Don’t Take Flight 93 to Mecca 5-22-08
May 22, 2008 Flight 93, Political
Mancow: “I’m gonna take a sledge-hammer to it” “You’ll go to jail for it?” “Absolutely”
Radio talk show host Mancow Muller is asking his listeners to help SHUT DOWN the crescent memorial to Flight 93. (Audio 27 seconds.)
Mancow describes how the giant crescent points to Mecca, and how the four terrorists are consistently placed in the symbolic Islamic heavens (the crescent and star parts of the design), while the 40 heroes are consistently depicted as symbolically damned (placed outside of the symbolic Islamic heavens). Good stuff (1 min, 21 sec).
“You have to see it to understand…” says the pro-war libertarian host, directing his listeners to CrescentOfBetrayal.com where they can find pictures like this (a familiar sight for our blogburst readers):
The Tower of Voices. 40 symbolic souls, literally dangling down below an Islamic shaped crescent, soaring in the sky overhead.
Using Islamic symbol shapes invites an Islamic interpretation, and in Islam, if you don’t go to heaven, you go to hell (the fate of ALL unbelievers). Forty symbolic souls, never to rest in peace, gonging for eternity in their symbolic Islamic damnation.
Mancow on civil disobedience
Congressman Tancredo was scheduled to come on Tuesday’s show, but got stuck in a hearing. Near the end of the show, Mancow says Tancredo will be rescheduled, then he lays it on the line. He thinks his show and his listeners have the power stop this atrocity from being built, but if the crescent memorial does get built, he is going to take a sledgehammer to it. They can send him to jail. At that point it won’t matter. There are limits to what Americans should stand by for (1 min, 21 sec).
Last week’s show was good too, with segments from Tom Burnett Sr. (45 sec) and Alec Rawls (2 min, 49 sec). (Alec also did an hour long interview with Tracy at No Compromise blog radio last week. To listen, scroll down to May 15th.)
Robert Spencer
An unexpected extra came in the middle of Tuesday’s show when Robert Spencer was on to talk about Islam. Mancow asked what Spencer thought about this memorial controversy and Robert stepped up with another piece of the expose, pointing out that the 9/11 date is to be placed on the center line of the giant crescent, in exactly the position of the star on an Islamic crescent and star flag. (43 seconds.)
Exactly right. The date goes to the star on the Islamic flag. The date goes to the terrorists. Graphical proof here (“Terrorist memorializing feature #1”.)
With the difficulty of getting just the Mecca orientation across, the discussion almost never reaches these other explosive details. How does Mr. Spencer find the time to be so knowledgeable about so many things? You da MAN Robert!
Pilgrimage to Somerset
When Mancow is able to reschedule the two Tom’s, Tom Burnett says he is going to urge listeners who want to visit the memorial to plan for the weekend of August 2nd, when the Memorial Project is scheduled to have its next public meeting. Then they can help protest the crescent design, and anyone can sign up to speak during the public comment period.
Maybe we can even get Mancow to make the pilgrimage, and if Congressman Tancredo will call for a Congressional investigation, we just might be able to ram the food cart through the cockpit door. Just do it baby. Let’s roll.
To join our blogbursts, just send your blog’s url.
Tags: Flight 93, islam, Mecca, memorial, opposition, tancredo, Terrorism
Don’t Take Flight 93 to Mecca 5-8-08
May 8, 2008 Flight 93
No more do-overs for terrorist memorializing architects
Defenders of the crescent design keep accusing Tom Burnett Sr. of trying to get an improper “do over” after failing back in 2005 to sway the design-competition jury. But who is really seeking the do-over? The American people rose up in protest in 2005 when they saw that the Memorial Project wanted to plant a bare naked Islamic crescent and star flag on the flight 93 crash site:
That uproar forced the Memorial Project to agree to redesign the memorial so that it would no longer include Islamic symbol shapes (whether they are intentional or not). But nothing significant was changed. Every particle of the original crescent design remains completely intact in the so-called redesign, which only disguised the original crescent with a few irrelevant trees, placed to the rear of a person facing into the giant crescent.
The American people caught a hijacker trying to re-hijack Flight 93, and the Memorial Project told him to go back outside and try again, which is exactly what he did. Now they accuse Tom Burnett of wanting an improper do-over?
There were dozens of articles and television segments about the crescent controversy this week, mostly in Pennsylvania, with some national news coverage by Fox News television and AP. This post is an attempt to capture the general thrust of the new wave of position statements.
The Memorial Project is inverting every moral imperative at this point, and it all comes from their fervent desire to reverse the results of September 2005. Their embrace of the crescent was rejected by America and they are determined to undo that defeat, to the point of being willfully blind to massive evidence of al Qaeda sympathizing intent.
The new face of the Memorial Project: Edward Felt’s wife and brother take the lead
Sandra Felt, one of the Flight 93 family members who helped select the Crescent of Embrace design, admits that she never paid any attention to warnings about Islamic and terrorist memorializing symbolism in the crescent design:
Sandra Felt has known for nearly three years about complaints that the design of the proposed Flight 93 National Memorial allegedly contains Islamic symbols, but she never gave them any credence.
“I don’t even think about it,” said Felt, whose husband, Edward, died on … United Airlines Flight 93.
And nobody blames her. It shouldn’t be on the Flight 93 families to investigate evidence that any one of us can easily fact check. But Sandra and her brother in law Gordon Felt, now President of Families of Flight 93, are going further, pretending for some reason that the charges people have made against architect Paul Murdoch are actually being leveled against them.
How could that be, when three of the features that our petition lists as unacceptable–the Mecca orientation of the giant crescent, the 44 glass blocks on the flight path, and the giant Islamic sundial–were not even discovered until after the crescent design was selected? Nobody blames the family members for approving design features they had no inkling were there, yet Gordon Felt says that warnings about the design are “quite hurtful, to think we would want to create a memorial to those who murdered our loved ones.”
Nobody ever suggested any such thing, but Felt is getting as much mileage as he can out of this excuse NOT to look at the facts, telling Fox News television:
I was outraged, for anyone to infer that family members who have been such an integral part of this process have in any way been involved in memorializing the murderers of our loved ones. I find it extremely offensive.
This after expressing his anger at Tom Burnett last week for Tom’s failure to submit to the Memorial Project’s “democratic process.” Tom lost the jury vote, so in Felt’s view, he is apparently supposed to shut up now. Strange view of democracy.
Tags: flight 93 memorial, islam, Mecca, opposition, terrorist design
Muslims are on the Warpath over Movie
Mar 30, 2008 Political
Geert Wilders of the Netherlands produced a movie that basically showed the religion of Islam for the violent cult that it is. His movie, a 15 minute or so short, showed the written word of the Koran and then had clips of Muslims whose words and deeds upheld the words of that violent book. Wilders showed that Islam is a violent religion through word and deed and now he has round the clock protection because Muslims have threatened to kill him. Seems to me that they are making the point of his movie for him. You can see the movie at Stop the ACLU.
LiveLeak, which had originally hosted the movie, has had to pull it from the servers because of threats made to its workers by Muslims who are upset with the content of the movie. One cannot blame LiveLeak for acting in the best interests of its workers but one has to see the irony in Muslims using threats of violence to pull a movie that shows Muslims are violent and that their “Holy Book” teaches that violence. The United Nations U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned the movie as anti-Islamic and offensive and said their is no reason for this incitement to violence. The question is, if the movie is wrong why would there be an incitement to violence? It is simple, Muslims are stone aged barbarians who use violence to achieve their goals. If they are “offended” then they will riot in the streets and kill people in order to show how peaceful they are.
Part of the problem here is that Muslims take great offense at any knock on their religion while they routinely castigate the great and true religions of the world. It is not unusual for Muslims to talk about killing all the Jews and to slander that great and chosen religion. It is not unusual for Muslims to destroy Christian churches in Muslim countries and for them to refuse to allow churches to be built. However, they have no problem with building Mosques in Western countries and they cry, sue, and riot at any hint of objection to their plans.
The United Nations Human Rights Council has passed a resolution which talks of protecting all religions but the only religion that is named is Islam. The Human Rights Council is comprised mostly of members from Arab nations which is ironic in and of itself because they have some of the worst human rights violations in the world. The UN will allow this kind of manipulation of the system in order for Muslims to have greater leverage and in order for them to squash any opposition to their brutal religious practices. The resolution gives Muslims free reign to carry out any of their criminal activities by allowing them to challenge any opposition as a violation of UN Resolution. Everything will be seen as defamation to them when Islam is concerned but you can be certain that the Muslims will not stop defaming Israel and the Jews.
Muslims threaten death to those who refuse to buy into their claims of peace while they kill and maim everything in sight. Always on Watch has a post about Kevin of the Amboy Times blog. He has been threatened because he keeps a running list of things that offend Muslims. With as many things that offend Muslims I wonder where he gets all the bandwidth? Muslims have no problem threatening people, rioting, and killing and they have no problem talking badly about any person or country that is not Islamic but let someone talk badly about their perverted religion or their child molesting prophet and they come unhinged. I say screw them. If they want violence then let’s give it to them and let’s show them what it really is. It is time to fight back against these half baked cretins and show them that we would like to live in peace but that we will not be pushed around. No one is safe from these animals, including American Citizens.
UPDATE: This via Breitbart; “The film equates Islam with violence. We reject that interpretation,” Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said in a solemn statement a few hours after the film appeared on the LiveLeak video sharing website.
He rejects the idea that Islam is violent while calling for Muslims to exercise restraint and to not commit violent acts. The article is laced with threats from members of the cult of Islam. If Wilders was wrong there would be no fear of violence.
Don’t Take Flight 93 to Mecca 2-27-2008
Feb 27, 2008 Flight 93
Map of Betrayal
Click thumbnail to view high rez flyer (300dpi). Fits letter size paper. Suitable for flyering your town or campus.
Tags: flight 93 memorial, islam, Mecca
Do Muslims See Hope in Obama?
Feb 25, 2008 Political
There has been a lot of talk about Barack Obama and his supposedly being a Muslim. This has been debunked and Obama claims to be a practicing Christian (though his church is certainly questionable at best). There are stories that Obama was a Muslim as a child and that his Muslim father took him to a Mosque to worship. If this is the case then the Muslim world views him as one of their own. If he had ever given up that religion he would be the target of death threats. I don’t know what he really is or what he really believes. I still have yet to figure out what he stands for beyond hope and change, neither of which he defines.
I know that he has ties to Muslims and that the Nation of Islam loves him. In a speech, Louis Farrakhan said:
In his first major public address since a cancer crisis, Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan said Sunday that presidential candidate Barack Obama is the “hope of the entire world”[Muslim World? – ed] that the U.S. will change for the better.[How? Conversion to Islam? – ed]
~snip~
Farrakhan compared Obama to the religion’s founder, Fard Muhammad, who also had a white mother and black father.“A black man with a white mother became a savior to us, [NOI – ed]” he told the crowd of mostly followers. “A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall.” Yahoo News
The fact that Obama excites people like Farrakhan should give pause to everyone. Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam are a bunch of radical thugs and Farrakhan called Judaism a gutter religion. There are indications that the NOI has become more inclusive and tolerant of other religions but this begs the question, is this a ruse? Who can forget the NOI thugs with Cynthia McKinney when she lost her bid for reelection. They were violent and spewed antisemitic insults while threatening a Jewish reporter (or cameraman). This was not so long ago and it demonstrates very little in the way of tolerance.
Obama’s camp has made it clear that the Senator has not asked for Farrakhan’s endorsement as he tries to distance himself from the whole issue of being a Muslim. Of course, this picture does not help his cause (though this is the garb of an elder, it still raises more questions than it answers).
We should be very cautious when it comes to Mr. hope and change because we do not know what he is hoping for or what changes he wants to make. One thing is certain, it is not good that his words excite Farrakhan and the NOI.
