Dearborn Mayor Sets Record Straight on CNN
In case you missed it, Dearborn Mayor John B. O’Reilly, Jr. took to the national airwaves Monday evening to set the record straight about our city, a week after Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle said Dearborn and Frankford, Texas are subject to Sharia law.
Dearborn Mayor O'Reilly speaks with CNN's Anderson Cooper.
O’Reilly did a nice job representing our city with CNN’s Anderson Cooper on AC 360 Monday night.
This is what Angle said at a rally of Tea Party movement supporters.
“We’re talking about a militant terrorist situation, which I believe isn’t a widespread thing, but it is enough that we need to address, and we have been addressing it,” Angle said according to audio of the rally obtained by the Washington Post. “My thoughts are these. First of all, Dearborn, Michigan, and Frankford, Texas, are on American soil, and under constitutional law. Not Sharia law. And I don’t know how that happened in the United States.”
Cooper called Angle out, too, pointing out that Frankford, Texas, is now part of the city of Dallas. All that remains in Frankford is a church. So we’re not sure where Angle is getting her information but her misrepresentations were on national TV for all to view.
O’Reilly sent the Nevada candidate a personal invitation to visit Dearborn and in his letter gave her a good history lesson, too. (You can read the entire letter HERE.) We doubt she will visit but she could at least call O’Reilly.
“I am afraid that many share the perception that Muslims have only recently immigrated to this area and are imposing their culture on our region,” O’Reilly writes in his letter to Angle. ”The truth is that Muslims have been in America since the Revolutionary War, fighting for our independence. The first mosque in the Detroit area was in Highland Park, in the center of Detroit, and was opened almost 100 years ago to serve automotive workers who were flocking to Detroit to earn the unheard of wage of $5 a day at the Ford Motor Co. Model T Plant. When Henry Ford built the still unrivalled Rouge Manufacturing Complex in Dearborn in the early 1920s, the second mosque was opened a short walk away from the plant. Muslims have been practicing their faith in our community for almost 90 years without incident or conflict. To suggest that they have taken over ignores the fact that Dearborn hosts 7 mosques and 60 Christian churches . . .”
” . . . Contrary to the Sharia Law misconception, there are Christina Evangelists who proselytize to Muslims 365 days a year without resistance or interference from anyone.”
You can watch the entire interview by clicking HERE.
October 22nd, 2010 at 3:54 pm
Reality…It’s Mark Levin, not Mark Levine. Levine is a whole different “dude”. Also, Glenn Beck (double ‘n’)…dude. Google search? How about a book about American history? That’s where I read my information and Throw’s words were almost exact to mine. Perhaps, Reality Bites, it is you who has an intimate relationship with Google, Snopes, and Al Gore (the inventor of the internet and global warming). I’m not accusing, just thinking perhaps.
October 22nd, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Great post kay,if it would have shown i wouldn’t have had to go through the trouble of exposing “false reality bites” lies. Do you notice how “false reality bites” failed to mention the danbury letter until people started pointing out the truth,he does what the state run media does and he keeps proving the old saying true, “liberals lie”. I figured i would get the typical liberal response of “the scary black man” and the typical racist leftist tactics,they still haven’t caught on yet that their smear tactics do not work anymore.
What will they do now?
They have relied on smearing and threats for years and the American people don’t buy into it anymore. I wish i could see “false reality bites” on election night sitting in his bedroom in his parents basement probably blogging on the huffington post about the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil dick chaney and how the last 8 years caused this mess and how dare the dumb racist tea baggers try to defeat the democrats.
Damn those racist tea baggers!
October 22nd, 2010 at 7:58 pm
“which is interesting, because Catholics haven’t been required to skip meat on Fridays for decades, now. ”
Are Muslim women required by the rules of the Islamic faith to wear a hijab?
October 23rd, 2010 at 10:08 am
I mentioned Thomas Jefferson’s interpretation, of the first Amendment. Jefferson’s clear fear of government advancing religion, is evident not only in the Danbury Letter. It is evident in the Virginia Acts and hundreds of letters. Mentioning only one letter seems to imply his fear was a singular act.
Jefferson’s distrust of organized religion was shared by Adams, Franklin, and Washington. The religious wars of Europe and England destroyed the social fabric of an entire continent. This economic and social destruction created the impetus for many people to leave Europe and come to America. The Founders were clear they did not want to repeat this.
I thought Conservatives were for smaller government?
I thought conservatives were for financial thrift?
I thought conservatives were for equality before the law?
The Tea Party is not for equality of man before the law, fiscal thrift, or smaller government.
It is simply the ragged fringes of the Republican Party.
The Tea Party wants bigger government when it advances corporations, and the military industrial complex
The Tea Party proposes no defined plan on how to manage revenues, or cut spending.
The Tea Party does not believe in the equality of man before the law
Sure the tea Party flaps their gums, thats really easy to do. Ask them a specific question on budgeting, accounting, history or economics and they go right to ad hominem attacks.
Really Jefferson was not for getting religion the hell out of government ?
Prove me wrong with facts not the blatherings of a white identity movement.
October 23rd, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Mister Bites, I think it’s interesting you attack Ayaan Hirsi Ali thus: “She even lied about her name !” Are YOU really being honest about who you are and what you stand for? A “conservative,” you say? I wonder. Conservatives aren’t all that easy to impersonate.
For example, in your comments you champion certain groups for the sake of their victim status: “Persons of color,” Latinos, single mothers, community groups, environmentalists, and “a multicultural society.” You also stick up for protection of public education, government oversight of the market, “the national infrastructure,” and the ACLU’s tortured misinterpretation of “the separation of church and state.” Maybe you’re right and maybe you’re wrong to hold those opinions. But these are all liberal buzz words. Conservatives just don’t talk this way.
As for what you hate, that includes the Patriot Act, a strong military, middle class and working class people, and/or the Tea Party and/or uneducated whiners and/or Christians, Christian nutcases, crazy christians, (see a pattern here?) Sharon Angle, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax, Drudge, newsbusters, jihadwatch, debbie schussle, the Old Testament and people who attend “Tractor pulls, banjo conventions . . . lawn mower races, and “NASSCAR” (sic). Not only does this enemies list of yours not indicate conservative thinking of any kind, it shows a habit of using highly bigoted, narrow-minded liberal stereotyping. I’m just saying.
And another thing: Middle class, working class, patriotic people by definition are not whiners. That’s why they pay their own fares to Washington and clean up after themselves.
But you really confuse me, Mr. Bites, when you call yourself a student of Objective Reality and reason. Because if that’s really so, then how could you NOT be aware of objective reports showing that “Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class”? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html
Your views are not reasoned at all. They’re prejudices, and bad ones.
Anyway, I did notice your comments include this refrain, and I quote:
“There is no Sharia law in Dearborn.” “
“There is no Sharia law in Dearborn. There will never be Sharia law in Dearborn.”
“There is no Sharia law in Dearborn.”
Which maybe is all you wanted to say to us after all.
October 23rd, 2010 at 11:24 pm
TR Clancy…. Look well reasoned but incorrect.
Conservatives do not support a massive out of control military industrial complex.
Conservatives do not support open ended military engagements
Conservatives do not support nation building
Conservatives do not support government incursion into civil liberties i.e. Patriot Act, Department of homeland security.
Conservatives do not care if someone wears a hijab
Conservatives believe border security is a two way street. Strong Border enforcement, enforcement of existing laws against employment of illegals.
Conservatives support strong national infrastructure (limits of such negotiable)
Black people have been denied basic civil rights , women were denied the right to vote, native americans were screwed, Latinos are on one hand arrested for being illegal, and on the other hand multiple industries exist in America totally dependent on, their employment. Many people in this country were and continue to be discriminated based simply on their religion. America has not always been a perfect place. It is important to celebrate our place of honor among the nations of the world. That being said we must never forget the road we travelled to get here.
Your implication that two open ended wars, nation building, and a 800 billion dollar defense budget are synonymous with patriotism is false. The founding Fathers simply distrusted and feared a national standing army. The second and third amendments directly speak to this distrust. After having accepted the British surrender, and concluding the revolutionary War Washington disbanded the Army. Also the Army is funded by Congress and under the control of the President by constitutional mandate. The Founding Fathers did not fetishize the military. Conservatives value the contribution of the military, and recognize its purpose in a dangerous world. That being said a department of defense budget that accounts for 44% of taxable revenue is excessive.
Canals, roads,land acquisition, and Federal oversight of banks were important functions of the early national government. The limits are debatable, but to deny the
role of government to stimulate national infrastructure is ludicrous. Conservatives do not deny the need of government to support strong infrastructure.
The Patriot Act is not really that patriotic. The Department of Homeland Security is one of the fastest growing sectors of the budget, and its continued growth must be scrutinized.
I support an immediate end to the nation building in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, and Packistan. A strong military is not synonymous with open ended support of the military industrial complex. This is conservative.
Civil liberties must be protected against encroaching government usurpation. The Patriot Act and Department of Homeland Security are massive governmental trojan horses. Challenging the Open ended support of the Policing Powers of the state is a conservative value.
Allowing people to worship and engage their religion in the public square is a conservative value. Trying to advance one religion over another is not. Whining that girls wear hijabs in school is not conservative.
The continued subsidy of corporate supported illegal immigration, big military, the increasing policing powers of the state, international third party trade oversight, international unregulated financial markets, and denial of government’s role in infrastructure are really massive tax payer subsidies to transnational corporations.
The Tea Party focus on government discretionary spending which is only 16% of the fiscal budget for 09′ including tarp, is disingenuous. Furthermore campaign rhetoric limits discretionary spending cuts to programs that directly effect lower income people. how can you be a movement against spending and not campaign against spending? This is not conservative this is simple nonsense.
Limbaugh, and those other tools do not want to cut spending, end illegal immigration, balance the budget or shrink the government. They simply want to preach a white identity movement and line their pockets. They are not conservative at all. As for hating christians bah. I am as conservative in regards to Christ as one can get. Christ was not a big fan of divorce, war, religious hypocrites, money changers, and liars. Rush limbaugh to me is every on of these things.
October 24th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
“TR Clancy” nice job on exposing this liberal,he is one of those phonies that sits in his parents basement and calls in to radio shows and poses as a conservative and then puts out his liberal agenda as soon as he gets on the air. He has been exposed by a number of blogger’s on here for his. All he does is twist the truths and facts into falsehoods to try to fit is liberal utopia dream world,itys what all liberals do. Since they cant argue or accept facts all they do is tell you how or what a person really meant,its how they have attacked the constitution for years,if the constitution says the sky is blue the liberals will say that it meant to say the sky is green and then they will have an activist judge put into law that the sky is green.
There really is no sense in arguing with a liberal because ALL LIBERALS LIE.
October 24th, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Throw The bUms out name one falsehood you cant your wrong. Keep saying it dont make it truer your not a conservative your a brokedown fascist who is a poor little victim. Come on use some more words like liberal, utopia, state controlled media, activist judge, etc. Take one 500 level govt, or econ class in college and tell me one viable solution the Tea Party offers you cant cuz all you know is what you hear on am radio.
The Tea Party is not conservative. Name one falsehood any blogger has argued factually against one of my arguments. Your the person who supports a platform that denies evolution, global warming, believes fossil fuels are renewable, that black homeowners caused the foreclosure contagion, that we should nation build in the middle east, religion and government are not separate. What conservative values of equality, liberty, and smaller govt do you support? Traditional christian values and morals, equality of man before law, personal liberty, and smaller is the bedrock of a conservative mindset.
If you have been married 3 times you are not conservative
If you believe that 48 cents of every tax dollar should go to the military your not conservative
If you deny basic scientific concepts because you refuse to engage in critical thinking and refuse to use god given reason your not a conservative
If you refuse to be a steward of the earth your not a conservative
If you believe that the national security state should continue to erode personal liberties your not a conservative
if you dont support the concept of free public education for children run by local school boards your not a conservative
This is a fact your concept of government is not conservative but corporatist. It is simply a giant subsidy to transnational corporate bodies. Socialized risk and private wealth. PROVE ME WRONG. GLEN BECK IS A SHILL FOR TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS.
Dude you are so lost
you cant even rebut one of my claims
your arguments are weaker than your chinline
October 24th, 2010 at 10:42 pm
Throw and Clancy, I was going to respond but you are both so much better at it than I. I enjoyed all of your posts. Very well said.
October 25th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Our Mayor has stated that Christians prostlytize every day to Muslims in Dearborn. The only case I am aware of includes that pastor who apparently baptized a student-age boy during the summer. That certainly raised a lot of resistance.
Are there any Christians reading this who actually try to preach the Christian gospel to Muslims in Dearborn? Can you please comment here? My impression is that you would be met with anger and threats of violence. Please name your church for verification purposes.
Thanks!
October 25th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
. … I was going to respond to Reality Bites… but i have no facts, I only have regurgitated loaded phrases and half reasoned logic.
What, facts who needs facts?
Who needs discourse?
Everything I require is reveled to me daily between 12-3 on The El Rushbo show. Thank you Throw the Bums out for educating Kay on the simplicity of answering facts with ad hominem attacks.
Don’t ever think that we live in a complex world globally interconnected and fragile. Continue to think we live in a 18th century agrarian economy, with local shopkeepers, and white picket fences.
Whenever anybody presents a fact, contrary to your neatly arranged reality, simply accuse them of being agents of a state sponsored media, or better yet question their patriotism. Because nothing screams patriotism louder than declaring yourself a victim of the socialist machinations of Barrack Hussien Obama.
October 27th, 2010 at 10:53 pm
Someone asked above if women are actually required by their Muslim faith to wear the hijab. The accurate answer is…for some women, yes. Many will say that wearing the hijab is a choice for the woman herself, and the choice is first exercised when the young woman reaches maturity. I know one Muslim family where the father didn’t like his daughters to wear the hijab at too young an age, because they couldn’t understand what they were choosing. At first glance that appears to be allowing the young woman a free choice, but even with his good intentions, that father is exercising a lot of control over his daughter’s choices.
On the other side of the coin, there are fathers and imams who don’t even pretend to offer females a choice. A woman I spoke to last year told me she had to wear the hijab because ‘her religion requires it.’ She only was told that by her imam after she was fifty years old. The imam had first pressured her daughter to wear that garment, and the mother followed.