Coming Soon: New York Metropolitan Museum’s Massive Mohammadism Galleries!

May 11, 2011

By admin

I am sorry to report a second occasion this week to announce yet another “coming soon” event in which non-Muslims are taking arazor blade to the veins of life as we know it. As soon as the Islamic community feels they have have used their non-Muslim supporters for all they are worth, they will instill the final cuts! Following in the footsteps of the NY Public Library, the Met is proudly in the process of putting together a massive Islamic art show.

New York Metropolitan Museum’s New Islamic Art Galleries to “Dwarf Rivals”
The Metropolitan Museum of Art is in the final stages of a US$40 million expansion. The project will introduce 15 new galleries to display art of Islamic cultures from the Iberian peninsula to India.

The Met puts the number of Islamic objects in its collection at some 12,000 – including 78 manuscript pages from the magnificent Iranian Book of Kings, or Shahnama, and the finest holdings of Islamic textiles in the West.

“It’s exceeded in numbers by the British Museum and the Berlin Museum for Islamic Art,” says Sheila Canby, the curator-in-charge who heads the Met’s department of Islamic art, “but those collections are formed of huge numbers of archaeological finds. The premise is a bit different here. We are a museum of art. Things have been collected in order to be shown, and not just as research material with drawers and drawers of shards.”

About 1,200 works will be on view in the new galleries at any given time, a fraction of the total holdings.
Nevertheless, it represents a huge increase over the 60 pieces exhibited on the balcony of the Met’s Great Hall during the eight years that the wing has been closed for renovation.

The New York museum has owned objects from the Islamic world since the 1890s. For decades, their place within the museum’s collections shifted – literally – from one gallery to another.

The Met, a private museum that gets a fraction of its annual budget from government sources, opened its galleries for Islamic art in 1975. A steady flow of visitors began. Then in 2003, the museum emptied that space to build Greek and Roman galleries beneath it.

SNIP

With the reopening planned for 1 November , final touches are being applied before the art goes in.

“The big issue was, ‘what are we going to call it?’,” says Navina Haidar, a curator who oversees the renovation and reinstallation. “Are we going to call it Islamic art, or are we going to name it in another way?”

Canby explains: “There’s a growing realisation that the Islamic world is larger than the territories that are covered by our collection, so we wanted to be accurate about what we are showing and where what we’re showing comes from.”

That’s the root of the problem! Islam is taking over more and more of the world’s population. Here in America, the Met promotes Islamic culture instead of ignoring it or even having displays that would show just how forcefully Islam is a religon/ideologyhellbent on world domination!

Hence a new name. “Above the door you will have the words, ‘Arab Lands, Turkey, Iran, Central Asia, and Later South Asia’. And, believe it or not, it does all fit,” says Haidar.
Inside the building, the acronym is a mouthful – ALTICALSA. To the side of the door, says Haidar, will be a map called The Islamic World.

The galleries take the visitor through time, patrons and geography, with portals conceived to favour cross-cultural perspectives. You’ll be able to go from a display of objects from the early caliphate into adjacent galleries exhibiting Orientalist paintings from 19th-century Europe. Non-Islamic objects from India that were made under Islamic rule are part of the wing and will have a separate entrance.

I wonder if they will show objects from the Islamoslaughter of the Hindus of India? The horrific event was dubbed the “Hindu Kush”. Of course the Met will ignore all of tha.

Iraq - A Province of Iran?

by Daniel Pipes
The Washington Times
May 12, 2011

http://www.danielpipes.org/9790/iraq-province-of-iran

After American forces leave Iraq at the end of 2011, Tehran will try to turn its neighbor into a satrapy, i.e., a satellite state, to the great detriment of Western, moderate Arab, and Israeli interests.

Intense Iranian efforts are already underway, with Tehran sponsoring militias in Iraq and sending its own forces into Iraqi border areas. Baghdad responds with weakness, with its chief of staff proposing a regional pact with Iran and top politicians ordering attacks on the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MeK), an Iranian dissident organization with 3,400 members resident in Camp Ashraf, 60 miles northeast of Baghdad. The MeK issue reveals Iraqi subservience to Iran with special clarity. Note some recent developments:
On April 7, the MeK released intelligence exposing Iran's growing capacity to enrich uranium, a revelation the Iranian foreign minister quickly confirmed.

Still from a Fox News video of Iraqi military forces assaulting Camp Ashraf.

 

On April 8, even as U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited Iraq, the country's armed forces attacked Ashraf. Fox News and CNN footage shows Iraqis in U.S.-supplied armored personnel carriers, Humvees, and bulldozers running down unarmed residents as sharpshooters shot at them, killing 34 people and injuring 325. The top secret plan-to-attack order of the Iraqi military, "Iraqi Security Forces Operation Order No. 21, Year 2011," reveals how Baghdad sees the Ashraf residents as "the enemy," suggesting collusion between Baghdad and Tehran.

This incident took place despite fresh pledges by Baghdad to treat the Iranian dissidents humanely and to protect them. U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry rightly described the attack as a "massacre" while former governor Howard Dean called the Iraqi prime minister a "mass murderer." The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights "condemned" the attack and the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) expressed "deep concern."

Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki and Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

On April 11, the advisor for military affairs to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamene'i (according to a news report) "praised the Iraqi Army for its recent attack on the strongholds of [the MeK] and asked Baghdad to continue attacking the terrorist base until its destruction."

On April 24, despite United Nations insistence that "Camp Ashraf residents be protected from forcible deportation, expulsion or repatriation," Baghdad and Tehran signed an extradition agreement which state-controlled Iranian media interprets as a mechanism forcibly to transfer MeK members to Iran, where they anticipate a horrific fate.

Iraqi maltreatment of Iranian dissidents both raises humanitarian concerns and points to the MeK's larger importance as a mechanism to thwart the U.S. goal of minimizing Tehran's influence in Iraq.

That said, Washington – which granted "protected persons" status to the Ashraf residents in 2004 in exchange for their surrendering arms – bears partial responsibility for the attacks on Ashraf; in 1997, it threw a sop to Tehran and, contrary to both fact and law, wrongly listed (and continues to list) the MeK as a "Foreign Terrorist Organization."

Baghdad exploits this terrorist tag. For example, Congressman Brad Sherman (Democrat of California) reports that "in private discussions the Iraqi ambassador's office has said the blood is not on the hands of the Iraqi government but is at least partially on the hands of the State Department because the MeK is listed as a terrorist group and accordingly, Iraq doesn't feel that it has to respect the human rights of those in the camp." The terrorist designation also offers Baghdad a pretext to expel Ashraf's residents and possibly extradite them to Iran.

UNAMI was founded in 2003 and is headed by Dutch politician Ad Melkert.

At this time of crisis, how to achieve Senator Kerry's call for "all the relevant parties … to seek a peaceful and durable solution"? Some recommendations:

• The U.S. Government should delist the MeK as a terrorist organization, following the wishes of a large bipartisan majority in Congress, of Barack Obama's former national security adviser, and of prominent Republicans.
• The European Union should impose economic sanctions on Iraq if Baghdad continues to block an EU parliamentary delegation from visiting Ashraf. (The EU is Iraq's second largest trading partner).
• The United Nations should station a UNAMI delegation in Ashraf, guarded by a small U.S. force, to deter future Iraqi attacks and to fulfill the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights' demand for "a full, independent and transparent inquiry" into the Ashraf assault so that "any person found responsible for use of excessive force" be prosecuted.

Now is the time urgently to act on Camp Ashraf - a bellwether of growing Iranian influence over Iraq - before Tehran turns Iraq into a satrapy.

Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.

Attorney to argue Fantasy Springs Resort Casino security illegally searched man

11:06 AM, May. 11, 2011  | 

A defense attorney is expected to argue today that a local casino violated his client's Fourth Amendment rights when security officers searched the man and found him to be in possession of an illegal drug.
Steven Hill, 62, is facing a felony charge of possessing a controlled substance and a misdemeanor count of trespassing stemming from a Nov. 13 visit to Fantasy Springs Resort Casino.


Previously banned from casino grounds, security personnel cited Hill for trespassing when they saw him playing a slot machine, according to defense attorney Roger Tansey. The security guards then brought Hill back to their office and searched him, uncovering a small amount of methamphetamine, the attorney said.

Tansey said he will argue that the guards' actions violated the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizures. Casino security guards do not possess the power to make arrests as do police officers, and thus are not permitted to perform such searches, Tansey claims.


"They had every right to go up to him and tell him he had to leave and they had every right to cite him for trespassing, but what they did do instead was critical," Tansey told City News Service.


Tansey said he will argue that because the guards found Hill to be in possession of drugs based on an illegal search, the felony count against him should be dismissed.


"What do you do if the police unreasonably come into your house and search it?" Tansey said. "Any evidence you find, you can't use in court."


Deputy District Attorney Amity Armes said she did not want to comment until the case was argued in court.

Tansey said he expects prosecutors to argue that the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, which operates the Indio casino, are not governed by the Fourth Amendment. However, he said he found court cases that mandate that Indian tribes are subject to the U.S. Constitution.


Tansey said the search would have been lawful had the Indian tribe given its security guards the power to arrest or if there existed a reasonable suspicion that Hill was committing a crime.


"Any time an officer sees somebody committing a crime, they arrest them, and any time an officer arrests somebody, they can search," Tansey said. "But the tribe has specifically chosen not to give (security guards) that power, and they acted as if they did."


Hill had been banned from the casino because its operators accused him of taking another patron's drink during a separate visit, Tansey said.


Last September, Tansey said, a drug possession charge against another one of his clients, Daniel Shelton, was tossed out on the grounds the attorney will argue in the Hill case. The District Attorney's Office has appealed that decision, he said.

Justice Thomas: making waves in First Amendment jurisprudence

David L. Hudson Jr.
First Amendment Scholar

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Justice Clarence Thomas continues to strike his own jurisprudential path on the U.S. Supreme Court – whether it be his oft-noticed reticence at oral argument or his penchant for overruling precedent.
The Court’s ultimate originalist believes strongly in applying the original views of the Founding Fathers in interpreting the Constitution. In First Amendment law, Thomas has taken bold stances that distance him from his colleagues. Usually, in separate concurring opinions, he explains why he would overrule a leading First Amendment decision or why the Court has gone astray.

Sometimes, Thomas’ positions cause him to advocate for greater protection for certain types of speech, such as commercial speech and campaign finance as speech. Other times, Thomas’ views would dramatically curtail First Amendment freedoms – student speech, prisoner speech and the establishment clause. Suffice it to say, Thomas has gone his own way in many areas of First Amendment law. Five examples illustrate the Thomas way.

Commercial speech
Thomas is known as the Court’s premier free-speech defender of advertising or commercial speech. Relying on historical evidence that showed government acceptance of advertising, Thomas questions why commercial speech is subject to much more regulation than political speech. In modern First Amendment law, political speech receives much more protection. For example, content-based restrictions on political speech are subject to the highest form of judicial review, known as strict scrutiny. But content-based restrictions on commercial speech are subject to a lesser form of judicial review, known as intermediate scrutiny, under Central Hudson Gas & Electric v. Public Service Comm’n of New York (1980). Thomas has called for Central Hudson’s demise and greater protection for commercial speech.

In a concurring opinion in a case about liquor advertising – 44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island (1996), Thomas boldly questioned the distinction: “I do not see a philosophical or historical basis for asserting that ‘commercial’ speech is of ‘lower value’ than ‘noncommercial’ speech. Indeed, some historical materials suggest to the contrary.”

Campaign-finance laws
Thomas also questions laws that regulate political contributions and spending. He has consistently stressed that spending by candidates and contributing money to candidates are pure political speech. The Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) ruled that “money is speech” but created a system that allowed greater government regulation over contributions than over spending. Thomas has repudiated Buckley and called for its explicit overruling. He famously referred to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 – a major piece of campaign-finance legislation – as “the greatest speech abridgement since the Civil War.”


The establishment clause
The area in which Thomas diverges from his colleagues perhaps more than any other is the establishment clause, the first 10 words of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” In its 1947 decision Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court extended the establishment clause to state and local governments and began its modern church-state separation jurisprudence.

Thomas views the Everson foundation as faulty and says the establishment clause should not apply to limit state and local government officials. In his concurring opinion in the Pledge of Allegiance decision, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004), Thomas wrote: “I would acknowledge that the Establishment Clause is a federalism provision, which, for this reason, resists incorporation.” That means Thomas would not apply the establishment clause to the states – a view not shared by the other members of the Court.


Student speech
Clarence Thomas argues that the seminal student-speech case – Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School Dist. (1969) – should be overruled. “Tinker effected a sea change in students’ speech rights, extending them well beyond traditional bounds,” he wrote in his concurring opinion in Morse v. Frederick (2007). “As originally understood, the Constitution does not afford students a right to free speech in public schools.” Thomas would turn the clock back to the early 20^th century and before when students had no First Amendment rights. As he wrote in his Morse concurrence, “Teachers taught and students obeyed.”

Prisoner speech
The Supreme Court wrote in Turner v. Safley (1987) that “Prison walls do not form a barrier separating inmates from the protections of the Constitution.” The Court has ruled that inmates do retain some First Amendment rights – though prison officials receive much deference from reviewing courts. Justice Thomas has written in concurring opinions in Overton v. Bazzetta (2003) and Beard v. Banks (2006) that the proper inquiry for prisoner challenges is the Eighth Amendment “cruel and unusual punishment” clause, not the First Amendment. In Overton, he said states were free to “define and redefine all types of punishment, including imprisonment, to encompass various types of deprivations — provided only that those deprivations are consistent with the Eighth Amendment.” (emphasis in original). Thomas views Turner v. Safley as unworkable and prisoners should have no First Amendment rights.


http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/justice-thomas-making-waves-in-first-amendment-jurisprudence

EDITORIAL: Obama’s Islamist partners in Egypt

Muslim Brotherhood denounced killing of bin Laden

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

-

The Washington Times

Illustration: Enabling Muslim Brotherhood by Alexander Hunter for The Washington Times

 

The Obama administration has been talking up the Muslim Brotherhood as a necessary part of Egypt’s future. The brothers, however, are denouncing the U.S. takedown of Osama bin Laden, so the White House might want to find some better friends.

 

Weekend violence in Egypt between Muslims and Coptic Christians left at least a dozen dead and highlighted the growing sectarian tensions. The killings are being attributed to Salafist fundamentalists who abhor the fact that 5 percent to 10 percent of Egypt’s population is made up of Christians. They would just as soon reduce that total to zero. But Salafi tribal chiefs distanced themselves from the violence, and it was also denounced by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, which publicly preaches peaceful change.

The Obama administration sees the brothers as a moderate Muslim alternative to the Salafists, and back in February, the White House said the next government in Cairo “has to include a whole host of important nonsecular actors that give Egypt a strong chance to continue to be [a] stable and reliable partner.” The Muslim Brotherhood took Washington’s signal and last month announced the formation of the “Freedom and Justice Party,” which its leader Mahmoud Mosri pledged is “not a religious party, not a theocratic party.” Propaganda aside, the notion that the Muslim Brotherhood is not going to actively promote Islamist policies is absurd. Party spokesman Essam al-Erian explained, “When we talk about the slogans of the revolution - freedom, social justice, equality - all of these are in the Shariah. This revolution called for what the Islamic Shariah calls for.”

The Muslim Brotherhood also tarnished its “moderate” image last week when it denounced the “assassination” of Osama bin Laden. In a statement following bin Laden’s demise, the group hailed resistance against “foreign occupation,” which they called “the legitimate right guaranteed by divine laws and international agreements,” and demanded the United States “stop its intelligence operations against those who differ with it, and cease its interference in the internal affairs of any Arab or Muslim country.” Mr. al-Erian advised that with bin Laden’s death, “it is time for Obama to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq and end the occupation of U.S. and Western forces around the world that have for so long harmed Muslim countries.”

On Monday, the Middle East Media Research Institute released a translation of an article posted on the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood website written by Egyptian cleric Dr. Salah Al-Din Sultan. The article lauds bin Laden raising “the banner of jihad for the sake of Allah” as being “in the defense of Islam and the resistance against the occupiers, [even if it was waged] in a way that deviated to some extent from the middle path of moderation.” On the other hand, he writes, “the terrorism of the U.S. is in defense of hegemony, oppression and tyranny and [aimed at] subjugating the peoples and regimes of the world to American [uni-]polarity.” In any case, Mr. Sultan claimed, “bin Laden’s terrorism is [merely] alleged, since the accusations against him came from the media rather than from a court, whereas there is no doubt as to the terrorism of the U.S.” If these are the moderates, imagine the views of the extremists.


The Obama administration’s critical blind spot in dealing with the Middle East is failing to recognize the threat posed by all forms of Islamic extremism, whether violent or not. The White House denounces al Qaeda’s “perverted” views on Islam, yet groups like the Muslim Brotherhood advocate exactly the same thing. Apparently, Mr. Obama doesn’t think it’s a problem if they achieve Shariah by the ballot instead of the bullet. An electoral victory by the Muslim Brotherhood will herald the death of freedom in Egypt.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/9/obamas-islamist-partners-in-egypt/

Upside-down American flag at Manalapan center draws protesters

Turkish Center Flag Controversy (510/11): Flags are removed from the front of the Turkish American Community Center in Manalapan after the American Flag is found flying upside-down. VIDEO COURTESY OF NEWWritten by

Alesha Williams Boyd | Staff Writer

 An American flag was incorrectly hung upside-down at a Turkish American center in Manalapan, drawing dozens of protesters. / COURTESY OF BETTY BAILEY

MANALAPAN — More than 20 people, some carrying American flags, showed up at the Turkish American Community Center Tuesday to protest that an American flag had been hung upside down in front of the site.

The flag hung upturned next to flags of Northern Cyprus and Turkey, a largely Muslim nation – an insult to America, protesters said. Center President Mehmet Reyhan said he did not know who had incorrectly hung the flag; he only learned of it when a member notified him of protesters outside the Route 33 building this morning.

“Livid – I was livid that (someone) desecrated our flag and hung it upside down,” said Betty Bailey, a Millstone farm owner who helped organize the protest.

“You need people out there to watch these things going on, because we can’t just stand by and let our country be put down…I just think people are getting lax about (patriotism and vigilance),” Bailey said. “We’re standing up for our country.”

The reason the flag had been hung upside down – and by whom – remains unclear: Some questioned whether recent headlines about the killing of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden triggered it, or whether it had simply been an incident of vandalism or an accident.

Protesters said they believed the flag had been hung outside the site since Sunday night or Monday morning. They said the flag also had been tattered and incorrectly displayed in relation to the other two flags.
Reyhan said he didn’t believe a center member would have turned the flag upside-down. Two current members have to vouch for new members in order for them to join, he said, “and I don’t think any of our members would do anything like that.”

“I think every nation is very proud of their flag; if someone puts it upside-down, I look at it as an insult to the nation,” Reyhan said. “We are Americans. We love this country. We are here for 25 years and those flags are always flying in the correct way. This is the first time I have seen something like this.”

According to federal statute, the American flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of distress. The flag has beenflown upside down as a form of protest in the United States, according to published reports.

Reyhan said he reported the incident to township police and the Turkish consulate. He said he had all the flags taken down Tuesday morning because he’s afraid they could be rearranged again and cause problems for the center.
Bailey said she still had concerns.

“It was in front of their building and I really think if it’s your building, you should really kind of notice that the flag was hanging wrong,” Bailey said. “People have to start taking a stand, so we did. Hopefully, it won’t happen again.”

Reyhan said the center, in the township for 25 years, serves as a celebration hall for Turkish, American and Muslim religious holidays. He said the center also hosts Turkish language classes for youths and provides networking, employment assistance, transportation and translation services for Turkish immigrants.

The center has about 350 members from as far as New York and Pennsylvania, but with many in Monmouth County from Manalapan, Englishtown and the surrounding area, Reyhan said. None reported noticing the flag, he said.

As for bin Laden, Reyhan said Turkey, too, has been living with the horrors of terrorist groups, “So we don’t want any terrorists in this world. We want nothing to do with them.”

http://www.app.com/article/20110510/NJNEWS10/305100057/Upside-down-American-flag-Manalapan-center-draws-protesters

Judge decides Muslim cap is religious

 

MCDONOUGH, Ga., May 10 (UPI) -- A Georgia judge who kept a Muslim man out of a courtroom three times for insisting on wearing a cap as a religious sign of humility has changed his mind.

Henry County Judge James Chafin said in an order that he discovered by doing his own research that Troy "Tariq" Montgomery has valid reasons to wear the kufi, a tight-fitting cap similar to the Jewish yarmulke, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported Monday. Montgomery is trying to challenge a speeding ticket and has a new court date next week.

"The court finds through its own research that there is a basis in the Koran for both men and women to cover their heads as a religious observance," Chafin wrote.

"Accordingly, the court will permit the defendant to wear his hat in the courtroom as a valid religious observance."

Georgia adopted a policy in 2009 of allowing religious headgear to be worn in government buildings after a Muslim woman was arrested for refusing to remove her hijab or headscarf in a courtroom. Chafin had demanded Montgomery or his lawyer show proof the kufi is a religious item.

Montgomery, 46, said in a statement issued by his attorney he hopes no one else has to defend wearing Islamic attire in court.

"I also want to make it clear that I do not just wear a 'hat' as the judge referred to in his order, but a kufi, which is a religious head covering worn for the purpose of identifying my religious affiliation," he said.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/05/10/Judge-decides-Muslim-cap-is-religious/UPI-81011305062014/#ixzz1M48Xsb5T