Brigitte Gabriel Explains How New ISIS Propaganda Video Threatens America “In Near Future”

Published on Sep 20, 2014 by RightSightings2

New ISIS Propaganda Video Appears to Have U.S. Or Canadian Narrator

Changing the world, one step at a time – Q&A with advocate Brigitte Gabriel

Brigittebook-web-pix-141aa_566_356_c1by Noga Gur-Arieh:

Brigitte Gabriel (49,) a bestselling author, activist, a leading expert on global Islamic terrorism, and founder and President of ACT! for America, has one fascinating life story. She was born in Lebanon to a Maronite Christian family, and spent her childhood in amid the Lebanese Civil War. When she was 10, Islamic/Palestinian militants launched an assault on a Lebanese military base near her family house, destroying her home leaving her wounded. She then spent seven years living underground in a bomb shelter, with no sanitary systems, electricity or running water.

Her only life line was Israel who provided medical help, and protection during those years in the bomb shelter. Later in 1982 when Israel invaded Lebanon her mother was seriously injured by Muslim/Palestinian rocket and was taken to Zefat hospital for treatment. For her mother it was a life saving experience, for Brigitte it was a life changing experience.  Gabriel was surprised by the humanity shown by the Israelis to their enemies who were brought there for treatment such as the Palestinian and Muslims terrorists, in contrast to the constant propaganda against the Jews she saw as a child.

She moved to Israel in 1984 and worked as news anchor for World News, an Arabic-language evening news broadcast of Middle East Television based in Jerusalem. In 1989 she immigrated to the United States. After 911 Brigitte realized that the Islamic radicals she thoughts left behind in the Middle East have now come to America.  She launched ACT! for America a non-profit, non partisan organization that educates and empowers citizens to help play a role in enhancing public safety. Today,ACT! has 280,000 members and 875 chapters nationwide including chapters in 11 countries around the world.

You were born in Lebanon, in times of constant war with Israel. What did you feel about Israel and Israelis as a child, and when did your opinion change?

“By the time I was born into Lebanon the population had shifted from majority Christians to majority Muslims because of the Islamic birth rate. That situation was aggravated by the influx of Palestinian refugees who were majority Muslims. That tipped the scale and brought the haters of Israel together hoping to use Lebanon as a launching pad to attack Israel and drive the Jews into the sea. The only thing standing in their way was Lebanese democracy.

As a child I was surrounded by voices on television nightly news and news radio talking about the horrible things the Israelis were doing to the “poor Palestinians”. At my home, however, hatred was never taught nor practiced. I lived in the Christian town of Marjayoun on the border with Israel.

In 1975 the combined forces of the PLO and the Muslims bombed my home bringing it down burying me under the rubble wounded. I ended up in a hospital for two and half months and later ended up living in a bomb shelter with my parents for 7 years till 1982 when Israel invaded Lebanon.

Since 1975 as we were surrounded and bombed daily and nightly by the PLO/Muslim armies, and Israel was our only life line. Few people from my town went to Israel and begged for help. Israel started coming in the middle of the night bringing food for the children, as well as blankets, bombs shelters and weapons for the Christian military. So since I was a 10 year old child I knew that Israel was our friend and protector from the Islamists and PLO. However in the rest of Lebanon, they looked at Israel as the invader and looked at us as traitors working with the enemy. “

Can you tell a little bit about your childhood in Lebanon? About a leadership that worshiped violence and called for death to the Jews?

“The first 10 years of my life were ideal. I was born into a very civilized country. Beirut was Paris of the Middle East. Lebanon was the Switzerland of the Middle East. Because of the influence of the majority Christians who were good in business, in education, in the arts as well as great hospitable warm people who valued life and family Lebanon prospered. Unfortunately, Lebanon was the only small Christian country in the Middle East and had bought into the whole Arab nationalism thinking if we side with the Arabs we will be protected as “Arabs” as a part of the “Arab Ummah,” Arab nation. The Christians in Lebanon learned the hard way that we were all along considered infidels due to our Judeo Christian heritage.

Despite all that, the culture of worship of death is only an Islamic culture and progressively got worse as the Muslims expanded and drove the Christians out of Lebanon, and now we see out of the Middle East whether in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Bethlahem or Egypt. Today’s Christians in Lebanon would leave in a heart beat if they were able to. The ones who are still there are stuck.”

What brought you to fight against radical Islam and its impacts of Western Civilization?

“I am an eye witness to terror. I am the Anne Frank who lived to tell about it. I know what happens where people turn a blind eye to terror thinking it is not going to happen to me, it is all the way over there. Now that I live in America, I came from “over there”. After September 11th I realized that those radicals I left over there have followed me here. On September 11th my two young daughters came home from school as I was glued to the TV screen watching the images fo the attacks of that day, watching the images of the World Trade Center collapse crying. My youngest daughter looked at me and asked “Mommy why did they do this to us?”. She reminded me of me as a child her age, laying in a hospital bed in Lebanon, looking up at my father asking him the same question. My father’s answer was: “They hate us because we are Christians. The Muslims consider us infidels and they want to kill us.”

I learned since I was a 10 year old little girl that I was wanted dead simply because of the faith I was born into. I had to look into my daughter’s eyes and repeat to her what my daddy told me: “They hate us because they consider us infidels and they want to kill us.” That day was my defining moment. That day I was born as an activist. That day I vowed that I will do everything I can to make sure that my daughter will never have to look into her child’s eyes and tell him or her what my daddy told me and what I had to repeat to her. That day I found my purpose!”

What is your final goal? What are you trying to achieve?

“I am trying to wake up Americans to stand up against evil. When evil goes unchecked, Evil grows like a monster and spreads worldwide. When Christian blood was shed on the streets of Beirut and Jewish blood was shed on the streets of Tel Aviv no one cared. Today innocent people’s blood is being shed all over the world by the same hatred driven radicals who have no conscious, who are willing to kill their own children in order to kill those of us whom they consider infidels. I want to ignite a fire in the heart of every apathetic person to make them realize their responsibility to the universe and to each other as human beings to stop evil whenever we see it, identify it and fight it.

I do not come to this from a Christian point of view. I come to this as a human being and a citizen of the world who has a moral duty to be kind to others and treat others the way I want to be treated and make sure we leave this world a better place than we found it for our children and their children. As someone who comes from the Middle East I appreciate the freedom that America’s constitution gives me to express my views and rally others to stand up and speak up against evil.”

Read more at Jewish Journal

Brigitte Gabriel supports Israel as the vanguard against Islamism:

Uploaded on Apr 30, 2010 by DemoCast

 

GABRIEL: ISIS is a threat beyond Iraq, with Shariah as worldwide aim

A member of an Iraqi volunteer forces group joins training near the Imam Ali shrine in the southern holy Shiite city of Najaf, Iraq, Thursday, June 26, 2014, after authorities urged Iraqis to help battle insurgents. Shiite militias responding to a call to arms by Iraq’s top cleric are focused on protecting the capital and Shiite shrines. (AP Photo/Jaber al-Helo)

A member of an Iraqi volunteer forces group joins training near the Imam Ali shrine in the southern holy Shiite city of Najaf, Iraq, Thursday, June 26, 2014, after authorities urged Iraqis to help battle insurgents. Shiite militias responding to a call to arms by Iraq’s top cleric are focused on protecting the capital and Shiite shrines. (AP Photo/Jaber al-Helo)

Washington Times , Brigitte Gabriel, June 26, 2014:

There is a great deal of confusion and ignorance about the jihadist organization ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) which has been waging a terror campaign in those two nations for some time now, culminating most recently in the seizure of Iraq’s second largest city, Mosul.

ISIS isn’t acting out of anger over borders or “politics” as the West understands the term. ISIS has a specific goal in mind and that is the formation of an Islamic state ruled by Shariah.

This is very important to understand because this is a common goal of all the major jihadist organizations across the world. It is shared by al Qaeda, Hamas, Lashkar e Taiba, Abu Sayyef, Jemaah Islamiyah, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab and others. The shared goal transcends any disagreements over borders and pure politics.

For instance, Israel could evaporate tomorrow and the overriding goal of the formation of Islamic states ruled by Shariah would not change a bit. It’s based in their thousand-year-old doctrine, which is far more fundamental and overarching than mere political ideology.

If we ever hope to win this war against radical Islam we better understand that the goal of establishing an Islamic state ruled by Shariah is based on doctrine and not just ideology.

Islamic doctrine is not derived from the thoughts or ideological vision of a man or woman brought to the fore in recent years. Islamic doctrine is based on the Islamic trilogy, the Koran, the Hadith and the Sira.

The Koran is the central religious text of Islam, believed by Muslims to be a direct revelation from Allah. The Hadith is a series of traditions documenting the teachings, deeds and sayings of the prophet Muhammad. The Sira is the biography of Muhammad, considered to have been the perfect man who set an example for all Muslims to follow always. In order for an individual to be a good Muslim, it is not enough for him to worship Allah, he must worship Allah in the same way that Muhammad did.

The name given to Islamic doctrine is Shariah. Not only does Shariah form the basis of the doctrine to which jihadists, such as those of ISIS, adhere, it is also the common goal of jihadists to establish rule by Shariah in an Islamic state.
All other considerations — economic, political and military — take a back seat to adhering to and establishing Shariah.

It is this doctrinal basis that is the key to understanding the threat from jihad.
Too often the West becomes tied up in contemporary considerations and issues that have nothing to do with doctrine and assign too much significance to them.
Islamic doctrine — Shariah — transcends geography, politics and even different Islamic sects. It is the common thread that ties Boko Haram in Nigeria to ISIS in Iraq and Abu Sayyef in the Philippines to Lashkar e Taiba in Kashmir.

Jihad is not a local phenomenon. When a variety of terrorist groups all wage violence for the same reasons, with the same goals, this should be considered a clue that there is something more at work here than just “local” conflicts.
Make no mistake — ISIS does not just pose a threat to Iraq. History has shown that when an Islamic state ruled by Shariah is established, such as Taliban Afghanistan, that state becomes a launching pad for jihad elsewhere.
Already we have seen reports that American jihadis have joined ISIS to fight alongside jihadists from around the globe. While the conflict in Iraq is portrayed in the Western media as a civil war, the truth is that most of the ISIS fighters are not Iraqi. They are jihadi warriors from around the world, including from the West.

What happens when these jihadists head home? Will they leave the war behind in Iraq and Syria? Or will they bring jihad home?
In warfare, your enemy’s reality becomes your reality and you must go to great lengths to understand your enemy. Unfortunately, we have largely failed on that score as a nation.

Our elected and appointed officials must come to terms with the doctrinal basis for jihad so we can properly and effectively defend America, protect American lives and face our enemies.

Brigitte Gabriel is an international terrorism analyst and the president of ACT for America.org.

Terror Expert Accuses CNN of ‘Biasly’ Editing Her Contentious Segment About Muslim Extremism

By Billy Hallowell:

Author and terrorism expert Brigitte Gabriel is accusing CNN of “completely editing” and misrepresenting her views during a prerecorded interview that aired on Sunday’s “Reliable Sources.”

Gabriel clashed with Linda Sarsour, director of the Arab American Association of New York, during the segment in question, battling over purported “fear-mongering” and Gabriel’s views on Islamic extremism.

Waging allegations of selective editing on her Facebook page Sunday, Gabriel said that some of her explanations during the discussion were axed in an effort to fit an agenda.

“It was discouraging that Reliable Sources, a CNN show about media bias, biasly edited this pre-taped interview between me and Linda Sarsour,” she wrote. “They edited the discussion down to fit their usual pro Islamist bias.”

BG

She continued: “They couldn’t publicly let me dominate the debate, therefore the best parts were left on the cutting room floor, including irrelevant and hostile comments by Linda Sarsour — when my logical arguments were going against her.”

Gabriel then shared some of the sentiments she claims were cut out of the discussion, noting that she had highlighted there are currently 44 conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims raging across the globe. Sarsour, she said, was so angry that at one point she reportedly called Gabriel a “bigot,” forcing host Brian Stelter “to stop her.”

While Gabriel claimed CNN filmed for 30 minutes, the appearance ended up being 11 minutes long, though it is not uncommon for media outlets to tape and then pare down segments to fit programmatic needs.

In the final clip that aired Sunday, Gabriel is seen echoing recent comments she’s made about Islam, questioning where moderate Muslims are in addressing rampant extremism around the globe. The initial comments came in response to a Muslim student’s question at a Heritage Foundation forum about Benghazi.

“The moderate Muslims, they can organize. Where are their collective voices?,” she asked. “Where are the voices of the moderate Muslims speaking when girls kidnapped by Boko Haram disappear and we still do not know where they are?”

Sarsour responded that there are many moderate Muslims that speak out, but suggested that they aren’t always given media coverage.

“There are people out there that stood up on Boko Haram, on terrorism, on 9/11. There are national Muslim organizations who continue to day in and day out put out statements,” Sarsour said. “Is the media covering it? I don’t have control over the media to cover these stories.”

But she wasn’t done there. The activist seemingly took Gabriel’s comments personally, adding: “And I don’t have to prove to anyone that I am an American, born and praised in Brooklyn, New York, and that my parents chose to come to the United States.”

Watch the heated clash below:

 

Read more at The Blaze

Brigitte Gabriel and Zuhdi Jasser disagree on the idea of instilling Jeffersonian Democratic Ideals in the Middle East

In the first video they seem to agree on the nature of threat from the rise in Islamic terrorism and lack of moderate Muslim condemnation of it. In the second video however a point of contention arises over why moderates are not speaking out. Zuhdi believes it is due to a lack of committed, sustained American leadership to help Muslims “evolve into a Jeffersonian type Democracy” over a period of generations (nation building) “Brigitte is shaking her head “No”. She says you must first confront the ideology driving radicalization. Watch…

Brigitte Gabriel Explains the Rise of Jihad

 

Why has jihadist threat escalated in last 3 years?

 

 

Washington Post Engages in Propaganda Exercise against Benghazi Conference

timthumb (7)Accuracy in Media, June 17, 2014, By James Simpson:

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank wrote a column on Monday titled “Heritage’s ugly Benghazi panel,” portraying a forum held the same day at the Heritage Foundation, hosted by the newly formedBenghazi Accountability Coalition, as nothing more than an anti-Islamic hate-fest. This was a serious panel with numerous, widelyrecognized experts, a couple of whom were also members of Accuracy in Media’s Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. CCB’s April report, “How America Switched Sides in the War on Terror,” madeinternational headlines.

That report took some serious skin. Diane Sawyer, Bob Woodward, and other stalwarts of the mainstream media, have taken Hillary Clinton to task over Benghazi. With Heritage and others now picking up the baton, something clearly needed to be done. They can’t have Hillary’s chances in 2016 threatened by that Benghazi “old news.” As Hillary herself said, “What difference, at this point, does it make!?”

Enter Dana Milbank, WaPo’s hit “journalist,” who sees Joseph McCarthy, and racist bigots behind every conservative door. He could not, and did not, dispute the facts raised during this afternoon-long forum. Instead he used a now-standard device of the left when confronted with uncomfortable truths. The discussion and topic was discredited by simply describing what was said in a presumptuous and mocking tone. It is a clever way to discredit facts in the reader’s mind without actually disputing the facts. So for example, he wrote:

“The session, as usual, quickly moved beyond the specifics of the assaults that left four Americans dead to accusations about the Muslim Brotherhood infiltrating the Obama administration, President Obama funding jihadists in their quest to destroy the United States, Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton attempting to impose Shariah blasphemy laws on Americans and Al Jazeera America being an organ of ‘enemy propaganda.’”

Most of the above, of course, is true. President Obama did fund the Libyan opposition, which was known to have al Qaeda ties, and those same jihadists turned around and attacked the Benghazi Special Mission Compound, killing Americans. He blatantly supported the Muslim Brotherhood in the misnamed Egyptian “Arab Spring” where one of America’s most reliable Muslim allies, Hosni Mubarak, was deposed.

Obama and Clinton are certainly doing nothing to stop the spread of Shariah in America, and the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the Obama administration.Another report out Monday quoted Mohamed Elibiary, an advisor to the Homeland Security Department and Muslim Brotherhood supporter, writing in a tweet, “As I’ve said b4, inevitable that ‘Caliphate’ returns…” Finally, anyone even remotely familiar with Al Jazeera knows it is an Islamist propaganda organ. The fact that it occasionally does a better job of reporting news than the American mainstream media is simply a reflection of just how bad the American media have become.

But apparently Milbank’s job is not to delve into the facts. Instead, his job is to discredit Obama’s detractors. So he used another standard leftist device as well. He found a convenient straight man to play the victim, innocently asking questions and making statements designed to provoke a predictable response, which could then be attacked with the usual leftist rhetoric. In this case, he utilized a Muslim woman named Saba Ahmed. He wrote, “Saba Ahmed, an American University law student, stood in the back of the room and asked a question in a soft voice…” He quoted her as saying:

“We portray Islam and all Muslims as bad, but there’s 1.8 billion followers of Islam… We have 8 million-plus Muslim Americans in this country and I don’t see them represented here.”

So, of course, the fact that the forum was not packed with Muslims implies it had to be biased. Substitute “white privilege,” “racism,” “McCarthyism,” or any of the other familiar leftist shibboleths. If you can’t discredit the message, smear the messengers. Ahmed also performed another, perhaps more important service, she changed the subject away from the disaster that was Benghazi and forced the panel to make it all about her bogus concerns.

As described by Milbank, one of the participants, Brigitte Gabriel, immediately “pounced” on Ahmed. Gabriel, who grew up in Lebanon during the civil war and saw first hand what the Islamists did there, founded Act for America to educate Americans on the threat from radical Islam.

Except that Gabriel didn’t pounce. She didn’t even respond. A partial video of the forum, posted at Media Matters of all places, and reposted at Mediaite.com revealed that instead, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney gave a very measured, careful and respectful response. Then Gabriel “pounced.” But even then she didn’t pounce at all. Finally, Milbank selectively edited Ahmed’s question as well. He mischaracterized the entire exchange, which was very respectful. Here is the video.

Milbank described Gabriel’s response to Ahmed as though it was the height of absurdity. He selectively reported her response that “180 million to 300 million” Muslims are “dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization,” that the “peaceful majority were irrelevant in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001… Most Germans were peaceful, yet the Nazis drove the agenda and as a result, 60 million died.”

This is all true as well. The peaceful Muslims—and there are no doubt many—are just as passive and impotent as everyday Germans were while the Nazis were killing Jews during WW II, but Milbank made it sound as though she had committed a crime: “she drew a Hitler comparison,” he gasped. What is wrong with that? It is a good analogy. He didn’t mention all the other analogies she drew, including mass murder committed by Japanese and Soviet communists, where the people were similarly powerless.

But we must ask a larger question. What was Saba Ahmed, the innocent, soft-spoken American University “student,” doing there? It turns out Ahmed is more than just a “student.” She has a lobbying firm in Washington, DC. She once ran for Congress while living in Oregon, where she went missing for three days over a failed relationship, according to family members.

She came to the aid of a family friend, the Christmas tree bomber, who attempted to set off a vanload of explosives in a downtown Portland park where Christmas revelers were celebrating. The bomb was actually a dummy, part of an FBI sting investigation.

After losing the Democratic primary, she even switched sides, becoming a registered Republican. But she never switched loyalties. She spoke against the war in Iraq at an Occupy rally in Oregon, has worked on the staff of Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy (VT) and has been a Democratic activist for a long time—not exactly the innocent “student” portrayed by Milbank. A 2011 article describing her odd Congressional campaign stated:

Ahmed, who says she’s been recently lobbying Congress to end U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan, said that ‘Obviously I am not a traditional politician.’

Saba-AhmedObviously… Gabriel saw right through her act and confronted her. “Are you an American?” she asked, and told her that her “political correctness” belongs “in the garbage.”

Milbank characterized it all as a pile-on against this one meek, lone voice of reason. He went on to further ridicule the forum and its participants, observing among other things:

“[Talk show host and panel moderator, Chris] Plante cast doubt on whether Ambassador Chris Stevens really died of smoke inhalation, demanding to see an autopsy report.

(Many claim he was raped and tortured. An autopsy report would settle the issue, but of course the Obama administration won’t release it.)

“Gabriel floated the notion that Stevens had been working on a weapons-swap program between Libya and Syria just before he was killed.”

(That was apparently the real reason behind the entire fiasco.)

“Panelist Clare Lopez of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi said the perpetrators of the attack are ‘sipping frappes with journalists in juice bars.’”

This last comment was particularly outrageous. Milbank makes Lopez’s statement sound absurd, worthy of ridicule, but in fact CNN located the suspected ringleader of the terrorists involved in the Benghazi attack and interviewed him for two hours at a prominent hotel coffee bar in Benghazi. FBI Director James Comey was grilled in a Congressional hearing about it. Congressmen Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) demanded to know how CNN could locate the terrorists so easily while the FBI couldn’t. Just today it was reported that that same suspected ringleader of the attack on the compound in Benghazi, Ahmed Abu Khatallah, was captured in Libya and is being brought to the U.S. on a ship.

Lopez is a former career CIA case officer and expert on the Middle East. Yet here is Milbank trying to make her look like some kind of yahoo. But one doesn’t have to dig too deep to discover who the real yahoo is.

Milbank’s trump card was Ahmed. It was almost certainly a setup. Milbank found an activist he knew could play her part well. She feigned a humble, meek, ignorant college student who made a single observation and became the “victim,” whose harsh treatment Milbank could then excoriate, while discrediting a panel of distinguished experts that included Gabriel, Lopez, Andrew McCarthy—who prosecuted the case against the Blind Sheikh, the World Trade Center bombing mastermind—and many others.

Even Politico’s Dylan Byers and CNN’s Jake Tapper are calling foul:

Dylan Byers tweet

Tapper tweet

Meanwhile, the pink elephant in the room was the massive intelligence, military, foreign policy and leadership failure that Benghazi represents for the Obama administration, and by extension, the absolutely inexcusable incompetence—or worse—of Hillary Clinton’s State Department.

Like most of the Democrats’ media shills, Dana Milbank lies quite well, but they are lies nonetheless. We are well advised to recognize them as such. Hillary Clinton should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. She, along with Obama and many other Democrats, should instead find themselves under the microscope in a serious criminal investigation. I won’t hold my breath, however.

James Simpson is an economist, businessman and investigative journalist. His articles have been published at American Thinker, Accuracy in Media,Breitbart, PJ Media, Washington Times, WorldNetDaily and others. His regular column is DC Independent Examiner. Follow Jim on Twitter & Facebook

*************

 

Benghazi Panelist’s Fiery Response to a Muslim Student’s Question That Made the Audience Erupt in Cheers

The Blaze, By Erica Ritz:

Author and terrorism expert Brigitte Gabriel, the CEO of ACT! for America, spoke heatedly at the Heritage Foundation’s Benghazi panel on Monday after being asked a question by a Muslim law student from American University. Gabriel’s response made the audience erupt in cheers, with some even jumping to their feet. But that’s not the end of it: the student herself even elicited applause at the end.

“I know that we portray Islam and all Muslims as bad, but there are 1.8 billion [followers] of Islam,” the law student, who identified herself as Saba Ahmed, began. “We have 8 million plus Muslim Americans in this country, and I don’t see them represented here. But my question is: how can we fight an ideological war with weapons? How can we ever end this war? The jihadist ideology that you talk about, it’s an ideology. How can you ever win this thing if you don’t address it ideologically?”

American University law student Saba Ahmed spoke at the Heritage Foundation's panel on Benghazi June 16, 2014. (Photo: The Heritage Foundation via Media Matters)

After a response from Frank Gaffney, Gabriel began by thanking Ahmed for the question. Then she launched into a heated explanation of why radical Islam matters, even if the majority of Muslims are peaceful.

“There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world today – of course not all of them are radicals!” Gabriel said. “The majority of them are peaceful people. The radicals are estimated to be between 15 to 25 percent. … But when you look at 15 to 25 percent of the world Muslim population, you’re looking at 180 million to 300 million people dedicated to the destruction of western civilization. That is as big as the United States. So why should we worry about the radical 15 to 25 percent? Because it is the radicals that kill. Because it is the radicals that behead and massacre.”

Gabriel continued to note that the majority of Germans, Russians, Chinese, and Japanese in the 20th century were peaceful people, but the radicals in charge massacred tens of millions of people.

“The peaceful majority were irrelevant,” Gabriel said repeatedly.

“I’m glad you’re here, but where are the others speaking out?” Gabriel asked, before being drowned out by a round of applause. “As an American citizen, you sat in this room and instead of standing up and [asking] something about our four Americans that died [in Benghazi] and what our government is doing to correct the problem, you stood there to make a point about peaceful, moderate Muslims.”

Ahmed did not seem defensive or angry over Gabriel’s response, kindly responding that “as a peaceful American Muslim,” she would like to think that she is not “irrelevant.”

“I’m just as much an American, and I’m very deeply saddened about the lives that were lost in Libya, and I hope that we will find justice for their families,” Ahmed continued. “But I don’t think that this war can ever be won by just the military. You have to bring Muslims to the table to address this.”

The panelists all agreed that the dilemma cannot be solved by the military alone, before one asked Ahmed: “Can you tell me who the head of the Muslim peace movement is?”

The law student laughed and said: “I guess it’s me right now. Thank you.”

That’s when the panel and the audience cheered her.

The exchange has caused some controversy on the web, with Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank describing it as “ugly taunting of a woman in the room who wore an Islamic head covering.” Media Matters also picked up the story, and posted video of Gabriel’s response via the Heritage Foundation’s livestream.

Watch the video below to make your own decision about whether it was an “ugly” exchange (relevant comments start around 4:15):

On Hannity Show Brigitte Gabriel and Ali Sina Agree that ISLAM is the problem

A discussion of Boko Haram led to an examination of the ideology that motivates them. Ali Sina explained that he left Islam when he read the Quran and realized how evil it was. He went on to say that most Muslims have not read the Quran and moderate Muslims such as Zuhdi Jasser are not telling the truth about Islam.

BrigitteBrigitte Gabriel explained that it is Islamic ideology which subjugates women and persecutes Christians that is motivating Boko Haram. She said she goes into Arabic chat rooms online and sees them laughing at us and our twitter hashtag campaign, #BringBackOurGirls.

Ali Sina asserted that political correctness is what prevents us from admitting that the problem is Islam…not radical Islam or Wahhabi Islam or extreme islam…just ISLAM and the example of Mohammed.

When asked if she agreed, Brigitte cited a 2006 Pentagon study that came to the conclusion that Islam was the problem but the media avoided it as if it was” nuclear and harmful to your health” She then asserted that it is the ideology “coming straight from the mouth of Mohammed” that is driving Boko Haram and radicals always win in debates with moderates because they quote doctrine supporting their case. She went on to say that In the Arabic world it is an insult to say “moderate Islam” or “radical Islam”…there is only one Islam. “Moderate Islam is an American verbiage” that we came up because we could not believe that this was coming out of a religion.

This is a departure from Brigitte’s long time use of the term ‘Radical Islam” in her writings and lectures.

Listen to the podcast here:

http://www.iheart.com/talk/show/24392822/?episode_id=26883064

Click on this one:

Tue, May 20th, 2014 Hour 3

May 20, 2014 | 32 min

Air Force Vet Anthony Coleman discusses the poor treatment he received from the VA Hospital in AZ; Brigitte Gabriel and Ali Sina discuss the terrorist group Boko Haram

****

Zuhdi Jasser, seems to negate as historically unreliable anything negative about Mohammed and still professes him to be “the best example for man”. Is this a heartfelt conviction or a political calculation? If you want to know more about Zuhdi Jasser, a very insightful article was written by Andrew Harrod when he reviewed Jasser’s book, “A Battle for the Soul of Islam”.

Watch this 2011 debate between Spencer and Jasser moderated by Andrew McCarthy:

 

Ali Sina actually had an interesting twitter conversation with Zuhdi Jasser recently which he wrote about. Jasser defends his version of Islam with whether it is politically expedient not whether it is true. He seems to be promoting “Jeffersonian Liberty” not Islam.

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser: The Deception of Moderate Islam by Ali Sina May 9, 2014

Zuhdi-Jasser1-300x223These days the discussion everywhere is about the 200 schoolgirls kidnapped in Nigeria and offered for sale by the Muslim terrorist group Boko Haram. And guess who the media is turning to for answers! The self-proclaimed “moderate Muslim” Dr. Zuhdi Jasser! He will tell the Americans that slavery has nothing to do with Islam and terrorism is un-Islamic.

He sent a tweet announcing that he had been invited by Fox News for an interview. I sent him a tweet, congratulating him for having another chance to bamboozle the American public. Here is our mini debate on twitter.

Dr. Jasser is under the delusion that if he shows Muslims the superiority of American constitution they will abandon the Quran. Nothing can be further from the truth. Muslims follow the Quran not because it is good, ethical or even logical, but because they think it is the unaltered word of God. That is the end of discussion. If Dr. Jasser really knows Islam and Muslim he should know that for them the Quran is the ultimate authority. It is ridiculous to expect them to turn their back to Allah and his messenger and follow a non-Muslim American president. Is he really this deluded or is he deceiving his audience? But let us see the rest of our tweets.

Dr. Jasser’s says by highlighting the evil teaching of the Quran I am radicalizing Muslims. So for 1400 years Muslims lived peacefully, like angels, until I began pointing out the hate and the violence in the Quran. It is then that they became radicalized.

This is really what he thinks. I heard this argument numerous times. This is the typical Muslim thinking. They blame their victim for their violence. By virtue of following a narcissist, Muslims share his psychosis and reason like their prophet.

I tried to show the fallacy of his argument with the following question.

There you have it. One he saw he can’t defend his absurd argument he ended the discussion. Of course Islam is violent. Of course the Boko Haram is not doing anything that Muhammad did not do. Muhammad made immense fortunes by enslaving women and children and selling them or ransoming them in exchange with money.

The truth is that Zuhdi Jasser and his Canadian counterpart, Tarek Fatah, a closet Ahamdi not even recognized as a Muslim, have no effect on Muslims. Not only are they not converting the radicals to moderates, they will most likely be killed just like any apostate, if they go to a real Islamic country.

Muslims don’t care how others interpret the Quran. They are not illiterate. They can read for themselves. Those who read the Quran and Tafseer know that the so called radicals have the correct understanding of the Quran. The solution to end the Islamic violence is not to lie more and claim Muhammad was a man of peace. The solution is to tell them the truth and show them that the Al Qaida, the Wahhabis and the mullahs of Iran are the real Muslims. The differences between them are superficial. They perfectly understand the spirit and the essence of Islam and follow the examples of Muhammad. It is my belief as well as experience that most Muslims, once see the ugly truth, will leave Islam.

That is how we can put an end to Islamic violence, with truth, not with more lies. But truth is ugly, so most people prefer lies. But lies are only a mask covering the truth. That is why Zuhdi Jasser and Tark Fatah get invited by the Media and ex-Muslims are ignored.

This reminds me of a joke. A man lost his keys in the dark, unable to see anything, he went farther away searching they under the light. When his friend said, but you lost them over there, he replied, “here I can see better”. Our politicians and the media love to interview the “moderate Muslims” even though they have no answers because those who have the answer say things that are not pleasant to hear.

Needless to say that Dr. Jasser’s reasoning that Muslims can’t handle the truth and will become radicalized if they hear is is an insult to Muslims. He basically saying Muslims are stupid, incapable of accepting the truth. Muslims become offended and throw tantrum when their religion is slighted. The solution is not to lie more. They don’t need anyone to patronize them.

Many Muslims are leaving Islam silently. I have received thousands of emails personally. We need to intensify our efforts and spread the truth to everyone. A well written, well documented and well produced movie can bring that change.

Truth is often bitter, that is why people resort to sweet lies. But lies kill us, and truth will set us free

Attempting to Rewrite the History of September 11th

september-9-11-attacks-anniversary-ground-zero-world-trade-center-pentagon-flight-93-second-airplane-wtc_39997_600x450ACT! for America, By Brigitte Gabriel:

On May 21st, more than 13 years after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, the National September 11 Memorial Museum will open its doors to the public to make certain that Americans will never forget what happened that day.

Unfortunately, some are working to ensure that future generations of Americans never fully understand the attacks, which were the most deadly terrorist attacks in the history of the United States.

One of the exhibits in the museum will feature a 7-minute film called “The Rise of Al Qaeda.”

In that film, the Al Qaeda terrorists are referred to as “Islamists” who were waging “jihad” with the attacks upon America.

Those two words, “Islamists” and “Jihad” have caused a controversy, with a variety of critics calling for whitewashing the description of Al Qaeda and the attacks by sanitizing the museum commentary by removing those two words.

This would be a tragic mistake.

Despite the complaints, the use of the terms “Islamist” and “jihad” in no way suggest that all Muslims are terrorists or support violence. No serious analyst in his or her right mind would make such an assertion.

Nevertheless, in warfare the enemy’s reality becomes your reality, so it makes perfect sense to call Islamists “Islamists” and to call Jihad “Jihad.” After all, in World War II, Nazis were referred to as Nazis, because they themselves referred to themselves as such.

America’s enemies in the war on terror do NOT refer to themselves as “extremists,” “militants,” or “radicals.”

They refer to themselves as Jihadists and Jihadis.

Interestingly, critics on both sides of the issue seem to dislike the term “Islamist.” Apologists for organizations such as Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood claim that the term too closely identifies Islam with “extremism.” Many in the countershariah and counterjihad movement say that the term “Islamist” is a term concocted in the West that has no meaning in the Islamic world.

Both are wrong.

The first known use of the term “Islamist” came from the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the late dictator of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism.

Khomeini said: “We are neither capitalists nor communists. We are Islamists.”

There are many different definitions listed for the term “Islamist,” but that is not the point. The point is that one of the world’s most prominent Muslim leaders coined the term to describe the revolution he led. It is entirely proper for the 9/11 museum to use the term “Islamists” to describe Al Qaeda.

The same is true for the term “jihad.” There has long been a debate about the use of the term jihad, with Muslim Brotherhood organizations such as CAIR particularly objecting to its use to describe violent warfare or terrorism.

The Muslim Brotherhood in America aims to convince Americans that Jihad only means “to struggle” or, more specifically, an internal, personal struggle.

This is only partially correct and any campaign that claims that the term Jihad only means an internal, personal struggle amounts to disinformation. The dualistic nature of Islam, in this case as it applies to the meaning of “Jihad,” is well documented both in historical Islamic doctrine and in contemporary use of the term.

And Jihad definitely does not only mean an internal, personal struggle. In fact, the most widespread meaning of the term that is of particular interest to Westerners who are threatened by Jihad does in fact entail violence.

A false and misleading statement has been attributed to the San Francisco chapter head of CAIR, Zahra Billoo:

“A common misconception of the word jihad is that it means armed struggle or holy war, and that is something that has been perpetrated by many who’ve made careers out of pushing anti-Muslim sentiment.”

Such a meaning for Jihad has nothing to do with anyone with an “anti-Muslim sentiment.” It has everything to do with Islam itself.

Let us examine definitions of Jihad from two authoritative sources.

Jihad According to the Quran

The first is the Quran itself. In this case, specifically The Noble Qu’ran, translated into English by two scholars: Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, PhD, professor of Islamic Faith and Teachings at the Islamic University, Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah, Saudi Arabia and Dr. Muhammad Mushin Khan of the same institution. The Noble Qu’ran was published by Darussalam Publishers and Distributors, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It has been catalogued by King Fahad National Library. On page 818, in a glossary accompanying the text of the Quran, The Noble Qu’ran provides the following definition of Jihad:

“Jihad: Holy fighting in the Cause of Allah or any other kind of effort to make Allah’s Word superior. Jihad is regarded as one of the fundamentals of Islam.”


Can the Quran itself be promoting “anti-Muslim sentiment” as CAIR’s Zahra Billoo asserts?

Jihad According to Shariah

Our second source is Reliance of the Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.

Reliance of the Traveler is one of the world’s most widely read manuals of Shariah law. It has been endorsed by a variety of Islamic authorities, including Al Azhar University in Cairo, IIIT (International Institute of Islamic Thought) in Herndon, Virginia, the Fiqh Council of North America, the Islamic Fiqh Academy in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, the Mufti of the Jordanian Armed Forces and the Imam of the Mosque of Darwish Pasha in Damascus, Syria.

These can hardly be termed as those pushing “anti-Muslim sentiment” as Billoo claims.

On page 599 of Reliance of the Traveler, readers can find the following passage:

o9.0 JIHAD

(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion…

The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus is such Koranic verses as:

(1) “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2:216);
(2) “Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4:89);
(3) “Fight the idolators utterly” (Koran 9:36);

and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

“I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah”;

and the hadith reported by Muslim,

“To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.”


Jihad According to Terrorists

If Jihad truly means to “struggle” and not warfare to establish the religion, how does CAIR explain the names of all these terrorist organizations?

Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami (Pakistan, Bangladesh, India)
Islamic Front for Armed Jihad (Algeria)
Islamic Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine (Lebanon)
Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine (Israel)
Islamic Jihad Organization (Lebanon)
Islamic Jihad Union (Uzbekistan)
Jama’at al-Jihad al-Islami (Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Russia)
Laskar Jihad (Indonesia)
United Jihad Council (India)

So, it is completely appropriate for the 9/11 museum to use the term “jihadist” and “jihad” to describe Al Qaeda terrorists and their activity.

Conclusion

We suspect that the sensitivity expressed with regard to the 9/11 museum goes way beyond the use of the terms “Islamist” and “jihad.”

The fact is, our country has never truly come to terms with the role that Islam plays in Jihadist terrorism.

It would be great if there was truly no connection whatsoever between Islam and Jihad. But the reality is Jihad is a tenet of Islam.

As previously stated, in warfare the enemy’s reality becomes your reality. It makes no difference what Americans think about the stated motivations and doctrine behind the actions of Al Qaeda. The only thing that truly matters is what the leaders and members of Al Qaeda think about why they wage warfare.

The fact of the matter is, Al Qaeda justify their actions by invoking Islam and Allah:

In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate,

The General Command of the al-Qaeda Organization Statement on the Succession of Sheikh Osama Bin Laden in the al-Qaeda Organization’s Command

With hearts that are satisfied with Allah’s ordainment, and assured of Almighty Allah’s promise and His good reward, the Islamic umma, the mujahideen in the al-Qaeda Organization, and in other groups received the news of the martyrdom of the reviver imam, the jihadist immigrant Sheikh Osama Bin-Muhammad Bin Laden, may Allah rest his soul in peace. We pray to the Almighty Allah to raise his rank and to reward him, on behalf of us and the Muslim umma, with the best of rewards.

Since jihad is continuing until the Day of Resurrection … the General Command of the al-Qaeda Organization announces, after completion of consultations, that Sheikh Dr Abu-Muhammad Ayman al-Zawahiri, may Allah guide him to success, has taken over command of the group…

Statement from Al Qaeda
Announcing Zawahiri as the
New leader of Al Qaeda after
Osama Bin Laden’s death


All these sins and crimes committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger and Muslims.

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies – civilians and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in every country in which it is possible to do it…

We, with Allah’s help, call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it.

Ayman al-Zawahiri
Leader of Al Qaeda


It would be a tragic mistake if the 9/11 museum was to erase the role that their Islamic faith played in the leadership and membership of Al Qaeda’s horrific actions on September 11th, 2001. 

URGENT ACTION ALERT! Why Did the VA Legislature Publicly Commend a 9/11 Terror Mosque?

state-capitol-cover-jan-14-20136What is going on in the Virginia state legislature? by By Brigitte Gabriel

Something is terribly wrong with the Virginia state legislature.

On Wednesday, March 5th, in House Joint Resolution 484, the elected representatives of the people of Virginia commended the notorious, terror-tied Dar al Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church.

Dar al Hijrah has a history of ties to multiple known and convicted terrorists, led by its former Imam, Anwar al-Awlaki, who became head of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, before he was killed in a US air strike in 2011.

It was this institution that the Virginia House and Senate agreed to commend by voice vote.

This amounts to an official government endorsement of an entity whose members and employees have been tied to Jihad for many years.

In addition to the fact that an Imam at Dar al Hijrah mosque from 2001-2002 was Anwar al-Awlaki, not just an Al Qaeda terrorist, but the leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the mosque has a macabre history and other Imams that have preached there have expressed violent extremist views as recently as 2013:

Other Imams at Dar al-Hijrah have expressed extremist views as well:

• Imam Sheik Shaker Elsayed of Dar al-Hijrah called for armed jihad in a speech at a high school in Alexandria, Virginia in February 2013.

Dar al-Hijrah is affiliated with three Muslim Brotherhood front groups (The Muslim Brotherhood has been designated a terrorist organization by Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.) in the United States:

• The Muslim American Society

• The Islamic Society of North America

• The North American Islamic Trust

All three of these organizations were named as unindicted co-conspirators in the largest successful terrorism financing prosecution in US history: the US v the Holy Land Foundation.

This hardly seems like the type of organization that any governmental body in the United States—on any level—should be praising.

The members of the Virginia legislature—especially the leadership in both the House and Senate—should be ashamed. They should move right away to rescind the unjustified honor that they bestowed on Dar al-Hijrah and replace it with a resolution condemning the mosque’s numerous ties to terrorists and extremists.

*** TIME-SENSITIVE VIRGINIA ACTION ALERT! ***
EXPRESS YOUR OPPOSITION TO THE VIRGINIA
GENERAL ASSEMBLY’S COMMENDATION
OF A 9/11 MOSQUE!
by Lisa Piraneo, Director of Government Relations

ACT! for America

As you may know, the Leadership of the Virginia General Assembly recently allowed a resolution to come to the floors of the House and Senate (via voice vote, no less) that commends the Falls Church, Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center – an organization that has a long history of ties to multiple known and convicted terrorists – including the perpetrators of 9/11.

Using your tax dollars, the Leadership in both the Virginia House and Senate agreed to allow H.J. Res. 484, to come to the floor for a vote….and they allowed it to be passed by “voice vote” so there is no trace of how each legislator acted on the matter. This one rests squarely on Leadership’s shoulders. Shame on them.

Silence by the voters of Virginia will send a clear message that outrageous acts like this are O.K. Loud and vocal opposition, however, will send quite another message: This is unacceptable.

Next week, the Virginia General Assembly will return to session for a very brief period of time to address some still-pending budget matters.

This is the time for the General Assembly Leadership – who allowed this resolution to come to the floor for a vote via voice vote – to hear how their constituency feels about this matter – and to understand that the Virginia voters expect this wrong to be corrected.

*** IMPORTANT AND TIME-SENSITIVE ACTION ITEM! ***

It will only take one minute for you to individually express your opposition about H.J. Res. 484 by signing our Open Letter to the Leadership of the Virginia General Assembly, but when all of our voices are joined together, it will create an enormous roar. That’s what they need to hear.

Will you please read and sign our letter today?

UPDATE: 

We have written a sample call and e-mail script for you, to make this as easy as possible.

Click HERE TO CALL and click HERE TO E-MAIL.

Then, please pass it along to everyone you know who thinks that no legislative body should publicly endorse and commend institutions with ties to terrorists.

Thank you!

*****************

Also see:

Virginia Honors 9/11 Mosque (investors.com) -

Political Correctness: The only thing more revolting than building a mosque next to the World Trade Center would be honoring the mosque that helped the 9/11 hijackers. Yet that’s just what Virginia has done.

Another Day, Another Jihad Plot in America

ACT! For America, By Brigitte Gabriel:

Something scary happened on Friday the 13th, but you’d hardly have noticed from the news reports.

The Joint Terrorism Task Force in Wichita, Kansas, arrested a 58-year old airport employee in a plot to carry out a suicide bombing at the city’s Mid-Continent Airport.

download (42)The man, Terry Lee Loewen, was a white convert to Islam who authorities say became “radicalized” over the Internet.

Loewen planned to drive a vehicle laden with explosives onto the airport and explode it—and himself—at the terminal where hundreds of unsuspecting travelers went about their normal business.

Luckily, the FBI had intercepted Loewen and his vehicle contained only dummy explosives planted by an FBI agent that Loewen believed to be a collaborator.

This plot received a great deal of exposure on the Drudge Report, but none of the major news agencies thought it worthy of an email news bulletin—except for Fox News.

A plot like this would have stopped the presses just 15 years ago. Today, it’s just another news story on a busy news day. In another week or so, very few people outside of Kansas will even remember Terry Lee Loewen’s name, or that he was arrested for attempting to carry out mass murder in the name of Jihad. America is becoming desensitized to jihadi terrorism and that is unfortunate. Islamic Jihad is becoming a customary part of our everyday lives.

What is frightening about the homegrown terrorism that we’ve been seeing the last few years is that those terrorists—or would be suicide bombers—seem to be normal Americans.

Loewen lived in a quiet, middle class, suburban neighborhood in a modest, one-story ranch-style home. In the local newspaper The Wichita Eagle, his neighbors described him as “normal:”

Constance Reed and her daughter, Kyia, lived down the street from Loewen on the 3900 block of East Funston in southeast Wichita.

“I can’t believe it,” said her daughter, Kyia. “We just went trick or treating down there a month or so ago. It’s a normal house, normal decorations. We saw him and his wife; both normal people.”

Americans need to understand that this is the pattern—not the exception—when it comes to the homegrown Jihadist terrorists. They don’t stand out—by design. In my first book Because They Hate, I discuss watching a news interview of Mohammad Atta’s landlord. Atta as you recall was the 9/11 terrorist attack’s ringleader. To hear the landlord describe Atta and his roommates and guests, you’d have though Atta and his roommates were Boy Scouts. The landlord got that impression because Atta cultivated that image; he knew how to blend in with suburban America and he made a deliberate effort to do so.

Mohammad Atta wasn’t the only one.

• Faisal Shahzad, the Jihadist terrorist who attempted to set off a bomb in Times Square in New York City on May 1st, 2010, lived in suburbia and was often seen walking his neighborhood with his two little girls.

• Najibullah Zazi, who pled guilty in a plot to bomb the New York City subway system, lived a quiet life in Flushing, New York , attended Flushing High School and, for 5 years, operated a coffee and pastry cart on Wall Street, complete with a “God Bless America” sign on display.

• Nineteen-year old Hosam Smadi, who was convicted in a plot to blow up a Dallas skyscraper in 2009, was described by many that knew him as “one of the nicest men they had ever met.” The NBC affiliate in Dallas/Fort Worth described him in a story: “He was a mixture between wannabe gangster and wannabe rock star”… “Everybody loved Sam. He liked to hang out and have fun.” Part of the fun Smadi had in mind was committing mass murder in the name of Jihad.

And I can go on and on…

Jihadist terrorists are all too often your normal next-door neighbor. They are not abnormal looking and typically do not stand out. It takes a well-informed person about the ideology of Jihad to spot the changes of behavior and ask the right questions. The problem we are facing as a society is that we have the blind leading the blind. This willful blindness is coming from the top down. From the office of the president who has purged all terms of Islamic Jihad, Jihadism, Islamic terrorism out of our national language lest we offend Muslims.

Case in point was the Boston bombing. The Russian intelligence turned in a recorded phone conversation between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his mother discussing Jihad to the FBI to alert them to the coming threat. The FBI didn’t understand the seriousness of that conversation because, since the purge by President Obama in 2009, the FBI is taught that Jihad is basically Islamic Yoga to better yourself.

We as Americans must come to grips with the fact that we now have an enemy that is living and working amongst us. We must become educated as to their ideology and doctrine and accept the fact that they hate us because of that doctrine and ideology. It’s not a pleasant thought, but whether we want to admit it or not, those are the facts and it is their reality. As a result, it has now become our reality too. It is also our national duty as American citizens to identify the threat, create an open national dialogue about the ideology of Jihad and do whatever we can to protect our citizens against it. Anything less than that would be a betrayal to all the great American leaders who came before us and gave their all to create the greatest, most powerful nation on the face of the planet.

More Fallout from the Obama-Kerry-Ayatollah Nuclear Deal

download (39)ACT! For America, By Brigitte Gabriel:

Iran has not yet tested an atomic bomb, but there is already fallout from the deal on nuclear technology that President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State, John Kerry, have cut with the genocidal mullahocracy in Iran.

Ironically, our best hope for this agreement falling apart comes from Tehran, not Washington, DC.

The Iranians have already publicly interpreted the agreement to bestow upon them an inherent right to enrich uranium, something that Kerry specifically denies. On top of that, the agreement was evidently so sloppily written that there are loopholes that allow the Iranians to carry out sensitive, military-related nuclear work off of specific, known nuclear sites without being in violation of the agreement and, most ominously, without International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) oversight.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who actually has no real authority over the nation’s national security policy, made it clear in an interview with the Financial Times that Iran has no intention of cutting back on any aspect of its nuclear program:

http://video.ft.com/v/2878742620001

Despite this, Iran still gets billions of dollars in financial incentives in the form of eased sanctions. On top of this, Iran will enjoy a literal bonanza in the form of increased oil exports, which could result in an additional $18 billion per year in oil revenue due to the deal:

http://freebeacon.com/analysts-iran-oil-experts-could-increase-50-percent/

No wonder observers are calling the deal a “surrender.” Mark Steyn has one of the best commentaries along these lines over on National Review

In Geneva, the participants came to the talks with different goals: The Americans and Europeans wanted an agreement; the Iranians wanted nukes. Each party got what it came for. Before the deal, the mullahs’ existing facilities were said to be within four to seven weeks of nuclear “breakout”; under the new constraints, they’ll be eight to nine weeks from breakout. In return, they get formal international recognition of their enrichment program, and the gutting of sanctions — and everything they already have is, as they say over at Obamacare, grandfathered in.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/365132/surrender-geneva-mark-steyn

Two decades of work by Republicans and Democrats alike have been thrown into the trash bin by the Obama-Kerry-Ayatollahs deal. There is no longer any economic pressure on Iran to change its behavior and the Iranians have made it clear that they have no intention of changing that behavior. The Israelis, who have been on the receiving end of Iranian-sponsored terrorism and direct Iranian threats, are understandably outraged:

Unnamed Israeli officials denounced US President Barack Obama on Friday night for presiding over failed negotiations with Iran under which, they said, the sanctions pressure on Tehran is collapsing and the Islamic Republic has been granted the right to enrich uranium. The entire wall of sanctions, painstakingly constructed over years, is already crumbling and “will collapse within months,” the officials were quoted as saying.http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-officials-denounce-obama-for-giving-iran-right-to-enrich-destroying-sanctions/

Key Iranian officials agree with Israel’s assessment. They are, however, celebrating. Alaeddin Boroujerdi, Chairman of Iran’s Majlis (similar to a parliament, but with no real authority) Committee for Foreign Policy and National Security, has overtly declared victory as a result of the deal with Obama and Kerry:

“…the Islamic Republic controls all aspects of nuclear science, from A-Z, from the very beginning all the way to uranium enrichment…After ten years, we have emerged victorious over the West.”http://www.memri.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4054.htm

To add insult to injury, it is now being reported that, as part of the months long negotiation between the Ayatollahs and the Obama administration, the US has released a top Iranian scientist, Mojtaba Atarodi, who had been arrested in 2011 for attempting to acquire equipment that could be used for Iran’s military-nuclear programs.

In other words, Obama is releasing nuclear experts to go back and work for Iran, and in return we cannot even win the release of imprisoned pastor Saeed Abedini. By the way, so much for the idea that the US does not negotiate with terrorists. The Obama administration has made it a commonplace practice…

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/11/29/U-S-Released-Iranian-Scientist-As-Part-Of-Nuke-Talks-Before-Geneva-Agreement

Speaking of terrorism, the nuclear agreement makes no mention whatsoever of Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism, as has been documented by the US State Department for many years:

http://iranbulletin.me/2013/11/26/the-coming-bonanza-for-jihad-from-the-obamakerry-ayatollah-nuclear-bargain/

Nor does the deal address Iran’s very active ballistic missile program, which has no possible peaceful application:

http://iranbulletin.me/2013/11/27/the-other-threat-obama-and-kerry-ignored-ballistic-missiles/

Unfortunately, the so-called mainstream media is in the tank for Obama and their reporting has had a great influence on public opinion on the nuclear deal with the Ayatollahs. Polls show a decisive majority of Americans in favor of the deal.

As America’s leading grassroots national security organization, it is vital that ACT for America and its hundreds of thousands of members educate the public about the true nature of this deal and express our opinions to elected officials.

CAIR urges school officials to censor Act for America Brigitte Gabriel at Tea Party event

BrigitteGabriel

Brigitte Gabriel, Founder of Act for America

Click here to send your email to school officials in support of Brigitte Gabriel’s First Amendment Rights.

Florida Family Association:

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) called on school officials on July 24, 2013 to censor Act for America founder, Brigitte Gabriel, at a Tea Party event planned in Minnesota.  The following is some of the text from the CAIR announcement:

(MINNEAPOLIS, MN, 7/24/13) — The Minnesota chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-MN) today called on Independent School District #482 and Little Falls Community High School to consider the negative impact a scheduled speech by an anti-Muslim speaker will have on district students and to rescind approval to hold the event in a school facility.

On July 29, 2013, the Central Minnesota Tea Party will feature anti-Muslim speaker “Brigitte Gabriel” from the hate group ACT! for America at an event in Little Falls Community High School.  Click here to read CAIR’s announcement.

Most government officials in Minnesota sign a state oath of office to uphold the United States Constitution.  The wording of Minnesota’s oath is:  I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Minnesota, and that I will discharge faithfully the duties of the office of …  www.sos.state.mn.us/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=4966

Brigitte Gabriel has worked tirelessly to educate the public about the threat that Islamists pose to the freedoms Americans enjoy.

Please stand with Brigitte now by sending the email that Florida Family Association has prepared for you to send to officials at the Independent School District #482 and Little Falls Community High School.

To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button. You may also modify the subject or message text if you wish. Please Note if you have a problem with the prepared email:  Internet Explorer 10 is not compatible at this time with our Action Message.  If you are using IE 10 please click the link where prompted to “if you have trouble viewing the message text ..” in order to send your email.  If you want the ability to edit the email content please use Internet Explorer 9, Firefox or Chrome until Microsoft fixes the IE 10 error. 

Please click here to send your email to school officials in support of Brigitte Gabriel’s First Amendment Rights

Contact information:

Stephen Jones
Independent School District #482 Little Falls School District

Mr. Stephen Jones

Superintendent of Schools

1001 Fifth Avenue Southeast

Little Falls, MN 56345

 

Stephen Jones
Little Falls Community High School

Mr. Tim Bjorge

Principle 

 

Video: Brigitte Gabriel Blasts Political Correctness

 Brigitte makes the case for throwing out political correctness by quoting statistics: 

images (24)“Since Obama became president we have arrested 226 homegrown terrorists; 186 of them are Muslims…. We have a problem in this country when a faith based group that accounts for less than 2% of the American population is responsible for over 80% of terrorist attacks or plots against the United States…. 540,000 people are on the government watch list, that’s not just a minority…over half a million people are on the government watch list. That’s a major problem. We need to throw political correctness in the garbage where it belongs and start calling a spade a spade”

(Brigitte at 2:30)

 

ACT! for America Launches National Free Speech Campaign

freedomOfSpeech

On September 25, 1789, Congress passed the Bill of Rights, anchored by the very important First Amendment. Today, our cherished right of freedom of speech is under assault. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) wants to criminalize speech that “denigrates” Islam. Muslim Brotherhood connected organizations and their politically correct enablers regularly engage in name calling and character assassination to silence those who dare speak out about the threat of radical Islam.

This is why, on September 25, 2013, 224 years after the passage of the Bill of Rights, patriots across America will host events and educate the public about how freedom of speech is under attack – and what we all can do to protect it.

Free_Speech_Day

 

WHEN: SEPTEMBER 25, 2013

 

WHAT: HIGHLIGHTING AMERICA’S COMMITMENT TO FREE SPEECH AND THE ONGOING EFFORTS BY THE OIC AND THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD TO STRIP US OF THAT FREEDOM.

signup

  1. Commit to host the event on September 25, 2013.
  2. You must hold the event in an indoor location where a video can be shown and access can be controlled (versus an outdoor venue), such as:
    - Meeting in your home
    – In a church, synagogue or other house of worship
    – In an American Legion, VFW, or similar hall
    – A public library
    – A hotel meeting room
  3. You also have the option during the day on September 25th to hold up signs and hand out printed materials at public venues, such as street corners.
  4. You will be provided instructions and materials to use at your indoor event and at outdoor public venues (if you choose that additional option).
  5. Commit to this being an educational event, not a confrontational event. Our goal is to help people understand how their free speech rights are under assault, not to get into confrontations with those who disagree with us.
  6. Put the word out and get RSVP’s for the indoor event so you will know how many to expect, to ensure your venue is adequate.

ACT! for America will announce how many “Freedom of Speech Day” events will take place and will advertise exact locations of each venue for those hosts who confirm to us that they want us to.

 

In this series of national webcasst, ACT! for America documents the growing worldwide clamor for suppression of speech perceived as “offensive” to Islam, and what ACT! for America is doing to combat this increasingly serious threat to the First Amendment:

Part One with Brigitte Gabriel and Guy Rodgers:

 

Part Two with Deborah Weiss:

 

Part Three with Guy Rodgers:

 

 Sign ACT! for America’s letter opposing this threat to free speech!

An Open Letter to Members of the U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, and the State Legislatures 

Oppose the Implementation of UN Resolution 16/18:
A Threat to Free Speech

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), an organization of 56 Muslim states and the Palestinian Authority, has been trying for more than a decade to win UN-wide support of a resolution that calls on nations to prohibit speech that allegedly “defames” religion.

However, the evidence is clear that the OIC is concerned primarily about any speech it views as being critical of Islam, what it calls “Islamophobia.”

In the past, the United States has opposed such resolutions, correctly asserting that they are contrary to our First Amendment right of free speech.

In 2011, at the U.S.’s request, the OIC drafted a new resolution that would supposedly balance America’s constitutional protection of free speech with OIC concerns about “Islamophobia.” This resolution passed, with U.S. backing.

This new resolution, UN Resolution 16/18, no longer uses language such as “defamation,” but instead uses European-style hate speech language that has been used to criminalize speech critical of Islam in countries such as Austria and the Netherlands.

The OIC is now aggressively working to implement its definition of the resolution. Its position is clearly spelled out in a February 18, 2013, article in the Saudi Gazette entitled “OIC gears up to get denigration of religions criminalized.”

Given that the OIC is now pushing for nations to criminalize speech that it views as “Islamophobic,” we, the undersigned, call on our legislators to pass resolutions opposing the implementation of UN Resolution 16/18 as both unnecessary and a threat to America’s constitutional protection of free speech.