A new report out of Australia indicates that radical Muslim extremists aren’t motivated by the cause of jihad. Rather, they are driven to terrorism by Islamophobia and a high unemployment rate. The report raises one inescapable question: Just what the hell are they putting in the water down under?
A new report paints a devastating picture of Muslim unemployment in Australia and links workplace discrimination to terrorist attacks such as the Bali bombings.
The report says that reducing the deep-seated hostility toward Muslims by a minority of Australians was hard to achieve in an atmosphere created by an open-ended war on terror.
The Newcastle University report was completed last year and quietly released on the Immigration Department’s website.
Using Census data, it found that the jobless rate for Muslim men was more than double the national average and that only 57 per cent of Muslim males aged 15 and older had jobs compared with 68 per cent of all working-age men.
Suburbs with high Muslim concentrations such as Broadmeadows and Dallas had jobless rates of more than 15 per cent in 2006, said the report.
“In total, 58 per cent of Muslims earned less than $400 per week compared to 41 per cent of the Australian population,” it said.
The seven-person research team, led by Prof Terry Lovat, said that Muslims faced workplace barriers including poor English proficiency, difficulty having overseas qualifications recognised and cultural and religious issues.
Apparently, a higher-than-average unemployment rate can lead to a bombing that kills over 200 people. I’m sorry, but the unemployment rate here in the States is double for the African-American community, and nearly double for the Hispanic community. It is also quite high for women. And yet none of these groups – African-Americans, Hispanics, or women – have taken to strapping 1,000 kg. bombs into the backseat of their minivan in an attempt to blow up buildings and people.
Oddly enough, Osama Bin Laden put out an audio tape shortly after the Bali bombings which stated that the attack was a direct retaliation for support of the United States’ war on terror, and not due to the frustration in finding a good 9-5 job with quality health insurance, and a decent coffee club.
Herein lies the root of why it is utterly ridiculous for the United States to recognize religious holy days/months for radical Islamists facing trials for terrorism.
Last week, a U.S. military judge agreed to postpone the trials of five terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks, presumably out of respect for their Muslim holy period of Ramadan.
While our military courts are respecting the holy days celebrated by the terrorists, the terrorists have no intention of respecting that same religious period.
Just into the second day of Ramadan, Iraqi terrorists have killed 25 people.
Bombs in Shiite areas of Iraq claimed the lives of 25 people Sunday, the second day of the Muslim holy month Ramadan. An Iraqi soldier and a policeman also died in separate incidents.
The violence started in the morning, when a car bomb exploded outside a popular restaurant in the central city of Najaf, about 100 miles south of Baghdad, an official with Iraq’s Interior Ministry said. Five people were killed and 14 others were wounded.
Just before sunset, when Muslims break their daily Ramadan fast, three roadside bombs exploded within a few minutes of each other at the crowded al-Tameem market in a predominantly Shiite area in Baghdad’s southern outskirts, police officials in the capital said. Fifteen people were killed and 60 others wounded, police said.
Why are we respecting the religious holiday of people who have no respect for it themselves?
Muslim Files Discrimination Lawsuit Against NYPD, Claim They Won’t Hire Him Because He Discriminates Against Gays, Which is Discriminatory
Got all that right?
In a lawsuit recently filed against the New York Police Department, a man only identified as “Farhan Doe”, claims it is discriminatory for him not to be considered for hiring on the force just because he openly discriminates against homosexuals.
On an application for the job, Doe responded in the affirmative to the following question:
“Do you believe that homosexuals should be locked up?”
The fascinating part here is that Doe currently works as an auxiliary cop in Brooklyn. Perhaps they should be reviewing his application for signs of trouble now?
The New York Post reports that Doe magically changed his mind the following year when he re-applied, and was startled to learn that the Department wasn’t buying it (emphasis mine).
“They pro forma denied him again — saying he couldn’t possibly be a police officer,” the lawyer said. “The First Amendment is very clear, saying that you can’t discriminate against someone because they have a view you do not like,” he said.
While the NYPD could take action if he acted out in an anti-gay manner, they can’t bar Doe from the force for anti-gay thoughts, the lawyer said.
And yet, Doe would like to lock up gays because they have a view he does not like.
First, this sounds like he intentionally went back to apply the following year knowing full-well he’d be denied, but also knowing full-well his intent to file suit.
Second, it will be interesting to see if CAIR or the ACLU jumps aboard this lawsuit. Imagine the outrage had the NYPD hired someone who answered yes to the above question if the word ‘homosexuals’ was replaced by ‘Muslims’.
Shareholder to New York Times: “You’re Willing to Offend the Catholics Because They’re Not Going to Come and Kill You”
|New York Times Chairman, Arthur Sulzberger|
Last month, the New York Times accepted and ran an advertisement which bashed religion, and asked Catholic readers to consider leaving the church. Such an advertisement in itself does not show the Times religious bias. What does however, is the fact that the same newspaper refused to run a similar ad that asked practicing Muslims to do the same.
Via Fox News:
The New York Times is being accused of having a double standard when it comes to questioning religion, after it ran an ad calling on Catholics to leave their church, but nixed an ad making the same plea to Muslims.
The newspaper published an ad from Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation on March 9 which asked Catholics, “why send your children to parochial schools to be indoctrinated into the next generation of obedient donors and voters?” The ad went on to call loyalty to the faith misplaced “after two decades of sex scandals involving preying priests, church complicity, collusion and cover-up going all the way to the top.”
But in a story first reported by The Daily Caller, when Pamela Geller, a blogger and executive director of Stop Islamization of America, offered the same $39,000 for the Old Gray Lady to run an ad making a similar appeal to Muslims, the newspaper passed.
“This shows the hypocrisy of The New York Times, the “gold standard” in journalism, and its willingness to kowtow to violent Islamic supremacist intimidation,” Geller told FoxNews.com.
Responding to the heat brought on by the blatant hypocrisy, the New York Times claimed that they opposed the anti-Muslim ad because it could jeopardize the safety of American troops.
Fox News host Trace Gallagher reached out to the Times for comment, receiving the following explanation:
“The fallout from running this ad now could put U.S. troops and/or civilians in the [Afghan] region in danger.”
Now however, one shareholder at the New York Times has openly criticized their double-standard operation by suggesting that it is the company’s own safety they are looking out for.
Cliff Kincaid, Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism, and a shareholder in the company, confronted a group of executives at the Times annual shareholders meeting, accusing them of running the anti-Catholic ad because:
“You’re willing to offend the Catholics because they’re not going to come and kill you.”
That’s it in nutshell, is it not? The media is willing to report negatively about other religions, but refuse to cast a negative shadow on Islam. And fear is the overwhelming factor.
What the media should be doing is an introspection, asking themselves why they are afraid of offending Muslims. When they find that answer, maybe they can more accurately report on the events involving Islamic extremists.
Here is a larger excerpt from Kincaid’s report:
President Obama hasn’t seen a race card he’s not willing to play, and that includes his personal vendetta against Fox News. The petty feud has almost entirely been fabricated in the President’s mind, as he seems fixated on the sole network in mainstream media that isn’t in the tank for him.
President Barack Obama blamed Fox News for his political woes in a private meeting with labor leaders in 2010, saying he was “losing white males” who tune into the cable outlet and “hear Obama is a Muslim 24/7,” according to journalist David Corn’s new book, “Showdown.”
In “Showdown: The Inside Story of How Obama Fought Back Against Boehner, Cantor, and the Tea Party” — which hits bookstores on Tuesday — the Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones chronicles the White House from the 2010 midterm elections to the start of the 2012 campaign. The book focuses on key moments of Obama’s presidency, such as Osama bin Laden’s assassination, the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the Arab Spring, the debt ceiling crisis, and the president’s dealings with Congress.
Corn writes that after the midterm elections, Obama told labor leaders in December 2010 that he held Fox partly responsible for him “losing white males.”
“…Fed by Fox News, they hear Obama is a Muslim 24/7, and it begins to seep in…The Republicans have been at this for 40 years. They have new resources, but the strategy is old,” Corn recounted Obama as saying.
I’ve watched Fox News for quite some time (believe it or not I used to watch Olbermann), and I’ve never heard them once say Obama is a Muslim, let alone 24/7.
This just goes to prove one thing… Obama lies so frequently, he’s even willing to convince himself of things that are untrue.