Nonie Darwish is the author of The Devil We Don’t Know; The Dark Side of Revolutions in the Middle East and President of FormerMuslimsUnited.org.
- Islam’s Self-Destructive Seed by Nonie Darwish
Nonie Darwish is the author of The Devil We Don’t Know; The Dark Side of Revolutions in the Middle East and President of FormerMuslimsUnited.org.
Frontpage, by Jamie Glazov, Nov. 21, 2014:
This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by I.Q. Al-Rassooli, a scholar of Islam who was born in Iraq. He is the author of the trilogy, “Lifting the Veil: The True Faces of Muhammad and Islam.” The book is based on his YouTube series, “Idiot’s Guide to Islam.”
Mr. Al-Rassooli joined the show to discuss Lifting the Veil, analyzing the true faces of Muhammad and Islam. The discussion occurred within the context of Mr. Al-Rassooli’s focus on the question: “Is Allah the Same as the God of the Bible?”
Frontpage, by Jamie Glazov:
This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Steve Amundson, the founder and leader of the Counter Jihad Coalition (CJC).
Steve discussed The Battle Over Islam on the Streets of Santa Monica, sharing his group’s effort to get the truth out about the “Religion of Peace” — and to get Americans off the couch.
[Steve can be contacted at: CounterJihadCoalition@gmail.com. See photographer Marc Langsam’s photo-album of the CJC in action here.] Included in the photos on the CJC facebook page are pictures of some of the pamphlets Steve hands out.
Don’t miss Jamie Glazov discussing the Left’s Jihad-Denial and how it facilitates terror attacks against us:
To watch previous Glazov Gang episodes, Click Here.
Frontpage, By Jamie Glazov:
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Deborah Weiss, an attorney, writer, public speaker, and a 9/11 survivor of the WTC attacks in NYC. She formerly served as a counsel for the Committee on House Oversight in Congress and for the Office of the Corporation Counsel under Mayor Giuliani. She currently works for Vigilance, Inc. and is considered an expert on OIC UN resolutions. She is the primary writer and researcher for a recently released book, Council on American-Islamic Relations: Its Use of Lawfare and Intimidation, published by CFNS.
FP: Deborah Weiss, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
DW: Thank you for inviting me.
FP: Tell us a little bit about CAIR and its background.
DW: CAIR holds itself out as a Muslim Civil Rights organization, but in fact it’s an Islamist supremacist organization whose ultimate goal is the implementation of Sharia law. It has a network of chapters that are separately incorporated, but have similar goals, tactics and often overlapping or interchanging directors and staff. It’s based in America and Canada.
CAIR’s roots spawn out of Hamas and the Islamic Association of Palestine, both of which are State-designated terrorist organizations. It adheres to the same interpretation of Islam as the Muslim Brotherhood and serves as the propaganda wing of the so-called “Islamic Resistance Movement” in the West.
It has some funding from its membership, but also receives large contributions from donors in Saudi Arabia, Iran, the UAE and Kuwait.
FP: What are CAIR’s goals in the United States?
DW: CAIR appears to have three main goals. One is to silence all criticism of anything related to Islam including Islamic terrorism. Second, it seeks to Islamize the workplace, and third, it works actively to hamper American national security.
FP: Can you give us some examples of how CAIR engages in each of these activities?
DW: Sure. CAIR often files frivolous lawsuits against anyone who blows the whistle on CAIR in order to silence their speech. It also tries to smear reputations and shut down speakers, authors, and politicians who seek to inform the public about the dangers of Islamism, whether it’s regarding Islamic terrorism, Islamic persecution of religious minorities or human rights violations committed in the name of Islam. But it also tries to shut down individuals or companies that make jokes, cartoons or films that shed Islam or Muslims in a negative light.
Additionally, CAIR engages in strong-arm tactics to pressure corporations to comply with what amounts to Islamic blasphemy codes. For example, years ago Nike launched a sneaker, called “Nike Air.” Someone complained that the logo for the word “air” looked similar to the word “Allah” in Arabic. CAIR went on a campaign to force Nike to recall the product on a world-wide scale and change the logo design. Unfortunately, it was successful. It also demanded that Nike make a public apology to all Muslims, that it change its design procedures and consult with CAIR in the future, and donate tens of thousands of dollars to Islamic schools and playgrounds. CAIR also threatened a global boycott, not just of Nike Air sneakers but of all Nike products. Nike resisted at first but eventually capitulated, in part, because it has a large audience in the Middle East that buys its products, and it feared a boycott would put the company out of business in that region.
This is just one example of the numerous companies that have been pressured and subsequently caved into CAIR’s demands. Some of the others include Liz Claiborne, Burger King, Heinz, Disney, Bank of America, and more. The list is rather long and spans a comprehensive range of types of organizations from greeting card companies to banks to publishing houses to food organizations to clothing designers to film producers and broadcast stations.
On the employment front, CAIR often files EEOC claims on behalf of its clients and makes demands to companies to provide special preferences to Muslims which are not afforded to employees of other religions. These include demands for prayer breaks, on-site prayer rooms, exemptions from company uniforms, and separate rules for Muslim employees which exempt them from various company policies. Often the EEOC claims do not proceed to trial. Yet, CAIR frequently issues press releases falsely implying that the EEOC found the company in question to be discriminatory, when the EEOC merely issued a ruling giving CAIR permission to file a lawsuit so that a jury may determine the facts. CAIR misleads the public to believe that a positive ruling from the EEOC concludes there is discrimination, when it often it just means there’s a question of fact which warrants a trial. However, the negative press can hurt a corporation and the cost of litigation is high. Most companies don’t want the PR headache caused by these threats, so they enter a pre-trial settlement to get CAIR off their backs. Needless to say, CAIR usually flaunts the settlement as a win and falsely indicates that it’s an admission of “anti-Islam” bias.
Regarding national security, CAIR is engaged in a number of activities. CAIR tries to silence speech regarding Islamic terrorism, ensuring that counter-terrorism experts, law enforcement and national security professionals won’t get the training needed to identify Islamic terrorist threats in their early stages. Partly because of CAIR, a few years ago the Obama Administration rewrote all the training material for federal national security agencies, purging them of all mention of anything to do with Islamist ideology. This was true even if the word had a qualifier like “radical Islam” or “radical Muslims” because CAIR is on a mission to disassociate any interpretation of Islam with terrorism. It is not telling terrorist organizations that Islam doesn’t support their terrorist activities. Instead, CAIR cries “Islamophobia” or “bigotry” whenever national security professionals, the public, the media, or anyone else makes an accurate observation about this connection, teaches this fact or reports on the terrorists’ self-proclaimed Islamic beliefs.
The agencies that have changed their training programs include DHS, the FBI, the National Counterterrorism Center, the State Department and the Department of Justice. Under Mayor DeBlasio in NYC, CAIR has also been successful in getting the NYPD’s terrific counterterrorism program partially dismantled. It is eliminating content regarding Islamist ideology in training, and reducing its surveillance programs. The NYPD had one of the best counterterrorism programs in the country. It is a totally false accusation by CAIR and other Islamist organizations that the NYPD surveilled the Muslim community simply for “practicing its faith”. The NYPD, like any credible counterterrorism organization, merely followed its leads and focused on the source of the threats. If it happened to focus on certain mosques, CAIR leadership or Muslim business owners, it’s because it had reason to believe these posed a national security threat. It was not because these organizations refused to recognize Jesus as Lord and Savior! That is the type of religious persecution that occurs in Islamist countries, where religious minorities are oppressed and denied the right to practice their faith. In America, so long as one follows the laws, he can pray and worship as his heart desires.
The other thing CAIR does is make numerous FOIA requests and other types of document requests. It also often demands “investigations” of national security investigators, including those who are investigating CAIR leadership. This serves two purposes. One, it informs CAIR of whom in its ranks has to watch their backs. And two, it ties up government resources. Instead of using money and personnel to investigate bad guys, the government is wasting time meeting CAIR’s bogus demands.
FP: Does CAIR leadership have terrorist ties? How does CAIR evade prosecution for its activities?
DW: Yes, Jamie. In additional to having its roots in Hamas, the IAP, and the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR was also an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terror-financing trial in the history of the United States. There were other unindicted co-conspirators as well. Many people think that CAIR and the other co-conspirators should be prosecuted, and it’s unclear why they haven’t been.
A prominent Muslim has been challenged to explain whether or not Islam demands the slaughter of Christians and, if not, why American Muslims aren’t vocally condemning atrocities in the Middle East.
In a panel discussion held in Omaha, Nebraska, by the Global Faith Institute, Muslim panel member Naser Z. Alsharif, head of the Middle East Cultural and Educational Services, was challenged by FrontPage Magazine Editor Jamie Glazov.
“Frankly … it’s so sickening how you snicker so condescendingly on this stage while Christians are being massacred by your co-religionists,” Glazov said.
“You should be up here apologizing that there is an Islamic theology that you’re a party of that your co-religionists are quoting while they’re massacring Christians and kidnapping Nigerian Christian girls.”
The panel was put together by Mark Christian, the president of Global Faith, a group that is trying to stop the Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the “Tri-Faith Initiative” in Omaha, an effort where planners want to build a Jewish synagogue, Christian church and Muslim mosque on the same campus.
Glazov, author of “United in Hate” and “Showdown with Evil,” recently was criticized by a guest on Sean Hannity’s Fox News Channel program as “a disgusting person” for claiming people who contend Islam has nothing to do with terrorism are complicit in acts of violence carried out by Muslims.
A Muslim proponent of the Omaha interfaith project responded to criticism that it is joining forces with groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Islamic Society of North America. Defenders argue the groups are allowed to do business with the federal government.
But Glazov pointed out the two Islamic groups were named unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism-funding trial, the largest of its kind in U.S. history.
Further, he said, CAIR and ISNA were founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, which has declared its objective in America is to destroy society from within.
In an interview with WND, Glazov explained what America would look like under Islam.
“Killing of apostates, church and synagogue burnings, genocide against religious minorities, slavery, stoning of adulterers and other monstrosities would be codified into the law. In other words, a nightmare,” he said.
Glazov said “our totalitarian and terrorist enemies manipulate and exploit ‘dialogue’ with us as a weapon to weaken and destroy us – a tactic which is found in Muslim Brotherhood documents.”
He said the political left, “which controls our culture,” tries to
“appease our enemy, a desire which is based on the Stockholm Syndrome assumption that we can change our enemies’ intentions toward us by us doing something for them or changing something in our own behavior.”
He made it clear that ISIS, whose reported atrocities across Iraq include beheading Christian children and crucifying their parents, is “the true Islam.”
“Anything we see in the West which looks ‘moderate’ appears that way because Muslims who are lucky enough to be separated from Shariah by Western influences, laws and environments, can practice ‘selective’ Islam,” he explained. “They will not have that privilege when Islam becomes the ruler of the land.”
Since its founding, Islam has had rules for Christian minorities under Muslim domination. Among the restrictions: Christians cannot build or repair a church without permission, display a cross, proselytize or “congregate in the open.”
ISIS is applying those restrictions and others in Iraq and Syria.
Glazov noted that a memorandum of understanding under which the three religious buildings would be constructed in Omaha stipulates that there be “no outward indications of the Jewish faith” and “no exterior display of the cross.”
The planned mosque, however, “features a very prominent crescent and star, an internationally known symbol of Islam.”
On the Hannity program, Glazov said, “So many people are afraid to come forward because they’re called ‘dangerous’ people. They’re called ‘racists, Islamophobes.’ But we’re the ones on the side of the victims, including Muslims.”
Video of the exchange on “Hannity,” Glazov speaks at the 11:45 and 32:00 minute marks:
In an interview on his own “The Glazov Gang” Web program with Ann-Marie Murrell, a WND columnist and author of the upcoming book, “What Women (Really) Want,” Glazov contended the left is winning the culture war, in part, because of its effective strategy of “demonizing” those who tell the truth about Islam:
“What I’m so tired of hearing and what I was saying on the show is how the left has constructed the boundaries of debate,” he said.
“[We’re] standing up for the victims of jihad and Islamic gender apartheid, and this means we’re also standing up for many Muslim victims, for many Muslim people. Do you think we’re ‘Islamophobes’ and ‘racists’ because we spend so much of our time trying to save and protect the victims? … Those are Muslim women, those are Muslim girls.”
To order Jamie Glazov’s United in Hate, click here.
In a recent special episode of The Glazov Gang, Ann-Marie Murrell interviewed Frontpage Editor Jamie Glazov about his recent battle on Hannity against Jihad-Deniers, in which he called out progressives’ willful blindness in the face of the Islamic threat.
Due to the overwhelming interest and support that Jamie’s confrontation with the Unholy Alliance has garnered from our readers, Frontpage’s Editors have decided to run an earlier two-part video interview that Josh Brewster conducted with Jamie about his study of the Left’s romance with tyranny and terror.
Throughout the interview, Josh asks Jamie about his critically-acclaimed United in Hate and most recent, High Noon For America: The Coming Showdown. Jamie crystallizes the impulses that draw leftists, such as Obama, to make alliances with America’s enemies — namely with contemporary jihadist forces such as the Muslim Brotherhood. Jamie also discusses his family’s struggle for freedom, David Horowitz’s work, influence and contribution to freedom, and much, much more:
Both parts of the two part series are below:
Mark discussed, “Our Fear of Islam,” analyzing the different psychological mechanisms the West is now engaged in its surrender to a totalitarian ideology, which includes the “Tend and Befriend” response. The dialogue also involved a focus on Islamic female genital mutilation and the world’s denial about its Muslim theological foundations:
This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Dr. Mordechai Kedar, the director of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation) at Bar-Ilan University, Israel.
He joined the show to discuss The “Good Koran” vs. the “Radical Koran,” analyzing the phenomenon of Jihad-Denial and the reluctance to recognize the true threat we face.
But this woman is a black, feminist atheist from Somalia. And so what we’re learning here, which is fascinating, in the hierarchy of progressive-politics identity-group victimhood, Islam trumps everything. Islam trumps gender. The fact that she’s a woman doesn’t matter. It trumps race. The fact that she’s black doesn’t matter. It trumps secularism. The fact that she’s an atheist doesn’t matter. They wouldn’t do this if it was a Christian group complaining about her, if it was a Jewish group complaining about her. But when the Islamic lobby group says oh, no, we’re not putting up with this, as I said, these jelly-spined nothings at Brandeis just roll over for them. – Mark Steyn
Last Tuesday, on April 8, Brandeis University rescinded its invitation to human rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali to receive an honorary degree from the institution. Brandeis caved in the face of intimidation from CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood front groups, as well as a student petition on Change.org and a faculty petition – the contents of which have now become known.
The faculty petition is a textbook case of leftist pathology and of how “progressives” demonize true heroic freedom fighters and push millions of victims of totalitarian regimes and ideologies into invisibility for the sake of their own egotistical and destructive agendas.
A case in point in this ugly leftist narrative is how the signatories of the Brandeis petition have succeeded in banning a woman from their university who is the victim of female genital mutilation (FGM), suffered under an Islamic knife because of Islamic doctrine. She represents millions of Muslim females — mutilated and mutilated-to-be. And yet the signatories of the petition are callously indifferent, because they have their progressive program to attend to and fulfill.
The Brandeis faculty petition, written on April 6 and addressed to President Lawrence, stresses “the horrible message” that inviting Ali to the university “sends to the Muslim and non-Muslim communities at Brandeis and beyond” because of Ali’s “virulently anti-Muslim public statements.” Aside from complaining about Ali’s truth-telling about Islam, the petition also issues a dire warning about the “unnecessary controversy” that the human rights activist’s presence would bring to the campus.
To be sure, who needs nightmarish scenarios like debate and intellectual diversity when the Marxist Left has already lovingly bestowed the peaceful the Party Line?
The petition then references the major issues with which Ali is concerned: female genital mutilation, forced marriages, and honor killings. “These phenomena,” the petition flippantly notes, are not “exclusive to Islam.” This is a standard and perpetual tactic of obfuscation and equivocation employed by the Left whenever a monstrous evil is labelled in a totalitarian enemy. It serves as an excuse for inaction by presupposing that if a crime is committed by someone else, somewhere else, that it somehow justifies doing and saying nothing in the face of a crime being perpetrated on a mass scale right before our eyes – and one that we can do something about.
In other words, the logic implies that if a sin or an injustice exist somewhere else on the planet, that one must never fight for — or defend the victims of — any one ideology or system (unless it is of the western variety, of course).
Thus, if one dares to show concern for the millions of Muslim girls who are victims of female genital mutilation, the leftist will reflexively retort: “Muslims are not the only group that practice FGM.”
But so what? The bottom line is that Muslims are the principle religious group that practices this sexual violence against women. And if a young girl is a victim of FGM, the chances are that she lives in a Muslim household and in a Muslim culture. And this barbarity is kept alive and legitimized by Islamic theology.
The faculty petition to President Lawrence also expresses a deep concern about the fact that Ali has suggested “that violence toward girls and women is particular to Islam or the Two-Thirds World.” This is intolerable (even though completely true) because, according to the petition, it obscures “such violence in our midst among non-Muslims, including on our own campus.”
This is another consistent tactic that the Left engages in to insert its falsehoods into dialogues about oppressed people under monstrous tyrannies. The plain fact staring everyone in the face is that while violence may exist among non-Muslims, their laws and institutions delegitimize and illegalize such conduct. For instance, if a non-Muslim anywhere in the United States, including on a university campus, engages in violence against a woman and the police are called, he will be charged. In Islam, violence against women is inspired and sanctioned by the institutions themselves, precisely because misogyny, including wife beating, is embedded in the Qur’an.
In other words, non-Muslims who are violent toward women operate despite and against the laws of their lands; Muslims, on the other hand, are violent toward women because of their laws, and that is why they are, in turn, protected by those laws.
Thus, in terms of female genital mutilation, millions of Muslim girls are victims of this horrifying crime which is rooted in Islam and is integral to Islam’s misogynist structures. The road to saving millions of Muslim girls from this crime is to do what Ayaan Hirsi Ali is bravely doing, and what the signatories of the Brandeis faculty petition are trying to stop her from doing: to isolate and pinpoint Islam as the main culprit in this context.
The point cannot be stressed enough: female genital mutilation is fundamentally Islamic and it is rooted in Islamic texts such as Umdat al-Salik:
“Circumcision is obligatory (O: for both men and women. For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. Bazr) of the clitoris.” Sacred Islamic Reliance: page 59, Umdat al-Salik (“Reliance of the Traveler”), a manual of the Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence, endorsed by Egypt’s very own Al-Azhar University of Cairo — the oldest and most prestigious university in the Islamic world.
This explains why one of Sunni Islam’s “Four Great Imams,” Ahmad ibn Hanbal, quotes Muhammed as saying: “Circumcision is a law for men and a preservation of honour for women?” It is no shock, therefore, that Sheikh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi of Egypt’s Al-Azhar University has called circumcision “a laudable practice that did honor to women.”
Read more at Front Page (with video)
From ACT! For America:
According to the World Health Organization, more than 125 million girls and women alive today have been subjected to Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).
The African Women’s Health Center of the Brigham and Women’s Hospital, report that approximately 228,000 women and girls in the U.S. have either suffered the procedure or are at risk of having it done to them. Many of these young girls are subjected to FGM when they vacation in a country that sanctions the practice. In other cases, circumcisers are brought into the U.S. – even though FGM is illegal in this country.
ACT! for America has been working diligently at the state level to see legislation passed so that no girl ever suffers the horrors of FGM – either on U.S. soil or elsewhere.
By Jamie Glazov:
For the Left, all cultures are equal, but some cultures are more equal than others.
For instance, in the world of the Left, the West never has a right to say what is right or wrong — when dealing with an adversary culture and regime, that is.
If it’s Israel, you can start shooting right away.
For example, when it comes to Israelis getting out of line and engaging in monstrous behavior like building houses and apartments on their own territory, they must be denounced immediately for that — and pressured relentlessly to desist from such unconscionable activity.
When Israelis have the audacity to imprison Palestinian terrorists who have massacred Israeli innocent civilians, something has to be done fast. And that’s why, on April 24, 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry and the Obama administration demanded that Israel release a number of Palestinian terrorists from its prisons — to make the Palestinian Authority happy of course. (P.S.: The P.A. was not pressured to stop its mosques, schools and media outlets from teaching that Israel has no right to exist or that Jews are descended from apes and pigs.)
If Kerry were asked what he thinks of apartheid-era South Africa, which Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has compared Israel to, one just dares to presume that he would say it was a bad thing that blacks were considered second-class citizens — which of course it was. He would, in other words, apply a universal standard of human rights on South Africa and declare that a society that marginalizes and disempowers a certain group of people based on skin color is an inferior society and must civilize itself. And that would be a legitimate position.
But for a leftist, this attitude only applies, naturally, when one is dealing with cultures and regimes that are allied to the United States. If one is dealing with an adversary culture or religion, then that culture and religion automatically get a pass for all of their monstrosities.
Read more at Front Page
Don’t miss Josh Brewster‘s video interview with Jamie Glazov about why the Left abandons victims of Islamic terror and gender apartheid in the two-part series below:
Proclaiming himself a conciliator and a moderate with a vision of Americans “stand[ing] with each other” and “paying their fair share,” President Barack Obama is in fact one of the most partisan presidents ever to occupy the White House. Fine-sounding words notwithstanding, he is a leftist ideologue and no-holds-barred political fighter whose practice has consistently been to demonize the American equivalents of the hated kulaks (farmers) and petit-bourgeoisie (small business owners) persecuted in the Soviet Union. Obama’s enemies include those “bitter” people who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” as well as the presumably benighted bigots who fail to realize that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” With his anti-American, neo-Marxist outlook shaped by mentors and heroes such as Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, and Jeremiah Wright, Obama is naturally inclined to be suspicious of freedom and to feel sympathy for groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood.
Reflex affinities such as Obama’s have a long, bloody history, and anyone wishing to understand the threat posed by the Obama administration to the fabric of America is well advised to place its policies and rhetoric in a comprehensive historical perspective. How is it that an educated person can be attracted to totalitarian ideologies and predisposed to reject the freedoms of the western world? This was, arguably, the central question of the twentieth century, and it has assumed a renewed urgency since 9/11, a time when leftists have applauded terror attacks on the United States and claimed that America’s enemies are in fact righteous victims. What is one to make of their seemingly sophisticated arguments justifying atrocity? Can such people really believe, to cite only a few examples, that the 9/11 hijackers were motivated by a longing for social justice? That the Palestinian leadership is committed to peace with Israel? That people are better off in Cuba, with the highest per capita imprisonment rate in the world, than in the United States?
Jamie Glazov responds to such questions in United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror (2009), a brilliant investigation that not only extensively documents leftists’ support for brutal regimes, but also diagnoses their worldview as a psycho-social syndrome of pathological dimensions. Leftist hatred, Glazov demonstrates, has less to do with specific political programs or economic systems than with a deep-rooted disenchantment with democratic freedoms and a corresponding “negative identification” with violence.
The objective evidence for leftists’ love of tyrants is substantial, and Glazov presents it convincingly with a blend of facts, anecdotes, and analysis. We learn, for example, about the massive effort on the part of western Communists to repress, distort, and recast the horrors of Stalinist Russia, including the purges that killed millions and the forced famine in the Ukraine that brought the peasantry to its knees. New York Times reporter Walter Duranty turned the reality of Ukrainian starvation into a cheerful tale of abundance, lying so aggressively in favor of Stalin’s policies that when the Manchester Guardian‘s Malcolm Muggeridge tried to report the truth-that peasant were dying en masse-he was mocked and derided, ultimately losing his job.
When leftists turned their attention to other bloody Communist regimes in Cuba, North Vietnam, China, and Nicaragua, many high-profile members of the western intelligentsia were eager to travel there to report on the miraculous gains that had supposedly been achieved. Susan Sontag wrote of Castro’s Cuba with fanatical admiration, denying the dictator’s atrocities and downplaying limitations on freedom, even going so far as to claim that “No Cuban writer has been or is in jail,” and that “the great majority of Cubans feel vastly freer today than they ever did before the revolution.” Making his pilgrimage to Hanoi in 1970, Noam Chomsky accepted as gospel all the nonsense his North Vietnamese hosts told him about the regime, as did Gunter Grass after a tour of a model Nicaraguan prison, which led him to enthuse that there was no room in the new regime for revenge-this in a country that had executed 8,000 political enemies and jailed 20,000 in the first three years of the revolution. (Hollywood’s Oliver Stone, with his glorification of Stalin and denunciation of the U.S. as “an Orwellian state,” is a current exemplar of this suicidal distemper.)
After the collapse of Communism, it has been déjà vu all over again with radical Islam. Immediately following the terrorist assault of 9/11, a jubilant chorus of university professors and progressives across North America refused to express horror for the attacks; instead, they blamed America, with Ward Churchill calling those who had died “little Eichmanns” and Nation columnist Katha Pollitt lecturing patriots who wanted to fly an American flag that it stood for “jingoism and vengeance and war.” Hundreds of so-called anti-war demonstrations were organized almost immediately to express solidarity with the Taliban regime that had harbored the attackers and to paint the United States as a warmonger. Since then, droves of leftist lawyers have worked to obtain release for the terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay and to strike down legislation intended to help the United States guard itself against future attacks. Even when Islamists testify in court that their terror quests are inspired by Koranic injunctions to kill infidels, leftists insist that they are (justly) resisting American oppression. Western feminists routinely defend Islamic misogyny-wife beating, honor killing, genital mutilation, the burqa-and will not admit that women live better lives in the western democracies. And leftist gays march in anti-Israel rallies, joining with Muslim queer-bashers to denounce the only country in the Middle East where homosexuals can live securely.
Read more at American Thinker
By Jamie Glazov
To know everything you ever wanted to know about the Left’s Islamist odyssey, visit DiscoverTheNetworks.org, the website that describes and exposes the networks and agendas of the political Left.
As Islamic Jihad, including its “stealth” variety, is rapidly succeeding in destroying our civilization, the Left continues its shameless and bizarre denial — not only about the threat of Islamic Jihad, but also about its own complicity with our enemy and its war on our society.
The latest example of the Left’s Jihad-Denial concerns me personally: it involves an intriguing post, written by Brian Tashman in RightWingWatch.org, titled: Beware: Human-Hating Liberals and Islamic Extremists Seek to Build Shariommunism. The post ridicules my recent appearance on CBN’s “Stackelbeck on Terror” in which I discuss the Unholy Alliance between the radical Left and radical Islam, which David Horowitz has masterfully documented in his masterpiece Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left and that I have analyzed in United in Hate: The Left’s Romance With Tyranny and Terror.
The ingredients of Right Wing Watch’s attack on me are pathological not just in how they deny blatant reality, but also in how they in and of themselves substantiate the very realities they are denying.
Below, I will demonstrate and deconstruct the pathology in these assaults. It is more crucial than ever to expose the nature of the Left’s duplicity, lies and inner contradictions, since the Unholy Alliance’s malicious and destructive war on our civilization is now making more dangerous inroads than at any previous time.
Read it all at Front Page
The show focused on the unholy alliance between radical Islamists and the radical Left and what can be done to preserve Judeo-Christian, Western civilization: