Council On American-Islamic Relations Seeks to Undermine the Land of the Free

free-speech-protest-AP (1)Breitbart, by ANDREW E. HARROD,  June 16, 2014:

The fact pattern and references to anti-Islamic “hate speech” sound depressingly similar to so many other cases abroad. Yet this incident occurred courtesy of the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ (CAIR) Chicago chapter, showing how precious and precarious American free speech rights are.

A Chicago suburb chapter of ACT! For America, an anti-sharia group, screened on May 17 the film Geert Wilders Warning to America at the Des Plaines Public Library (DPPL) after having met there since fall 2013. In the film, the Dutch politician Wilders addresses an American audience with his well-known thesis that “Islam is not a religion, Islam is a totalitarian ideology.” Amidst interspersed images of Islamic atrocities worldwide, Wilders, among other things, demands an end to construction in Western societies of mosques and Muslim schools, the latter termed by him a “fascist institution.”

Library parking lot flyers advertising the film drew opposition from CAIR-Chicago and the Islamic Community Center (ICC) of Des Plaines against the film screening. The library, a “safe haven for knowledge, education, and enlightenment… is now being tarnished,” CAIR-Chicago executive director Ahmed Rehab stated. Rehab worried about perceptions of the library endorsing the event. ICC board president Fazal Mahmood also questioned the appropriateness of a publicly-funded library as the film’s venue.

“I’m just practicing common sense not to let hate spark in our community,” Rehab said. Rehab “believed there should be limits on freedom of speech when it harms or incites someone else,” yet nonetheless conceded ACT!’s speech rights. “I understand and respect freedom of speech, but where do you stop?” Mahmood also said.

Media reports also persistently noted ACT! for America’s “hate group” listing by theSouthern Poverty Law Center without, however, mentioning SPLC’s leftist partisanship. Also unmentioned were CAIR’s deeply disturbing, numerous associations with precisely the kind of people against whom Wilders warned, including CAIR’s status as anunindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case over financing of terrorism.Rehab himself has had such connections while asserting “Jewish control over the media” and that the “history of the Jewish film producers in particular have shown that they predate on weak minorities by default.”

“Personally, leadership at DPPL finds the materials being shared by ACT! for Des Plaines reprehensible, bigoted and Islamaphobic and we in no way agree with the hateful sentiments they express,” Library Director Holly Sorensen said in a statement. However, Sorenson noted that American free speech law obligated the library as a public forum to host the screening. “It is our hope the controversy this event generates will expose the areas within our community where bigotry and racism exist and we fully support our Islamic community’s efforts to peacefully fight this prejudice.”

ACT! for Des Plaines founder Sara Schmidt denied hating Muslims but rather radicals “who want to destroy our way of life, who want to take over our country… and make us all Islam” are what concern Schmidt. “They don’t have the right to do that and they have devious ways to do that.” Schmidt cited a recent lawsuit by the American Islamic Center against the Des Plaines City Council after truck traffic zoning and safety issues prompted denial of a building permit for a community center.

In the end, the screening passed without event, although ICC members there to present questions and protest actually constituted the majority of the audience. Schmidt invited the gathered Muslims to collaborate against “Islamic extremists” and then showed the Wilders film. Most of the audience dissipated before a second showing.

“Americans enjoy more freedom than Europeans,” Wilders stated during a May 12, 2011, address in Nashville, Tennessee; “you cannot imagine how we envy your First Amendment.” While Europeans and Canadians “are dragged to court for telling the truth about Islam,” Americans “are still allowed to tell the truth.” “The day when America follows the example of Europe and Canada and introduces so-called ‘hate speech crimes’… America will have lost its freedom.”

The Des Plaines nonevent confirms Wilders. Accusations of “hate” and “Islamophobia,” including a partisan position from a public official theoretically committed to impartiality, did not stop a public gathering. Wilders appeared on screen in Des Plaines while opposing Muslim and non-Muslim views received an open airing without any legal repercussions.

Wilders’ Nashville warning, though, shows how easily sentiments against “hate” can harden into laws dictating speech crime and punishment. America’s legal walls protecting free speech create what has been called the world’s “last bastion” of free speech concerning Islam. Yet often self-proclaimed minders of public morality like CAIR in Des Plaines and elsewhere remain ever ready to undermine and outflank these protections in America’s land of the free. Such subversion would simultaneously weaken freedom and the ability to discuss threats to it. “We have to be able to speak up or we’ve lost it,” Schmidt rightfully observed.

Criticizing Islam Becomes “Incitement to Imminent Violence”

998_largeby Abigail R. Esman
Special to IPT News
June 11, 2014

You could say it is a new form of Islamic honor crime: the silencing of those who dare besmirch the honor of Islam or its prophet, except the suppression now doesn’t come from Muslims only. These days, it’s the work of secular groups and governments: theaters in Germany, prominent publishers in England and the USA, of public prosecutors in the Netherlands, and most recently, of the Spanish Supreme court.

On May 30, that court ruled that Pakistani refugee Imran Firasat be stripped of his refugee status and deported. A Pakistani Muslim apostate, Firasat for years received death threats for marrying a non-Muslim, and for his outspoken criticism of Islam. In 2006, he received amnesty in Spain, a country where he was guaranteed the glorious freedoms unavailable to him in his homeland – freedoms enshrined in the foundations of any Western democracy: of religion, of opinion, and of speech.

But evidently he was not.

In 2012, Firasat produced a film critical of Islam in which he included footage of the attacks of 9/11, along with subsequent Islamic terrorist attacks in London and Madrid. According to a report from Gatestone Institute, “Shortly after Firasat’s film was released, Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel García-Margallo and Spanish Interior Minister Jorge Fernández Díaz initiated a process to review his refugee status.”

The reason? Garcia-Margallo had determined that Firasat’s film created a security risk from Muslims who might be angered by its content. (That those Muslims themselves posed a risk seems not to have entered the discussion.)

The Supreme Court’s decision, which affirms the ruling of a lower court, reflects the growing influence of an anti-blasphemy measure introduced to the United Nations in 2011 by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), comprised of the 56 Islamic states. That measure, Resolution 16/18, aims to limit – even criminalize – speech that can be understood as “discriminatory – which, as I wrote at the time, “involves the ‘defamation of religion’ – specifically that which can be viewed as ‘incitement to imminent violence.'”

But nearly anything can be called “incitement to imminent violence,” just as a woman walking the street without covering herself ankle to brow in a niqab could be called an “incitement to imminent rape.” Who decides what “incitement” and “imminent” are? Should we now arrest all non-veiled women in the West? Has Spain become another Sharia state? Has UN Resolution 16/18 marked the end of freedom as we know it in the West?

In fact, as the Heritage Foundation recently reported, “throughout Europe, in Canada, and even in the United States, judicial systems in countries with large Muslim minorities are under pressure to adopt Sharia free speech restrictions. As a result, in many places, including Denmark, it is now a crime to say anything negative about Islam or the prophet Mohammed, regardless of whether such statements are factually true or not. The concept that even offensive speech is protected—so fundamental to the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment—is collapsing.”

Such attacks on democratic values – and their success in destroying them – are what have many experts, human rights groups, and politicians concerned about multiculturalism in the West. The idealized model – in which multiple cultures coexist peacefully within the same society – simply doesn’t work; the conflicts of values are too extreme.

True, it would be easy enough to wave off such incidents of censorship if they were limited to a mere one or two: but they aren’t. In 2010, for instance, Comedy Centralpulled a “South Park” episode satirizing the violent reactions to depictions of the prophet Mohammad after a New York-based Islamic group, Revolution Muslim, threatened the show’s writers with death.

Four years prior, the Berlin-based Deutsche Oper cancelled its run of Mozart’s “Idomeneo,” in which the severed heads of Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammed are placed on chairs onstage. Explaining their decision, the organizers of the opera, which was first performed in 1781, cited warnings from the police that “the publicity surrounding the play would severely heighten the security risk.” (Neither Buddhist nor Christian groups, it should be noted, expressed any discomfort with the production.)

And there are others: the extended criminal case against Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders for his statements against Islam and his film “Fitna,” which, like Firasat’s, focused on a recent history of Islamic terrorism and various calls for violence written in the Quran; or (also in the Netherlands) the arrest, at the demand of a radical imam, of pseudonymous cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot for sketches deemed “insulting” to Muslims.

America has hardly been immune: in 2008, Random House publishers cancelled publication of The Jewel of Medina, described as “a fictional account of the life of Mohammed’s wife, Aisha.” A year later, Yale University Press deleted images from a book about the so-called “Danish Cartoons” – a series of cartoons that ran in Denmark’s Jyllands Post in 2005, citing fears of “insulting Muslims” and – there it is again – a risk to national security.

And earlier this month, the New York Times demanded that the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) revise an ad slated to run on the Gray Lady’s web site, claiming that there had been numerous complaints about a previously approved, full-page version of the ad in the print edition of the paper. Explained the IPT at the time, “The NYT ordered us to insert the word ‘radical’ before the term ‘Islamist groups,’ so that it read, ‘Stop the radical Islamist groups from undermining America’s security, liberty, and free speech.'”

That change was not as minor as it might at first seem, argued IPT Executive Director Steven Emerson in an editorial for the IPT website. It suggested that Islamist groups who are not radicalized – like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) – are not dangerous. And yet it is precisely these organizations worldwide which often exert the kind of pressure that results in censorship of speech, in the subjugation of the arts, in the compromise of truth.

Fortunately, America’s capitulation to pressure on this issue has been limited to the private sector. But Firasat’s story should be taken as a warning, as much for the U.S. as for Europe, of the damage Resolution 16/18 and similar efforts are having on our culture – and on our future.

One week after the Spanish court robbed Firasat of his democratic rights in a democratic country, President Barack Obama stood on the beaches of Normandy and spoke to those gathered to mark the 70th anniversary of D-Day. On that day, he said, the world marked the moment of “commitment” to liberty and freedom; and since then, “From Western Europe to East; from South America to Southeast Asia; seventy years of democratic movements spread. Nations that once knew only the blinders of fear began to taste the blessings of freedom.

That would not have happened without the men who were willing to lay down their lives for people they’d never met, and ideals they couldn’t live without.”

Those ideals still remain our ideals. We still cannot live without them. We cannot give up the fight.

Abigail R. Esman, the author, most recently, of Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy in the West (Praeger, 2010), is a freelance writer based in New York and the Netherlands.

Hamas Again Tries to Silence the Truth – This Time in Kansas

 

UTT, by John Guandolo:

After initially publishing a one-sided article giving Hamas (dba CAIR) spokesman Ibrahim Hooper a great deal of latitude, Wichita Eagle reporter Tim Potter last night spoke with Understanding the Threat (UTT) and made an attempt to even the playing field. Hooper and Hamas (dba CAIR) are trying to shut down a 2-day “Understanding the Threat” (UTT) training program for law enforcement in Kansas next week because it factually lays out the evidence revealing CAIR was created to be a node for Hamas in the United States.

Hamas (dba CAIR) recently and unsuccessfully tried to shut down a 3-day UTT program in Culpeper, Virginia, several weeks ago but the local Sheriff there wouldn’t bend.

The current article still describes Hamas front group CAIR as a “major national Muslim organization,” and includes quotes from a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and jihadi organization the Muslim Students Association (MSA) – the very first national Islamic organization in America which the U.S. government identifies as a Muslim Brotherhood entity.

True to their Kansas backbone – and not deterred by a flea like Ibrahim Hooper or Hamas front CAIR – Kansas law enforcement officials are standing firm and plan to move forward with next week’s training.

What is noticeably missing in Mr. Potter’s article is any mention that evidence in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in U.S. history (US v Holy Land Foundation (“HLF”), Dallas, 2008) revealed CAIR was created by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood to support Hamas and is hostile to the United States. CAIR is listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF trial and the Department of Justice lists them as members of the U.S. Palestine Committee in America, which is Hamas.

When CAIR asked the U.S. Court to remove it from the “Unindicted Co-Conspirator List” the federal judge, Jorge Solis, wrote in his unsealed ruling, “The government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA, and NAIT with HLF, the Islamic Association for Palestine (“IAP”) and with Hamas.” This matter was sent to the appellate court which ruled unanimously to keep CAIR on the unindicted co-conspirator list because of the overwhelming evidence against them.

In this case, the government provided a massive amount of documentary and testimonial evidence linking CAIR to the Hamas conspiracy for which HLF and its leaders where convicted and given lengthy jail sentences.

Also missing from the Wichita Eagle article is the fact that the FBI cut off all ties with CAIR because of the HLF evidence linking them to Hamas.

So why is the Wichita Eagle and Tim Potter offering them a platform to attack UTT and the upcoming training program?

The President of UTT is John Guandolo, a decorated Marine Corps Infantry and Reconnaissance officer and combat veteran, who, as an FBI Special Agent, created the first training program in the government detailing the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Movement, Sharia (Islamic Law), and strategies to deal with the enemy front groups like CAIR. Mr. Guandolo was awarded the “Defender of the Homeland” Award by Senators Jon Kyl and Joseph Lieberman for his efforts in 2007. Mr. Guandolo has briefed dozens of U.S. Congressmen, four-star generals and admirals, former Directors of Intelligence agencies, former National Security Advisors, and many state legislators, police chiefs, and sheriffs across the country bringing this information to them which they all agree is critical for state and local officials to know in order to protect their communities.

No mention of any of this in Tim Potter’s article.

This incident highlights the failure of the media, at the local and national level, to speak truth into a significant jihadi threat to our nation. Hamas (dba CAIR) has been responsible along with other jihadi organizations like the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) for silencing fact/evidence based training across our government with the willful assistance of cowardly leaders. All they need to say is “we are offended” and American leaders at the federal level take a knee.

In order to continue to turn the tide, I encourage readers to do a few things:

1. If you understand this threat and can articulate it, spend time with local reporters in your area to share the information with them. Educate them, don’t berate them. Give them a chance to learn.
2. Contact FBI Headquarters and ask them why a Hamas entity (CAIR) with whom they have broken all ties remains unindicted. 202-324-3000.
3. Contact the Attorney General’s Public Comment Line and ask why Hamas front CAIR remains unindicted. 202-353-1515.

It is time to purge terrorist organizations like CAIR and their leaders from our society. It can begin by holding people and organizations in our communities accountable so, at a minimum, they will stop supporting Jihadis.

*****

Also go to The Investigative Project’s Action Page to see what else you can do

nyt-ad_actions

Investigative Project on Terrorism Posts Full Page NYT Ad on Radical Islamist Censorship

shariah_protest_APBreitbart, by FRANCES MARTEL:

The Investigative Project on Terrorism, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit research center dedicated to exposing the threat of violent extremist terror around the world, is launching a full-page advertisement in The New York Times warning against censorship by radical Islamist groups.

The ad, titled “Still here. Still free. But for how long?”, commemorates the opening of the National September 11 Memorial Museum and warns that “the threat from radical Islamist terrorists who killed thousands of innocent Americans on Sept. 11, 2001 is as real today as it was then, if not more so.” One major threat to the stability and freedom of the West, the ad warns, is the repeated attempts to censor those who wish to target radical Islam, and a campaign, according to the IPT, to eliminate the word “Islam” from discussions of radical Islamist terror.

“Islamist groups, masquerading as ‘civil rights’ groups, have embarked on a bullying campaign to censor the word ‘Islam’ when discussing Islamic terrorism,” the ad states, “And the media plays a key role in this deception by legitimizing these radical Islamic groups and not exposing them.”

According to IPT Executive Director and Founder Steven Emerson, the ad is meant to target both the alleged radicals attempting to censor Americans and the American officials that have tolerated the initiative. “Perhaps most chilling” about the censorship, Emerson notes in a statement, “is that the U.S. government and civic institutions at the highest levels are capitulating to their aggressive censorship campaign.”

Read the full ad hereOn its website, the IPT notes that the ad is a “call to action” to accurately target terrorist threats and combat the dangers of radical Islam, both internationally and on American soil. The ad is running in conjunction with the posting of a White House petition demanding an end to the Obama-era “policy of censoring free speech in discussing radical Islam,” as well as a campaign to involve the American people in the fight against terrorism by calling for contact with Congressional representatives demanding transparency in discussing the threats facing the United States from fundamentalists.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism regularly contributes to coverage of radical Islam at Breitbart News. Read their coverage here.

Sweden goes insane

Leading the suicidal “progressive” war on free speech.

ACT! for America meeting in Orlando, Florida on May 15, 2014

ESW-start-smallBy Vlad Tepes:

A brief post on the events in Orlando the past day or so. More to come shortly, but in the meantime, here is the text of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff’s speech and some photos from the day.

ESW Islamization of Europe 

Ladies and Gentlemen, I bring you greetings from Austria.

I congratulate Brigitte Gabriel, and you, Mike, and all the various chapters of ACT! For America for their tireless efforts to expose the ongoing stealth Islamization of the United States and Canada. As a native European, I can testify personally that the Islamization of my country and my continent is hardly a matter of stealth — it is occurring quite openly. Radical Islamic preachers declare the supremacy of Islam during Friday prayers in mosques in major cities all across Western Europe. Muslim demonstrators frequently take to the streets carrying signs that read “Islam Will Dominate” and “Sharia is the Answer”.

Under the direction of the EU bureaucrats in Brussels — whom we did not elect and cannot remove — we Europeans are required to admit more and more third-world immigrants, most of them Muslims. Our public institutions must change to accommodate them. Our schools become centers of Islamic propaganda and serve halal food to all their students, Muslim or otherwise. More and more mega-mosques are being built in our cities. Multicultural “tolerance” requires that we permit fully-veiled women as employees in all occupations, public or private. And, most ominously, any criticism of Islam — or even factual accounts of Islamic history and practices — are punished by lawsuits or state prosecution.

Most of you have already heard about my own legal case, so I won’t spend a lot of time going over the gory details. The short version is that I was prosecuted by the Austrian government for what I said in one of my seminars about Islam. My description of Islamic law and its basis in the Koran and the hadith was considered “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion.” I was tried, convicted, and fined. I appealed all the way to the highest court in Austria, but my conviction was upheld at all levels. I am in the process of appealing the decision to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Because of my conviction, I can no longer use a certain word in my descriptions of Islam and Mohammed, because the use of that word was judged a denigration of Islamic beliefs. If I were to use it in reference to Islam, I could be prosecuted again, and the sentence might be harsher the second time. They would probably throw the book at me.

ESW_End-small-300x200However, I am not in Austria at the moment. I am here, in the United States of America, where my right to use that word in any context I please is protected by nothing less than the First Amendment to the Constitution.

So it gives me a special pleasure, ladies and gentlemen, to tell you what got me in such hot water with the judicial authorities in Austria: it was the word pedophilia.

In my seminar I explained that, according to the authentic hadith, Mohammed married his wife Aisha when she was six years old, and consummated the marriage when she was nine. In reference to those facts, I described a conversation with a friend about an Austrian politician named Susanne Winter, who had previously been convicted and fined for referring to Mohammed as a pedophile. It was my friend’s opinion that one is simply not allowed to say such a thing. I responded by saying, “What do we call that, if it isn’t pedophilia?”

Now that I’m here in Florida, and it’s safe for me to say it, I can repeat my point: Mohammed is considered the perfect man, an example to be emulated by all Muslims. He had sex with a nine-year-old girl. What do we call that, if it isn’t pedophilia?

Does this perhaps explain the epidemic of child sex slavery by gangs of young Muslim men, which is currently underway in Britain, the Netherlands, and other Western European countries?

Britain is actually the worst offender when it comes to the repression of free speech and open debate about Islam. Almost every day, cases at least as outrageous as mine are brought before magistrates or judges. People who criticize Islam or speak negatively about Muslims are routinely charged with “racially aggravated public order offenses”. Many of them are given a stiff fine when convicted, or even sent to prison.

The most egregious example in recent memory was the arrest of my good friend Paul Weston in Winchester. Paul is a candidate for the European Parliament for the LibertyGB party, and on April 26 he was making a campaign speech over a bullhorn from the steps of the Winchester guildhall. His listeners didn’t realize it, but what he was saying was actually a quote from a book called The River War, which was written in 1899 by a man named Winston Churchill:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property — either as a child, a wife, or a concubine — must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.”

A woman who heard him say these words called the police and complained that he was engaging in “hate speech” that was offensive to her. When the police arrived, they told him to stop. When he refused, he was arrested, searched, and taken away in a police van.

Paul was initially charged with “breach of the Section 27 Dispersal Notice”, that is, for refusing to obey a police order to move on. At the police station that charge was dropped, however, and he was given a more serious charge: a “racially aggravated crime under Section 4 of the Public Order Act.” If he is convicted of it, he may be sentenced to up to two years in prison. He will return to the police station next week, on May 24 — two days after the election. At that point he will learn whether the judicial authorities will proceed with a prosecution.

As far as Paul could tell, neither his audience nor the police had any idea that he was quoting Churchill, so they may well have been unaware how bad they would look when the news got out about what happened. And the news certainly did get out — within a few days the story moved out of the blogs and into the mainstream media on  both sides of the Atlantic, and even in Australia. Normally, such Section 4 cases never make it into the media. They are routine and humdrum. Someone complains about the Religion of Peace, and gets charged with racism. It’s no big deal; it happens all the time.

Paul’s case was different, however. Despite the reign of political correctness that smothers all public discourse in Britain, Winston Churchill is still revered by the British public as a great national hero. To arrest and charge someone for quoting Sir Winston’s writings in public is a bridge too far. The police had no idea that they were biting down on a scorpion when they arrested Paul Weston.

Sir Winston Churchill was not only a Prime Minister of Great Britain, he was also an accomplished writer who won the Nobel Prize in Literature for his historical writings. What in the world has happened to the UK when an English citizen cannot quote a respected historian and the greatest war leader in British history without fear of being arrested?

In 1899 Winston Churchill was free to observe what Islam did to its adherents. He could evaluate what he saw, draw conclusions, and publish them in a book, all the while receiving accolades for his work. Today, in the second decade of the 21st century, the same topic cannot even be publicly discussed, and the conclusions drawn by Sir Winston are absolutely forbidden. How the country has changed in just over a century! If nothing else, this incident plainly illustrates the extent to which Britain has been Islamized.

The process by which the nations of Europe became Islamized varies from country to country. My own country, Austria, left a “back door” open for Islam due to the infamous Law on Islam of 1912. This law gave Islam the status of a recognized state religion, and was considered politically necessary after Bosnia-Herzegovina was incorporated into the Austro-Hungarian Empire. More and more Bosnians were joining the Austrian army, and the law was passed to ensure “cohesion” in the ranks.

Sound familiar? In Britain, the greatest excesses of Politically Correct Multiculturalism are justified in the name of “community cohesion” — that is, to prevent Muslims from rioting in the streets.

The mass importation of Muslim immigrants into Britain began more than thirty years ago, but it has accelerated in the last fifteen years as the Labour Party deliberately increased the annual rate of entry in order to import more Labour voters and damage the Conservative Party.

Other countries have implemented similar policies. Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Ireland, and Austria have all increased the numbers of immigrants they allow to enter. Some of these policies are simply the mandate of the European Union, which insists that individual member states have no right to control their borders. But in other cases, the Social Democrats, the Greens, and other left-wing parties find it expedient to import third-world immigrants and grant them the vote as quickly as possible, because they will reliably vote as a bloc for the left-socialist parties.

Read more at Gates of Vienna

AFDI “Islamic Jew-Hatred” Bus Ads Hit DC Streets!

afdi-islamic-jew-hatred1By Pamela Geller, May 14,2014:

Our AFDI bus ads hit the streets today. Truth is beauty, and these ads are truly beautiful.

We want to take this national — CONTRIBUTE HERE.

The DC Metro transit authority made multiple demands for the substantiation of every claim in our ads before they would accept the ad, and I, of course, happily provided that substantiation. The libelous American Muslims for Palestine antisemitic ad (below) did not have to provide substantiation. The MTA had no problem with their antisemitism. And you cannot provide evidence of a smear and a bigoted lie. But it is proof of the AMP’s hate.

Our ads are in response to the vicious Jew-hating ads that American Muslims for Palestine unleashed on  Washington, DC Metro buses last month. And might I add, had we not sued and won in NYC and DC for violating our First Amendment rights when they tried to refuse our previous ads, our ads might never have gone up. Those were major victories in the war on free speech. These ad campaigns are critical to informing the public of the truth. The disinformation and Islamic propaganda is piled so high and so thick from the media, academia, and the entertainment industry, there is a blacklist on truth tellers. This is how we leapfrog over the leftist/islamic machine.  Excelsior!

tax-ad-pic2-e1400137559840Uncle Sam with the Star of David. Nuts. Think about the billions we are giving to Muslim Brotherhood jihadists in Egypt and Libya, Gaza, Judea and Samaria, the Taliban in Afghanistan, etc. A flag of jihad would be more appropriate.

The AMP is run by Dr. Hatem Bazian. Hatem Bazian is the Berkeley College who equated the Boston jihad bombings with “Islamophobia.”

“A requirement of Bazian’s class, entitled De-Constructing Islamophobia and History of Otherness, is for students to get reactions from “people of color” on ads critical of radical Islam placed by Pamela Geller, author of the blog Atlas Shrugs.”

Professor Hatem Bazian required his students to tweet weekly on Islamophobia (more on that here). Other names you will find associated with this group are:
Rashid Khalidi (recently and rightly banned from speaking at the Ramaz School in NYC)
Sheikh Jamal Said
Imam Ziad Shakir (notorious radical cleric)
Rafeeq Jaber
Dr. Norman Finkelstein
Max Blumenthal (self loathing anti-semite)

This is a nasty Hamas-supporting group.

 

Hate Speech Laws Revisited

Via Gates of Vienna:

Dave Petteys is a member of the Colorado chapter of ACT! For America. He is one of the hard-working members of the anti-sharia group that made such a difference at the OSCE conferences in Warsaw in 2012 and 2013. Below is his take on the continuing controversy over “hate speech” laws.

burningjanhusHate Speech Laws Revisited

by David Petteys

ACT! For America, 5280 Coalition

Hate speech laws originated during debates in the United Nations immediately after World War Two. At the time, it was the Soviet Bloc versus Western Europe and the United States. The Soviets wanted “hate speech laws” to suppress the criticism of their totalitarian system as well as the calls for greater democracy. Their excuse was: “We cannot allow fascists to speak lest it lead to violence “. The same language is being used today.

Although the Communist totalitarian governments have disappeared, (at least we used to think so), the legacy of the notion that it is up to government to regulate speech remains.

Initially, “Hate Speech” laws addressed anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. But now the reach of these laws has steadily expanded to include any issue, provided its supporters have the political clout to influence legislatures.

Global warming advocates, homosexuals and Muslims are all demanding laws to protect them from “insult” and criticism. Priests and pastors have been arrested and prosecuted for preaching Christian doctrine that” hurts the feelings” of homosexuals[1]. Global warming skeptics are silenced.[2]

The Muslims are a particular case in point. They know they can’t confront our First Amendment directly. So what they are doing is drilling down into the definitions of words inside the laws: specifically, the definition of “incitement”.

Traditionally “incitement” resided in the content of speech or writing. The Muslims are working to refocus “incitement” from content to consequence. If I were a Ku Klux Klan leader addressing my followers, and I advocated that they march to another section of town and burn down houses, that would comprise speech with content that directly advocated violence.

But the Muslim strategy is more insidious.

Let us now move to the definition of “Hate Speech” in Forums such as “The Rabat Plan of Action”[3] (RPA). This was a document produced at a workshop put on by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) that met in Rabat, Morocco in October of 2012. The UN appears to have convened the Conference at the behest of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), mindful of its funding and its large voting bloc of 56 states plus the Palestinian Authority.

The subtitle of the document (“Conclusions and recommendations emanating from the four regional expert workshops organised by OHCHR, in 2011, and adopted by experts in Rabat, Morocco on 5 October 2012”) refers to the plan as adopted by “experts” without any disclosure of who these “experts” are. Within this document there is a six part “threshold test” to give “guidance” to law enforcement. The final test is “Likelihood, including imminence”. To quote:

“The action advocated through incitement speech does not have to be committed for that speech to amount to a crime. Nevertheless some degree of risk of resulting harm must be identified.”[4]

Thus, speech that “might” hurt someone’s feelings, or “might” lead to “discrimination or intolerance” becomes a criminal offense! Yet the argument that such speech “might lead to violence” has not been substantiated.[5]

Next, the Muslims claim the right to violence against anyone who “insults” the Prophet or Islam:

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.”[6]

Therefore, Muslims hold that any speech that they deem an “insult” is illegal “hate speech” because it would trigger the violence that they themselves threaten and guarantee! It makes no difference that we have the constitutional right to say what we want to say, including criticism of Islam.

Islam is mostly a political movement, and not separate from religion, as the Muslims themselves assert. Yet they hold:

  • That since it is a “religion” it is beyond criticism and off the table. Any criticism is “insulting Islam”
  • And we guarantee any such criticism will trigger violence. Therefore, under the guidelines of the RPA the “likelihood and imminence of harm” renders the speech illegal!

This neatly finesses the First Amendment. Sadly, Western authorities are buying into this! It codifies into law the “battered wife syndrome” with its “blame the victim” premise.

Read more at Gates of Vienna

Yes, ICANN

hhby :

Recently, the Obama Administration announced that it would transfer its oversight of internet domain management to a yet-to-be-named international multi-stakeholder.  Many are concerned that this will lead to the suppression of speech in capitulation to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and other free speech tyrants.  And though some on the left insist that these concerns amount to nothing more than alarmist folly, the concessions have already begun.

The internet originated in America, initially launched as a government experiment in networks.  Over a period of two decades, it grew to include researchers and think tanks.  In 1992, the “network of networks” opened its doors to the commercial world, and the internet as we know it today was birthed.

A global system of domain management was needed.  Someone had to keep a list of domain names and assign them numbers for internet users worldwide.  This had to be done by a central body in order to prevent multiple individuals, organizations or other entities from winding up with duplicative domain names, causing confusion.

Initially, domain management was conducted informally. Then, in 1998, the Department of Commerce (DoC) recognized ICANN, a California-based non-profit organization, to perform this function.  In a cooperative arrangement, the DoC’s National Telecommunications Information Agency (NTIA) would retain some minor administrative tasks regarding internet management, but would also have a critical oversight function over ICANN to ensure that the internet is free, secure and stable.

NTIA’s contract with ICANN is set to expire in September of 2015.  On March 14, 2014, the Obama Administration announced that it would decline its option to renew the contract and instead allow ICANN oversight to transfer to the “global multi-stake holder community”.

Despite some alarm on the right that ICANN will fall into the hands of China, Russia or the UN, both ICANN and the NTIA have been clear that they will not agree to transfer oversight responsibilities to any government entity or to the United Nations.  What is not clear is what entity is qualified to assume this function or whether ICANN might wind up without an oversight body altogether.

Currently, there is bipartisan concern that US relinquishment of domain oversight will have negative consequences for freedom of speech.   The Wall Street Journal referred to it as “America’s internet surrender.”  Newt Gingrich warned that “every American should worry about Obama giving up control of the internet to an undefined group. This is very, very dangerous.”  Even former President Bill Clinton has been extremely vocal on the issue, proclaiming that “I just know that a lot of these so-called multi-stakeholders are really governments that want to gag people and restrict access to the Internet.”

Two legislative bills are now in the works to prevent the Obama Administration from moving oversight of ICANN out of US hands.  The first is a bill sponsored by Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, which would stall the transfer until the Government Accountability Office could do a study on the transfer’s impact.  The second bill, sponsored by Congressman Mike Kelly, would prohibit the administration from making the transfer without congressional approval.

Because ICANN has no control over website content, fraud or email spam, some on the left erroneously assume that this precludes the possibility of stifling free speech on the internet.

Others naively believe that if attempts at censorship through domain name assignments were to occur, it would be met by “stiff opposition” from domain registry operators and ISP’s…. as if this would be sufficient to stop the likes of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and other tyrannical free speech oppressors.

In truth, ICANN has already started to crack under the OIC’s pressure.

Read more at Front Page

Paul Weston arrested for quoting Winston Churchill

Gates of Vienna:

Paul Weston, the chairman of LibertyGB, was arrested today in Winchester for publicly quoting Winston Churchill’s famous description of Mohammedanism.

Below is Enza Ferreri’s report on the incident.

 Winchester: Churchill Quotation Gets Liberty GB Leader Paul Weston Arrested

by Enza Ferreri

Today Paul Weston, chairman of the party Liberty GB and candidate in the 22 May European Elections in the South East, has been arrested in Winchester.

At around 2pm Mr Weston was standing on the steps of Winchester Guildhall, addressing the passers-by in the street with a megaphone. He quoted the following excerpt about Islam from the book The River War by Winston Churchill:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property — either as a child, a wife, or a concubine — must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.”

Reportedly a woman came out of the Guildhall and asked Mr Weston if he had the authorisation to make this speech. When he answered that he didn’t, she told him “It’s disgusting!” and then called the police.

Six or seven officers arrived. They talked with the people standing nearby, asking questions about what had happened. The police had a long discussion with Mr Weston, lasting about 40 minutes.

At about 3pm he was arrested. They searched him, put him in a police van and took him away.

Enza Ferreri is an Italian-born London writer and the Press Officer for Liberty GB. She blogs at www.enzaferreri.blogspot.co.uk. For her previous articles and translations, see the Enza Ferreri Archives.

For links to Paul Weston’s essays, see the Paul Weston Archives.

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

VIDEO: PAUL WESTON COULD FACE 2 YEARS IN JAIL FOR QUOTING CHURCHILL

Tennessee: School enforces sharia, bans town hall on…sharia law

By Creeping Sharia:

via FBI-banned, DOJ classified unindicted terror funding co-conspirator, fed judge confirmed Hamas front group CAIR Welcomes Cancellation of Anti-Muslim Event in Tenn. School

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today said it has joined with concerned Muslims in Tennessee in welcoming cancellation of an anti-Muslim event scheduled for April 24 at a Knoxville high school.

Another American inflicted with Adult Onset Islam via Approval rescinded for Shari’a Law event at Farragut High School.

"It's kind of an aggressive tone on the flyer," said AbdelRahman Murphy.

“It’s kind of an aggressive tone on the flyer,” said AbdelRahman Murphy.

“Feel free hosting it anywhere else by renting out a banquet hall, but to host it at a public place is one that is not comfortable for the rest of us to know about,” said [AbdelRahman] Murphy.

6 News reached out to the Knoxville chapter of ACT! for America. They say it is about education.

“He is going to be coming to share with us his expertise on what Shari’a law can be doing to Tennessee and to America as a whole,” said John Peach with ACT! For America.

They also say the venue simply should not matter.

“We feel like it’s very important that we have our public institutions take part in this because it’s not meant to be a religious thing. It’s not a political thing. It’s particularly for education purposes,” said Peach.

There is no word yet if ACT! for America plans to hold the event in a new venue.

John Peach issued this statement late Friday afternoon:

“Why is it that Muslims engage in teaching about how good Islam is for Tennessee at the Cedar Bluff Library – a public building, but they feel “uncomfortable” when ACT! for America plans an event to show the opposite viewpoint at a public building? (This is documented as follows):

Muslims like the support the University of Tennessee gives them to host activities and venues on their campus. Furthermore, it likes its Muslim Student Association (MSA) to hold events at their tax supported public UT campus.

“Why is it that all Tennessee social study textbooks to be authorized for use in our public schools must be approved by Muslim affiliates? (Hundreds of reviews have exposed the fact that our textbooks are overwhelmingly biased toward Muslims over Christianity and Judaism, with Islam always portrayed as being more significant than all other religions).

“Political Correctness has gone amuck and is destroying our country. Whatever happened to freedom of speech? If it’s right for Muslims to host events in tax-funded public facilities, then what is wrong with a group of citizens wanting the same privilege?

“Last December, ACT! for America – Knoxville Chapter was granted permission by Knox County Schools to use the facilities of Farragut High School to hold an educational forum including two speakers, followed by an opportunity for the public to answer any questions of the two. This we called the Town Hall – Farragut.

“We in good faith and urgent vitality have been promoting this event for the past four months, believing we were following all the guidelines given to us. We have spent over $1500.00 to advance this cause, including taking out a special insurance policy just to cover this occasion.

“The purpose of the meeting was to educate our local citizens about the dangers of Sharia Law, especially as it negatively affects our children, our churches, our law enforcement personnel, and our community leaders. Now, due to the fear of Muslims in the Knoxville area, the venue for the event that was open to everyone was cancelled. This is a great example of what Sharia Law is doing to America.”

 

 

CAIR Pressures Another College

CAIR has spoken out against numerous sections of the book, including portions that allegedly read, “Islam is an ideology of control, not for human and brotherly love,” and “Muslims would try to force their values and traditions on others callously. They would force their neighbors to cover their heads; otherwise they taunt them for not being modest; Muslim teachers would try to make their Christian students pray according to their Islamic religion.”

Muslim advocacy group calls for investigation by Oberlin College into lecturer’s ‘bigotry’

From: ChronicleOnline
By: Chelsea Miller, April 11, 2014

OBERLIN — The Cleveland chapter of the Council on America-Islamic Relations is asking Oberlin College to investigate a lecturer in the Arabic Language Department whom they say openly promotes “anti-Muslim bigotry and crude stereotypes of Muslims in his writings on campus.”

CAIR-Cleveland said lecturer Samir Amin Abdellatif is the publisher of a 290-page tract that “vilifies” Islam and Muslims. The organization said Abdellatif’s publication, entitled “The Unknown History of Islam,” promotes xenophobic views about Muslim immigration to the West, as well as supports “outlandish conspiracy theories.”

CAIR-Cleveland has requested that the college investigate Abdellatif’s teachings through a letter sent to Oberlin College President Marvin Krislov on March 11. In the letter, Shearson wrote, “We believe the reputation of Oberlin College is tarnished and students are done a disservice by having an Arabic language instructor who openly promotes anti-Muslim bigotry and who condones crude and ugly caricatures of Muslims.”

Full Article: http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2014/04/11/muslim-advocacy-group-calls-investigation-oberlin-college-professors-bigotry/

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

COMMENT/ANALYSIS: As is often the case, CAIR continues to attack and attempt to silence critics of  Islam.  The irony being that they are protesting a book that ” would try to force their values and traditions on others” … what CAIR regularly does as demonstrated with this incident.  It should be noted that the person that called CAIR on this matter is listed in the below article – accused of harrassment of another professor.

Related:

Here’s What I Would Have Said at Brandeis

A9WSJ, April 10, 2014, By AYAAN HIRSI ALI:

On Tuesday, after protests by students, faculty and outside groups, Brandeis University revoked its invitation to Ayaan Hirsi Ali to receive an honorary degree at its commencement ceremonies in May. The protesters accused Ms. Hirsi Ali, an advocate for the rights of women and girls, of being “Islamophobic.” Here is an abridged version of the remarks she planned to deliver.

One year ago, the city and suburbs of Boston were still in mourning. Families who only weeks earlier had children and siblings to hug were left with only photographs and memories. Still others were hovering over bedsides, watching as young men, women, and children endured painful surgeries and permanent disfiguration. All because two brothers, radicalized by jihadist websites, decided to place homemade bombs in backpacks near the finish line of one of the most prominent events in American sports, the Boston Marathon.

All of you in the Class of 2014 will never forget that day and the days that followed. You will never forget when you heard the news, where you were, or what you were doing. And when you return here, 10, 15 or 25 years from now, you will be reminded of it. The bombs exploded just 10 miles from this campus.

I read an article recently that said many adults don’t remember much from before the age of 8. That means some of your earliest childhood memories may well be of that September morning simply known as “9/11.”

You deserve better memories than 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombing. And you are not the only ones. In Syria, at least 120,000 people have been killed, not simply in battle, but in wholesale massacres, in a civil war that is increasingly waged across a sectarian divide. Violence is escalating in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Libya, in Egypt. And far more than was the case when you were born, organized violence in the world today is disproportionately concentrated in the Muslim world.

Another striking feature of the countries I have just named, and of the Middle East generally, is that violence against women is also increasing. In Saudi Arabia, there has been a noticeable rise in the practice of female genital mutilation. In Egypt, 99% of women report being sexually harassed and up to 80 sexual assaults occur in a single day.

Especially troubling is the way the status of women as second-class citizens is being cemented in legislation. In Iraq, a law is being proposed that lowers to 9 the legal age at which a girl can be forced into marriage. That same law would give a husband the right to deny his wife permission to leave the house.

Sadly, the list could go on. I hope I speak for many when I say that this is not the world that my generation meant to bequeath yours. When you were born, the West was jubilant, having defeated Soviet communism. An international coalition had forced Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. The next mission for American armed forces would be famine relief in my homeland of Somalia. There was no Department of Homeland Security, and few Americans talked about terrorism.

Two decades ago, not even the bleakest pessimist would have anticipated all that has gone wrong in the part of world where I grew up. After so many victories for feminism in the West, no one would have predicted that women’s basic human rights would actually be reduced in so many countries as the 20th century gave way to the 21st.

Today, however, I am going to predict a better future, because I believe that the pendulum has swung almost as far as it possibly can in the wrong direction.

When I see millions of women in Afghanistan defying threats from the Taliban and lining up to vote; when I see women in Saudi Arabia defying an absurd ban on female driving; and when I see Tunisian women celebrating the conviction of a group of policemen for a heinous gang rape, I feel more optimistic than I did a few years ago. The misnamed Arab Spring has been a revolution full of disappointments. But I believe it has created an opportunity for traditional forms of authority—including patriarchal authority—to be challenged, and even for the religious justifications for the oppression of women to be questioned.

Yet for that opportunity to be fulfilled, we in the West must provide the right kind of encouragement. Just as the city of Boston was once the cradle of a new ideal of liberty, we need to return to our roots by becoming once again a beacon of free thought and civility for the 21st century. When there is injustice, we need to speak out, not simply with condemnation, but with concrete actions.

One of the best places to do that is in our institutions of higher learning. We need to make our universities temples not of dogmatic orthodoxy, but of truly critical thinking, where all ideas are welcome and where civil debate is encouraged. I’m used to being shouted down on campuses, so I am grateful for the opportunity to address you today. I do not expect all of you to agree with me, but I very much appreciate your willingness to listen.

I stand before you as someone who is fighting for women’s and girls’ basic rights globally. And I stand before you as someone who is not afraid to ask difficult questions about the role of religion in that fight.

The connection between violence, particularly violence against women, and Islam is too clear to be ignored. We do no favors to students, faculty, nonbelievers and people of faith when we shut our eyes to this link, when we excuse rather than reflect.

So I ask: Is the concept of holy war compatible with our ideal of religious toleration? Is it blasphemy—punishable by death—to question the applicability of certain seventh-century doctrines to our own era? Both Christianity and Judaism have had their eras of reform. I would argue that the time has come for a Muslim Reformation.

Is such an argument inadmissible? It surely should not be at a university that was founded in the wake of the Holocaust, at a time when many American universities still imposed quotas on Jews.

The motto of Brandeis University is “Truth even unto its innermost parts.” That is my motto too. For it is only through truth, unsparing truth, that your generation can hope to do better than mine in the struggle for peace, freedom and equality of the sexes.

Ms. Hirsi Ali is the author of “Nomad: My Journey from Islam to America” (Free Press, 2010). She is a fellow at the Belfer Center of Harvard’s Kennedy School and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Islam for Dummies: A Journalist ‘Guide’ Whitewashes Islam

By :

“[U]ninformed, inaccurate or consciously provocative journalism” concerning Islam worries Lawrence Pintak, founding dean of Washington State University’s Edward R. Murrow College of Communication.

Unfortunately, Pintak’s remedy to this problem, the online guide “Islam for Journalists” edited by Pintak, betrays an absurdly benign understanding of an Islam whose apparent only fault is being slandered by others.

“Across the Muslim world today,” Pintak’s introduction notes, “extremists are wielding their swords with grisly effect, but the pen…can be just as lethal.”

The 2012 “lewd cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad” in the French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo, for example, receive Pintak’s censure while, like many journalists today, he uncritically applies the honorific “Prophet” to Islam’s founder. Charlie Hebdo’s editor had condemned the weapons used in violent reactions to the anti-Muhammad “Innocence of Muslims” internet movie trailer preceding his cartoons. Yet the “weapon he controlled can do far more damage,” Pintak warned in equating speech with the violent reactions of others, then “evident in the conflagration…erupting across the Muslim world.”

Screenshot of the “Innocence of Muslims” portrayal of Muhammad. (Image: YouTube screenshot)

Screenshot of the “Innocence of Muslims” portrayal of Muhammad. (Image: YouTube screenshot)

“A commitment to press freedom is in my blood,” Pintak qualified against suspicions of censorship. Yet speaking of the 2005 Danish Muhammad cartoons and their violent response, Pintak showed sympathy for those who refused their publication.

“[M]any Muslim journalists,” Pintak related in denying these “Motoons” any news value, “simply couldn’t understand why Western news organizations would republish the offensive images just because” of a legal right. Yet “journalism is not supposed to be a weapon” but rather “to inform, not inflame; to understand, not distort,” in contrast to “propaganda.”

The Danish cartoons exhibited “in our increasingly interconnected world,” writer Jonathan Lyons similarly relativized, “a number of central issues.” These included the “proper extent of press freedoms; minority rights; the shifting landscape of blasphemy laws and prohibitions; and the history of Muslim grievance toward the West.”

Rather than criticize Muslim rioters, Lyons complained that “almost no one reported on…the Danish media and its supporters as cynical provocateurs motivated by domestic political concerns.”

Beyond free speech controversies, “Islam for Journalists” favored Islam with numerous biased and false statements.

After discussing how Islam “roughly translates as ‘surrender’ or ‘submission’…to the will of Allah,” Pintak noted that Muhammad in Islam, “although he is not divine, he is considered ‘the Perfect Man.’”

“By imitating him,” Pintak stated without any critical questioning of Muhammad’s example, “Muslims hope to acquire his interior attitude—perfect surrender to God.” Pintak also takes an uncritical approach towards Muhammad’s migration or hijara to Yathrib (Medina) in order to escape his pagan opponents in Mecca.

Mideast Israel Palestinians US Prophet Film

“Muslims interpret Muhammad’s decision to embark on this exodus as a teaching that they should not live under tyranny,” Pintak proclaims, omitting any controversial discussion of the Islamic law Muhammad developed.

Western “notions of Islam,” meanwhile, Lyons dismisses without explanation. These include “irrational; spread by the sword and maintained by force; and sexually perverse and abusive toward women” as well as “unsuited to democratic institutions, science, and modernity.” Such views “had their origins as wartime propaganda, dating to beginning of the Crusades,” Lyons asserts, ignoring Western hostility towards Islam originating in centuries of pre-Crusades Islamic aggression.

“Innocence of Muslims” “drew on Crusades-era propaganda to slander the Prophet Muhammad,” Lyons further claims, even though canonical Islamic accounts underlie this poorly-made film.

In all, the “West had had no direct experience or knowledge of Muslim beliefs, practices, and lifestyles at the time that it established its comprehensive vision of Islam as a deadly, existential, and essentially immutable threat.”

Apparently for Lyons, ongoing Muslim invasion and subjugation of Christian societies dating from Islam’s beginning is not direct enough.

“These same perceptions remain more or less in force today, despite a millennium of direct experience and engagement — commercial, military, theological, political, and journalistic — with the world of Islam,” Lyons complains. Lyons thereby does not explain what interactions with the Islamic world in the interval should have given non-Muslims a favorable impression of Islam (The Ottoman Empire? Pakistan’s Islamic Republic? The Iranian Revolution? Iraq’s history? The Arab Spring?).

Lyons’ perception of Islam’s supposedly hidden truth is less than convincing.

Read more at The Blaze

CAIR-MI Fails to Silence TMLC President

Thomas Moore Law Center:

The Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) attempted to silence a speech by Richard Thompson to the Greater Oakland Republican Club on the internal threat posed to America by Radical Islam by using their customary name-calling intimidation tactics, which have proven successful in the past.  This time their tactics did not work.

RT Speaking Captioned(1)

Thompson, the President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, was invited to speak on Tuesday, April 1st.  On Monday, however, CAIR-MI launched a press release demanding that the Republican Club disinvite Thompson, labeling him a “notorious Islamophobe” with a “long track record of fear-mongering.”  The Club refused to cave-in to the ploy and the speech went on as planned in a packed room.

Thompson, responding to the Club’s decision not to cave-in to CAIR, commented, “I applaud the Greater Oakland Republican Club for its steadfast defense of the constitutional right to free speech.  Sadly, too many groups and individuals lack the moral courage to say “No” to CAIR.  And as long as their bullying tactics work on some weak-kneed Americans, they will continue their efforts to restrict free speech.”

Thompson began his speech by informing the audience that they have witnessed first-hand the operation of Sharia law—silencing the free speech right of anyone who dares criticize Islam.  Thompson went on to describe CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial where the supposed charity and five of its organizers were found guilty by a federal jury of illegally funneling more than $12 million to the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.  Thompson also pointed to the stated plans of one of CAIR’s founders, Omar Ahmad, that Islam is in America to become dominant and the highest authority.

Thompson also quoted a statement from the FBI’s former chief of counterterrorism, “CAIR, its leaders and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups.”

The University of Michigan is the most recent entity to capitulate to CAIR’s campaign to silence any criticism of Islam.  As a result of CAIR’s intimidation tactics, the University cancelled screenings of “Honor Diaries,” a film which details the truth about the brutal violence against women in Muslim countries.

According to Megyn Kelly on the Kelly File, (a great video to watch) numerous screenings of the film have been cancelled due to demands from CAIR including a screening at the University of Michigan – Ann Arbor originally scheduled for  April 3, 2014.

CAIR and CAIR-MI often demand the cancellation of events they deem “Islamophobic;” a term meant to intimidate and force event organizers into cancellations.

Clearly, the reason for CAIR’s personal attacks on Thompson stem from the fact that as a public interest law firm, TMLC, has led the fight against the threat of Radical Islam and the Stealth Jihad in the courts.

Brooke Goldstein, a human rights attorney, in response to CAIR’s involvement in shutting down the “Honor Diaries” film said, “CAIR operates as the Islamic speech police. It goes around bullying and intimidating anyone who is brave enough to speak publically about the threat of Islam and Islamist terrorism and violence in the Muslim world.”

Goldstein continued, “CAIR has a systematic campaign to go around and target anybody who speaks publically about the threat of militant Islam as Islamophobic.”