In Human Events this morning I explain why the Ground Zero mega-mosque has nothing to do with religious freedom:
After the New York City Landmarks Commission voted unanimously last Tuesday to deny landmark status to 45 Park Place, thus clearing the way for the construction of an Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg framed the entire controversy as an issue of religious freedom. But he is ignoring some of the key issues that make this less a question of religious freedom and more one of whether or not Islamic supremacism is going to advance unimpeded in the United States."We may not always agree with every one of our neighbors," Bloomberg began in an address Tuesday, as if the entire problem of the global jihad were one of theological disagreement (interestingly, Osama bin Laden and other jihadists would emphatically agree with Bloomberg's point here--their problem with America is ultimately theological).
"But we also recognize," Bloomberg continued, "that part of being a New Yorker is living with your neighbors in mutual respect and tolerance. It was exactly that spirit of openness and acceptance that was attacked on 9/11."
In other words, let pro-sharia Islamic supremacists build a 13-story mega-mosque at Ground Zero, or the terrorists win.
At the heart of Bloomberg's argument was his contention that "of all our precious freedoms, the most important may be the freedom to worship as we wish"--and that he therefore had no grounds to stop the mosque at Ground Zero even if he wished to do so.
Yet in reality, this is not really a freedom of religion issue at all. No one is advocating that Muslims should not be allowed to build mosques in the U.S., although I maintain that those mosques should be carefully scrutinized by law enforcement for jihad activity--and Muslims who are genuinely peaceful, eschew sharia, and are loyal American citizens should have no problem with that. The question here is one of the appropriateness of the location.
Does the freedom of religion really allow any group to build anything anywhere? As a recent parody had it, would the KKK be allowed to build a "shrine of reconciliation" on the site of the black Baptist church bombed by racists in the early Sixties? Would Michael Bloomberg really have no problem with that? Would he stand up as stoutly for the KKK's religious freedom as he has for Ground Zero mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his gang of Islamic supremacist deceivers?...
There is a very strong parasitic element in Islam, and this Mosque, feeding like a vampire on the victims of 9/11, is a good illustration: http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/islamic-parasites.html
http://newstime.co.nz/german-911-mosque-in-hamburg-closed-taiba-former-al-quds.html
Islam cannot have a look on "religious freedom" for Islam, because the very dangerous political Ideology Islam is only mascerade as a religion and Islam with its brutal Sharia law (e. g. against freedom of speech) clashes with many articles of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany and the US-constitution
"At the heart of Bloomberg's argument was his contention that "of all our precious freedoms, the most important may be the freedom to worship as we wish"--and that he therefore had no grounds to stop the mosque at Ground Zero even if he wished to do so."
Religious freedom is not unlimited. I am not a specialist in the restrictions on religious freedom in the US Constitution and American tradition but The European Convention on Human Rights (1950) specify the following limitations:
"Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
In a secular democratic society the most important is not religious freedom but submitting to the morals that make democracy sustainable.
It might help to throw the '9/11 Jihad Mosque' project into sharp relief by setting up a group of Christians who very publicly ask the Saudi government to grant a permit to build an international house of prayer in Mecca for all religions to use - Hindus, Christians, Jews, Buddhists etc..
The basis for the request would be the oft quoted verses from Al Qur'an that are touted by dhimmis, liberal leftists and Muslims to suggest there is religious tolerance in Islam.
Of course, the inevitable foot-dragging, prevarication, lame excuses etc. could be used to show how Islam's claim to be peaceful and tolerant are a hollow sham.
Well, at least we could stop any Saudi money financing mosques or schools in our countries until the saudi's reciprocate, i.e. allow the building of houses of worship in their country. Unless they grant equal rights to all citizens regardless of religion, they shall not promote their religion in our countries.
This is what they preach in Saudi schools:
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,994052,00.html
http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-02/20/article06.shtml
What an excellent concept Buraq, ''throw the . . project into sharp relief. .''. That's smart offsetting that is.
Buraq,
I doubt that the Saudis would drag their sandaled feet or make lame excuses. They really believe that God speaks to them through their Prophet and the Qur’ân. They really do believe that they are "The Best of People," because Allâh told them so.
They would also tell you that the entire Arabian Peninsula was consecrated to Islam because Mohammad said it must be so, therefore there it is impossible for any other religion to have meeting places in Saudi Arabia.
Besides, do you think anyone in his right mind would set up a non-Islamic place of worship in Saudi Arabia?
"Whazzamatter stupid infidel, don't you believe in God?
"Off with his head!!"
The GZM is the religious equivalent of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. As Ralph Waldo Emerson once said: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds", i.e., this case is different.
@Jockaria
I think the point you make is precisely where Buraq was going with that thought-train; in that the predictable 'NO', and the resultant exchange of questions as to 'WHY?' from all sides will bring the debated issues out in ''sharp relief'' in the international public sphere. Futhermore, and I guess this is where Buraq's aim is focussed, such a bold move with such a predictable response will trump the PC/MC MSM's 'nothing to see here but us accountants' line.
"No one is advocating that Muslims should not be allowed to build mosques in the U.S..."
You are wrong. Here's one.
As long as no Christian or Jew is safe to worship in Muslim occupied lands they have no business establishing their cult behind enemy lines among us.
I am as liberal with respect to speech as the next guy. I am more liberal than most. But we know "freedom of speech" is not an absolute freedom, particularly during war. Seditious speech in time of war cannot be tolerated and it's not been tolerated. The same holds true for religion. Japanese Americans were interred after Pearl Harbor and to my knowledge, there is no indication Japanese American were not anything other than loyal American citizens. Not so some (perhaps many) Muslim Americans. Clearly there are subversive elements in the Muslim American community. Furthermore, had it been determined that Japanese Americans were not only devout practitioners of Shinto but also engaged in Emperor-worship, this would not garner the attention of the authorities? And shouldn't it?
Why shouldn't the same hold true for Islam and for Muslim Americans? Should an American imam be allowed to preach murderous hatred toward American non-Muslims under the rubric of freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion? I think not.
The rapid pace of the building of mosques in the US is indeed troubling, especially in light of the fact that Islam has declared war on the West and America in particular.
Building a mosque anywhere near "Ground Zero" to me, is a no brainer. It should not be allowed. Don't these Muslim leaders KNOW that building a mosque will be an invite for harassment and will only rub salt in the wound that people who live and work in that area sorely remember. Beside, both religions hate each other as witnessed by the writings of their own leaders. Example: This is what Ayatollah Khomeini said in reference to the 1979 Iranian Revolution that overthrew the Shah.
"The leaders of the USSR and of England and the president of the United States are ... infidels ... Every part of the body of a non-Moslem individual is impure, even the hair on his head and his body, his nails, and all the secretion of his body. Any man or woman who denies the existence of God, or believes in His partners (the Christian Trinity), or else does not believe in His Prophet Mohammed, is impure (in the same way as are excrement, urine, dog, and wine).
Now, let's see what the Book of Revelation says about people who don't believe in what is said in that Book.
Rev. 22:14-15 "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
So, I think we have a problem with two entirely different viewpoints that can never be resolved without one or the other parties involved abdicating their belief systems. And, the chances of that happening are absolutely zero!
I think the human race is in trouble.
No one is advocating that Muslims should not be allowed to build mosques in the U.S...
Well I am and have, and will do so again...'If you build it they will come', and keep coming...Mosque building is how Islam spreads...This phenomena is observable, and not in the best interests of kufr America...
"I think the human race is in trouble."
Non-Muslims are in trouble due to the violent Infidel-hating ideology of Islam, the sheer numbers of Muslims, and political correctness, which permits the infiltration and invasion of the Islamic enemy into our countries.
The European experience is that wherever mosques appear they bring trouble: http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/mosque-blight.html
Billie O had on last night a Muslimah who is against the mosque...she was very slick, and only tripped up a couple of times...Billie almost fell in love with her...and Islam...
Once again, how to be safe at any anti-mosque demonstration:
http://freemendo.typepad.com/undaunted/2010/06/read-hereabout-boeing-guards-who-somehow-let-twelve-or-was-it-fourteen-handguns-be-stolen-from-a-storage-locker-at-the-he.html#tp
"And if it (the case against the mosque) is not won, once this mega-mosque is built, if it is..." --from Robert Spencer's article
The word that jumps out at me is "If." If the project goes ahead, it has been suggested that the trade unions would not participate in the construction. Then we must consider, what if Moslem slave labor is brought in, much as it was brought in for the contruction in the UAE? What rule bending would be required to enact such a scenario? And if scab labor is brought and/or if there is rule bending to do so, who will speak up? And if they do, what will be the outcome?
If this insult is to be considered exclusively a local matter, as the White House suggests, are we to take this notion to its logical conclusion and declare that the Union has been dissolved? I thought that little question was settled some time ago to the contrary. The Federal government has the right and duty to step in and declare this site to be historically significant land. If they do, this situation is resolved and a strong message is sent to the Moslem world, all the way to the shores of Tripoli and beyond. Of course, if they do not, the situation is also resolved and a strong message is also sent to the Moslem world. A very different message.
If this abomination is built, it won't be the end of hte matter. Perhaps a mosque will be suggested for the Pentagon, or for Ft. Hood as has been suggested elsewhere. There is no limit to Moslem supremacist insolence. But there is a limit to the benefit of the doubt that has been extended to these individuals by the people of the West. Islam is being recognized for what it is: a totalitarian political plague using religion as its vector, much like malaria travels within the innards of the mosquito.
It would bring me great satisfaction to see this project stopped dead by public opinion. I'll do my bit in spreading the word to ensure that it is stopped. But, if it is not stopped and the project does go ahead, I will have an even greater sense of satisfaction if this Tower of mendacious Babel, like the Berlin Wall before it, is torn down by the people with their bare hands
Your ads made it to the front page of Dailymail, folks.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1301846/New-York-buses-opposed-ground-zero-mosque-carry-twin-towers-attack-ad.html
Enjoy!
The trouble with Bloomberg's logic, and the logic of most everybody dealing with the Islam Problem, is that they assign Islam the status of being a religion.
*** 92:10 ***
It's not so simple as that. Islam is a belief system, or, if you prefer, an ideology.
It has three components:
1) Religion
2) Government
3) Military
As you drill down this stack you are burrowing closer to the people Dubya incorrectly described as a "tiny minority of extremists."
These two more elite groups, the governors and the killers, are not extreme. They're just dwelling in a place deeper in the belief system. They are not perverters, they are the elites admired by all those who worship in the top layer, the religion layer.
"But we also recognize," Bloomberg continued, "that part of being a New Yorker is living with your neighbors in mutual respect and tolerance. It was exactly that spirit of openness and acceptance that was attacked on 9/11."
Mutual respect, mutual tolerance. But Islam does not teach its adherents to respect non-Muslims. It teaches them not to offer any respect, but to despise, and mistrust (no matter how generous they may outwardly appear to be), and hate them, and if they do not submit to the demands of Muslims, then according to what Islam inculcates, there there only three possibilities:
1) they can be killed
2) they can be converted
3) they can -- if defined as Ahl al-Kitab, People of the Book, that is Jews and Christians, be allowed to live and even to practice, greatly constrained, their religion, but must permanently assume the condition of dhimmis as defined in the Shari'a, that is a status of humiliation, degradation, and permanent physical insecurity. And in a case of "For Tax Purposes," Muslim masters allowed Zoroastrians in Iran to be considered "People of the Book" and thus to remain alive to pay the Jizyah (though over time the pressures of their miserable status as dhimmmis caused many to convert to Islam -- the Muslims of Iran are the descendants of Zoroastrians, as well as, in some cases, of Jews and Nestorian Christians).
Nowhere in time or space, where Muslims have ruled, was there anything like the "mutual respect" and "mutual tolerance" that Bloomberg piously intones, and that includes Islamic Spain. He's making phrases up, he's hoping that they might be true, or can be made true, he doesn't want to learn about Islam, he doesn't want to know about the evidence from history. He's a thoroughly modern millie, akin to an American teenager writing a paper and cribbing it all, the night before it's due, from a few misleading bits and pieces in Wikipedia.
I always thought Americans had more self-pride than to even THINK about allowing themselves to be slapped in the face like this.
No one is advocating that Muslims should not be allowed to build mosques in the U.S.,
Robert,talk for yourself because I am advocating exactly that.
and Muslims who are genuinely peaceful, eschew sharia, and are loyal American citizens should have no problem with that.
Now Mr Spencer,for somebody with a deep understanding of what ISLAM realy is-I have read your book the comlete infidel's guide to the Koran- you know very well our problems is never obout muslems.its Islam itself,and when we allow the spread of Mosques in the west we are making it very easy for those peaceful Musllems to transform into GOOD Musllems ie suicidal jihadist
I made some predictions yesterday about what I think will happen, when the shiny new mosque at Ground Zero opens its doors.
I can't find my comment now, so I'm thinking it might have been taken for a veiled threat, when it was just me, playing gypsy-with-a-crystal-ball (no offense intended to serious scryers) and removed.
That's okay, of course. Sometimes tone of "voice" is lost on a printed page.
I meant to say then, and it's equally relevant for this post, that there will never be anything but unrest if that abomination is built.
I predict many a protest by the LGBT, people of the New York Jewish community, and women not of the NOW crowd. I also predict scuffles with Christians, handing out tracts.
Sadly, I think the inhabitants of the GZM will enjoy the conflicts, and will play the part of "victim" to the hilt.
Stormwarning,
I just came across your comment from yesterday.
It's under the "SIOA and FDI Sue MTA" thread.
Just to let you know it wasn't expunged. Also to say you made a good point. The long term effect of this "mega-mosque" will likely be as damaging as the location is insulting.
G
Today's Fox News poll. Once again Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal's Fox News gets it wrong.
Today's question:
Under the title "US. Footing Bill for Ground Zero Imam Trip...."
"Would You Mind If a Large Religious Center Was Built In Your Town?
"Would you be all right with the construction of a large religious center in your town?
Yes -- Everyone has a right to practice their religion.
No -- Some of these places go way beyond religion
I'm not sure.
I don't care.
Other (post a comment)
I was forced to reluctantly vote "no." Doesn't Fox miss the point? Fox apparently believes (however you wish to characterize it) fundamentalist or orthodox Islam goes erll beyond "religion." We have 2 Islamic centers (mosques) here in our town. The Imam at one of these two was quoted a couple or so years back in our newspaper saying, when he shops at Publix and he nears the wine section, he must turn his head the other way like any proper Muslim would do. This IS religion; it is Islam.
It's not that some of these places "go way beyond religion." This is faith. It is religion and if it is religion, Americans (Bloomberg, Fox, etc., believe) are forced to accept it under the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment. These fundamentalists and evangelists accept the First Amendment as though it were given by the gods and is as absolute, just as many people of faith view the Ten Commandments.
...there will never be anything but unrest if that abomination is built.
In that case, issue me a union card I'm ready to start working on the thing right now.
*** 8:12 ***
We could use some unrest vis a vis Islam (and Moslems).
I wonder if the construction contractors will be Mahoundians? It would seem to me that a mosque built by kufr would be haram unless the kufr builders were dhimmi slaves...9:29...
How can a mosque be built with purity if every part has kufr finger prints all over it...98:6...and Islam has to 'pay' them lots of loot to do it...Are there any Mahoundian contractors in the NY area large enough to build this building?
There's the firm of Mohammad Atta and Associates. Oh that's right, they only do demolitions. Never mind...
Mr. Spencer: as much as I agree with you that the mosque should not be built, but I have to agree with Mayor Bloomberg. the goverment does not have any businedd telling people where or where not to built a house of prayer. that is why this guy Rick Lazio is toxic.
Miriam, you say you agree with Mayor Bloomberg, the government does not have any business telling people where to build a house of prayer. Under ordinary circumstances and perhaps with most any other religious tradition, I might agree with you. Would you agree with me, we are at war? That we are engaged in a war, not of our choosing?
Regards,
Steve
Yeah right...a very reputable firm...I used to work for a contractor who would drive up to the lumber yard fence at night and steal materials for his jobs...He called himself, 'The Stewart Contracting Company, a very reputable firm'...
He would be perfect for the mosque...no one would need to blow it up, it will fall over on it's own in about a week...
Hi there! do I agree that we are engaged in a war of not our choosing, the answer is yes. we where also in other wars of not our choosing like the vietnam war. we also fought the British, does it mean we should have stopped building Angelican church? we fought the Japanes doea it mean we should fight and ban budhism? Look I have a disdain for all religions. Stve, I am assuming you are an American. America and Americans is the only country and the only nation that was never colonized or lived under dictorship or tyrany. to American's freedom of speech, religion etc... is a given. However my self and many others form middle east, latin America and eastern Europe have expirirnced tyrany and dictatorship first hand for years. to have a government telling people wheather the can or can not establish a religios center is extrenley dangerous. this is how facism and dictatorship takes route.
Hope you are well.
M
LOL, I was just thinking how appropriate that guy's slogan would be for Rauf and Khan:
"The Islamic Religion Co, a very reputable firm."
Yes Miriam, I am an American citizen for now. I hope to immigrate to Israel, "God-willing." I am not a religious Jew but I do believe in God. You mention fascism, dictatorship and tyranny. The closest I have seen to any of these in the history of this nation is from Mr. Obama himself and he has NO intention restricting Islam or its spread (in its most pernicious and extremist form) in any way.
I greatly treasure my freedom of speech as do all freedom loving people - and I can appreciate your life's experiences - but Obama, if he had his way, would shut down dissent entirely, both he and his Democratic allies in Congress.
We know, in time of war (take the Civil War as an example) speech has been circumscribed. Though some libertarians make the case Lincoln was a tyrant and a dictator, I don't buy it. We give up some of our freedoms in time of war. Read Benjamin Netanyahu's "Fighting Terrorism." He makes this argument and Netanyahu is not a fascist. I was not out there complaining about some of the measures the Bush administration took (surveillance of Muslim-Americans for instance) to keep us safe; unlike my libertarian-leaning neighbors who unmercifully trashed the man for these modest steps. If I had my way, we would racially profile at airports like Israel's El Al does. Is El Al fascist? Or are they protecting the passengers? Were I king, I would say, "No mosques will be built here in the US until Islam ends its aggression. Every Muslim who it can be proven celebrated 9/11 will be deported. Every Muslim who incites violence will be deported," etc.
Subversive speech and enemy propaganda during a war cannot be tolerated, though I am sure more some leaders like former President George W. Bush have tolerated subversive speech to a degree and maybe that was to his credit; I'm not certain. Nonetheless there must be limits.
I would argue Miriam, we have never experienced a war in which a particular religion poses a direct threat to our nation. Maybe the closest we came to it were the secular ideologies of Nazism and Communism during the Second World War and afterward. But these two ideologies, I would submit, did not pose nearly the treat Islam poses to the US. I have written elsewhere, Japanese Americans were detained during the second world war and there is nothing to indicate (to my knowledge) these people posed any threat to the US. Imagine if they were engaging in Emperor-Worship in their Shinto Temples in California. Don't you think the government would have a basis for concern? How much more Islam. Steve
I am dismayed at these threads about the Ground Zero Mosque. The logic displayed by all concerned, from the top on down (here in this particular one we have a normatively representative example of Spencer, Fitzgerald, and assorted Jihad Watchers), is either in tatters or wildly simplistic, or a combination of both. The stance, such as it is, is such a mess, it would (as William F. Buckley once famously, and beleagueredly, told an earnestly confused Phil Donahue) "take a team of philosophers to unscramble". Every time I begin to try to articulate an analysis of the problem for my blog, I become overwhelmed with an irritated enervation, an ontological fatigue, an existential nausea. A good deal of my reaction has to do with the recognition that this travesty of thought is directly related to the incoherence at the heart of the still-inchoate anti-Islam movement; an incoherence, I fear, which will not be clarified and rectified until Muslims mass-murder millions of us in various places, at various times, and cause horrific destruction of our infrastructures and dislocation to our societies, over the span of the next few decades -- in addition to an untold and unimaginably varied amount of evil ugliness they will manage to display as their masks slowly slip off during that time.
I've got to run an errand. Be back later. How about some specifics, from the top of the thread on down.
Very good post and idea Buraq!
I think that we should look at Islam and Democracy in a worldwide view, not just in a view that concerns only one's own nation. Yet this it seems is what most people do, on the streets, in politics, in the media.
Before we look at the world nationwise, I think we should look faith-wise, including all faiths and non-faiths, if you know what I mean. Then evaluate how they interact, reciprocate with each other. Then you see Islam is highly ego-centric and in violation of the Golden Rule. Only, nationwise-looking people, like mayor Bloomberg, and most politicians, seem not to get it.
We should juxtapose Islam and Democracy, emphasize their difference in laws, values, essences. And point out that maybe it's better to have 2 sorts of countries; the Islamic ones and the Democratic ones. And thinking ahead; we could strive for and demand a situation in which: All theocratic Muslims should be sent to and allowed by Saudi Arabia and other nations dedicated to Islam.
And at the same time, citizens of Islamic nations who are fed up with Islam and theocracy, should be allowed into the Democratic nations, after swearing an loyalty-oath-to-democracy. Being not radical but only moderately theocracy-loyal does NOT suffice.
Should people in democratic nations "revert" to Islam, well, then they should go live in a nation dedicated to it.
I can envision 2 sorts of nations, Islamic and Democratic. And in none should live citizens who prefer the other way of organizing society and life, and are loyal to that way. I desire a smooth exchange of democracy-loyalists and theocracy-loyalists between democracies and theocracies in the distant future.
We'll see who wins such a fair, Golden-Rule-competition, then.
The Nazi party was also, like Islam, a supremacist ideology. Were all Nazi's evil, or just the Nazi "extremists" who actually lived out the Nazi ideals and killed Jews and Christians and tried to conquer the world? Were the passive Nazis, who did not actually engage in enforcing the Nazi take over but supported the Nazi party financially or passively, also guilty? What about those who did nothing to stop the actions of Nazis? The reason it took a world war to put an end to Nazi ambition was because the behavior was tolerated, ignored, rationalized, misunderstood, enabled, and profited from. Have we learned nothing?
Non- Muslims in the Muslim majority countries do not even have the necessary permit to build Christian churches,Buddhist temples,Jewish place of worship and Hindu temples.Even if they got permits,the buildings are not allowed to be higher than mosques.THIS IS A TRUE FACT which you can find even in so-called moderate,modern Muslim countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia.The list of acts of Islamic intolerance of non-Muslims amid them is endless.
For a clear example,Saudis,the greatest financier of global Islamic conquest,never allows any non-Muslim religious thing in their country! How extremely stupid we all
non-Muslims are to accomodate every Muslim demand!
We must deal with Islam in the way it treats non-Muslims.Otherwise,we non-Muslims are committing slow suicide of our identity as non-Muslims.
LET'S WAKE UP EACH OTHER OR WE ARE GOING TO BE DEFEATED IN MANY FRONTS!
Someone needs to blow this mosque up. How much dynamite would it take to bring it down? Maybe an Oklahoma city type truck bomb might work. Or maybe a radio controlled single engine high performance airplane packed with high explosives. If the Moslem assholes insist on building it on hallowed ground, and the "Moslem in Chief" continues to support them, then patriots have to bring it down, blow it up. Do unto them as they did unto us. Except, it should be brought down when it is empty of people.
My feeling is, in life everything we do or say is either with love or without love. By defending the right to build the mosque under the Constitution and First Amendment, President Obama is demonstrating his love for America, its laws and all its people.
On the other hand, the people who want to build the mosque two blocks from Ground Zero are acting without love for America, its laws and all the people. Yes, the law allows them to build, however if they do build they are acting without love for all the people of New York, America and internationally.
Maybe if they really loved New York and all its people they would climb down and build else where. This would be a decision taken with love and would certainly help build bridges and create more harmony and love for the future.
The only way humanity can move forward is by taking decisions based on love and not quests for power. I applaud New York and President Obama for their decision. With a great country like the USA making decisions like this, I have faith that eventually humanity will be able to live with more love for each other.
Best regards
Colin Chaston
Author, Producer, Playwright, Composer, Lyricist