The State Department Is Doing What With Our Money, Exactly?

That would be sending Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, to name two, on our dime, as a representative of the United States. And yes, he first began his work for the State Department in 2007. This will be his third trip. Given his claim in 2001 that the United States was an "accessory" to what happened on 9/11, it boggles the mind that our government would use him in ANY capacity, much less to travel as a representative of our country ...

So, yes, Imam Rauf will be going on his third trip abroad. On our dime. In a program to "promote the role of religion in the US." If his name sounds familiar, it should. He is the same one who wants to build the Cordoba Institute/Mosque near Ground Zero, in case you didn't know that already.

Here to discuss the trip, is State Department Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs, PJ Crowley:



You'll have noticed that this clip covers that Governor Patterson of New York offered Imam Rauk state property to build his mosque. That raises the separation of church and state issue. Did Patterson mean he would SELL the property to Rauk, and if so, for how much? Surely, he couldn't have expected to just GIVE it to him, as a state sanctioned mosque would have been the end result. That is unacceptable. And it would be if it were a church or synagogue, or Buddhist temple or Pagan circle, or anything related. Just to be clear.

But here's the thing that gets me about this interview. Crowley claims that, even though Imam Rauf is going on a program to discuss the role of religion in the US, he will not be discussing religion. Huh? So, um, why exactly is he going then? At our expense, I might add? That makes no sense to me, but that could just be me.

Or maybe not. Here is more on the separation of church and state from a more conservative position:



And this "certain pile of cash"? I am pretty darn sure that is our money, too. Unless some wealthy benefactor gave it to the State Department to do as it damned well pleased, like sending an Imam who blames the US for 9/11.

But that is only part of the story with Imam Rauk. Here is the big question: why is the State Department, under Secretary Hillary Clinton, enlisting an imam who supports Sharia Law, despite the State Department claims that he is a "moderate"? Sharia Law is NOT a moderate position.

Never mind that Rauk claimed he does not believe in "religious dialogue," according to this piece by Walid Shoebat of Pajamas Media in this post, "Ground Zero Imam: 'I Don't Believe In Religious Dialogue.'" So, that pretty much puts to a lie the whole meme that this imam wants to build "interfaith understanding," or whatever is the catch phrase du jour to justify Rauk's intention to build his mosque near Ground Zero.

But that's not the end of the story, either. According to Madeline Brooks, also of Pajamas Media, "Terror Ties: Ground Zero Imam Attended Hizb-ut Tahrir Conference." This was in 2007. And while many of us may not be aware of this group (I wasn't), this should clear things up:

[snip] Hizb-ut Tahrir al Islami (Islamic Party of Liberation) has been banned in many countries — Germany, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey, Kazakhstan, and Saudi Arabia — but not in the United States or Britain. This is a dangerous group. It is alleged to have attempted coups in Jordan, Syria and Egypt, which were defeated, fortunately. As we see in these photos, Rauf looks quite relaxed and happy at the Hizb-ut Tahrir conference, as do the other participants with him. In fact, there is a feeling of celebration in these photos. The language in the text accompanying the photos is Malay. Although the conference was held in Indonesia, there were many Malaysians attending, including Rauf, who has lived for a great part of his life in Malaysia. An English language website promoting the caliphate states that 100,000 people attended the conference.

Hizb-ut Tahrir is similar ideologically to the Muslim Brotherhood. Both seek worldwide Islamic supremacy and the imposition of Islamic law to replace the Constitution and democracy. But Hizb-ut Tahrir differs by also espousing Marxist-Leninist methodology, and is entirely open about its ambition to dominate the world, unlike the more discreet Muslim Brotherhood.

On two occasions, Hizb-ut Tahrir in America called for terrorism recruitment conferences in Chicago to establish their long-awaited caliphate, which would knock down capitalism, democracy, and equal rights for non-Muslims and women, and institute a Muslim-run society under sharia law. One conference, called “The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam” and scheduled for July 2009 in Chicago, actually did occur. But a follow-up conference slated for July 2010 at the Chicago Marriott in Oak Brook, titled “Emerging World Order: How the Khilafah Will Shape the World,” was canceled by the hotel. [snip]

And the State Department considers this man a MODERATE? Well, maybe there is the big problem right there - they are operating under a very different dictionary than the majority of us. Sharia law, blaming the US for 9/11, and associating with this group do not constitute a "moderate," at least not in my book.

After all is said an done, what I truly do not understand is this: How is it that Secretary Clinton, a champion of the rights of women and children for her entire adult life, can possibly give this man a thumbs up? I simply do not understand this. I cannot understand it at all.

Surely there is a Muslim cleric in this country who truly is a moderate, who does not support Sharia Law, or associate with an organization banned in a number of countries, isn't there? And it begs the question, why is the organization not banned here and in Britain? I think I know, but I want to hear what you have to say. So, why this man? Why, Secretary Clinton?