? When one commits an act of violence commensurate with his islamic indoctrination, who is culpable; the ideology, the teacher, or the perpetrator? Who is punished? I think the young Saudi who planned to kill President Bush was a graduate of the Saudi school in Virginia----a good example of islamic indoctrination in action.
I'm not going to bug you much longer, I promise, but please explain this: What about the oath of citizenship that immigrants take? Does that mean nothing? If they swear to obey our laws and Constitution, how can they blatantly contravene that oath by espousing jihad, sedition, and the overthrow of our government, not to mention the other offensive, insulting, and dangerous aspects of islamic theology that are the antithesis of everything America stands for?
Wonder what Hussain Obama thinks .
Your examples, Battle of_of_Tours, really only apply to when one one parent is abused by the child by way of the other parent's actions. I don't see how this would apply to the situation at hand, especially if both parents are devout Muslims and are teaching their children all the ugliness found in Islamic doctrine with enthusiasm.
I understand your point, Wellington, but I saw it different. The primary issue was "teaching children to hate", so where PAS is hatred of the 'other' parent, in Islam it is teaching children to hate the "other" in principle (who is non-Muslim). This is what I had in mind, though to carry the concept from one to the other may be legalistically difficult. Still, any reason to shut down the perps of hatred is good enough for me.
Ever since Obama has become President there have been a lot of terror busts.
I know that will short circuit many peoples brains but it is true.
One should consider when the investigations started. With so many arrests there is dam little coverage of them. Especially with any follow up. Given how Fort Hood has been covered and one could come to a conclusion that there is one mighty big Rug out there.