Posts
Chris Christie is currently polling better than any potential candidate for the 2016 presidential election, at least he was before Bridge Gate. He was even slightly ahead of Hillary, a woman with first name recognition, second only to Madonna, Cher, and Prince, who now goes by the name . However, Hillary has her own problems now that there is a new book out about her entitled "HRC." The book discusses her "hit list" of those in politics who supported Obama for president instead of her. But now the big question is whether or not Christie is the best person for POTUS.
I have strong reasons to believe that Christie is not the man for the job as president based on how I view our national security needs.
In 2008, when he served as U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, Christie praised Mohammed Qatanani, imam of the Islamic Center of Passaic County, as "a man of great goodwill." He embraced the man and hugged him. The fawning occurred soon after Qatanani went ballistic against Jews and openly admitted to supporting Hamas, an organization designated a terror organization by the US. To make matters worse, the fawning was done on the eve of Qatanani's deportation hearing regarding an Israeli conviction for his membership of Hamas. Christie went so far as to assign Assistant US Attorney Charles McKenna to testify as Qatanani's character witness. A man named Sohail Mohammed was Qatanani's lawyer for the case--more on him below.
In 2010, a New Jersey Transit worker named Derek Fenton burned 3 pages of a Koran at a 9-11 memorial service. Christie gave his blessings for the New Jersey Transit to terminate Fenton's employment and he stated, "That kind of intolerance is something I think is unacceptable. So I don't have a problem with him being fired." What Christie should have said was "That kind of intolerance will not be tolerated, and Article One, be damned." The ACLU successfully intervened on Fenton's behalf and he got his job back. When the ACLU is on the right side of history, you can bet the other side is scratching their collective heads.
Christie appointed Sohail Mohammed to the New Jersey state superior court in 2011. Mohammed had served as general counsel to the American Muslim Union, a group of mouth-breathers who stated that a "Zionist Commando Orchestrated the 9-11 Terrorist Attacks." He also acted as a spokesman for Muslim prisoners who had gone on a hunger strike after being jailed during Ramadan, defending Sami al-Arian, a Palestinian Islamic jihadist. Mohammed characterized the legal proceeding as "nothing more than a witch-hunt." As mentioned above, Mohammed was Qatanani's lawyer regarding the deportation hearing.
When Mohammed was asked appropriate questions by New Jersey's Senate Judiciary Committee about his strong affinity for Islam's Shari'a (law), Christie verbally attacked the lawmakers, saying, "Shari'a law has nothing to do with this [appointment of Mohammed] at all. It's crazy. It's crazy . . . So, this Shari'a law business is crap. It's just crazy. And I'm tired of dealing with crazies. I mean, you know, it's just unnecessary to be accusing this guy of things just because of his religious background." Of course, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), who also has ties to various Islamic groups with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, gave Christie a hearty "attaboy."
Is the "Shari'a law business" crap? If you know anything about Shari'a law, you know that it treats women as inferior to men and takes away their rights. It makes homosexuality a capital offense. It goes against the US Constitution, just like Christie did when he went against Fenton's freedom of expression.
In 2012 the NYPD conducted surveillance of Islamists in Newark, New Jersey and New Brunswick. Christie was outraged and termed the action arrogant and paranoid. He mocked NYPD Commissioner, Raymond Kelly as "all knowing, all seeing." If you look at any Koran, you will see Allah is described this way. But more importantly, the NYPD was doing important counter-terrorism work and Christie attacked those who protect us from terrorists. Mosques are notorious for spawning terrorism and Kelly knows that; one wonders what Christie knows.
On one hand, when an issue regarding Islam arises, Christie takes the side of Islam every time. On the other hand, Christie is pro-Israel. This seems strangely contradictory and can only be a function of something not very obvious; maybe it's his ego. Maybe he's looking for approval from both the Jews and those who hate the Jews. The Koran very clearly spells out Mohammad's animosity toward the Jews most especially, as well as all non-Muslims.
Whatever the reason for this dichotomy, it should be noted that Christie scores high with CAIR and is on the list to recognize those who "deserve recognition for their outstanding contributions to pushing back against Islamophobic trends in 2011 and 2012." CAIR is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood and is one of over a dozen such arms. In fact, the word "Islamophobia" was invented by them to prevent negative dialogue about the religion of peace. The term "Islamophobia" is the Muslim's equivalent of "racist" used by liberals whenever they want to end political debate.
I like Christie's directness; it's refreshing to see a politician who doesn't make any pretences about what he thinks. But it is what he thinks that disturbs me when it comes to his apparent naivete when it comes to CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood. It disturbs me that he has appointed a man to sit on the bench who has made anti-Semitic statements and who is a member of Hamas.
And if Christie is not naive about CAIR and Hamas, that's even more disturbing. We've had one president who appears to support Islam more than he does the Constitution and Christianity, we cannot suffer the consequences of another person who appears to be an Islamic apologist. I don't want a liberal, running the country, but I don't want Christie, a fiscal conservative at best, an Islam apologist at worst, running it either. When CAIR praises somebody, I immediately know that there's a problem with that somebody.
Tweet
I have strong reasons to believe that Christie is not the man for the job as president based on how I view our national security needs.
In 2008, when he served as U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, Christie praised Mohammed Qatanani, imam of the Islamic Center of Passaic County, as "a man of great goodwill." He embraced the man and hugged him. The fawning occurred soon after Qatanani went ballistic against Jews and openly admitted to supporting Hamas, an organization designated a terror organization by the US. To make matters worse, the fawning was done on the eve of Qatanani's deportation hearing regarding an Israeli conviction for his membership of Hamas. Christie went so far as to assign Assistant US Attorney Charles McKenna to testify as Qatanani's character witness. A man named Sohail Mohammed was Qatanani's lawyer for the case--more on him below.
In 2010, a New Jersey Transit worker named Derek Fenton burned 3 pages of a Koran at a 9-11 memorial service. Christie gave his blessings for the New Jersey Transit to terminate Fenton's employment and he stated, "That kind of intolerance is something I think is unacceptable. So I don't have a problem with him being fired." What Christie should have said was "That kind of intolerance will not be tolerated, and Article One, be damned." The ACLU successfully intervened on Fenton's behalf and he got his job back. When the ACLU is on the right side of history, you can bet the other side is scratching their collective heads.
Christie appointed Sohail Mohammed to the New Jersey state superior court in 2011. Mohammed had served as general counsel to the American Muslim Union, a group of mouth-breathers who stated that a "Zionist Commando Orchestrated the 9-11 Terrorist Attacks." He also acted as a spokesman for Muslim prisoners who had gone on a hunger strike after being jailed during Ramadan, defending Sami al-Arian, a Palestinian Islamic jihadist. Mohammed characterized the legal proceeding as "nothing more than a witch-hunt." As mentioned above, Mohammed was Qatanani's lawyer regarding the deportation hearing.
When Mohammed was asked appropriate questions by New Jersey's Senate Judiciary Committee about his strong affinity for Islam's Shari'a (law), Christie verbally attacked the lawmakers, saying, "Shari'a law has nothing to do with this [appointment of Mohammed] at all. It's crazy. It's crazy . . . So, this Shari'a law business is crap. It's just crazy. And I'm tired of dealing with crazies. I mean, you know, it's just unnecessary to be accusing this guy of things just because of his religious background." Of course, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), who also has ties to various Islamic groups with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, gave Christie a hearty "attaboy."
Is the "Shari'a law business" crap? If you know anything about Shari'a law, you know that it treats women as inferior to men and takes away their rights. It makes homosexuality a capital offense. It goes against the US Constitution, just like Christie did when he went against Fenton's freedom of expression.
In 2012 the NYPD conducted surveillance of Islamists in Newark, New Jersey and New Brunswick. Christie was outraged and termed the action arrogant and paranoid. He mocked NYPD Commissioner, Raymond Kelly as "all knowing, all seeing." If you look at any Koran, you will see Allah is described this way. But more importantly, the NYPD was doing important counter-terrorism work and Christie attacked those who protect us from terrorists. Mosques are notorious for spawning terrorism and Kelly knows that; one wonders what Christie knows.
On one hand, when an issue regarding Islam arises, Christie takes the side of Islam every time. On the other hand, Christie is pro-Israel. This seems strangely contradictory and can only be a function of something not very obvious; maybe it's his ego. Maybe he's looking for approval from both the Jews and those who hate the Jews. The Koran very clearly spells out Mohammad's animosity toward the Jews most especially, as well as all non-Muslims.
Whatever the reason for this dichotomy, it should be noted that Christie scores high with CAIR and is on the list to recognize those who "deserve recognition for their outstanding contributions to pushing back against Islamophobic trends in 2011 and 2012." CAIR is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood and is one of over a dozen such arms. In fact, the word "Islamophobia" was invented by them to prevent negative dialogue about the religion of peace. The term "Islamophobia" is the Muslim's equivalent of "racist" used by liberals whenever they want to end political debate.
I like Christie's directness; it's refreshing to see a politician who doesn't make any pretences about what he thinks. But it is what he thinks that disturbs me when it comes to his apparent naivete when it comes to CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood. It disturbs me that he has appointed a man to sit on the bench who has made anti-Semitic statements and who is a member of Hamas.
And if Christie is not naive about CAIR and Hamas, that's even more disturbing. We've had one president who appears to support Islam more than he does the Constitution and Christianity, we cannot suffer the consequences of another person who appears to be an Islamic apologist. I don't want a liberal, running the country, but I don't want Christie, a fiscal conservative at best, an Islam apologist at worst, running it either. When CAIR praises somebody, I immediately know that there's a problem with that somebody.
My latest novel, Jihad
Joe, is about Islamic
terrorism and suspense. In it I challenge the precepts of the religion
through my protagonist, Zed Nill, a journalist, captured by terrorists and who
is destined to be killed if the American President refuses to release three
Gitmo prisoners. Of course, American policy demands we never give in to
terrorists, and for Zed, the clock is ticking.
Tweet
No comments:
Post a Comment