Why the GOP Debate YouTube Star is Wrong About Islamophobia

Muslim-American Nabela Noor

Muslim-American Nabela Noor

Conservative Review, By: Benjamin Weingarten | January 29th, 2016:

As warned by Michelle Malkin, the YouTube personalities chosen to ask questions of Republican presidential candidates during Thursday’s final GOP debate before the 2016 Iowa Caucus pursued narratives antithetical to the viewpoints of conservative primary voters.

Perhaps most pernicious of all was the question posed by Muslim-American Nabela Noor, pictured here in a “Feel The Bern” sweater. Noor stated:

In 2015, the number of hate crimes against Muslims in the U.S. has tripled, and on social media, where I spend a lot of time, I’ve seen many attacks directed towards fellow Muslims. This culture of hatred is only driving ISIS to radicalize, recruit and incite violence.

As president, what would you do to address this toxic climate and promote increased tolerance in the United States?

Over fifty percent (50%) of all “anti-religious hate crime” perpetrated annually during the Obama presidency has been committed on an “anti-Jewish” basis.

Here was my response to her question:

BW tweet

2014 is not just a one-off outlier. Over fifty percent (50%) of all “anti-religious hate crime” perpetrated annually during the Obama presidency has been committed on an “anti-Jewish” basis as classified by the FBI. You would not know that from the rhetoric of Ms. Noor or the Obama administration however, who would have us believe that an Islamophobic scourge is sweeping the nation, requiring corrective action up to and including the criminalization of “anti-Muslim” speech.

Now presumably what Ms. Noor actually was referring to in her assertion about anti-Muslim hate crimes was a report cited by the New York Times from the “Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism.” This report noted that the number of hate crimes against Muslims since the November 13, 2015 Paris jihadist attacks had tripled to 38 (contrasted with 12.6 attacks per month based on FBI statistics).

And this is if we take the analysis cited by the Times at face value. It bears noting that the Center is run by Brian Levin, a professor at Cal State University, criminologist and civil rights attorney who formerly served as the Associate Director-Legal Affairs of the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center’s Klanwatch/Milita Task Force in Montgomery, Alabama.

Even without questioning the messenger here or the veracity of the anti-Muslim hate crime statistics compiled from “reports from the news media and civil rights groups”—and even without acknowledging the potential for hoaxes given the number of prominent supposed hate crimes that were later shown to be perpetrated by Muslims themselves—Noor botched the statistic. A tripling of attacks in a one-month period does not equal a tripling of attacks during 2015 overall.

The ignored broader context about a supposed “toxic climate” in America is that the 1,140 anti-religious hate crimes recorded during 2014—the vast majority of which again, as has historically been the case, were perpetrated against Jews, not Muslims—represents a remarkably small number in a nation of over 300 million people, even accepting that such crimes may go underreported. Consider by comparison that in the first half of 2015 alone, the Islamic Republic of Iran executed over 700 people.

One would think that Ms. Noor, evidently a Bernie supporter and thus a member of the Party of Science, would show more fidelity to the empirical evidence.

Ben Weingarten is Founder & CEO of ChangeUp Media LLC, a media consulting and publication services firm. A graduate of Columbia University, he regularly contributes to publications such as City Journal, The Federalist, Newsmax and PJ Media on national security/defense, economics and politics. You can follow him on Facebook and Twitter. 

The Politics of Censorship at Exeter

Phillips_Exeter_Academy_buildingCommentary, by Michael Rubin, Jan. 29, 2016:

Exeter Academy is one of the most elite college preparatory schools in the United States. Recently Exeter alum and teachers on campus banded together to try (successfully, it seems) to dis-invite former Congressman and radio talk show host and commentator Fred Grandy, an Exeter alum, from teaching a senior seminar on “Politics in Media.” The Exonian explained:

Actor turned politician, Grandy gave a well-received assembly in September, after which he worked with Director of Studies Brooks Moriarty and Institutional Advancement to create a club, structured as a seminar open only to seniors by application, as an opportunity for students to explore the relationship between politics and media. Moriarty will advise the club, which will meet six times over the course of the presidential primary season this winter term. Participation in the seminar is entirely voluntary and there is no credit earned by the students. However, since the club’s conception, faculty and students have raised concerns about Grandy’s commentary on his radio show and his affiliation with the Center for Security Policy, a right-wing think tank run by Frank Gaffney, following his resulting resignation from WMAL.

Now, I neither always agree with Frank Gaffney nor the Center for Security Policy, though they are an important pole of the debate one that if disagreed with should be refuted rather than censored. (Full disclosure: I have spoken at Center for Security Policy events before, and I agree with their skepticism of both the Iran deal and the direction of Turkey. I have also spoken at events sponsored by think tanks and universities that lean far more to the left on many of the same issues). And no one can doubt that a former congressman and radio host is well positioned to talk about the confluence of politics and media.
The Exonian highlighted complaints by some alumni and teachers which took issue with the Center for Security Policy’s positions, but to prioritize affiliation over personal writing both chills debate and is based on a false assumption that think tanks on either the left or right are homogeneous in opinion. Through self-selection, many think tanks lean more toward one side or another, but many Washington think tanks probably encompass more ideological diversity than the faculty of an average liberal arts college. And, even when they do not, the think-tank community appears more open to debating real ideological opponents than university or prep school colleagues who too often simply host self-affirming “teach-ins.”

At any rate, what caught my eye in The Exonian piece was this:

Head of the MLK Day Committee and English instructor Mercy Carbonell expressed her discomfort and disappointment with the school’s apparent endorsement of Grandy’s views on Islam. “I sat in the Assembly [on anti-Muslim sentiment] and listened to us respond to the national hate rhetoric, the Islamophobic language that is in the presidential race, that is in the newspapers I still pick up and read in ink. How will we explain that we chose to side with Islamophobia?”

Let’s put aside the fact that Grandy is neither speaking nor teaching about Islam. Carbonell added, perhaps as an attempt to suggest high-mindedness that, according to The Exonian:

“There is always a benefit in bringing together people who may share differing opinions.” However, she believed that “If it is a conservative voice we want to teach this course, there are plenty of decent, serious, non-inflammatory, likely-more-qualified alums we could choose.”

What is especially telling is that, about a decade ago, Carbonell published a comment in the New York Times expressing her disappointment in the 2006 elections. Here’s what she had to say:

When will PA or any state for that matter get a candidate who is beyond the realm of the “liberal” label? Does anyone in this unbelievably idiotic country have any radically left ideas anymore? The students I teach think Hillary Clinton is “left;” how completely misinformed they really are. There are no models and there may be no room in politics for the “left” in the America we have constructed today. And even when those models come along, they are portrayed as “freaks” rather that people who simply have an ideologically different perspective to propose. And then they are dismissed. Tragic!

How tolerant a person Carbonell must be to dismiss those who disagree with her as “unbelievably idiotic.” Elections and the will of the people must be so inconvenient in comparison to having a captive, even if “misinformed” class of students. Perhaps Exeter might want to remind Carbonell and her peers, though, of what irony is. One example might be complaining about the dismissal of those with divergent opinions, all the while trying to dismiss those with “an ideologically different perspective.” At the very least, Exeter might want to look at this current controversy to spark a real discussion of the value of free speech and thought in education, as well as the importance of challenging the ingrained assumptions of not only students but also faculty through broad, respectful debate.

Former Congressman Banned from Teaching Seminar at ​Elite ​New Hampshire School After ‘Islamophobia’ C​​harge

Screen-Shot-2016-01-28-at-10.03.33-PM-640x480Breitbart, by Jordan Schachtel, Jan. 29, 2016:

Fred Grandy (R-IA), a former Republican Congressman and actor, has been ​disinvited​ from hosting a seminar series on “Politics in Media” this winter at New Hampshire’s prestigious Phillips Exeter Academy, after individuals involved with the school raised concerns about his “Islamophobic ties.”

Grandy, who graduated from Harvard University and attended the Phillips Exeter Academy for high school, ​was the host of a very popular morning talk show on WMAL in Washington, D.C., and ​worked with the Center for Security Policy following his tenure in Congress. The Center is known for its advocacy of Ronald Reagan’s “peace through strength” foreign policy, and has been on the front lines of the battle against Islamic supremacists in America.

The Congressman told​ Breitbart News he wanted to give back to his high school alma mater and provide his expertise for the dozen or so students who had​ already​ signed up for his class.

He wanted to teach students how “politics and the media in this country have evolved, where they are now, and how campaigns operate.” Throughout the conversation, Grandy reiterated that he never planned on introducing any outside topics nor his allegedly controversial views on foreign policy and Islam.

Identifying as a former Republican Congressman didn’t seem to be a problem at first, he said: “What was a problem, evidently… was that somebody, somewhere decided to rummage through commentary that had been made about me.”

Here, Grandy is referring to “hit pieces” referenced in the The Exonian article that calls for him not to be allowed to teach the class. Left-wing blogs Mother Jones and the Huffington Post are referenced in the piece, which designate the accomplished actor and representative as an “Islamophobe.” The articles, for the most part, do not quote Grandy verbatim, but instead attack him for his views on terrorism committed in the name of Islam.

“The Exonian Published this article branding me as an ‘Islamophobe’ and purveyor of hate-speech,” he tells Breitbart News. “They didn’t even contact me beforehand to ask about these charges” relayed from the left wing outlets, he said.

“The attitude right now is that I’m a danger to the campus,” Grandy expressed. “There was a movement in the faculty to shut this [class] down.”

“I had no day in court. I had no recourse. Based on two articles, I’ve been tried and found guilty with no chance to plead my case,” he added.

“I was in Congress for eight years. I was on the radio and television for eight years doing news and commentary, and I felt that combination would be valuable,” Grandy said in noting his credentials to teach the class.

But since the “Islamophobia” issue came to light, Grandy ​told​ Breitbart News he has been on the receiving end of a “defamation assault as an alumnus who is simply trying to volunteer my time and expertise.”

“This is the new blacklist,” he said with regard to the attempted silencing of individuals who attempt to explore the ideologies within Islam. “The Islamic advocacy organizations have become adept at spinning” legitimate critiques and designating it as “hate speech,” he concluded.

Google and Fox TV Invite Anti-Trump, Hitler-Citing, Muslim Advocate to Join Next GOP TV-Debate

Noor-Trump-Hitler-640x480

Breitbart, by Neil Munro, Jan. 27, 2016:

Fox News and Google have invited three YouTube personalities to ask questions at the Jan. 28 GOP debate — including a Muslim advocate who describes Donald Trump as a bigot and who visually portrayed him as being in agreement with national socialist Adolf Hitler.

“We have a presidential candidate whose loudest message reeks of hatred and Islamophobia… turning on the news now is scary, and oftentimes, humiliating,” the Muslim woman, Nabela Noor, says in a December YouTube video.

She admits to becoming a Muslim political activist amid the growing criticism of Islam’s doctrines. “The current social environment for Muslims today is not safe or just… as a Muslim American, I felt like I needed to use my voice,” she claimed. 

Noor also urged her YouTube viewers to rally against critics of Islam. “I’m so thankful for those who speak up and out against anti-Islamic speech and ideologies. Our community needs more allies like you, but we have a long way to go,” she said.

The two companies announced Tuesday afternoon that the anti-Trump Muslim advocate would be allowed to play a role in the debate.

Google is teaming up with the Fox News Channel for the final  Republican debate in Iowa on Thursday, January 28, 2016, and integrating three new components into the debate to help people get informed before they head to the polls, including a way to hear directly from candidates on Google; real-time Google Trends data; and questions from three of YouTube’s most prominent voices—Nabela Noor, Mark Watson, and Dulce Candy — who will join the moderators in the debate to ask the candidates a question on an issue that matters to them and their communities.  

The Republican National Committee also approved the choice of Noor, an LA.-based press aide for YouTube, Jackie Cavanagh, at MPRM Communications, told Breitbart. “I believe” she was chosen by YouTube, with help from the RNC and Fox, she said.

“YouTube creators were selected in collaboration with Fox based on things such as audience size and their ability to bring a new, fresh perspective to the most important issues of our time. Fox informed the party/candidates of the format,” said a p.r. person. 

Allison Moore, a press secretary for the RNC, told Breitbart that “We had nothing to do with that.” 

Irena Briganti, a spokeswoman for Fox, also did not respond.

In December, Trump announced he would restrict the immigration of Muslims until the jihad problem can be addressed. “It is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life,” said Trump.

The statement came 14 years after Islamic jihadis killed 3,000 Americans and destroyed the Twin Towers in New York, and after many other jihadis launched or tried to launch a series of attacks across the United States.

In her videos, Dulce Candy, the invited Latino questioner, said she was brought fromcentral Mexico to the United States while a young girl. She later joined the U.S. military and served in Iraq. The press announcement described Candy:

With over 2 million subscribers on her YouTube channel, Dulce is a top YouTube beauty, fashion and lifestyle influencer. The only thing more impressive than her fanbase is her story: she immigrated to the United States from Mexico at age 6 and served in the armed forces in Iraq. Today, she’s a proud U.S. citizen, mother, and entrepreneur who serves as a role model for latinas, women, and more.

Noor is described in the company anouncement as well: 

Born in New York, Nabela is a 24 year old Muslim American whose parents immigrated from Bangladesh. As an up-and-coming beauty creator with over 140,000 subscribers, Nabela hasn’t shied away from social issues. In a recent video, she spoke about being called a “terrorist” in elementary school after 9/11 and emphasized the importance of tolerance above all.

The perspective of the Muslim woman, Noor, has been shaped by her Bangladeshi immigrant parents, who were paired off by their parents in an arranged marriage as teenagers, aged 17 and 14.

These Bangladeshi Muslim parents migrated to the United States — while hiding am anchor-baby pregnancy — and later kept Noor in the house for many years to prevent her from integrating with American society. “Growing up, we weren’t allowed out much, our parents wanted to preserve our culture at all costs,” she said. They even refused to let her date a man, even after she had gone to college, Noor said in a biographical video. The parents also arranged a marriage for Noor’s older sister. Her mother still wears a head-covering to mark her as a loyal Muslim.

Aspects of Islamic culture remain part of Noor’s personality, under the outward appearance of an American fashionista.

For example, Noor argues that Muslims are individually and collectively insulted when many Americans’ offer sincere and well-argued criticism of Islam’s violent doctrines — for example, jihad, bans against free speech, the death penalty for quitting Islam, sexual subordination of women, opposition to democracy and the separation of mosque and state, etc., etc. That bigoted claim of injury from free speech echoes the demand from orthodox Islam that critics of Islam be silenced – by force if needed – and that the status or honor of each Muslim is damaged if they fail to fight against any criticism of Islam by non-Muslims.

So Noor claimed:

To be hateful and Islamophobic has become so common that it is proudly displayed all around us, online, on the news, and in politics. it is dehumanizing and it hurts. It is hard not to see a bumper sticker of a bigoted presidential candidate and not feel personally attacked when his entire campaign rests on the backs of Muslim-Americans. Where there should be messages of hope and tolerance, there are messages being spread of fear and hate, thus breeding violence.

In contrast, Western Christians and non-Christians try to treat criticism of ideas, such as Christianity’s claim that unborn humans deserve the right to life, or the merits of any particular presidential candidate, as a problem to be solved by facts, logic, free-speech, and compromise. That’s fundamentally different from Noor’s Islamic-style, only-one-winner fight over honor, pride, and supremacy.

That only-one-winner, zero-sum attitude often pushes Muslims to escalate debates into shouting matches and threats. Noor, for example, showed an image linking Trump and Hitler, which suggests that Trump’s criticism of Islam’s jihad ideology is so morally reprehensible that it is equivalent to actually murdering six million Jews, plus at least 10 million Slavic Russians, plus millions of other victims of Hitler’s socialism-for-Aryans Nazi ideology.

In fact, much to the embarrassment of Muslim advocates in the United States, that aggressive aspect of Islam was admired by Jew-hating, left-wing Hitler, who naturally also hated Christianity’s peacefulness, reason and emphasis on individuals’ conscience.

Noor also described criticism of Islam as “Islamophobia,” as if only the existence of a nationwide mental-disease could explain why Americans criticize jihad or child-marriagesor the murder of captured Christians or the murders of homosexuals or the murder of a seventh-century poet.

That term, “Islamophobia,” was developed by Islamic advocates to help their allies stigmatize critics of Islam. Generally, Western advocates do not describe their critics as mentally diseased, but as illogical, selfish, or misinformed.

In her video, Noor also tried to argue that Trump’s implied criticism of the violence associated with Islam — likely, including the 9/11 atrocity, the San Bernardino murders, and many other recent jihad attacks — is somehow causing more attacks by Americans against Muslims in America. She did not supply evidence, but did show a newspaper clipping that was actually about a Muslim in Detroit who stabbed two non-Muslims after asking them if they were Muslims.

“Nick Loussia, Deputy Chief of Police for the Southfield Police Department, said [the stabber] ‘is Muslim, and asked the victims what religion they were’ before allegedly attacking them,” said a report at MLive.com.

But Noor portrayed the Muslim-against-not-Muslim jihad attack as actually caused by Americans’ fear of Muslim attacks

“The fear-mongering tactics are a direct cause of hate-violence against Muslims and that makes being a Muslim in America today very, very scary,” she claimed. Noor did not mention any of the many, many, many attacks by Muslims against non-Muslims in America.

She did, however, try to argue that the many Islam-inspired attacks are not Islamic. ‘There are people out there that manipulate our texts to serve their own sick twisted agenda,” she said, without trying to explain how ISIS violates Islamic texts, or trying to disavow the many commandments for jihad in the Koran. 

Why Are Muslims Faking Anti-Muslim Hate Crimes?

Muslim demonstratorsIBD Editorials, Jan. 5, 2016:

Hype: As the attorney general threatens to prosecute Americans for anti-Muslim hate crime, Muslims are faking anti-Muslim hate crimes across the country to prop up the fiction that Muslims are victimized in the U.S.

The latest fabrication involves the torching of a Houston mosque on Christmas Day. The arson was quickly seized on by the national media and Muslim-rights groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which demanded that police investigate it as a hate crime.

“We urge law enforcement authorities to investigate a possible bias motive for this fire,” CAIR’s Houston chapter said in a statement.

Federal authorities did investigate, and they collared a suspect. Sorry, CAIR, he’s not a Muslim-hating Trump supporter. He’s a Muslim.

Not only that, he’s a longtime member of the damaged Islamic Society of Greater Houston mosque, where he prayed five times a day, seven days per week.

Last Christmas, a similar incident was reported at a mosque in Fresno, Calif.; and in a similar rush to judgment, the media joined Muslim groups in accusing anti-Islamic bigots for the vandalism of the Islamic Cultural Center there.

Only, it turned out that the incident was not an act of “Islamophobia” at all.

As in Houston, the damage was self-inflicted by a member of the mosque. Police arrested Asif Mohammad Khan. They said that he was an admirer of Osama bin Laden.

These are hardly isolated cases of Muslim groups and their media apologists misleading the public about anti-Muslim hate crimes.

They are part of a long series of events — including pure fabrications — that serve to portray non-Muslims as threats and deflect attention away from Muslims as the real threats. Learning from other groups, they’ve discovered that racism can be blamed for almost everything.

October 2014: Two Muslim activists released a video showing NYPD cops harassing and “racially profiling” Muslims just for wearing Islamic garb. The video went viral; CAIR demanded an investigation for discrimination. But the whole thing was staged. The cops weren’t even real.

June 2014: After three burned Qurans were found in front of a mosque in Dearborn, Mich., the imam there led a campaign to pass a local statute criminalizing the desecration of holy books. The media ran with it, and his crusade gained traction — until it was revealed that the Quran barbecuer was none other than a Muslim named Ali Hassan al-Assadi.

April 2014: After murdering his wife, a Muslim man in El Cajon, Calif., made it look like an anti-Muslim bigot did the crime. He left a note with her body that read: “Go back to your country, you terrorist,” which led the media to report the murder as an “Islamophobic” hate crime.

Some claimed that the slain wife was targeted for “wearing a hijab.” CNN host Reza Aslan blamed conservative “Islamophobic f**ks” for the homicide — even after the truth came out that it was an Islamic honor killing, not a hate crime.

August 2010: A Muslim high school girl in Ann Arbor, Mich., claimed that a mob physically attacked her in an apparent hate crime which included ethnic slurs and the forcible removal of her hijab.

The “alleged hate crime” prompted CAIR to lead a media blitz calling for investigations by state and federal authorities. Except the assault never happened. The girl was eventually charged and found guilty of disorderly conduct.

FBI data show that hate crimes against Muslims are actually rare, which probably explains the need to make them up.

Such hysteria over “Islamophobia” is merely used by terror-support groups such as CAIR to shut down debate over jihadism and the responsibilities of the Muslim community to reform violent Islam and call out the terrorists radicalized in its ranks.

Progressive “Thought-Blockers”: Islamophobia

ol

Frontpage, by Bruce Thornton, Dec. 30, 2015:

A few days before the San Bernardino shootings, President Obama reacted to Donald Trump’s proposal to bar Muslims entry into the U.S. by saying, “It is the responsibility of all Americans––of every faith––to reject discrimination.  It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country . . . Muslim Americans are our friends and our neighbors, our co-workers, our sports heroes.” Attorney General Loretta Lynch went even further. In an address at the Muslim Advocates dinner, she commented,

“Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone . . . lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric, or, as we saw after 9/11, violence against individuals who may not even be Muslims but may be perceived to be Muslims . . . When we see that, we will take action”––or as she warns, “They will be prosecuted.”

How is that Muslims have become “snowflakes” like those pampered college students so traumatized by opposing points of view that they need “safe spaces” from speech they don’t like, and demand scrapping the First Amendment? For an answer, look to another progressive “thought-blocker,” “Islamophobia.”

This made-up thought-crime is not a response to an epidemic of Muslim persecution in America. Sixty percent of anti-religious hate crimes are directed at Jews, not Muslims. Nor is it penance for historical crimes committed by Christians and Jews against Muslims, whether those are imperialism, colonialism, or Israel’s defense of its nation against incessant violence. Islam’s record of slaughter, enslavement, and occupation far eclipses that of the West.

Rather, “Islamophobia” is the product of peculiarly modern bad ideas. It surfaced in 1997 in a report by a British think-tank, the Runnymede Trust. The purpose was to explain the social dysfunctions and problems of British Muslims, which were laid at the feet of “anti-Islamic bias” that encouraged discrimination, hate crimes against Muslims, and distortions of Islam in the media and popular culture. In 2004 the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia––notice how the name begs the question––concluded that England was “institutionally Islamophobic.” Facts of illiberal Muslim behavior such as its unequal treatment of women, intolerance of other faiths, and radical mosques preaching intolerance and jihad were ignored.

So where does “Islamophobia” come from? Start with the suffix “phobia,” from the Greek word for “fear.” This is a vaguely Freudian psychological idea referring to an irrational fear that reflects not reality but repression of unsavory or frightening impulses. After all, fearing a dangerous black widow spider is not irrational. Fearing a harmless brown recluse is. The suffix as used in other ideological smears like “homophobia” or “xenophobia” always implies that the fear is baseless, and has more to do with irrational neuroses and bigotry than genuine threats.  “Islamophobia,” then, begs a huge question, for it is perfectly rational to fear a danger like terrorist violence justified by religious doctrine.

Thus the purveyors of this epithet have to downplay or minimize the very real threat of jihadist violence, reducing people’s reactions and demands for improved security to a mental problem. The president implied as much in his recent comments purged from a New York Times interview, when he said “he did not see enough cable television to fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino,” implying that people were reacting to ginned up scare-stories on Fox News rather than a real threat. He added to this analysis when on NPR he claimed ISIS was not an “existential threat,” and said its real danger is “making us forget who we are” and our “values,” which obviously means in part irrationally indulging in anti-Muslim bigotry and “Islamophobia” out of neurotic fears stoked by Donald Trump.

More important than two-bit Freudianism for the currency of “Islamophobia” has been the work of Edward Said, the main source of most of the malign ideas that poison our discourse on Islam with self-loathing and dismissal of reality. The colonial West, according to Said in Orientalism, invented the Muslim “other” as inferior and violent in order to justify Western dominance of the region, creating a “Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the orient.” In a later book Said argued that the Muslim terrorist was another “other” fabricated to create “both a peculiarly immediate sense of hostility and a coarse, on the whole unnuanced attitude toward Islam,” the purpose of which is to serve “national and corporate needs.” These needs created the “highly exaggerated stereotypes” of Muslims highjacking airplanes and blowing up buildings. As Lee Smith points out, Said set the terms of how journalists and intellectuals talked about Islam and Muslims––as the crude “other” invented to mask Western oppression and “Islamophobia.” The reflexive self-loathing and guilt that lie at the heart of “Islamophobia” found their most influential enabler in Said’s work.

The fear of being “Islamophobic” in part explains the whitewashing flattery of Islam that has characterized the government even before 9/11. In the late 90s, when Osama bin Laden was already waging war on America, Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright gushed that Islam is a “faith that honors consultation, cherishes peace, and has as one of its fundamental principles the inherent equality of all who embrace it.” George Bush said that Islam’s “teachings are good and peaceful” and that terrorists like bin Laden “blaspheme the name of Allah.” And of course Barack Obama has been the most fulsome and groveling in his praise of Islam. He carefully says “the Prophet Mohammed” and “Holy Koran,” while never saying “Our Lord Jesus Christ” or “Holy Bible.” He has leached traditional Islamic doctrines from the motives driving jihadists, and regularly condemns “Islamophobia” as a greater threat to America than Muslim terrorist violence. But the top prize for such myopic pandering to Muslims goes to ex-Army Chief of Staff George W. Casey, who responded to the 2009 Fort Hood jihadist attack that killed 13 by saying, “As horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

The worst consequence of the “Islamophobia” phobia has been the distortion of our analyses of the jihadists’ motives. The specious psychology of the apologists holds that the insults or policies born of “Islamophobia” offend Muslims and create more terrorists. Or as Obama said of Trump’s proposal to screen Muslims entering the country, “plays into the hands of groups like ISIL,” for “when we travel down that road, we lose.” Hillary Clinton has played this same card, calling Donald Trump ISIS’ “greatest recruiter” and “recruitment poster,” and falsely claiming that Trump is used in ISIS recruitment videos. Thus her constant calls to cater to Muslims in America, who she sees as genuine, peaceful Muslims, and thus our natural allies against the “hijackers” like ISIS. “We must work more closely with Muslim-Americans,” Clinton said recently, “not demonize them” or make them “feel left out or marginalized” since they’re trying “to stop radicalization.” Of course she ignores the fact that CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the most influential Muslim lobby in America, continually apologizes and rationalizes jihadist terror, and encourages Muslims not to cooperate with the FBI.

“Islamophobia” is not just intellectually incoherent and loaded with cringing self-hatred. It is deadly.  In order not to wound Muslim sensibilities and create a “backlash,” egregious rules of engagement are imposed on our warriors that sacrifice their lives by proscribing the destruction of mosques and dwellings harboring arsenals and snipers; common sense calls to limit Syrian economic immigrants are rejected; government security training documents are purged of references to Islamic jihadist doctrines; Guantanamo is demonized as a “recruiter” for terrorists from which actual terrorists must be released; Orwellian Newspeak is employed to “disappear” the precedents for terror in Islamic scripture and practice; and radical mosques and imams in America are given free rein to proselytize and recruit.

We’ve been at this tactic of flattery for decades, and there’s no evidence it works. America is no more liked among Middle Eastern Muslims today than when George Bush left office. Terrorist groups have multiplied and spread despite our anxious protestations of our admiration for their religion, even as we ignore the genocide of Christians in the Middle East. Jihadism is strong and growing, attracting thousands of Western Muslims to the fight against the infidel. And jihad, abetted by the anxiety over “Islamophobia,” is winning the hearts and minds of the youth demographic. As the Atlantic reports, globally jihad is “cool,” a false but glamorous promise of redeeming violence and transcendent meaning powerfully attractive in a Western world marked by anomic secularism and trivial hedonism.

“Islamophobia” blocks clear thinking. It ignores the traditional Islamic motives that drive jihadists, trivializing them into wayward teens who “act out” because their self-esteem has been damaged by insensitive adults, and who merely need their self-esteem boosted by recognition of how wonderful their religion and culture are. A foreign policy based on such pop-psychological superstitions is one doomed to fail.

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, a Research Fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, and a Professor of Classics and Humanities at the California State University. He is the author of nine books and numerous essays on classical culture and its influence on Western Civilization. His most recent book, Democracy’s Dangers and Discontents (Hoover Institution Press), is now available for purchase

SDSU: Muslim Student Association demands “zero tolerance policy explicitly for Islamophobic speech”

Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, Dec. 28, 2015:

Here again we see how Leftist and Islamic supremacist groups use the term “Islamophobia” for both attacks on innocent civilians, which have no justification under any circumstances, and for honest examination of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to incite hatred and violence. These groups use the former to quash the latter, which will have the effect of allowing the jihad to advance unimpeded and unopposed.

Is that what the MSA wants? Probably, since it is a Muslim Brotherhood organization. According toDiscover the Networks, “The Muslim Students Association of the United States and Canada, or MSA (also known as MSA National), was established mainly by members of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in January 1963 at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Nyack College theologian Larry A. Poston writes that “many of the founding members of this agency [MSA] were members of, or had connections to,” the Muslim Brotherhood or Jamaat-i-Islami. The three most significant founders of MSA were Hisham al Talib, Jamal Barzinji, and Ahmed Totanji, and all of whom were MB leaders of Iraqi descent. Other noteworthy individuals who served as early co-founders of MSA were Mahboob Khan and Malika Khan.”

Meanwhile, our nation’s universities are increasingly becoming thuggish centers of Leftist indoctrination where opposing views are forcibly silenced. This holds true across the country, from ostensibly Catholic entities such as Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire to secular ones such as San Diego State University.

MSA-SDSU

“Muslim Student Association demands all ‘Islamophobic speech’ be punished,” by Alec Dent,College Fix, December 28, 2015:

The Muslim Student Association at San Diego State University is demanding that administrators combat Islamophobia by developing a “zero tolerance policy explicitly for Islamophobic speech and actions.”

The demands, modeled after similar ones issued by black student associations at campuses across the nation, were lodged after a female Muslim student was allegedly attacked by a white man in a campus parking lot on the afternoon of Nov. 19, about a week after the Paris terrorist attacks, which killed 130 people.

At SDSU, despite reports that several witnesses stood by and did nothing as the attacker grabbed the woman’s hijab, as well as a police sketch of the alleged attacker, a police investigation could not identify a suspect, according to the San Diego Union Tribune.

Meanwhile, the female student who said she was attacked has not been identified. But she told Hanif Mohebi, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations-San Diego, that her attacker grabber her from “behind,” called her a terrorist, “choked her with the hajib” and told her to “get out of this country,” the Union Tribune reports.

Several comments on the article expressed incredulity over the attack, questioning whether it is a hate-crime hoax.

Yet less than a week after the alleged hate crime, SDSU’s Muslim Student Association held a protest against Islamophobia on campus that attracted hundreds of students.

Yasser Kaziha, a member of the Muslim Student Association, said that he personally knew the victim of the attack, and “when the attack on our Muslim sister happened here at SDSU, she felt alone after bystanders and witnesses who watched the attack did nothing,” he told the Union Tribune.

At the rally, the Muslim Student Association issued its list of demands, which members claim will help prevent future acts of bigotry against the Muslim community.

They demanded that the university adopt a zero-tolerance policy toward “Islamophobic speech,” mandatory bystander training, develop more courses on Islam, and increase funding for The Center for Intercultural Relations. Moreover, they demanded that “the SDSU administration address, alleviate, and eliminate systems of oppression that disproportionately target students of color, womyn, and all marginalized students on campus.”

Beth Chee, a representative for the university, told The College Fix in an email that the university has not issued a formal response to the demands, but members of the administration have reviewed the list and are currently “meeting internally and with the students to discuss their concerns.”…

Here’s the entire BIZARRE press conference with the terrorist family’s lawyers!!

Farook attorney

Right Scoop, by soopermexican, Dec. 4,2015:

Social media was lit up with disbelief as the lawyers for the family of the terrorists that killed 14 people held a press conference denying all terrorist ties.

Here’s the entire bizarre presser:

At one point, one of the lawyers says that it doesn’t matter if they visited Islamist sites, and gave the Britney Spears defense. When pressed on what motive there was for the slaughter, they cite that someone made fun of his beard. Yup, really. They accuse the FBI of Islamophobia, the press of Islamophobia, and the GOP candidates of Islamophobia. In all of this they deny any terror ties, but their defense is that the FBI can’t find links to an organized terror organization. Even if that’s the case, it doesn’t mean that they weren’t inspired by Islamism, and there’s plenty of evidence for that.

Read more

***

Farook Family Attorneys and Their Press Conference of Magical Wonders and Delights

Twice on Friday, the attorneys for the family of the accused terrorist and current corpse Syed Farook put on truly remarkable performances that left audiences breathless, confused, and probably questioning their own reality.

The first was a stunning interview on CNN with Chris Cuomo in which, among other things, attorney David Chesley implied a conspiracy to frame Farook and his wife, suggested his wife was too weak to lift a handgun, and dismissed pipe bombs as evidence because – and this is not a joke – “nobody ever saw him with one.” One would think it impossible to top that interview, but one would be terribly, wonderfully wrong.

In the video above, you see the press conference the two lawyers held this afternoon, and it was a doozy and a half. There is so much to go through that we will simply present you with a few of the highlights.

Like, it’s not like, well, ok, about Islam? And Farook was not aggressive, also:

Chesley made it clear that they feel they represent a lot more than just the Farook family. “The message that we want to give is, what we’d like to say on behalf of the families and the Muslim community in general,” continued Chesley. He stated that the FBI said “there was no sign that the alleged shooters belonged to a larger organization, like, a larger organized terror group or terror cell.” But he got a lot farther into the weeds on this:

“Throughout the whole process of the investigation yesterday it got to the point where the FBI actually said ‘look, let us explain ourselves, we’re trying to find evidence or information that could cause us to believe that, that the, that Syed Farook was in some way affiliated with this incident, like something inspired him to be involved in this incident, and, but the problem we’re having is that we’re not finding any evidence of any behavior that would lead, that would show us that this would be the alleged shooter, and so, you know, why isn’t that happening?’

And we were all like, well, we don’t have any explanation for you other than that there is no evidence. None of the family knew of him as being extreme or aggressive, or having kind, any extreme religious views.”

Say that five times fast – that was Chesley. Here is the other attorney, Mohammad Abuershaid, following up on that:

“And I think what the media should also be cautious about is, just because he had a religion that, he was Muslim, that had nothing to do with these acts. Islam does not agree, does not support any type of actions that occur like this. It does not support killing, it does not support murder of innocent individuals, and the family would never support anything like this.”

The emphasis on Muslim is not mine. Abuershaid put some stank on that.

Accidental profiling:

“I think every investigation the FBI does when it’s involving a Muslim will involve some type of terrorist investigation for it.” – Abuershaid

Hating Britney Spears:

“I mean any one of us may have looked at something on Facebook. That doesn’t mean we believe in it. I’ve checked out a Britney Spears post, and I hate Britney Spears music.”

Did we mention that, like, it’s not about Islam? Because it’s super not.

“Until there is absolute clear evidence, every headline doesn’t have to say ‘Muslim massacre’ or ‘Muslim shooters’ because it’s gonna cause intolerance and what we need right now is forgiveness I think.”

This one is puzzling. “Until there is clear evidence” of what? That the two alleged shooters were Muslim? There is clear evidence. That these two Muslim individuals were the shooters? There is clear evidence of that as well. Which thing isn’t clear? Secondly, you don’t “cause intolerance”; that’s an absurdity. A person is intolerant or not. And most people are intolerant of murder. And finally, forgiveness for what, sir? What should be forgiven, and who should be forgiven? Weren’t you just saying that there’s no clear evidence about anything? So what exactly are we going to forgive?

And we haven’t even gotten to the epic embeardening excuse yet…

Summary:

He was crazy. It wasn’t religion! Also it was work. It was workplace violence, not religion. They made fun of his beard! Did you know they made fun of his beard? Beards are very unpopular in America and people make fun of them. It was a video! No wait, it wasbecause of a Jew.

There were many tweets about this press conference. The Right Scoop has compiled some of them here. Twitchy has more here. It’s worth clicking on both links for more highlights.

It was a magical crazy time in America when the Farook family attorneys held their press conference-anza. We’ll leave you with these two thoughts:

t2

Stop the Jihad on Campus Campaign Combats Pro-Terror Groups

all_4_posters_600px

Exposing the true motivations of terrorist proxies and challenging their genocidal propaganda.

Frontpage, by Mark Tapson, Nov. 27, 2015:

Two weeks ago, a series of posters was placed anonymously on the campuses of George Washington University and American University in Washington, D.C. and those of UCLA, UC-Irvine and UC-San Diego in Southern California. The images were hashtagged #StopTheJihadOnCampus and pulled no punches in denouncing a pair of campus organizations for what they are: supporters of violent, Jew-hating jihad.

One poster depicted a bloody knife and photos of children being trained to become terrorists. Referring to a group known as the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), the caption read, “Students for ‘Justice’ in Palestine: Supporting a Culture that Teaches Children to Slaughter Jews.” A second poster linked the late terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki to the Muslim Students Association (MSA), a national campus organization. A third targeted the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement and the current “stabbing intifada” in Israel with the image of a bloody knife stabbing a Star of David. Its caption read, “The Real BDS: Boycott, Divest, Stab.”

Naturally, the posters sparked instant controversy and angry condemnations, because the campus supporters of jihad weren’t accustomed to having their agenda challenged or being caught in the harsh spotlight of truth. In response to the discovery of the posters, the Hillel organization at American University predictably issued a statement decrying them as threatening, “Islamophobic” hate speech and condemning “any efforts to demonize any racial or religious group.” Likewise, the statement from the Students for Justice in Palestine at American University labeled the posters as “the intimidation tactics of bigoted ideologues,” as “falsehoods” propagated about BDS (which the statement described as “the epitome of effective non-violent resistance”), and as “vitriolic, hateful rhetoric deliberately targeting Muslims, Arabs, those who may appear Muslim, and supporters of Palestinian rights.”

The following week, the David Horowitz Freedom Center took credit for distributing the posters as part of a major campus initiative called Stop the Jihad on Campus. The poster campaign targeted SJP and MSA, both of which were spawned by the Muslim Brotherhood, the same terrorist organization that launched al-Qaeda and Hamas. As a Freedom Center statement put it, both groups “are the chief campus sponsors” of the BDS movement “designed to destroy the Jewish state.”

UCLA’s Daily Bruin posted an article labeling the “offensive posters” as Islamophobic, to which David Horowitz himself responded with a letter in the Bruin correcting that and other “misleading impressions” in the initial article. “Shame on the students who spread the genocidal lies of Hamas on the UCLA campus,” he wrote. “Shame on them for supporting the 70-plus-year Arab aggression against the Jewish state and the 70-plus-year oppression of Palestinian Arabs by Fatah and Hamas.”

It is typical of these campus supporters of terrorism to attempt to suppress their critics by falsely accusing them of racism and Islamophobia, even though no racial or religious group was specified in the poster campaign. The posters were aimed at the two campus groups not because their membership is entirely Muslim (it’s not), but because they hold “Israeli Apartheid Weeks,” spread Jew-hating propaganda, support intifadas like the current one in Jerusalem and the West Bank, and support terrorist parties in Gaza and the West Bank that call for the destruction of the Jewish state and the extermination of the Jews of the Middle East.

The Stop the Jihad on Campus campaign seeks to raise awareness of how such anti-Israel terrorists have infiltrated American universities, spreading terrorist propaganda and messages, with university funding and support. Along those lines, it offers teach-ins to raise student awareness and combat pro-terrorist propaganda on American campuses. It has since gone on to post a list of the “Top 10 American universities most friendly to terrorists.”

The campaign’s demands are simple: no campus support for jihad terrorists, no campus privileges for anti-Israel hate groups, and no student funding for apartheid hate weeks. “Our goal in placing these posters on prominent campuses across America,” explains David Horowitz, “is to expose the true motivations of these terrorist proxy-groups and challenge their genocidal propaganda.” He continues:

These terrorist support groups are afforded campus privileges, including university offices and the right to hold events on campus grounds that would be denied to any other group that preached hatred of ethnic groups or supported barbaric terrorists who slaughter men, women and children as part of a demented mission to cleanse the earth of infidels.

Below are photos from the “Palestinian Wall of Lies” display recently set up at the University of South Dakota in conjunction with the Stop the Jihad on Campus campaign, as part of the Freedom Center’s efforts to counteract campus propaganda. The Wall lists and then debunks the major Palestinian lies about Israel and the Jews, which are often propagated unquestioned by the mainstream media and swallowed whole by impressionable college students. Needless to say, the Wall has proven to be quite a conversation piece whenever it has appeared on American campuses awash in leftist indoctrinationabout the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

To donate to Stop the Jihad on Campus, click here.

cid_dc1e62b8579549d89ea97db7b67fe8admarkthink

cid_690eb3bda02e415b81fb76a14569c245markthink

cid_3742d32731cf4b3aadccab2a07ade7e5markthink

Also see:

AHMED MOHAMED HUGS SUDAN’S GENOCIDAL THEOCRAT OMER HASSAN AL-BASHIR

ASHRAF SHAZLY/AFP/Getty Images

ASHRAF SHAZLY/AFP/Getty Images

Breitbart, by Neil Munro, Oct. 16, 2015:

Ahmed Mohamed, the Texas youth who was briefly detained Sept. 14 when he brought a clock-like device that looked like a bomb in to school, met with Sudan’s genocidal dictator Oct. 13.

That visit may prove embarrassing to President Barack Obama, whose science deputy personally invited the boy to an Oct. 19 science fair in the extended White House grounds.

Mohamed was invited to the White House after progressives and the media accepted and broadcast his claim that the arrest was prompted by unreasonable anti-Muslim and anti-African views supposedly prevalent among cops in Irving.

The boy’s hug for the genocidal Muslim theocrat prompted much criticism among his progressive supporters.

AmAhmad249 tweet

Elanosi tweet

On October 13, Ahmed, his sisters and his Sudan-born father flew out of Saudi Arabia into Sudan, a theocratic Muslim state that split into two states after waging a long war against Christian and tribal minorities in the south of the country.

It’s so genocidal that the International Criminal Court has posted a warrant for Bashir’s arrest. So theocratic that Bashir was Osama bin Laden’s host for several years. In March, Obama’s Secretary of State, John Kerry, posed for a photo with Bashir, to the displeasure of left-wing outlets. In a tweet, the Texas-born boy described Sudan as his “home.”

am tweet

He also posted a vine of his arrival in the country.

Once in Sudan, he met the country’s president, Omer Hassan al-Bashir, who is still waging genocidal war against minorities, according to critics.

“Today al-Hassan [the father] and his son spoke graciously of Bashir who according to Sudan official news agency (SUNA) honored him in tribute to his intelligence and talent and in line with government policy of caring for gifted youngsters.

“Mohamed told reporters afterwards that he is ‘extremely delighted’ for meeting Bashir and visiting Sudan. He expressed hope that he would have the opportunity to meet again with the Sudanese president ‘with a new invention and success,’” according to a Paris-based, English-language Sudanese newspaper.

It is not clear if Ahmed will bring his clock-in-a-box to the White House, or if Obama will choose to meet with him.

The youth’s clock apparatus, which he described as an “invention,” was extracted from a commercial clock and then stuffed into a metal-looking school box. The clock’s face could not been seen when the case was closed. If the case was opened, the dismantled clock’s unshielded 110-volt transformer was hazardous to anyone who put their hands inside the clock-box.

The boy brought his clock to school; a teacher told him to not to display it, but when he showed it to another teacher, that teacher called the police. The boy admitted later that that the clock-in-a-box would raise suspicions. “I didn’t want to lock it [closed] to make it seem like a threat, so I used a simple cable [around the box] so it won’t look that much suspicious,” he said on video.

The police reacted skeptically because the clock-in-a-box did not seem like a school-related project. Also, police are on alert for shootings or disruptions in schools.

They’re also on alert for jihad attacks. The youth brought the apparent hoax-bomb to school just four months after two Muslims tried to machine-gun an art exhibition in nearby Garland, Texas. The two Muslim gunmen were successfully killed by guards, who were hired in the correct expectation that Islamic tenets would prompt a few Muslims to attack the guests at the exhibition.

When the youth did travel up to New York, he left his crude clock-in-a-box with the police department in Irving rather than show his embarrassingly simple device to his allies. He also did not take the clock-in-a-box with him when he flew in late October to Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the Sudan.

Since the arrest, the youth has repeatedly smeared Irving’s cops and teachers as bigots.

On Sept. 17, he said was detained “because I’m Muslim,” during an interview on the al Jazeera network, just three days after the incident. Al Jazeera is a pro-Islamist TV network by run the autocratic leader of Qatar. “There is a lot of stereotypes [sic] for people who are foreigners and [when] they have Muslim names… names mainly in Islam… no this would not have happened to any of my classmates,” the youth said. Irving officials “should apologize,” he said.

Also see:

Ahmed’s Dad Pushes 9/11 Conspiracy Posts, Videos on Arabic Facebook Page

5

Center for Security Policy, by Kyle Shideler, Oct. 6, 2015:

With the frenzy following his son Ahmed’s bringing a suspicious-looking modified clock to high school, Texas-based Islamic political activist Mohammed Elhassan Mohammed finally succeeded in creating something he’s sought for a long time: a national media event that can be used to shine the light on alleged crimes of the United States, from accusations of “Islamophobia” in Irving, Texas, to American complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

Al Qaeda’s attack on September 11, 2001 is a recurring topic of discussion on Mohammed’s own Arabic-language National Reform Party Facebook page where—beside photos of his family enjoying their newfound fame—are posted articles, photos and videos featuring both implicit, and explicit claims that the 9/11 attacks were a US-sponsored hoax to launch a war against Islam and Muslims.

While still residing in his Dallas suburb, Mohammed has, nonetheless, repeatedly run for president of Sudan as a candidate identified with his own very small political party, “al-Islah al-Watani,” or National Reform. Until recently, the National Reform Facebook page displayed the same profile picture Mohammed Elhassan Mohammed’s used for his personal Facebook profile picture. Mohammed’s National Reform Party page continues to post the same pictures, videos and articles about Ahmed Mohammed, and the Clock saga, as does Mohammed ElHassan on his personal page.

On September 12th, 2015, his National Reform page shared a photo that featured the smoking World Trade Center towers above text in Arabic describing the events of September 11th as “an American media creation” and calls them, “terrorism American style.” It also blames the U.S. for the events of the Arab Spring, calling it a U.S. plan to “foment reprehensible chaos.”

The text describes the attack on 9/11 as a “miracle” for the United States, because it provided justification for an attack, “first an Islamic government, while the second was a mighty Arab state in the Middle East.” The reference is clearly to the U.S. attack on Afghanistan (under the Taliban) and Iraq.

While the text identified the author as one Asad al-Barari, it’s not immediately clearly why Mohammed Elhassan and his National Reform Party chose to share this image and the post on September 12th, but the posting contains no text attempting to rebut or criticize the post for its statements about America.

Nor is this the only questionable post. As recently as September 28th, the National Reform Party page shared an English language video, with Arabic subtitles, which presents conspiracy theory arguments about the September 2001 attack.

The fifteen-minute video—first posted in September 2013—claims to prove explosives were used in bringing down the World Trade Center, attacks Penn & Teller’s 2005 debunking of 9/11 ‘truther’ conspiracy theories and, finally, blames “US military officials, television executives and some Israeli and British government officials” for the attacks.

Below is the full translation of the September 12, 2015 post from Facebook:

The Events of September 11th:There is a saying, “The hater writes them; the fool publishes them; and the idiot believes them.” This applies to the rumors that people both spread and believe; it describes the creation of rumors in all their stages.

Yesterday [Friday, September 11, 2015] was the anniversary observed in the United States of America on what is called “September 11th.” This was the miracle that came to America in the form of terrorism—which offered her the invasion of Islamic countries (headed by Afghanistan and Iraq), which she saw as a great threat—on a golden plate. The first had an Islamic government, while the second was a mighty Arab state in the Middle East.

Without any doubt, the events of September 11th claimed thousands of innocent lives, and violated the basic belief of religions, that civilians should not be harmed in any war. Yet, for its sake, millions of blameless souls have perished—though one state has been spared. One state that exists only on the map.

The events of the Arab Spring, or the despicable chaos that is its true name, were a part of this “September [11th] Strategy,” that the U.S. pursued in sending her armies into Afghanistan and Iraq. The American army destroyed their regular armies, but found that it could not destroy their irregular forces. This is what drove her to foment that reprehensible chaos—an ancient plan to destroy states completely—which was carried out to the letter in all the lands of the Arab Spring. The result was not only thousands of refugees and deaths in every part of the world, but also the huge humiliations that have become the fundamental malaise of the Arabs in everything they do.

Thus [the events of September 11th] are but an American media creation, no matter how some may try to label them as “Islamic terrorism.” They were indeed terrorism, but terrorism American style—terrorism that sweeps away and annihilates whole countries, and not those few buildings in the midst of New York City.

Asad al-Barari

Also see:

Irving Mayor: Ahmed Mohamed’s Family Blocking Release of Records; Obama Tweeted Support Even Before “Clock” Pic Released

2015-09-16T191047Z_1_LYNXNPEB8F158_RTROPTP_3_USA-TEXAS-STUDENTTown Hall, by Kyle Shideler, Sep. 22, 2015:

Last night, Irving Texas Mayor Beth Van Duyne revealed that the family of Ahmed Mohammed has repeatedly refused to meet with city officials, refused to released records exonerating police conduct, and that President Obama had tweeted about the case even before pictures of the so-called “clock” were publicly available.

Appearing on Glenn Beck’s The Blaze TV, Van Duyne noted how reporting on the interaction between Mohammed and police had been remarkably one-sided, in part because the Mohammed family refused to release records noting:

“As a juvenile, they can not release those records. The school district, a number of times, has asked the family, to release the records, so that you can have the balanced story out there. The family is ignoring the request from the ISD.”

Van Duyne told Beck it would “help to describe why it progressed as it did” if the records were available. “Nobody is going to walk in and say, ‘oh you’re a 14-year old child, you’re totally cooperating, we have all the answers we need, let’s arrest you,’” Van Duyne added.

A spokesperson for the Irving Police Department has said there have been multiple open records requests for the full police reporting, but that those requests remained in the hands of the city’s legal advisor. The available police report describes the event only as, “…Arrestee being in possession of a hoax bomb at MacArthur High School.”

Van Duyne said that according to the information she had seen, Mohammed had been “non-responsive” and “passive aggressive” in response to questions from police officers.

The refusal to amiably resolve the situation continued as the family rushed to bring Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) representatives into the case, and repeatedly cancelled meetings with the school district and city officials before finally speaking to the media.

“We had tried to reach out to the family a number of times; this was before it ever even hit the papers on Wednesday,” Van Duyne said pointing out that the family repeatedly canceled attempts to discuss the matter.

“At the exact same time they were supposed to be meeting with us, they were on their front lawn with a press conference,“ she said.

Van Duyne also pointed out that President Obama, like many others, had rushed to judgment before the facts in the case had become available.

“We never even got a call from anybody at the White House asking to verify any of that information. I don’t think the picture of the hoax bomb was even released before he tweeted ‘cool clock kid.’” Van Duyne said.
Van Duyne said she was “shocked” when she saw the President’s tweet to Ahmed Mohammed. “It seems to be an underlying habit that [President Obama] is going to second guess police officers without any kind of information.”

Van Duyne said that the Irving police chief, whom she called “a wonderful man”, was receiving death threats as a result of the case, as were other police officers, teachers and school administrators, in response to the controversy.

Van Duyne was joined on the Glenn Beck program by Jim Hanson, a former Special Forces Sergeant and Vice President of the Center for Security Policy, who pointed out CAIR’s documented ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and the terrorist group Hamas, and that the Mohammed family were members of a mosque tied to an Irving Sharia Tribunal which Mayor Van Duyne had publicly opposed.
“I don’t think there’s any question that this latest event was a PR stunt, it was a staged event,” Hanson said, saying the device did look like an explosive. “I’ve built briefcase bombs and blown them up, that’s what they look like,” Hanson pointed out referring to his time with Special Forces.

“They basically took a situation that the police handled properly, the school handled properly and all of a sudden everyone involved is a hater,” Hanson added.

Van Duyne also pointed out that the “teacher was reacting to the device not the student” stressing, “If something had happened, and nobody had spoken up, people would be livid. Can you imagine if you were a parent, at [Irving School District] and no one said anything?”

***

Judge Napolitano Argues Potential Fraud Case If Ahmed Mohamed’s Clock Was A ‘Purposeful Hoax’ (dailycaller.com)

Judge Andrew Napolitano told Megyn Kelly the saga of Ahmed Mohamed’s clock “now appears as though that this was a purposeful hoax.”

Napolitano, appearing on Fox News’s “The Kelly File” Monday, suggested that “if the parents were involved in the hoax, now you now have a fraud going on” because money has been collected on false pretenses. (WATCH: Professor Calls Ahmed Mohamed’s Clock A ‘Fraud’)

Napolitano continued, “if this was part of a purposeful stunt and if the parents were involved in this, and everybody from Mark Zuckerberg to President Obama fell for this, this is not good. This is people overreacting because of his last name, or his skin color, or the atmosphere of fear. We saw a clock, we assume it’s dangerous. The kid who made the clock, or brought it in, has a Muslim ancestry.  I wish race could be out of this but all of that goes aside if this was some sort of a purposeful stunt.”

Also see:

It Is CAIR’s History of Falsehood That Raises Clock Questions

d455913e-196d-4a67-9033-7e65be8d909cTown Hall, by Kyle Shideler, Sep. 18, 2015:

As the initial hubbub surrounding the story of Ahmed Mohammed and his “clock” is beginning to die down to a dull roar, it’s worth looking at where exactly the skepticism of his story arrives from.

Obviously, the young man, in his NASA T-Shirt and glasses cuts a sympathetic image. But the swift appearance on the scene of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), raises questions. If this was a misunderstanding and overzealous “Zero tolerance” police work, perhaps it has since been manipulated into something more.

In the case of Ahmed Mohammed, the introduction of CAIR into the equation suddenly pivoted the discussion from whether police exercised decent judgment, to accusations that all of the city of Irving, it’s school system, police, and government were islamophobes, and it was their Islamophobia, and not a beeping box filled with strange wires and circuits, that led police to Ahmed Mohammed.

It’s no surprise that an organization like CAIR would target Irving, since its Mayor, Beth Van Duyne, brought attention to an attempt by Muslim Brotherhood (MB) linked Imams to form a Shariah law tribunal in North Texas, and raised a ruckus by supporting the Constitution over the introduction of foreign law. One of the organizations linked to the tribunal runs the mosque attended by the Mohammed family.

Is it possible CAIR is attempting to use this controversy in order to target one of its political opponents? Judging from history, it seems likely.

The Council on American Islamic Relations was formed in response to a 1993 meeting in Philadelphia held by members of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and took place under the watchful eye of the FBI.

CAIR has always been far more than the civil rights organization it purports to be. Indeed at that very meeting, the members of Hamas, including those who would found CAIR, discussed how they could manipulate civil rights in order to further their interests.

From the testimony of FBI agent Lara Burns discussing the propaganda effort to oppose the 1993 Peace Accord:

Q. Were there additional discussions making presentations to America on human rights?

A. Yes.

MR. JONAS: If we can go to Philly Meeting No. 10,

Segment G. That is on page 5 of the excerpted portion. If we can put that on the screen, please, the bottom segment.

Q. (BY MR. JONAS) What does this unidentified male say, please?

A. He says, “The first is to make the agreement fail, and this is a public policy and all of us are opposing it. It is the just the media which exaggerated the issue. Second, finding the alternatives. The first step should be taken advantage of by the brothers in — how to make the agreement fail. The national rights, human rights, stuff which will be exploited in order to make you look legitimate while you call on the annulment of the agreement. (Emphasis added)

Thusly CAIR and its antecedents in the Muslim Brotherhood are on record as feigning concerns about civil and human rights in order to achieve their ends.

Skepticism of CAIR and it’s feigned civil rights posture also appeared when federal prosecutors responded to a CAIR and Muslim American Society (MAS) Amici brief in the case United States V. Sabri Benkahla. In that case the prosecutors noted:

In describing themselves in Amici Brief at 1, CAIR and MAS omit reference to a shared background that limits their membership to those of a particular political bent, and undercuts their credibility. (Emphasis added)

The prosecutors go on to describe CAIR and MAS as Muslim Brotherhood entities which the federal government has shown engages in deception in order to further the interest of terrorist organizations.

Since CAIR was first outted by the Federal government for its role in deception operations on behalf of terrorism, CAIR has been caught up in numerous false hate crimes. As Professor Daniel Pipes noted in a 2005 article, CAIR has routinely, and knowingly, claimed as hate crimes events that either did not occur, or where the victim was in fact the perpetrator, such as claims of racist arson when the motive was in fact insurance fraud.

Perhaps most notorious was CAIR’s involvement in the 2006 “Flying Imams” case, where six imams returning from a conference of the North American Imam Federation (a group whose website publicly praises a MB leader Yusuf Al Qaradawi, who issued a 2004 fatwa calling for the death of Americans in Iraq), claimed they were unfairly ejected from a U.S. Airways flight for loudly praying.

As it turned out, those men were ejected from the flight not for prayers, but after passengers and airline employees reported that they had engaged in a number of suspicious behaviors involving swapping seats to take up those known to be favored by hijackers, seeking heavy metal seatbelt extenders which their size did not require, and other activities which even a Federal Air Marshal agreed were telltale signs of alarm.

CAIR intervened with a press conference and a lawsuit against the airline, the employees and even “John Doe passengers.” In that case the public rallied around the passengers, and congress passed a law protecting private travelers from lawsuits, when their good faith suspicions of terrorist activity led to security officials taking action.

Like the situation with the Flying Imams, CAIRs interjection into this case suggests that it is about much more than the intentions of a young man bringing an odd electronic device to school. One’s positions on zero tolerance policies in school are not the issue of debate.

The issue is CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood, and their efforts to keep those who “see something” that seems suspicious from “saying something.” That goes for teachers, airline passengers and mayors.

***

Video: A Closer Look at Ahmed’s Clock

***

Reverse Engineering Ahmed Mohamed’s Clock… and Ourselves 

For one last bit of confirmation, I located the pencil box Ahmed used for his project. During this video interview he again claims it was his “invention” and that he “made” the device – but the important thing at the moment, at 1:13, we see him showing the pencil box on his computer screen. Here it is on Amazon, where it’s clearly labeled as being 8.25 inches wide. Our eBay seller also conveniently took a photo of the clock next to a ruler to show it’s scale – about 8 inches wide. The dimensions all line up perfectly.

So there you have it folks, Ahmed Mohamad did not invent, nor build a clock. He took apart an existing clock, and transplanted the guts into a pencil box, and claimed it was his own creation. It all seems really fishy to me.

If we accept the story about “inventing” an alarm clock is made up, as I think I’ve made a pretty good case for, it’s fair to wonder what other parts of the story might be made up, not reported factually by the media, or at least, exaggerated.

I refer back again to this YouTube video interview with Ahmed. He explains that he closed up the box with a piece of cord because he didn’t want it to look suspicious. I’m curious, why would “looking suspicious” have even crossed his mind before this whole event unfolded, if he was truly showing off a hobby project, something so innocuous as an alarm clock. Why did he choose a pencil box, one that looks like a miniature briefcase no less, as an enclosure for a clock? It’s awful hard to see the clock with the case closed. On the other hand, with the case open, it’s awful dangerous to have an exposed power transformer sitting near the snooze button (unless, perhaps his invention was to stop serial-snooze-button pressers by giving them a dangerous electrical shock!)

So again, I’m pointing all this out – about the specifics of the clock – not to pick on the poor kid. I’m picking on us, our culture, and our media. I don’t even care about the clock itself at this point.

If we stop and think – was it really such a ridiculous reaction from the teacher and the police in the first place? How many school shootings and incidents of violence have we had, where we hear afterwards “this could have been prevented, if only we paid more attention to the signs!” Teachers are taught to be suspicious and vigilant. Ahmed wasn’t accused of making a bomb – he was accused of making a look-alike, a hoax. And be honest with yourself, a big red digital display with a bunch of loose wires in a brief-case looking box is awful like a Hollywood-style representation of a bomb. Everyone jumped to play the race and religion cards and try and paint the teachers and police as idiots and bigots, but in my mind, they were probably acting responsibly and erring on the side of caution to protect the rest of their students, just in case. “This wouldn’t have happened if Ahmed were white,” they say. We’re supposed to be sensitive to school violence, but apparently religious and racial sensitivity trumps that. At least we have another clue about how the sensitivity and moral outrage pecking order lies.

Because, is it possible, that maybe, just maybe, this was actually a hoax bomb? A silly prank that was taken the wrong way? That the media then ran with, and everyone else got carried away? Maybe there wasn’t even any racial or religious bias on the parts of the teachers and police.

***

Also see:

A clock or a bomb trigger, can you tell the difference?

Ahmed Mohamed and his

Ahmed Mohamed and his “clock”

Center for Security Policy, by Jim Hanson, Sep. 17, 2015:

The latest outrage being used to promote the false narrative about unfair treatment of Muslims is the teenager, Ahmed Mohamed, in Irving Texas arrested for bringing a homemade clock to school. If you just skimmed the surface and saw the picture of the skinny nerd in the NASA t-shirt in handcuffs it would be easy to see a problem.

And there is one, but it’s not discrimination against a Muslim kid that wouldn’t have happened to a non-Muslim. It’s nanny state, zero tolerance policies that take away the ability to apply common sense to complicated situations. In this case, whether or not to put cuffs on a 14 year old.

But as far as the other question, was the clock device he brought to school a legitimate cause for concern, the answer is an unequivocal yes. I have built and taught classes on improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and the clock he brought to school is a dead ringer for the trigger used on many of these homemade bombs.

Ahmed1
Here is a side by side comparison of Ahmed’s clock and an Iranian-made IED trigger used to kill US troops in Iraq. Even more importantly, here is a picture of an IED training device sold to US law enforcement agencies to help them identify and learn how to deal with homemade bombs. They would have been deficient in performing their public safety duties if they had not done a full examination and investigation of the device, it’s presence at school and the person who built it and brought it there.

The grievance mongers of CAIR and other Islamist front groups are using this incident to portray the Irving, TX police and government as anti-Islamic. They point to another incident where Mayor Beth Van Duyne refused to accept an Islamic tribunal in her town that was trying to supplant US law with Shariah law. That would have been un-American and Mayor Van Duyne was appropriately American in saying absolutely not. We felt strongly enough about that to award her our Defender of Freedom award earlier this year.

We don’t know why Ahmed built and brought his clock to school, but he and his father were certainly quick to trot out quotes about it happening because of his brown skin, or that it wouldn’t have happened if he wasn’t a Muslim. There is zero evidence that Ahmed was singled out due to his religion, and two teachers who saw the device both told him to put it away because it resembled a bomb.

It is time to tell the outrage industry to quit abusing our public servants for doing the jobs we ask them to do.

***

Jim Hanson discusses this story with Frank Gaffney on Secure Freedom Radio:

Also see:

Islamophobia: Fact or Fiction?

Terry JonesGatestone Institute, by Denis MacEoin, August, 15, 2015:

  • Edward Said leaves us with the impression that all prejudice is only on the part of the West.
  • To the traditionally minded, news of such things as man-made laws based on objective evidence, free speech, equal justice under law, democracy, elections, freedom for women, freedom of religion and respect for the “other,” and so on, may have come as a sort of horror. Despots recoiled from the very thought of democracy. Religious leaders fumed at secular education, the freedom to question and say what one liked, even about religion.
  • “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated; to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.” — Hasan al-Banna’, Founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, 1928.
  • The vast amount of what is called “Islamophobia,” however, is not that at all. Fair criticism is not phobic, responses to Islamic terrorism are reasonable reactions to violence.
  • Based on news reports of Muslims murdering other Muslims and killing Christians, there is, ironically, probably more Islamophobia among Muslims for each other than there is from Westerners toward Muslims. There is also probably more “Infidelophobia” by Muslims toward non-Muslims than by non-Muslims toward Muslims.
  • Again this year, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation held a conference calling for a universal blasphemy law — legislation it has repeatedly tried to pass for over a decade, with the help of U.S, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The aim is not to protect other religions (about which Muslims blaspheme without cessation), but to block any criticism of Islam.
  • Sometimes it seems as if Islam ceases to be treated as just another religion and becomes a religion intolerant of all others and unduly protective of its own rights and privileges. In democratic states, Islam is evidently already the only religion that may not be criticized, even though criticism of religion has for centuries been a cornerstone of free speech and transparency that are essential elements in democracy. These freedoms really matter, yet not one Muslim country can claim to implement or protect them, especially freedom of religion.

On July 9th, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, within the Council of Europe, published its annual report for 2014. The report identifies a dramatic increase in antisemitism, Islamophobia, online hate speech and xenophobic political discourse as main trends in 2014. It also indicates that “Islamophobia is reported in many countries, counteracting integration efforts for inclusive European societies. According to the report the rise of extremism and in violent Islamist movements has been manipulated by populist politicians to portray Muslims in general as unable or unwilling to integrate and therefore as a security threat.”

This is, of course, troubling, and it is right for the Commission to treat it as a growing problem. But just how widespread is the issue, and to what extent is it readily identifiable?

Some claims of Islamophobia have their roots in the perception of increasing Muslim violence within Europe; some are based on existing racist attitudes, and some are derived from Muslim perceptions of victimhood and charged sensitivities. The latter is the main reason why defining Islamophobia is not as simple as describing anti-Semitism, anti-immigrant prejudice, or anti-black racism.

To understand this more clearly, it is necessary to slip back briefly to the past.

In 1978, Palestinian-American professor Edward Said (1935-2003) published a book, Orientalism, which changed the way many people thought about the Middle East and Islam. Said’s book, deeply flawed, nevertheless became a bestseller translated into thirty-six languages. Those of us who were the first to read it – teachers and students in Islamic and Middle East Studies – were taken in by its façade of intellectual impartiality and the sense we all had that it opened our eyes to our own work in an original way. It was, to use Thomas Kuhn’s celebrated phrase, a paradigm shift that changed our understanding of our researches and the meaning they had, for we were precisely the ‘orientalists’ Said so tartly scolded. Some of moved away in later years, but many are still mesmerized by that smooth prose and challenging flair.

It wasn’t long before Said’s appeal moved into other disciplines and to other regions far from the Middle East. Orientalism even laid the foundations for a new item on the academic curriculum: “Post-colonial Studies.” The subject, now taught in universities in many countries, has produced a vast literature, has its own academic journals and numerous associations and institutes. Said, like Franz Fanon, Gayatri Spivak, Derek Gregory and others, remains a core figure, andOrientalism a central text.

According to Said, Westerners, by virtue of not being Muslims, have always falsified and distorted their writings about Islam and Muslims. Said claimed to see deeply-ingrained prejudice in the works of French, British, Russian and other Orientalist scholars and writers. To him, Orientalism was (and is) a tool of the colonial powers, assisting their mission supposedly to administer and subdue the peoples of the East. Since former colonies have achieved independence, he contends that the former imperialists still exert pressure on the ex-colonies in order to control them. Israel is regarded by most Marxists, socialists, and even many liberals as an entity created to colonize the Arab Middle East and is often condemned, even by people who are supposedly educated and should know better, in abrasive terms as a malign extension of the West.

Perhaps the best-known sentence in Said’s book is: “[S]ince the time of Homer every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was a racist, an imperialist, and almost totally ethnocentric.” As Bernard Lewis has been heard to remark, “If that were true, the only reports of marine biology would have to be by fish.” But for Said and his followers, the world is divided between Western guilt and Eastern victimhood.

What is missing from Said’s work is any attempt to deal with the long history of Islamic empires,[1] the conquest of, and permanent rule over, non-Muslim states and peoples, and the often distorted ways in which Muslim writers have sought to interpret and explain Christian, Jewish, Hindu and other worlds. Said leaves us with the impression that all prejudice is only on the part of the West.

Said continues to have admirers, most in academic departments of English or multicultural studies, but as time passes, more and more scholars are calling his views into question. Writers such as Bernard Lewis, Ibn Warraq, Efraim Karsh, and Robert Irwin have exposed a string of faults in Said’s narrative, from factual errors to staggering bias.[2]

Despite his bias, distortion of facts, and openly documented deceptions, many of Said’s followers, who are unwilling or unable to do their own work, see him as an intellectual to students and teachers who adhere to an anti-establishment, anti-Western, and socialist world view.

For many, his book, Orientalism played a role in delegitimizing the West and furthering causes such as multiculturalism or anti-Zionism. In the meantime, however, not surprisingly, the book’s influence spread, into the Islamic world and the smaller world of Muslim communities in the West. Better-educated Muslims read and digested Said’s message, in a manner rather different from Western readers, many or most of whom were atheists and agnostics. For Muslim readers, Said’s message that the West was hostile to Islam became the first strong antidote to their sense of failure. Muslims saw themselves as backward but now believed they were the victims of a Western conspiracy to deny them the fruits of their great civilization. To disparage the West became, for many, a religious imperative.

For religious Muslims, it was becoming increasingly important to deal with the stresses caused by their economic, political, and military subordination to a flourishing West, coupled with their own lack of progress in the non-Muslim world and at home. The repeated defeat of multinational Arab armies by the “despicable” Jews of Israel stood, and for millions of Muslims still stands, as a symbol of their need to reassert themselves on the world stage — as Iran is trying to do today.

Read more