A Cointelpro aka Controlled opposition site 153 news posing as a Patriot free speech site exposed as apoligists for Islam. The problem is not Radical Islam its all of islam.
First, an apologist in this context is not someone who says “I’m sorry.” Oddly, it is just the opposite. It is someone who says “my thinking or belief (or that of another) is correct” and explains why. More technically, an apologist is a person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution. Generally speaking, apologists for Islam are either:
1) Uninformed about Islam, either purposefully or because of other priorities;
2) Feel they are informed but limit their sources of information to like minded individuals whose highest values are “moral equivalency” and “cultural diversity”;
3) Those who think so little of their own culture, country, or value system that any substitute is considered equal to or better than theirs; or
4) Are Muslims defending their own faith out of tradition, defending their “comfort zone”, or fearful of retribution by more devout fellow Muslims.
To be more specific, defense of Islam comes from a variety of groups of people:
1) Muslims generally, except possibly some of the very few who are inactive, not devout, “in name only” Muslims.
2) Those who are not religious and ignorantly believe all religions are the same. Therefore, they don’t think any “religion” or “ideology” should be criticised for any reason or they should all be criticised or marginalized equally.
3) Those, whether or not they are practicing Christians, whose dominant belief is “cultural diversity,” a midset that denies that one religion, one ideology, one set of human values could ever be better or worse than another’s. This is the same as “amorality”: The absence of the reality of rightness and wrongness, good or evil. They are moral relativists. They will defend the rights of the immoral. They are the creators of the the idea of “moral equivalency.”
4) Most in the media because most in the media are liberal moral relativists who promote cultural diversity and are not Christians or church goers.
5) Most Democrats and many Republicans (usually “moderate” or “liberal”) because they promote cultural diversity and big government which is generally contrary to individual freedoms and liberties, in concert with Islam. Under the banner of promoting “cultural diversity”, big government feels responsible for accommodating every form of human behavior and thinking in its “large tent” whether it is immoral, destructive, vile, or corrupt.
6) Most federal government bureaucrats (excluding most military) because they are secure in their jobs and get good pay for defending big government and the mindless inclusionism and amorality it promotes (see 5).
7) Many of the higher level officials in the military, the same who promoted internal policies that enabled the Fort Hood massacre (Obama purged many flag officers for their incompatible beliefs).
8) The entirety of the Obama administration and those associated with it, including especially Hillary Clinton and her close advisors.. Check out Eric Holders denial of even “radical” Islams complicity in the several recent attacks on the US.
9) Virtually ALL of the largest of the mainline religious denominations, including Methodists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians. Go to any of these denominational websites and perform a search of “Islam.” You will quickly learn of the naive and shockingly incomplete brief they supply about Islam, omitting any reference to the plethora of Islamic doctrine that calls for Islamic supremacism, its call for jihad against the infidel, Sharia and Islamic intolerance. Notable among denominations that in fact are literal fans of and defenders of Islam is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, known as Mormons. HERE is a link to a search of their website for “Islam.” The links demonstrate the deep respect Mormons have for Islam due in part to the many similarities Mormon leadership believe exist between Mormonism and Islam. There are Christian apologists, Lutheran apologists, Presbyterian apologists, Hindu apologists, etc.for Islam. Being an apologist is not a bad thing. Explaining or defending your religion to another person is a positive thing in most instances.
The problem occurs when the apologist is dishonest or ignorant about the content and real teaching of the religion he is defending. In the case of Islam, most apologists seem to omit, hide, or lie about (see Taqiyya) many of the historical teachings of Muhammad and the Qur’an with regard to tolerance (or lack thereof), supremacism, conquest, their unforgiving legal system, treatment of women and treatment of infidels. That is a big problem. Other than those “details” it is probably a very fine religion. As observed by one Islamic expert,“Much contemporary Muslim intellectual activity is aimed at masking the real intent of Islamist ideologues and movements behind a facade of fashionable Western leftist discourse. For many in the Western hard left, Westerners are reactionary oppressors while under-developed nations and minority groups in the West are oppressed victims. Western democracies are castigated as oppressive, racist, and neo-colonial, while Islamist are praised as representing the revolt of the oppressed against their (Western) oppressors. Radical Islamists, driven by a similar hatred of Western culture, especially its Judeo-Christian basis and its liberal tradition, have forged a bizarre alliance with Western postmodern leftists and have appropriated their discourse as a way of gaining sympathy in the West and of camouflaging their real objectives.” From “Global Jihad” by Patrick Sookhdeo, 2007, pages 15-16. It is amazingly ignorant and disingenuous of such liberals to ignore the huge differences between the traditional and increasingly popular violent, intolerant, supremacist Islamic doctrine and practice, and the freedoms uniquely enjoyed by the West. Strange bedfellows, indeed. Take a look at the second table in the “Who’s Who” section. You will get a sampling of what the truth is up against. Some who appear to be naive defenders of Islam may be so out of private, perhaps subliminal fear. See Threat and Intimidation: Parallels with the “Stockholm Syndrome.” What would General Patton tell us? Here is the ghost of the General on our reaction to Islam. The only thing that needs to be changed about this message is the unemployment rate.