Minnesota: Hijab-wearing sharia apologist running for Mayor of Rochester

News Ticker >

Minnesota: Hijab-wearing sharia apologist running for Mayor of Rochester


Ads by Revcontent
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+

Regina Mustafa says she hopes to be a voice for all of Rochester, but accuses critics of sharia of “fearmongering and hate.” In the second article below, she harshly criticizes Phillip Parish for saying that Islam is the “antithesis of the Constitution.” But it is. Islam means slavery and the U.S. Constitution is a document of freedom. Regina Mustafa is simply not being honest in contradicting this. If there were any enemedia reporters worthy of the name, they would challenge her on sharia oppression of women and non-Muslims, as well as its Jew-hatred and calls for violence. But no one will do that. If she is elected mayor of Rochester, Minnesota, the citizens of Rochester who voted for her will get what they deserve.

“Mustafa says she’ll run for mayor of Rochester,” by Randy Petersen, Post Bulletin, February 5, 2018:

Regina Mustafa says she hopes to be a voice for all of Rochester.

The founder of Community Interfaith Dialogue on Islam announced this morning that she is a candidate for Rochester mayor.

“I decided the mayoral race is the best fit for me,” she said. “I’ve had a vested interest in city government for awhile.”

In December, Mustafa said she planned to seek local political office but had not decided which position to pursue.

Earlier last year, she began a campaign for the 1st Congressional District after Rep. Tim Walz announced plans to run for Minnesota governor, but she suspended that campaign in October.

However, Mustafa said that didn’t end her desire to give back to her community.

“This city has given me so much, and I look forward to serving as Rochester’s next mayor and working to create a city that is welcoming and inclusive for all,” she said. “Affordable housing, a livable wage, and public transit will be top priorities.”

Mustafa moved to southern Minnesota 12 years ago from Philadelphia. She and her husband are raising two children, and she is pursuing a masters degree in Human Services from Winona State University — Rochester….

“Candidate under fire for calling Islam ‘antithesis of Constitution,’” by Heather J. Carlson, PostBulletin, January 19, 2018:

A long-shot Republican gubernatorial candidate is getting national attention for writing that he does not consider Islam a faith and that it is “the antithesis of the Constitution.”

Phillip Parrish, of Kenyon, wrote the comments in an email to Community Interfaith Dialogue on Islam founder Regina Mustafa. Mustafa, of Rochester, sent Parrish an email inviting him to sit down with her after learning he had recently attended a meeting featuring Usama Dakdok, an outspoken critic of Islam.

“I do not object to you attending his presentation, but wanted to know if you would like to speak to a Muslim about Islam. Since you have attended this talk about my faith, I figured you would also like to hear from a person who actually practices Islam,” wrote Mustafa, a former DFL candidate for the 1st Congressional District seat.

Parrish responded by saying he would be willing to meet but that “I separate Islam from the word faith because faith takes belief and Islam requires only submission.” He added that he would ask her to publicly denounce Sharia law and declare that “Islam, Sharia and the Quran are the antithesis of the U.S. Constitution.”

Mustafa posted the email exchanges on her Facebook page. Since then, Parrish’s response has drawn sharp criticism from civil rights organizations. The Southern Poverty Law Center wrote about Parrish’s comments on its “Hatewatch” blog. Muslim Advocates, a nonprofit based in Oakland, Calif., blasted Parrish’s remarks.

“Anti-Muslim bigotry like this emboldens those who would discriminate or commit acts of violence against Muslims. We’ve seen hate crimes, violence, and bigotry skyrocket as politicians have increased their attacks on Islam and Muslims,” said Muslim Advocates Policy Director Scott Simpson.

Mustafa has called on Parrish to drop out of the Republican gubernatorial race. In a press release, Parrish pushed back, saying he has no intention of leaving the race. In an interview, Parrish accused Mustafa of making a “disingenuous request” to meet with him in order to advance her own propaganda.

What is his response to being called anti-Muslim?

“I see myself as a person attempting to expose those who are attempting to set up rules and laws and regulations contrary to the U.S. Constitution,” Parrish said….

“It’s causing harm to people. Thousands of analysts like myself, thousands of law enforcement specialists have been trying to tell leadership this same message for over 20 years. And no one seems to want to listen or they live in some kind of utopic world of no, people really don’t think like that. They don’t really mean to cut somebody’s hand off because they stole something. They don’t really mean to put someone to death because they defiled themselves with an unclean woman. They don’t really mean to rape little boys on Thursday night because the imam gave them permission to do that,” Parrish said.

Mustafa rejected the idea that her invitation was in any way insincere. She said she is deeply disturbed by Parrish’s comments, saying they demonstrate a lack of understanding about Islam. She said Muslims in America have demonstrated a respect for both the U.S. Constitution and their religion and his comments are unfair to the Muslim men and women who have served in the U.S. armed forces.

“If you don’t think (Islam) is a faith, then my religious freedoms to you are negotiable and are at risk and I find that very alarming, and if he is saying that to his supporters, it’s the epitome of fear mongering and hate,” Mustafa said….

Rochester DFL Rep. Tina Liebling, a candidate for governor, called on Republican candidates to “denounce Mr. Parrish’s ignorant, islamophobic statement and pledge to encourage peace and understanding among Minnesotans regardless of race, religion, or national origin.”

Views: 21

Comment

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

LIGHTER SIDE

ALERT ALERT

Clinton Donor And Tax Cheat Tied To Russia

“Do as we say, not as we do.”

That seems to be the slogan for Hillary Clinton and her political allies, and it’s especially apt in light of new information about one of Clinton’s largest campaign donors.

While the left is still trying to attack President Trump and his family over unproven business dealings and largely debunked connections to Russia, a new report indicates that it was Hillary Clinton’s team who were doing those exact things.

“Fox News has learned that one of the top donors to the ‘Hillary Victory Fund’ (HVF) in 2016 was a Los Angeles-based attorney who is alleged to have misused company funds to create his own $22 million real estate portfolio,” that outlet reported on Thursday.

“He has also been considered by California to be one of the state’s biggest tax cheats, and allegedly has ties to the (Russian) Kremlin,” Fox continued.

The man’s name is Edgar Sargsyan. His deep pockets greatly benefited Clinton’s campaign, with contributions of at least $250,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund in 2016.

He was also in charge of an elite fundraising dinner to benefit Clinton, where donors paid $100,000 per couple just to attend the ritzy event. But in true Clinton fashion, the money apparently went missing.

Sargsyan is now “being sued by his former company for allegedly diverting those funds to start his own real estate company,” according to Fox.

Now, people are asking hard questions about Clinton’s buddy Sargsyan, including whether his contributions were part of a pay-to-play scheme and if he had shady connections to foreign governments.

“Nobody gave to the Hillary Victory Fund out of the goodness of their heart or some generalized desire to help 33 random state parties,” pointed out attorney Dan Backer from the Committee to Defend the President.

“They did so to buy access and curry influence — something the Clintons have been selling for nearly three decades in and out of government,” he continued.

Trying to buy political influence is sadly common, especially when it comes to the Clintons. What is raising more red flags than normal, however, is the evidence that Sargsyan is no run-of-the-mill campaign donor.

“The really scary question is, what did this particular donor with this strange web of connections hope to buy for his quarter-million dollars?” Backer asked Fox News.

That web of connections is strange indeed.

The Committee to Defend the President is now alleging that SBK, a major Sargsyan-linked company “is an investment firm that is affiliated with United Arab Emirates president, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan, and its international affiliate has business interests in Russia,” according to Fox.

“Among its dealings was a bid to finance $850 million for a major bridge project to connect Crimea with Russia,” the group claims.

“He worked for SBK, and SBK appears to have bid on some Crimean/Russian bridge project,” Backer said. “That’s usually an indicator of political favor and connections.”

It raises several chilling questions: Was Sargsyan paying a quarter million dollars to Clinton for political favors, and — more disturbingly — was that money actually from sources in Russia in order to smooth the way for its construction plans?

Nobody knows for sure. What is clear, however, is that there is a pattern of dirty money surrounding the Clintons, with the “Uranium One” and “Clinton Foundation” scandals just two of the most well-known examples.

“It reinforces how fast and loose the Clinton machine was when it came to ‘Hoovering up’ these megadonor checks, not just from questionable Hollywood and Wall Street elites but potentially from foreign influence peddlers using who knows what money,” Backer told Fox News.

“It reinforces the need to take a long hard look at not just the unlawful money laundering process, but the way in which they were solicited as well,” he continued. “The Clintons have never shown a great deal of concern for whomever it was cutting the checks — whether it’s foreign influence peddlers or Hollywood smut peddlers like Harvey Weinstein.”

If those claims are even partially true, then America dodged a bullet in November of 2016 — and it’s worth keeping the pile of foreign-connected Clinton scandals in mind the next time the left tries desperately to tie Donald Trump to Russia. Perhaps they should look in the mirror.

SLAVEHOLDER??

Washington Post Compares
Jeff Sessions To Slaveholder’

The Washington Post compared Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “slaveholders” after he quoted the Bible on Thursday while discussing his department’s policy of prosecuting all illegal immigrants who cross the border.

Sessions made the statement during a speech to law enforcement officers in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

WaPo ran a story entitled “Sessions cites Bible passage used to defend slavery in defense of separating immigrant families” by general assignment editor Keith McMillan and religion reporter Julie Zauzmer on Friday.

Rather than detailing the statistics Sessions cited in the speech that explain the immigration policy, the story quoted John Fea, a history professor at Messiah College in Pennsylvania.

“This is the same argument that Southern slaveholders and the advocates of a Southern way of life made,” Fea said.

Sessions spent much of the speech discussing the numbers behind current immigration policy, including separating families at the Southwest border.

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes,” Sessions said.

“Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent and fair application of the law is in itself a good and moral thing, and that protects the weak and protects the lawful.”

“The previous administration wouldn’t prosecute aliens if they came with children,” Sessions said.

“It was de-facto open borders if you came with children. The results were unsurprising. More and more illegal aliens started showing up at the border with children.”

Sessions laid out the numbers in the speech.

“In 2013, fewer than 15,000 family units were apprehended crossing our border illegally between ports of entry in dangerous areas of the country,” he said.

“Five years later, it was more than 75,000, a five-fold increase in five years. It didn’t even have to be their child that was brought, it could be anyone. You can imagine that this created a lot of danger.”

The U.S. has the “opportunity” to fix its broken immigration system now, Sessions said.

“I believe that’s it’s moral, right, just and decent that we have a lawful system of immigration,” he said. “The American people have been asking for it.”

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service