Nauseating Naivity

Is anyone else not just disturbed but physically sickened by the latest "apologies" from Barry Obama?

Mere hours after North Korea once again violates UN sanctions by launching a missile, our president states that he wants to not only reduce nuclear arms around the world, but that he wants to cut missile defense, the very defense that would protect us from a North Korean, or Iranian missile, for that matter.

What sort of message does this sound to those who wish to do Americans harm? It hearkens back to the Bill Clinton administration, where our country, people, and interests were assault constantly by those who knew that we lacked the stones to mount a formidable response.

It's in Obama's mind that our best response to rogue regimes and terrorism is dialogue, conciliation, and compromise. Unbelievable naivety.

One thing that always makes me chuckle about liberals is their collective lack of long-term memory. In their minds, George W. Bush CAUSED terrorism, but yet they fail to remember that his predecessor, the aforementioned Clinton, left a national security disaster at the feet of W., including, but not limited to, 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings, first World Trade Center bombing, feeble attempts to apprehend Osama bin Laden, Khober Towers attack, the U.S. Cole, etc.

And to add insult to injury, Obama has the unmitigated gall to state that not only does he want to return to the golden age of American-Muslim relations (of a time, 20-30 years ago) but that under Bush, our nation has been at war with Islam.

My god, the naivety of this man.

Does Barry Obama forget that we liberated two Islamic nations from two repressive regimes that did not allow basic human rights? Has he forgotten the billions in AIDS relief to African nations, many of which are predominantly Muslim? Has he forgotten the billions that went to Indonesia (a Muslim country) after the 2004 tsunami?

Yet in this man's mind, we should apologize for defending ourselves against militant Islam.

Unbelievable.

Andrew McCarthy of the National Review sums this naive thinking best:

"There is nothing less civilized than rewarding evil and thus guaranteeing more of it. High-minded as it is commonly made to sound, it is not civilized to appease evil, to treat it with “dignity and respect,” to rationalize its root causes, to equivocate about whether evil really is evil, and, when all else fails, to ignore it — to purge the very mention of its name — in the vain hope that it will just go away. Evil doesn’t do nuance. It finds you, it tests you, and you either fight it or you’re part of the problem."

If this man continues this dangerous course, we'll be back to square one, then ultimately looking again for a "unilateralist cowboy."

Liberal Hypocrisy of the Day: Attacks against Christians

Isn't it ironic that liberals are offended if you accuse certain minorities for causing most of the mischief in town (backed by statistics of course) or impugn homeless people for urinating in places where most people would not, or label you a racist for not wanting to want for a certain Democratic presidential candidate.

Remember, stereotypes are usually based on facts.

Said liberals are quick to cast aspersions on anyone that disagrees not with them. They love to flaunt their sophistication and enlightenment. After all, this certain Democratic president is often referred to as the "Enlightened One."

That sophistication is thrown out the window when it comes to Christianity; the gloves come off.

Note the following, courtesy of the Minneapolis Star Tribune's Katherine Kersten:

I get it -- Al Franken is a serious senatorial candidate despite his penchant for the pornographic. Franken's one-liners about rape and oral sex and his leering fantasies about big-busted women were just for yucks, right?

Last June, DFL bigwigs chose to forget about their man's decades-long record of sexual crudity after he hooked the endorsement by putting on a serious face and saying "sorry" at the party's convention.

But Franken didn't apologize for another aspect of his trash-talking shtick. He's aimed some of his most offensive material at religious believers, particularly Christians.

Why hasn't this been aired in public? We in the press are too busy searching through Sarah Palin's junior high yearbooks and tracking down the filing dates of Joe the Plumber's tax returns.

Meanwhile, Franken gets a pass for making a joke of the life and death of Jesus Christ.

Franken finds Christ's crucifixion to be a barrel of laughs. For example, in his 1999 book, "Why Not Me?" he wrote about his discovery -- as a fictional former president -- of "the complete skeleton of Jesus Christ still nailed to the cross" during an archeological dig. At the Franken Presidential Library gift shop, visitors can buy "small pieces of Jesus' skeleton."

"We would like to display Jesus' skeleton at some future point," Franken went on. "It's merely a matter of designing and building an exhibition space ... . Until then he's very comfortable in a box down in our basement near the geothermal power station."

Very funny. Anybody want to try a joke like that about Mohammed?

Reread the last sentence. Of course no one will make a joke about Mohammed or Islam in general for two reasons: 1.) liberals have aligned themselves with Muslims, despite their overwhelmingly negative views towards women, homosexuals, and non-Muslims; 2.) they fear violent retribution from Muslims if insulted.

You don't see too many Christians issuing fatwas, do you?

The enlightened liberals have no problem stereotyping and mocking Christians for their beliefs. Personally as a Christian, I'm not too offended by what Franken said; with that said, his humor is lame. He's just not a funny guy. He thinks he is, but he's not.

For a group that recoils in horror at any little verbal indiscretion, their hypocrisy knows no bounds when it comes to Christianity.

But hypocrisy from liberals shouldn't really surprise you, should it?

Huffington Post: It's okay if Obama is a Muslim

More brilliant and objective insight from the Huffington Post, once again.

Sarcasm...

I came across this story which serves a dual purpose by reinforcing the marriage between the Left and Islam while displaying the Left's mindless, inane lack of foresight. Essentially, the author attempts to convey the notion that while Barry Hussein Obama is NOT a Muslim, it would be okay if he was.

Personally, I don't think Barry is a member of the Islamic faith; but, I do think it would be disappointing if he was. Contrary to what the Left would like the rest of us believe, this country was built on Judeo-Christian values. Said values fly in the face of the moral relativism, a "faith" to which the Left adhere.

Of course it would make sense for the Left to embrace the teachings of the Koran and the Islamic faith in general. Who else could justify suicide bombings, beheadings of Americans, the abuse of women, misogyny, persecution of non-Muslim faiths in Muslim countries, etc. This is the same group (the Left) that has brought you abortions, infanticide, justice for criminals rather than victims, suppression of free speech and thought (see attempted revival of the Fairness Doctrine, Hate Speech bill HR 1592, etc.).

So the author in this brilliant piece of journalist work (note: sarcasm) states that it would be okay for Barry Hussein to lay claim to the Islamic faith? My reaction, how is this good for our country? First, the Left naively belief that people of all faiths (or non-faiths) and creeds can "coexist" under one large, multicultural tent. Furthermore, they, in their narrow perception, have fought to remove all semblances of God and the Bible from our daily lives, whether it's school, government, etc.

Second, with that said, if the Left thought they had problems living in a country where they MISTAKENLY believe Judeo-Christian principles have been forced down their throats, try living in a theocracy, such as Iran or Saudi Arabia.

This is not to say that Barry Obama would transform this country instantly into an Islamic theocracy (if he WAS Muslim) but would it surprise anyone, considering the Democrats in our Congress are slowly moving towards outlawing the Bible as hate speech (see above bill HR 1592), thus marginalizing Christians while collectively shoving their progressive values down our throats.

Seems a bit, how you say, hypocritical and perhaps ironic?

Here's a news flash to the Left: I know this is hard to believe, but Islam is not a tolerate, open, religion of peace. But, it's not surprisingly that the Left has hitched themselves to the Islamic wagon; we've witnessed first-hand whose side they're on in the War on Terror.

My first thoughts regarding the author's treatise is that her plea for the country as a whole to embrace Islam stems from an encounter with a local schoolteacher. Thus immediately from the beginning of her story, she's operating under the impression that white American consists largely of Islamophobists who wonder if she'll return to "the middle east."

Furthermore, the author makes further inane comparisons to her treatment as a Muslim to that of Japanese-Americans during World War II:

"During World War II, Japanese Americans were sent to internment camps because they were presumed to be loyal to Japan (no matter how many generations their families had lived in America). The destruction of the World Trade Towers was a type of Pearl Harbor, casting suspicion on American Muslims this time instead of Japanese Americans. But al-Qaeda is no more representative of Islam than the Ku Klux Klan is representative of Christianity."

That's absolutely outrageous in both regards. Muslims who have emigrated to this country enjoy unsurpassed freedoms they could unequivocally NOT enjoy in their native country. Furthermore, your so-called religion of peace, has shown in a recent poll in this country, identifies with its extremist "fringe" while justifying the use of violence against "infidels."

The author also mistakingly says that her religion doesn't get a fair shake in the media:

"We don't get much of a voice in the media, but we are, as a group, middle class and mainstream."

You don't get a voice in the media? At every turn, the media attempts to portray Muslims as peaceful members of society while ULTIMATELY 1.) mistakingly equating violence perpetuated by the radicals to that of a Christian who kills an abortion doctor; 2.) unabashedly portraying Muslims as the victims in the War on Terror, whether it's stories about citizens in Iraq or Afghanistan being killed during an Allied air strike, stories justifying a suicide bomber's motives, or casting light on President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, WHICH have targeted INTERNATIONAL telephone calls between Muslims here in this country and abroad.

Give me a break.

You have it good here, lady.

Muslim holiday at Tyson Plant: Let the pandering continue

Once again, we in the West bow to the wishes of Islam.

I came across this story a few days ago, as Tyson foods in Shelbyville, Tennessee has decided to drop Labor Day in favor of the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr:

"Workers at Tyson Foods' poultry processing plant in Shelbyville will no longer have a paid day off on Labor Day, but will instead take the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr in the fall."

It looks like liberal pansies, this time in the form of union workers, have demonstrated their Dhimmitude once again.

Let's get one thing straight: this is the United States of America, a country with its own traditions, its own culture, its own holidays. The appeasers in this country need to realize that immigrants should adhere to our way of life, whether it's learning English, working hard, and generally assimilating into society.

It's generally a well-known fact that in Muslim countries for example, minorities and non-Muslims are treated as second-class citizen AT BEST. Yet, when Muslims, for example, emigrate to our country, they demand that the good citizens of the United States bow to their religious sensibilities, despite the lack of reciprocity in their native country.

Let's eliminate the subject of Christianity from this debate. I've heard arguments that because our country is steeped in Judeo-Christian principles, we are a Christian nation. While the former is true, the latter is not. One of the attractive qualities of our country is that we are free to worship as we please, without fear of oppression or reprisal. What is slowly occurring is the infiltration of Islam into our society.

Thanks to the Democrats, we have allowed ourselves, in the name of Political Correctness and Multiculturalism, to be emasculated and submissive to the wishes of people like Ibrahim Hooper, who stated the following:

"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future. But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."

It's no secret that the intended goal of Islamic fundamentalism is to create a pan-global caliphate, with those of those who oppose their faith as their faithful servants. In Shelbyville, among others, it looks like that is already happening.

The Swiss: Coming to their senses on Islam

In a sign that Europeans may be coming to their senses, "Switzerland will hold a nationwide referendum on whether to ban the construction of minarets where Muslims traditionally issue the call to prayer, officials said Tuesday," according to PR-Inside.com.

Upon first glance, this may seem a little excessive. However, this may be the sort of response necessary to combat the spread of militant Islam throughout the continent. Is it fair to say that Europeans grow tiresome of bowing to every Muslim's wish, while seeing that said Muslim will not reciprocate?

Yesterday, I documented that two seventh graders in England were given detention for refusing to pray to Allah. Appropriately, a grandfather of one of the students stated, "But if Muslims were asked to go to church on Sunday and take Holy Communion there would be war. "

"The U.N. expert on racism, Doudou Diene, has said the campaign is evidence of an «ever-increasing trend» toward anti-Islamic actions in Europe."

Can anyone imagine why that is? Could it be that a significant portion of Muslims have demonstrated to other religions, not just in countries where Islam is the primary religion but in countries that are and have been predominantly Christian or another religion? We've seen, read, and heard about instances where Muslims have demonstrated their intolerance, whether it was the Muhammed cartoon flap of a couple years back, the murder of Theo Van Gogh, or the threats against Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Yet, we're supposed to demonstrate how tolerant we are in the west, while Muslims trample over basic rights of speech and religion.

We've seen, in England, Lord Chief Justice Phillips state that a Muslim could essentially practice Sharia but yet not conflict those beliefs and practices against standard British law: "He supported the idea that Sharia could be reasonably employed as a basis for "mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution". He went further to defend Williams's position from earlier in the year, explaining "It was not very radical to advocate embracing sharia law in the context of family disputes, for example, and our system already goes a long way towards accommodating the archbishop's suggestion." and "It is possible in this country for those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law."

Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, stated the same thing in February: "Noting the anxieties which the word Sharia provoked in the West he drew attention to the fact that there was a debate within Islam between what he called "primitivists" for whom, for instance, apostasy should still be punishable and those Muslims who argued that Sharia was a developing system of jurisprudence that such a view was no longer acceptable. He made comparisons with "Orthodox Jewish practice" (Beth Din) and with the recognition of the exercise of conscience of Christians."

The Swiss people are getting it right.

Now, if only the rest of Europe would follow suit...

MSNBC: Joint Chiefs head: Iraq security gains holding

So why withdraw troops now?

Nationally, we've heard the cavalcade of "bring 'em home" chants from our leftist elected officials. On the Minnesota front, Democrat challenger to Senator Norm Coleman, Al Franken (aka Stuart Smalley) has made troop withdrawal a hallmark of his campaign platform.

According to MSNBC, "Iraq appears on track to establishing sustainable security — a key step toward withdrawing U.S. troops — the top U.S. military officer said Monday after visiting the newly quiet Sadr City section of the capital."

So tell me again why we want to withdraw now, as Iraq appears well on its way to becoming a bastion of democracy in the Middle East? Why would we throw away not the hard-fought successes we've gained in the past five years, but the four-thousand plus deaths of our fighting men and women.

I guess what they say about liberals and Democratic enablers is true: human life really is unimportant, especially if it's an American life. But, try to tell me that those opposed to freedom and democracy (see: Al Qaeda, or any other Islamic group of murderers, Guantanamo Bay detainees) lives are NOT more important in the eyes of the Left.

Because it ain't true.

You see, the Democrats have hedged their bets; they've allied themselves with the terrorists in a perverse arrangement whereby Islam uses the Democrats, and the Democrats conveniently forget that this "religion of peace" fundamentally opposes women's rights, multiculturism, alternative lifestyles, etc.

Yet, the Democrats, so blinded by the hatred for George Bush, as well as that of Christianity, have offered up their multicultural umbrella, in the hope that the poor Islamists will join them.

World Net Daily: Boys punished with detention for refusing to pray to Allah

Have you heard this story?

According to WorldNetDaily.com, "Two seventh-grade boys were given detention and their classmates forced to miss their scheduled refreshment break when the pair refused to kneel and pray to Allah during a religious studies class."

The school in which the boys attended wasn't in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, but rather in jolly old England.

This is dhimmitude at its finest. Countries like England, France, and Belgium have pandered to Islamic immigrants for decades, to the point that these immigrants are demanding that the their host countries bow to their wishes.

One of the seventh-grader's parents sums it up perfectly:

"I am not racist, I've been friendly with an Indian for 30 years. I've also been to a Muslim wedding where it was explained to me that alcohol would not be served and I respected that. But if Muslims were asked to go to church on Sunday and take Holy Communion there would be war."

Here's the complete story:

Boys punished with detention for refusing to pray to Allah
'If Muslims were asked to go to church on Sunday and take Holy Communion there would be war'

---

Posted: July 04, 2008
6:15 pm Eastern

---

WorldNetDaily

Two seventh-grade boys were given detention and their classmates forced to miss their scheduled refreshment break when the pair refused to kneel and pray to Allah during a religious studies class.

Outraged parents called the punishment of the boys for not wanting to take part in the practical demonstration at Alsager High School near Stoke-on-Trent, UK, of how Muslims' worship Allah a breach of their human rights.

"This isn't right, it's taking things too far," parent Sharon Luinen told the London Daily Mail.

"I understand that they have to learn about other religions. I can live with that, but it is taking it a step too far to be punished because they wouldn't join in Muslim prayer. Making them pray to Allah, who isn't who they worship, is wrong and what got me is that they were told they were being disrespectful.

"I don't want this to look as if I have a problem with the school because I am generally very happy with it."

Last month, WND reported Principal Robin Lowe was reassigned after staging a mandatory lesson in Islamic religious beliefs for nearly 900 students at her Houston-area school.

The controversy erupted at Friendswood Junior High when students were diverted from a scheduled physical education class and taken to a special assembly.

In the 40-minute session, representatives of the Houston office of the controversial Council on American-Islamic Relations, an organization critics link to terrorist groups, presented a lesson in the religious beliefs and requirements of Islam.

The CAIR representatives instructed students that Adam, Noah and Jesus are prophets; announced "there is one god, his name is Allah"; taught the five pillars of Islam; told students how to pray five times a day; and gave instruction on Islamic religious requirements for dress.

The assembly had not been authorized by the district, officials confirmed.

In May, officials at a Minnesota charter school, housed in the same building as a mosque, attacked a television news crew investigating whether the publicly funded institution had complied with a state order to stop accommodating Islamic prayers and religious programs.

The investigation followed revelations by a substitute teacher who observed children being forced to participate in Islamic prayers.

In the Alsager School incident, the religion teacher, who was not named, made the class wear Muslim headgear and watch a short film. Afterward, she took prayer mats from her cupboard and said, "we are now going out to pray to Allah," parents claimed.

"I am absolutely furious my daughter was made to take part in it and I don't find it acceptable," said parent Karen Williams.

"Not only was it forced upon them, my daughter was told off for not doing it right. They'd never done it before and they were supposed to do it in another language."

"My child has been forced to pray to Allah in a school lesson," the grandfather of one of the students said. "It's absolutely disgusting, there's no other way of putting it. My daughter and a lot of other mothers are furious about their children being made to kneel on the floor and pray to Islam. If they didn't do it they were given detention.

"I am not racist, I've been friendly with an Indian for 30 years. I've also been to a Muslim wedding where it was explained to me that alcohol would not be served and I respected that. But if Muslims were asked to go to church on Sunday and take Holy Communion there would be war."

Keith Plant, Alsager's deputy headmaster, said with summer break, many of the staff was unavailable and he could not comment fully.

"I think that it is a shame that so many parents have got in touch with the press before coming to me. I have spoken to the teacher and she has articulately given me her version of events, but that is all I can give you at the moment."

Cheshire County Council issued a statement telling parents "inquiries are being made into the circumstances as a matter of urgency.

"Educating children in the beliefs of different faith is part of the diversity curriculum on the basis that knowledge is essential to understanding. We accept that such teaching is to be conducted with some sense of sensitivity."

Revelation of the incident follows this week's pronouncement by the UK's top judge, Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips, that Islamic sharia law should be used in the UK.

In a speech to an East London mosque, Phillips said, "Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law.'

"Those who are in dispute are free to subject it to mediation or to agree that it shall be resolved by a chosen arbitrator. There is no reason why principles of sharia law or any other religious code should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of dispute resolution."

Phillips signaled approval of sharia principles as long as punishments – and divorce rulings – complied with the law of the land.

In February, WND reported Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, chief of the 70-million-strong worldwide Anglican Communion, advocated the establishment of Islamic law in Britain.

A foreigner's naive take on Barry Obama

So is Barry Obama a Christian or a Muslim?

I've heard reports from admittedly unreliable sources proclaiming the presumptive Democratic nominee to be a practicing. Subsequently, the liberal thought police have responded en masse with statements that Obama is a practicing Christian.

So I'm confused...if the liberals are attempting to destroy the Christian institution in this country, why would they rally around Obama's alleged Christianity? Why does it matter?

To be honest, I'm not sure Obama is a Christian. From all indications, he's not a traditional Christian like the majority of the citizens of this country. Rather, he's a new-age Christian, adhering to a similar brand of Christianity as Oprah. Furthermore, as Obama has been a member of the Church of Hate, led by Reverend Jeremiah Wright, how can we believe him when he says he's a Christian?

What kind of Christian rails against its brother for inventing diseases and causing terrorism? How can a Christian lie and fabricate stories? I came across this piece courtesy of the Today's Zaman, a publication out of Turkey. It's fascinating to read such skewed thoughts regarding our country from the pens of foreigners.

Some points:

"It is no accident that Obama, who is a new-generation black politician, is apparently immune from anti-white sentiments and that young whites represent an indispensable portion of his enthusiastic constituency."

That's called white guilt. A significant portion of Obama's followers are either so charmed by the man's words or believe by voting for a black president, it somehow demonstrates how open-minded one is; i.e. "I'm on your side."

"One can assume anti-American violence would diminish and US credibility in spreading freedoms would be improved."

The author proposes that if Obama were president, the world would suddenly hate us less, because after all, George Bush has created terrorism. It wasn't concocted by radicals in the madressahs of Saudi Arabia decades ago, or fomented on the battlefields of Afghanistan in the 1980's.

"Anti-Obama bigots feel freer to raise the issue of his father's religion and Muslim name. Obama vehemently denies he is a Muslim, given emerging Islamophobia in American society, especially in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. If it weren't for the political climate, Obama would most probably speak proudly about his father and Muslim-convert brother's cultural values as well."

A couple of things here: if you're anti-Obama, you're bigotted. The author assumes that if you dislike Obama it's a result of one's latent racism. No, I'm sorry to say that I dislike Obama (besides being a liberal and espousing values to which I cannot adhere) because I find him disengenous and phony. Second, the author assumes that a "emerging Islamophobia" is fabricated in the minds of ignorant Americans. It couldn't be because we're inundated with reports of grotesque violence committed by a sect of people in the name of Allah, or that these crimes occur daily all over the world? Or because radicals have stated their beliefs, unequivocally, their desire to rid the world of infidels and create a pan-global Islamic caliphate.

Liberal Reaction to Dunkin' Donuts and Rachel Ray

Yesterday, I posted a brief analysis regarding Dunkin' Donuts pulling an ad featuring Rachel Ray sporting a kaffiyeh, as displayed in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. I wanted to follow up regarding a general cavalier attitude regarding the affair to which I've read and heard in the past 24 hours.

While Ray's sporting of said kaffiyeh is more than likely "something to do about nothing," I'm more galled at 1.) user comments in the Star-Tribune and 2.) talk show reaction to the "flap."

The general consensus to me is that either those that were offended are either Islamophobic or something perpetuating the myth that the Islamic threat is greater than what it is. Furthermore, I sense that white Christian America has no right clamoring for any concessions from the poor Muslims.

Once again, we're supposedly spreading hate...while terrorist attacks occur on a daily basis around the world at the hands of Muslim jihadists, Liberals deny the ever-increasing threat. Even today on the Slate website, bloggers debate the notion that Al-Qaeda is slowly fading away.
I simply must ask, "what the hell?" Muslims are just as angry at us as they have ever been. No not angry because of our President or our liberation of Iraq, but purely because we are infidels. It is their belief, propagated in the Q'uran, that a pan-global Islamic caliphate is the ultimate order of business.

But, those of us who correctly have pinpointed the Islamic threat are admonished as Islamophobic; this is typical Liberal banter for attempting to anyone (faith, creed, skin color, lifestyle choice) under their pathetic banner of multiculturalism.

Star Tribune: Dunkin' Donuts pulls Rachael Ray ad after Muslim scarf complaints

Dunkin' Donuts has pulled an online advertisement featuring Rachel Ray due to complaints about her scarf in the promo. Evidently, the scarf closely resembles a kaffiyeh, which has now come to symbolize Muslim terrorism.

I have no idea what 1.) Ray was thinking by sporting that look; 2.) I doubt Ray is either Muslim or terrorist. With that said, was she tacitly endorsing Muslim "freedom fighters" in their quest for a Palestinian homeland? After all, former PLO terrorist leader Yassir Arafat made the scarf look popular. My take, I HIGHLY doubt it...but as Michelle Malkin stated in a column regarding the ad, "It's refreshing to see an American company show sensitivity to the concerns of Americans opposed to Islamic jihad and its apologists."

If you peruse the Star Tribune article, the user comments naturally gravitate towards our country's perceived Islamophobia. Of course, because this is a religion of peace to which we refer!!! (note: sarcasm)

According to the multicultural, enlighted Liberals, we have no reason to believe that Islam = terrorism.

Here's the complete article:

BOSTON — Dunkin' Donuts has pulled an online advertisement featuring Rachael Ray after complaints that a fringed black-and-white scarf that the celebrity chef wore in the ad offers symbolic support for Muslim extremism and terrorism.

The coffee and baked goods chain said the ad that began appearing online May 7 was pulled over the past weekend because "the possibility of misperception detracted from its original intention to promote our iced coffee."

In the spot, Ray holds an iced coffee while standing in front of trees with pink blossoms.

Critics, including conservative commentator Michelle Malkin, complained that the scarf wrapped around her looked like a kaffiyeh, the traditional Arab headdress. Critics who fueled online complaints about the ad in blogs say such scarves have come to symbolize Muslim extremism and terrorism.

The kaffiyeh, Malkin wrote in a column posted online last Friday, "has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad. Popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant (and not-so-ignorant) fashion designers, celebrities, and left-wing icons."

A statement issued by Canton, Mass.-based Dunkin' Brands Inc., however, said the scarf had a paisley design, and was selected by a stylist for the advertising shoot.

"Absolutely no symbolism was intended," the company said.

Dunkin' spokeswoman Michelle King said the ad appeared on the chain's Web site, as well as other commercial sites.

Malkin, in a posting following up on last week's column, said of Dunkin's decision to pull the ad, "It's refreshing to see an American company show sensitivity to the concerns of Americans opposed to Islamic jihad and its apologists."

Ray, host of the Food Network television program "30 Minute Meals" as well as a syndicated daytime talk show, began appearing in ads for Dunkin' Donuts in March 2007. When Dunkin' announced the partnership, it said Ray would be featured in TV, print, radio and online spots in a campaign running through 2010.

Muslim women: Dress code violates faith

As I mentioned in previous posts, I live in pseudo-Sharia Minnesota. This article, courtesy of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, typifies the coddling this state, and our nation by extension, we've performed on those of the Islamic faith.

When is this country going to STOP adhering to every demand from these people? It's time for those who don't like our laws, our customs, or our culture to either stop complaining and assimilate one's self, or return to his or her country of origin.

Living in this country is a PRIVILEGE, not a right.

Here's the entire piece:

A group of Muslim workers allege they were fired by a New Brighton tortilla factory for refusing to wear uniforms that they say were immodest by Islamic standards.

Six Somali women claim they were ordered by a manager to wear pants and shirts to work instead of their traditional Islamic clothing of loose-fitting skirts and scarves, according to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a civil liberties group that is representing the women.

The women have filed a religious discrimination complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

"For these women, wearing tight-fitting pants is like being naked," said Valerie Shirley, a spokeswoman for the Minnesota chapter of CAIR. "It's simply not an option."

CAIR issued a press release calling on Mission Foods to reinstate the women in their jobs. However, the group declined to disclose the names of the women and would not make them available for interviews Tuesday.

Gruma Corp., the Irving, Texas-based parent company of Mission Foods, released a written statement Tuesday denying that any employees were terminated or disciplined at the New Brighton plant. However, the company made clear the six women have been relieved of their responsibilities for the time being, and may ultimately lose their jobs if they don't wear uniforms.

"Should these employees choose to adhere to the current Mission Foods uniform policy, they may return to their positions with the company," the company statement said. "However, these positions will need to be filled as soon as possible and cannot be held indefinitely."

A company spokeswoman said she could not provide photographs of the uniforms.

Latest dispute

Such disputes have intensified as the American Muslim community grows in numbers and becomes more politically organized, said Thomas Berg, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas. "After 9/11, both the number of conflicts arose but also the sense among Muslims that they needed to stand together -- at least to oppose unjustified actions," he said.

Last year, some Muslim cashiers at Target Corp. were shifted to other positions inside stores after they refused to scan pork products because doing so would violate their religious beliefs. And in 2005, 26 workers were either fired or suspended by an Arden Hills electronics manufacturer for violating the company's prayer rules, which set limits on the times they could break for prayers.

The federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 says employers must accommodate workers' religious beliefs, so long as the requests are "reasonable" and do not create "undue hardship" for the company. But the definition of what's reasonable and what constitutes hardship can vary dramatically from one case to the next.

A security firm, for instance, may have a prudent reason for requiring workers to wear uniforms, while a doctor's office might not. "Each of these cases turns on the facts," Berg said.

For many Muslim women, wearing loose-fitting clothing is a religious requirement. Clothing that highlights parts of a women's body or accentuates curves is often considered immodest. A headscarf, or hijab, is seen by many Muslim women as a way to express their faith and avoid unwanted sexual attention.

At the Mission Foods plant, the Muslim workers had already made some accommodations, said Shirley, the CAIR spokeswoman. They had agreed to wear coats over their scarves, but the company took them away before imposing a new dress code that involved trousers and shirts, she said.

The women's traditional clothing was loose-fitting but never posed a safety risk, Shirley said, because the six women put tortillas in packages and did not work near machinery. "Tortillas came down a conveyor belt onto a table and they packaged them with their hands," she said. "There wasn't even the potential of a safety hazard."

Chris Serres • 612-673-4308