Ibrahim Abdul-Matin, a U.S. environmental policy consultant and one of Feisal Abdul Rauf’s spokesmen for the new mosque being contemplated near Ground Zero, surprisingly announced in August that it will be the first “green mosque” in the United States. Not only will this structure comply with very strict LEED green standards (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), but it will also become an interfaith cultural center that will emphasize “the intricate relationships between Islamic teachings and environmentalism.” As such, this new mosque will not only be built green, but it will also become an environmental Islamic community center. In fact, the project has been renamed “Park 51” to reflect this green emphasis.
In The Daily Beast, Ibrahim Abdul-Matin went on to say that “Islam calls upon people to be stewards of the earth and to treat all things in nature as sacred. The new name…invokes images of trees, creeks, and children playing. Parks are for the public. Parks are fun. Parks are green. And parks are not controversial.”
Contrary to such an innocuous suggestion is that injecting environmentalism into Islam is hardly uncontroversial. In reality, it only multiplies the dangers by stuffing more flammable material into a rich concoction of explosive anti-western civilization sentiments, all in the name of green moderation. Both Islam and environmentalism loathe western financial institutions, all of which was best represented by the Twin Towers—the bastion of international free trade—before they came crashing down in flames on 9/11. Thus to suggest that a green mosque is uncontroversial is naïve at best, and in reality, completely disingenuous. New York’s Ground Zero area might be better served by a typical mosque with plenty of prayer rugs on hand for its worshipers. That environmental regulations have already played a large role in stalling the rebuilding of Ground Zero is not something that should go unnoticed, especially now with a green mosque going up nearby.
Blending environmentalism with Islam can only serve to strengthen the totalitarian ideals of the green movement. With modern environmentalism’s fixation on ecological holism that strictly views people and their economic activities as expendable, unbalanced, unsustainable and cancerous—this will only be greatly bolstered and strengthened by the totalitarian will of Allah. If modern Western man is way out of line with regard to the environmental movement, just think what it will mean when Allah enters into the equation.
Ibrahim Abdul-Matin believes that the Earth is one giant mosque, and that everything in the universe is an interconnected balance of continuity, which of course, Western materialism under American capitalism has violated with their greedy, consumption habits. With such a passionate environmental stance, the Twin Towers can only be a symbol of American greed and arrogance over Allah’s natural mosque. Even more troublesome is that Ibrahim Abdul-Matin claims that he has three sides to him, “the social justice part of me, the environmental part of me, and then the Muslim part into one sort of tightly woven expression of what’s happening today.” Tight indeed. Could it be that the destruction of the Twin Towers was evidence of Allah’s environmental social justice upon the stronghold of international finance and trade, which was allegedly fueling the rape and pillage of the planet’s natural resources?
In an interview in February 2010, Ibrahim Abdul-Matin even went so far as to say that “science and religion mix in Islam, so we’re not having a debate about whether climate change is real or not.” How convenient. With Allah and Al Gore running the science department together, inconvenient scientific facts can much more readily be stymied and denied by two jack boots rather than just one. Under Allah and Greenpeace, debates about what is truly scientific would become redundant and unnecessary. This, in turn, would save the climate research programs from embarrassing fiascos like Climate-gate.
Church and State
In fact, Ibrahim Abdul-Matin views science and religion in a unified, faith-based, symbiotic relationship. He has also written a book, due to be released in October called Green Deen: What Islam Teaches About Protecting the Environment. According to Ibrahim Abdul-Matin, “deen” means “creed.” On his webpage, which promotes his book, he believes that “living a green deen means treating the world with justice. The first step is to recognize that humans can have a negative impact on the Earth. The second step is to reduce and stop that negative impact.”
“Science,” environmentalism, earth first justice, and Allah are all wrapped up into one tight wholeness for the sustainable future of mankind—right at the doorstep of Ground Zero.
Like a foreboding omen is the fact that Ibrahim Abdul-Matin even touts Malcolm X as an early environmentalist. He grew up listening to his tapes, and he strongly pointed out in a speech at the Schomburg Center in Harlem in February of 2010, that Macolm X lived an “off-grid lifestyle.” This, of course, is the environmental pipe dream for all—a sustainable, future paradise, off the grid of modern energy, that the green economy is all poised to take advantage of. Malcolm X is thus another good example for environmentalists to follow. He grew his own vegetables and was dead serious about blacks being healthy and nationalistically self-sufficient in their own tight bio region where the corruption of international Jewry and American capitalism is to be avoided. One of the professors who attended the event noted that “it was good to hear a variety of perspectives on Brother Malcolm’s life. Ibrahim Abdul-Matin’s connection between Malcolm’s activism and environmentally conscious upbringing was an interesting addition to Malcolm’s sphere of influence.”
While it is true that Malcolm X later softened his racism after he became a converted Sunni Muslim and before his previous pals from the Nation of Islam assassinated him, black nationalism was still a critical pillar of his beliefs. Furthermore, his softening on racism was largely due to the fact that he noticed that many Muslims and Africans were not black. In other words, he became color blind only as it related to Islam. Otherwise, much like Hitler’s white Aryan racism before him, which was rooted in Ernst Haeckel’s Social Darwinian ecology, Malcolm X never disavowed his belief that the blacks were the cradle of civilization and should also be segregated from the whites to keep the races pure. That the Nazis had also adopted a green camouflage for their own anti-Semitic and anti-American Capitalistic views has never received the scrutiny that it most assuredly deserves.
Last, but not least, is that Ibrahim Abdul-Matin also worked for the organization “Green for All,” and thus also has connections to Van Jones, not to mention Al Gore. “Green for All” is a national organization that promotes the so-called up and coming clean and green economy, which is allegedly designed to help people come out of poverty through assistance from other like-minded groups, business leaders, and government subsidies. Here is seen the combination of environmental social justice with the redistribution of wealth where “Green for All” means that environmental greenbacks and green jobs will be available for all, i.e., the poor. Here, environmentalism is being harnessed to provide yet another excuse to redistribute wealth.
Perhaps worst of all is that it was Van Jones who infamously once said that “the white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people-of-color communities, because they don’t have a racial justice frame.” Here, Van Jones, a self-proclaimed communist and a fairly recent convert to the environmental cause, mixes his black nationalism/communism with ecological views that, shockingly enough, can be traced directly back to the socialistic labyrinth of Nazi Germany where race and nature, blood and soil, ethnicity and environmentalism were the rage of the 1930’s and 40’s.
While some environmental historians have recently been forced to write books on the connections between National Socialism and the early German greens to help prevent their pet movement from being smeared with Nazi blood, a green mosque being pondered at Ground Zero under the shining light of Allah’s Anti-Semitic and Anti-American crescent moon, only serves to demonstrate the clear and present danger of eco-fascism in power and the great threats that the United States is currently facing as the western sun sets on the horizon.•
*Mark Musser is the author of Nazi Oaks: The Green Sacrificial Offering of the Judeo-Christian Worldview in the Holocaust.
Exposing a “Progressive” Politician
By Cliff Kincaid
With Andrew Young’s book, The Politician, now out in paperback, it doesn’t cost as much to get an inside account of how “progressive” politics involving rhetoric about the rich and poor is an absolute fraud. The current White House-generated controversy about tax cuts “for the rich” is an extension of what former Democratic Senator and failed presidential candidate John Edwards had tried to master. It is one of the oldest tricks in the progressive playbook.
The progressives believe their path to success lies in Marxist-oriented class warfare. They want to generate envy and jealousy toward people with more money and bigger houses and cars.
Young believed that Edwards was one of the “great progressives” that came out of North Carolina and notes that one of Edwards’ big Hollywood supporters was the actor Danny Glover, who also happens to be an advocate of the Marxist policies of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
During one appearance with Edwards, Glover said Edwards understood the needs of the working poor and that his campaign for president was “telling their story.” Glover said, “This is a campaign about real democracy.”
Edwards was famous for decrying the existence of “two Americas,” rich and poor. He wanted to cut the rich down to size. In fact, Edwards was himself a rich trial lawyer who received $400 haircuts. He was a complete fraud and an adulterer with a “love child” he didn’t want to admit. Many progressives in addition to Glover were fooled by him.
Young said about Edwards, “As a candidate, he had sold himself to the public as an especially moral, Christian family man.” It worked—for a while, with the help of the liberal media.
The disgraced Edwards repeatedly said, “I’m the son of a millworker,” to emphasize how he was one of “the people.”
Now, the people, in the form of federal authorities, are investigating his campaign financial practices and could bring an indictment against him.
Nobody seems to know what happened to the 2006 Edwards sex tape seen by Young and mentioned several times in his book.
In fact, the multi-millionaire Edwards was not only a notorious adulterer but money hungry, to the extent of wanting to supplement his fortune as he was running for president with a salary of $500,000 a year with a hedge fund called Fortress Financial. He got big money for his campaign run from the super-rich and trial lawyers richer than he was.
Remember this was a time when Edwards was vowing to fight a global war on poverty by launching a poverty center.
“As he did with the poverty center, the senator put very little time into his Fortress job, but it allowed him to become an investor in exclusive funds generally closed to newcomers,” Young writes. “He put $16 million into Fortress, which before the economic collapse of 2008 used a variety of creative and controversial schemes to deliver high rates of return.”
He goes on, “If you think that hiring on with a hedge fund that avoided taxes by incorporating offshore accounts conflicted with Edwards’ political concerns about ‘two Americas,” rich and poor, you aren’t alone.”
Some of Edwards’ speeches about poverty netted him up to $55,000 a piece.
When his baby out of wedlock was born, Edwards wasn’t there, and the child did not have health insurance, Young notes.
The insider, however, was an instrumental part of the fraud. And while Andrew Young eventually saw the light about the candidate and blew the whistle, he made a lot of money with his book and has failed to draw some important lessons about the scandal. He, too, was drawn to the money and the power.
One of the most important lessons that he does get right is that the mainstream media were almost completely useless in ferreting out this scandal, and that it was the tabloid National Enquirer that got the goods on Edwards and his mistress, campaign aide Rielle Hunter. As part of the cover-up, Young took the blame, under Edwards’ direction, by issuing a false statement that he was the father.
“In fact,” Young writes about the major media reaction, “if you got your news from the big papers or TV networks, you probably didn’t know a scandal was rumored.” The cover-up was working. The major media refused to believe this progressive champion was a first-rate deceiver.
“I couldn’t see that I had any options but to continue playing John Edwards’ game,” Young says. What about the option of telling the truth about this scoundrel and not covering up for him? What about acting morally? Young seems almost as blind as Edwards.
Finally the truth caught up with Edwards, as the Enquirer pursued him and the major media did not. Eventually, Edwards admitted the child was his.
In the afterword to the paperback edition of his book, Young gets confused, thinking that because the Enquirer pursued his former boss, all of today’s candidates face “extreme scrutiny.” He writes, “The National Enquirer and other media outlets that chase stories about the character of our leaders are doing us a service.”
What other media outlets?
He goes on, “It’s far better for us to find out about a politician’s troubles and deal with them directly. Otherwise, a candidate or public official could be blackmailed by those who know his or her secrets.”
He proceeds to call for “transparency” about politicians. “If you have skeletons in your closet, clean them out and tell the truth about them,” he says. He then credits Barack Obama for admitting that he had been a drug abuser and so he was “elected president.”
Obama was elected because the financial system collapsed in September 2008 and many voters decided that Mickey Mouse was preferable to the Republicans who had already voted for big bank bailouts under President Bush as a phony solution. Hedge fund managers such as George Soros, a major supporter of Obama, precipitated the crisis by selling short on the housing market.
Obama has still not come clean about (1) the circumstances surrounding his birth, (2) his religion, (3) his relationship with Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis, and (4) his relationship with former communist terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.
These are just a few of the issues he has not been “transparent” about. So the fact that he admitted smoking marijuana and using cocaine is almost beside the point.
The tragedy is that while Edwards has faded into obscurity and reportedly now hangs out at a North Carolina bar and restaurant, another liberal Democrat named Bill Clinton has survived what Young admits was “his own sexual disgrace and attempted cover-up.” Young reports that Clinton had called Edwards to ask, “How’d you get caught?”
Despite being caught lying about a sexual affair with a former White House intern named Monica Lewinsky, Clinton today is considered an elder statesman of the Democratic Party and is much in demand for liberal candidates around the country.
If there were an honest and objective press, he would be described in media reports these days as the disgraced former president.•
Spotlight on the Media
Obama Endorses Global Taxes During U.N. Summit
By Cliff Kincaid
While the media were preoccupied with the fate of the Bush tax cuts, President Obama attended a United Nations summit and endorsed “innovative finance mechanisms”—global taxes—to drain even more wealth out of the U.S. economy.
The “outcome document,” produced in advance of the September 20-22 U.N. Summit on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), committed the nations of the world to supporting “innovative financing mechanisms” to supplement foreign aid spending.
The term “innovative financing mechanisms” is a U.N. euphemism for global taxes. But the document actually goes further, praising the “Task Force on International Financial Transactions for Development” for its work on the subject of mobilizing additional “resources” for countries to achieve the MDGs. This is a body tasked with proposing and implementing global tax schemes.
The document recognized the “considerable progress” made in this area, an acknowledgement that an international tax by some nations on airline tickets is already in effect and producing several billions of dollars of revenue for world organizations to fight AIDS and other diseases.
In an article in The Christian Science Monitor, under the headline, “Small global taxes would make a big difference for world’s ‘bottom billion,’” the foreign minister of France and other officials of foreign nations endorse various forms of “innovative development financing.” One of their proposals is a tax on international currency transactions that could generate $35 billion a year.
The proposal, popular at the United Nations for decades and long-advocated by Fidel Castro, is called the Tobin Tax and named after Yale University economist James Tobin. Steven Solomon, a former staff reporter at Forbes, said in his book, The Confidence Game, that such a proposal might net trillions of dollars because it is based on taking a percentage of money from the trillions of dollars exchanged daily in global financial markets.
He was referring to the fact that once such a tax is in place, it could be easily raised to bring in hundreds of billions of dollars or more a year to the U.N. and other global institutions.
Such financial transactions through banks and other financial institutions are commonplace on behalf of Americans who have stock in mutual funds or companies that invest or operate overseas. Hence, such a global tax could affect the stocks, mutual funds, and pensions of ordinary Americans.
The document affirms the so-called “Monterrey Consensus” that committed nations to spending 0.7 percent of Gross National Product (GNP) on official development assistance (ODA), otherwise known as foreign aid.
Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.’s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the Millennium Development Goals, this amounts to $845 billion from the U.S. alone, according to Jeffrey Sachs of the U.N.’s Millennium Project.
“We have fully embraced the Millennium Development Goals,” Obama told the U.N. in 2009.•
Dear Fellow Media Watchdog,
I can’t emphasize enough how important it is for you to send the postcards that we include with the AIM Report. Thanks to all of you who do. Remember what we told Matthew Rothschild of The Progressive magazine. We told him that Howard Zinn “was on the FBI security index because he was a member of the Moscow-controlled Communist Party USA. What’s more, he lied to the FBI about his membership in the party. Since Zinn wrote a column for The Progressive for 12 years, you have a responsibility to tell your readers what is really in his FBI file. Please publish a truthful article about Communist Party member Howard Zinn and how he deceived ‘progressives’ like yourself.”
Rothschild got dozens of your postcards and replied, in part: “Whether Zinn was once a member of the Communist Party or not is of no import to us. All that we ask is that our writers illuminate the world we live in, which Howard Zinn did better than anyone I know.”
Isn’t it tragic that a modern-day progressive is not concerned about a secret Communist writing for his magazine? This tells us a lot about the nature of the progressive movement that controls Washington these days. It means America is in peril.
For Accuracy in Media,
Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post accused Sarah Palin of offending homosexuals when she remarked that the author of a Vanity Fair hatchet job about her was “impotent and limp and gutless.” Marcus wrote, “The Vanity Fair writer, Michael Joseph Gross, is gay, which makes matters worse —conjuring the stereotype of ‘limp-wristed.’ But whatever the sexual orientation of the offending reporter, Palin should not have been questioning his manhood.”
Palin had every right to question his manhood, since he is not a man in the traditional sense and wrote a cowardly piece. But her remarks were probably directed at his “journalism,” which Marcus admits was sloppy and full of unverifiable and anonymous quotes. Nevertheless, Gross was on the CBS News “The Early Show” with his “revelations.” Host Erica Hill, who substitutes for Katie Couric on the CBS Evening News, called the article “fascinating.”
Marcus was more concerned with Palin’s response to the shoddy article than with the fact that it was written by a homosexual journalist with an axe to grind. Palin has long opposed gay marriage, which makes her an obvious target for homosexuals like Gross.
The Marcus criticism of Palin shows how “sensitive” the Post has become on matters involving homosexuality. The paper does not tolerate any criticism of the homosexual lifestyle. It has been a cheerleader for gay rights for years and was one of the first newspapers to run announcements of gay “unions” as if they were marriages. It is sad that this once mighty newspaper has degenerated into a mouthpiece for the homosexual movement.