The NY Times demonstrates dhimmitude by wrapping part of their anatomy around part of CAIR's anatomy. It must suck, in some fashion, to be so eager to serve those who desire to subjugate western culture.
And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords - Kent Brockman, lead editor, NY Times
Unfortunately, CAIR is not merely little ants in a funny cartoon, made large on a video monitor. They have worked well at taking advantage of our culture, the foolishness of cultural relativism and appealing to those who view being politically correct as a moral crusade.
If only CAIR's goals were only as they state, to improve relations between Muslims and western nations. However, many critics have said a sinister agenda and ties to terrorism are under that non-threatening public facade. Serious charges indeed, but you would think that such negative appraisals were mere assertions with no evidence if all you did was read the NY Times recent article about CAIR.
"Captain Ed" has a hard-hitting post, Gray Lady Uses Skirts To Hide CAIR, taking the NY Times to task for it's providing cover for CAIR. I'll start first with an excerpt from that NY Times article.
Yet a debate rages behind the scenes in Washington about the group, commonly known as CAIR, its financing and its motives. A small band of critics have made a determined but unsuccessful effort to link it to Hamas and Hezbollah, which have been designated as terrorist organizations by the State Department, and have gone so far as calling the group an American front for the two. ...
Government officials in Washington said they were not aware of any criminal investigation of the group. More than one described the standards used by critics to link CAIR to terrorism as akin to McCarthyism, essentially guilt by association.
“Of all the groups, there is probably more suspicion about CAIR, but when you ask people for cold hard facts, you get blank stares,” said Michael Rolince, a retired F.B.I. official who directed counterterrorism in the Washington field office from 2002 to 2005.
Those poor misunderstood Muslims right? Not so fast, as "Captain Ed" points out.
Let's get specific and move past any blank stares, shall we? For instance, on Kaufman's site, they have screen captures from 9/17/01 of CAIR attempting to direct visitors to their web site to make donations for 9/11 relief to what they first identified as "NY/DC Emergency Relief Fund". The hyperlink took people to the Holy Land Foundation's website. The HLF funneled money to Hamas by the millions until the federal government shut it down in December 2001. Eight days later, they changed the hyperlink to identify the site as HLF and added one for the Global Relief Foundation -- which also got shut down in December 2001, this time for channeling money to al-Qaeda and Hamas.
That's not all that makes critics suspicious of CAIR. Several of its officers have involvement in terror...
Be sure to read all of it.
Is the NY Times article incredible incompetence or subservient bowing in anticipation of those who will eventually rule? It really doesn't matter, if the end result is identical. Western civilization is under a determined threat. Muslim extremists are not just about blowing themselves up, they will infiltrate a society and try to change it incrementally, with little victories for sharia law here and there. All under the guise of "respect" for other's religious beliefs. Do we really want to go the way of some countries in Europe that have seen how cultural relativism has allowed for home grown Muslim extremists to flourish?
Recently it was Halal meat at schools unannounced, cabbies refusing to pick up fares with alcohol and dogs, and now extremism seems to be taking the name of the Target store rather literally.
From Pamela at Atlus Shrugs we have:
Customer service and faith clash at registers Some Muslim cashiers at Target refuse to handle pork, setting off another debate over the place of religion in society.
In the latest example of religious beliefs creating tension in the workplace, some Muslims in the Twin Cities are adhering to a strict interpretation of the Qur'an that prohibits the handling of pork products.
Instead of swiping the items themselves, they are asking non-Muslim employees or shoppers to do it for them.
Any doubt that a lawsuit will be the next step, should these employees be reassigned, fired or not receive promotions or that it will be said they were emotionally traumatized because they were given gloves to wear as an attempted compromise? Any question that CAIR will be involved in the matter? Will Target stand up for common sense or cave in and help take another incremental step to sharia being imposed in this country?
As for me, I would be tempted to wear a pig snout to Target if I worked there and had to deal with such foolishness. If touching pork that's wrapped in plastic is so horrible, why not being within a certain radius? It's not like air molecules are more impervious to the taint of pork than our skin. Unfortunately, it's rather difficult to parody such extremism.
It will be instructive to see how this pork situation at Target turns out and perhaps a warning of how far down this path we've already tread. We can be sure, that no matter how the perpetually grieved fare on this matter, they will not give up. They'll create other opportunities, always pushing the boundaries. We do ourselves and future generations a great disservice if we do not wake up and begin to resist this creeping take over of western civilization.
Trackposted to: Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Virtuous Republic, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, Maggie's Notebook, basil's blog, Stuck On Stupid, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Pursuing Holiness, Rightlinx, Allie Is Wired, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, stikNstein... has no mercy, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, Overtaken by Events, Pirate's Cove, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.