National Cathedral Presents More Kumbaya Islam

muslims-hold-prayer-inside-the-washington-national-cathedralFamily Security Matters, by Andrew Harrod, May 19, 2015:

The Very Reverend Gary Hall declared “one of the great blessings” in his life as being able to “encounter Islam” while introducing in Washington, DC, an April 21 National Cathedral presentation on “Islam and Politics in the U.S.”  The National Cathedral dean’s words once again set in this “spiritual home for the nation” a politically correct tone for a subsequent discussion naively presenting Islam as morally equivalent to Judeo-Christian beliefs.

An Islamic prayer service in the National Cathedral indicates that total lack of obedience to Jesus Christ in this alleged church which is now more more than a general for rent auditorium.

Like the previously analyzed first session of the National Cathedral’s “Exploring Islam in America” series, Hall emphasized ecumenism before about 60 mostly middle- and senior-aged individuals in the Perry Auditorium.  His opening prayer invoked the “God of the Prophet Muhammad” along with the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” and the “God of Jesus.”  He then cited religion scholar Huston Smith for the proposition that a Martian “would see one religion with three branches” in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  “Deep continuity” and “respect” marked in his view the relationships between these three faiths claiming ancestry from Abraham.

Other event participants complemented Hall’s ecumenism.  As at the previous “Exploring Islam in America” presentations, the late Edward Said‘s sister Grace introductory prepared remarks befitted her brother’s distorted leftist views.  She discussed coming from an Arab community in which her Christian faith supposedly harmoniously coexisted with Islam throughout history.  “Exploring Islam in America” moderator Yvonne Haddad, a Georgetown University professor from a Christian Arab background like the Saids, likewise emphasized intra-Muslim harmony among Shiites and Sunnis.  She discussed how they had lived together and intermarried until the 20th century, overlooking an often bloody history of Shiite-Sunni animosity that has reemerged in recent years to make their intermarriages lethally acrimonious in places like Iraq.

The evening’s featured speaker, Brookings Institution fellow Khaled Elgindy, also asserted monotheistic and moral commonalities between Judaism, Christianity, and an “Islam…firmly rooted in the Abrahamic tradition.”  Concurring with Haddad’s assessment that the United States has “shariaphobia all over the place,” he found “no more abused term in the Islamic lexicon than sharia,” in American discussions of which  the “vast majority is nonsense.”  He cited the Islamic doctrine that sharia protects five fundamental values, namely life, worship, intellect, property, and lineage (a person’s knowledge of their ancestry), goals that could count as “natural rights in a liberal sense.”

Elgindy’s reference to these goals is a popular argument for sharia apologists, but scrutiny reveals the inadequacy of such platitudes in protecting human dignity in an Islamic context.  Muslims, for example, cite Quran 5:32‘s text that “whoever saves one-it is as if he had saved mankind entirely” in support of protecting human life.  Such citations, though, omit this verse’s exception for killing a person for taking a “soul or for corruption [done] in the land” such as blaspheming Islam, the capital punishment for which the subsequent verse 5:33 brutally delineates.

Likewise the “primary goal of sharia is to preserve the deen” or religion, notes one Muslim commentator, raising questions about worship in Islam suppressing the free expression of non-Muslim faith.  References to intellect also do not explain Muslim restrictions on intellectual pursuit of truth to protect against criticism.  Property under sharia excludes interest and forbidden items like pork while “penal laws that govern the breach of this right” noted by the commentator include Quran 5:38‘s command to amputate a thief’s hand.  That “Islam seeks to protect the lineage and honor of people” in his words can also include prohibitions against criticizing an Islamic faith with which many Muslims identify.

Elgindy found “frightening how pervasive” is “nonsensical fearmongering” concerning sharia, “almost like a straw man,” and decried that 22 states had passed anti-foreign law/sharia legislation to deal with an “imaginary threat.”  He repeated stock canards against such American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) initiatives, saying that they could prohibit Islamic marriage or inheritance while analogizing sharia to Jewish religious law (Halacha).  He also noted the sharia doctrine that Muslims should obey the laws of the lands in which they live.

Elgindy’s anti-ALAC arguments do not withstand scrutiny.  Such laws merely prohibit American courts fromapplying foreign law like sharia in their judgments in violation of state and federal constitutional rights, leaving unobjectionable matters like marriage or inheritance unaffected.  ALAC thereby parallels British law, which recognizes sharia contracts, but only upon court review of their conformity with British law as the Center for Islamic Pluralism’s report on sharia infiltration in Western Europe notes.

Elgindy’s sharia-Halacha equivalence is also false.  Halacha nowhere constitutes foreign law (not even in Israel) applicable under ALAC and recognizes a country’s civil law as binding, thereby relegating Jewish religious courts to minor ceremonial roles and private arbitration.  Additionally, one rabbi notes, “generations of interpretation explain a number of mitzvoth (Torah commandments) out of existence according to the principle of Torah Lo Bashamayim Hi (Torah exists here for us, not in Heaven).”  Therefore Old Testament passages contrary to modern human rights norms have no current applicability.

Elgindy’s comments notwithstanding, sharia diverges from Halacha’s subordination to civil law.  ALAC, after all, concerns American judicial application of foreign sharia laws, under which Muslims would indeed obey the laws of a land, just not America.  Obeying the laws of the land also says nothing about changing a country’s law and practices in conformity with Muslim norms, as evident in various Western societies with respect to matters like polygamy.

To prove that “Islam does not preclude the notion of modern citizenship rights” such as religion-state separation, Elgindy cited as a “social contract” the seventh-century Constitution of Medina drafted under Islam’s prophet Muhammad.  This popular Islamic apologia, though, inflates the importance of what was essentially an alliance between the early Muslim community and Medina’s Jewish tribes.  This alliance, moreover, ended with conflict between Muslims and Medina’s Jews and the latter’s expulsion and extermination.

Elgindy’s whitewashing of Islamic law has special significance in light of his comment that “not that huge” a distance separates Saudi Arabia from the murderous Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).  While Saudi authorities refrain from wearing black masks and publicizing their beheadings, “ideologically there are clearly similarities” between this globally prominent Muslim state and ISIS.  The latter’s proclaimed caliphate also has a “very romantic” appeal for many Muslim youth, further refutation of his contention that brutal Muslim groups like ISIS or the Taliban come to power primarily due to political chaos.

Elgindy has previously made ludicrously benign prognoses of Islamic developments flying in the face of facts.  This former advisor to the Palestinian Authority, for example, wrote in 2012 that the jihadist terrorist group Hamas’ “shunning by Washington may be…outdated and counter-productive.”  Unnoticed by others and perhaps influenced by the Brookings Institution’s Qatari funding, he found that a “growing pragmatism” and “yearning for political normalcy” marked Hamas’ “significant changes in recent years.”

Despite Elgindy’s best efforts, he simply cannot explain away serious Islamic controversies.  Problems associated Europe’s “ghettoized Muslim communities” are not simply attributable to, for example, a French “inherited sense of superiority” towards immigrants from former colonies or phobias about “swarthy men.”  Sharia-supporting Muslim groups with their dangers are not similar to “revivalist movements” in other faiths like evangelical Christians.  National Cathedral personnel like Canon Patty Johnson, however, are unlikely to understand these issues anytime soon.  At the presentation’s end, she hawked copies of the leftist Center for American Progress’ report Fear, Inc. on the “Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America” as a “wonderful document…one of the best I have ever seen.”

Schrödinger’s Jihad

xin_232090611100060958585

Sultan Knish, by Daniel Greenfield, May 13, 2015:

The great paradox of the War on Terror is that we are fighting an enemy that doesn’t exist. We are told incessantly that there is no such thing as a Muslim terrorist.

There may be a tiny minority of violent extremists, but they are only a tiny minority of no importance whatsoever. And yet we’ve been at war with this same infinitesimally tiny minority for decades.

This tiny minority has killed thousands of Americans. It has the support of entire governments in tiny countries like Pakistan (182 million), Iran (77 million) and Syria (22 million). We are told that this tiny minority is no way representative of the world’s billion Muslims, and yet it’s hard to find a Muslim country that doesn’t support or harbor a terrorist group.

We were told that the problems was their governments, but the Arab Spring showed us that democratic elections lead to governments that are even more supportive of tiny minority of extremists who are somehow taking over entire countries.

Everything we’ve been told is obviously a lie. And the best evidence comes from the liars themselves.

The media is howling that a bunch of cartoonists in Texas were irresponsible for sketching Islam’s dead warlord because they should have known that Muslim terrorists would come to kill them for it. But if the media is right and Islam is a religion of peace, then why should they have anticipated a terrorist attack?

And if Islam isn’t a religion of peace, then the media has been irresponsibly lying to us and the cartoonists have been risking their lives to warn us of that lie.

The talking heads on the television insist that the cartoon contest was irresponsible because there were bound to be “some crazies” who would “take the bait”. But if Islam is no more violent than any other religion, shouldn’t it be just as statistically likely that some Christian or Jewish crazies would attack one of the art exhibits, plays or musicals ridiculing and blaspheming against their religions?

Weren’t museums and galleries exhibiting “works of art” like Piss Christ or Shekhina provoking and baiting those Jewish and Christian crazies? And since there are more Christians than Muslims in America, isn’t it statistically far more likely that there should have been far more Christian terror attacks targeting blasphemous exhibits?

We can only conclude that there is a much higher proportion of “crazies” among Muslims than among Christians. How much higher? 78 percent of Americans identify as Christians. 0.6 percent claim to be Muslims. Only 0.3 percent appear to be Sunnis, who are responsible for ISIS and Al Qaeda attacks.

There is indeed a tiny minority of extremists in America. It’s known as Islam.

What keeps the lie alive is another paradox. Call it Schrödinger’s Jihad. The more famous Schrödinger’s Cat is a paradox in which a cat in a sealed box with poison that has a 50 percent chance of being released is in an indeterminate state. It is neither dead nor alive until someone opens the box.

In Schrödinger’s Jihad, the Muslim terrorist is in an indeterminate state until some Western observer opens the box, collapses his wave function and radicalizes him. The two Muslim Jihadists were in an indeterminate state until Pamela Geller and Bosch Fawstin and the other “provocateurs” suddenly turned them into terrorists in a matter of days or weeks. It didn’t matter that Elton Simpson, one of the Garland terrorists, had already been dragged into court for trying to link up with Jihadists in Africa.

Every Muslim is and isn’t a terrorist. He is both a peaceful spiritual person who is eager to embrace our way of life and a violent killer who can be set off by the slightest offense. Like the cat in the box that is neither dead nor alive, he is both violent and peaceful, moderate and extremist, a solid citizen and a terrorist. He does not choose which of these to be or to become; we decide what he will be.

The Jihadist paradox is that the Muslim terrorist is always defined by what we do, not by what he does.

magnumphotographers5Islamic terrorism does not exist independently of the Western observer. It is not a Jihad with deep historical and theological roots within Islam, but a reaction to our interactions with Muslims.

Obama insists that talking about Islamic terrorism ‘summons’ them into being. By admitting the existence of Islamic terrorists, we ‘radicalize’ Muslims. Even the words ‘Islamic terrorism’ creates Islamic terrorists who otherwise wouldn’t exist.

The real threat is not from the terrorists, it’s from the truth.

When we tell the truth, people die. The truth turns Muslims into terrorists while the lies soothe them back into non-existence. Underneath all the academic terminology is the dream logic of wishful thinking. If we believe that Islam is a religion of peace, it will be a peaceful religion, and if we accept the reality that it’s violent, then it will become violent. Islam does not define itself. We define it however we want. Our entire counterterrorism policy is based around the perverse ostrich belief that Islamic terrorism is a problem that we create by recognizing its existence. If we ignore it, it will go away.

The lies about Islam are sustained by a deep conviction among liberals that the “Other” minorities are not real people with real beliefs and cultures, but victims in a game of power played out in the West. Islamic terrorism, like gay marriage or Global Warming, is just another step in the progressive pilgrim’s progress. It’s a problem that we caused and need to atone for in our cosmic karmic journey.

Westerners are privileged observers who have power while those minorities they observe do not. The duel between the Western left and right is taking place outside the box to determine what will be in the box once it’s forced open, while the oppressed minorities are in a state of indeterminacy in the box.

The Schrödinger’s Jihad paradox has many other adjoining boxes. Some are filled with dictators and criminals. If the progressive observer can open the box and find the root cause, out comes a good person; if the right opens the box, then out will march the terrorists, drug dealers and warlords.

The other side of the rhetoric about oppression and colonization, of punching up and punching down is the conviction that those at the bottom do not have free will or agency. If the mugger chooses to mug, rather than being driven to it by poverty, if Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union gleefully chose conquest instead of being forced to it by Western imperialism, and if the Muslim terrorist is not a helpless victim, but an abuser, then the moral imperative of the left’s worldview collapses in a heap.

If Muslims are real people who are at least as capable of imperialism, racism, slavery and destroying the planet as any Westerner, and who have been doing all of these things a lot longer, then leftists would have to accept that they are tearing down the most progressive civilization on the planet on behalf of ridiculously reactionary civilizations. Not only would they no longer be the privileged observers in control of the future, but they would have to see themselves as destroyers of what is left of the future.

The left refuses to blame Islam or Muslims because that would mean admitting that they are people.

Schrödinger’s Jihad is a child’s toy box for overgrown children who view Muslims as social justice dolls and terrorist action figures instead of people as flawed and complicated as they are. The left refuses to take Islamic theology seriously because it is incapable of understanding different points of view.

It approaches Islam as a race, rather than a religion, because it refuses to delve into what its beliefs are. Instead it chooses to see Muslims as blank slates to be filled with its ideology, as indeterminate patterns that can be reshaped into whatever they want them to be. It does not want to know what it says in the Koran, because that ruins its wonderful fantasy of Muslims as an oppressed race, rather than a creed.

dest18Lies that are based on what we want to be true are the hardest to disprove. A lie that is tied into identity cannot be touched without destroying the entire identity of an individual or a movement.

The lies about Islam run into the heart of what the left is. To the left, everything is indeterminate and everything can be reshaped. Existence flows from power and power is pitted against progress. By destroying that which exists, they can bring their dreams to life. The dream is stronger than reality.

The left doesn’t really believe that Muslim terrorists exist except when we bring them to life. The real animating force behind Al Qaeda was George W. Bush or Dick Cheney. The true power behind ISIS is Pamela Geller or the Pentagon. The Westerner opens the box and the Muslim terrorist comes out. When Western civilization as we know it is destroyed, then the left believes Muslim terrorism will end. Kill the observer and the cat never existed. Destroy the dreamer and the nightmare dies with him.

The truth is more dangerous than the terrorists. Terrorists can kill the body, but truth can kill the dream.

“Stay Quiet and You’ll Be Okay”

My Winning Mohammad Contest DrawingBy Mark Steyn, May 9, 2015:

As we mentioned a week ago, I’m none too well at the moment, and it so happens my preferred position in which to write causes me severe pain – which is presumably some kind of not so subtle literary criticism from the Almighty. But I’m back, more or less, with lots to catch up on. There were two big elections in recent days, with dramatic results: in Alberta, the Tories were wiped out; in Scotland, the Labour Party was slaughtered; in England, the Liberals were crushed. Strange times.

I’ll have more to say about the elections in the days ahead, but for now let me offer a whole-hearted good riddance to Ed Miliband, the now departed Labour leader who, in a desperate last-minute pander, offered to “outlaw Islamophobia“. That was the British political establishment’s contribution to a rough couple of weeks for free speech, culminating in the attempted mass murder in Garland, Texas.

That’s what it was, by the way – although you might have difficulty telling that from the news coverage. The Washington Post offered the celebrated headline “Event Organizer Offers No Apology After Thwarted Attack In Texas“, while the Associated Press went with “Pamela Geller says she has no regrets about Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest that ended in 2 deaths“. The media “narrative” of the last week is that some Zionist temptress was walking down the street in Garland in a too short skirt and hoisted it to reveal her Mohammed thong – oops, my apologies, her Prophet Mohammed thong (PBUH) – and thereby inflamed two otherwise law-abiding ISIS supporters peacefully minding their own business.

It’ll be a long time before you see “Washington Post Offers No Apology for Attacking Target of Thwarted Attack” or “AP Says It Has No Regrets After Blaming The Victim”. The respectable class in the American media share the same goal as the Islamic fanatics: They want to silence Pam Geller. To be sure, they have a mild disagreement about the means to that end – although even then you get the feeling, as with Garry Trudeau and those dozens of PEN novelists’ reaction to Charlie Hebdo, that the “narrative” wouldn’t change very much if the jihad boys had got luckier and Pam, Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer and a dozen others were all piled up in the Garland morgue.

If the American press were not so lazy and parochial, they would understand that this was the third Islamic attack on free speech this year – first, Charlie Hebdo in Paris; second, the Lars Vilks event in Copenhagen; and now Texas. The difference in the corpse count is easily explained by a look at the video of the Paris gunmen, or the bullet holes they put in the police car. The French and Texan attackers supposedly had the same kind of weapons, although one should always treat American media reports with a high degree of skepticism when it comes to early identification of “assault weapons” and “AK47s”. Nonetheless, from this reconstruction, it seems clear that the key distinction between the two attacks is that in Paris they knew how to use their guns and in Garland they didn’t. So a very cool 60-year-old local cop with nothing but his service pistol advanced under fire and took down two guys whose heavier firepower managed only to put a bullet in an unarmed security guard’s foot.

The Charlie Hebdo killers had received effective training overseas – as thousands of ISIS recruits with western passports are getting right now. What if the Garland gunmen had been as good as the Paris gunmen? Surely that would be a more interesting question for the somnolent American media than whether some lippy Jewess was asking for it.

As for the free-speech issues, some of us have been around this question for a long time. I wrote a whole book about it:Lights Out: Islam, Free Speech And The Twilight Of The West – well worth a read, and I’m happy to autograph it for you. On page 123 I write about Jyllands Posten and the original Motoons:

The twelve cartoonists are now in hiding. According to the chairman of the Danish Liberal Party, a group of Muslim men showed up at a local school looking for the daughter of one of the artists.

When that racket starts, no cartoonist or publisher or editor should have to stand alone. The minute there were multimillion-dollar bounties on those cartoonists’ heads, The Times of London and Le Monde and The Washington Post and all the rest should have said, “This Thursday we’re all publishing the cartoons. If you want to put bounties on all our heads, you’d better have a great credit line at the Bank of Jihad. If you want to kill us, you’ll have to kill us all…”

But it didn’t happen.

The only two magazines to stand in solidarity with the Danish cartoonists and republish the Motoons were Charlie Hebdo in Paris and my own magazine in Canada, Ezra Levant’s Western Standard. Ezra wound up getting hauled up by some dimestore imam before the ignorant and thuggish Alberta “Human Rights” Commission whose leisurely money-no-object “investigation” consumed years of his life and all his savings. But he was more fortunate than our comrades at Charlie Hebdo: He’s still alive.

In Copenhagen, in Paris, in Garland, what’s more important than the cartoons and the attacks is the reaction of all the polite, respectable people in society, which for a decade now has told those who do not accept the messy, fractious liberties of free peoples that we don’t really believe in them, either, and we’re happy to give them up – quietly, furtively, incrementally, remorselessly – in hopes of a quiet life. Because a small Danish newspaper found itself abandoned and alone, Charlie Hebdojumped in to support them. Because the Charlie Hebdo artists and writers died abandoned and alone, Pamela Geller jumped in to support them. By refusing to share the risk, we are increasing the risk. It’s not Pamela Geller who emboldens Islamic fanatics, it’s all the nice types – the ones Salman Rushdie calls the But Brigade. You’ve heard them a zillion times this last week: “Of course, I’m personally, passionately, absolutely committed to free speech. But…”

And the minute you hear the “but”, none of the build-up to it matters. A couple of days before Garland, Canadian Liberal MP (and former Justice Minister) Irwin Cotler announced his plan to restore Section 13 – the “hate speech” law under whichMaclean’s and I were dragged before the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission and which, as a result of my case, was repealed by the Parliament of Canada. At the time Mr Cotler was fairly torn on the issue. We talked about it briefly at a free-speech event in Ottawa at which he chanced to be present, and he made vaguely supportive murmurings – as he did when we ran into each other a couple of years later in Boston. Mr Cotler is Jewish and, even as European “hate” laws prove utterly useless against the metastasizing open Jew-hate on the Continent, he thinks we should give ’em one more try. He’s more sophisticated than your average But boy, so he uses a three-syllable word:

“Freedom of expression is the lifeblood of democracy,” said Cotler, who was minister of justice under Paul Martin.

“However…”

Free speech is necessary to free society for all the stuff after the “but”, after the “however”. There’s no fine line between “free speech” and “hate speech”: Free speech is hate speech; it’s for the speech you hate – and for all your speech that the other guy hates. If you don’t have free speech, then you can’t have an honest discussion. All you can do is what those stunted moronic boobs in Paris and Copenhagen and Garland did: grab a gun and open fire. What Miliband and Cotler propose will, if enacted, reduce us all to the level of the inarticulate halfwits who think the only dispositive argument is “Allahu Akbar”.

Alas, we have raised a generation of But boys. Ever since those ridiculous Washington Post and AP headlines, I’ve been thinking about the fellows who write and sub-edit and headline and approve such things – and never see the problem with it. Why would they? If you’re under a certain age, you accept instinctively that free speech is subordinate to other considerations: If you’ve been raised in the “safe space” of American universities, you take it as read that on gays and climate change and transgendered bathrooms and all kinds of other issues it’s perfectly normal to eliminate free speech and demand only the party line. So what’s the big deal about letting Muslims cut themselves in on a little of that action?

Why would you expect people who see nothing wrong with destroying a mom’n’pop bakery over its antipathy to gay wedding cakes to have any philosophical commitment to diversity of opinion? And once you no longer have any philosophical commitment to it it’s easy to see it the way Miliband and Cotler do – as a rusty cog in the societal machinery that can be shaved and sliced millimeter by millimeter.

Do what the parochial hacks of the US media didn’t bother to do, and look at the winning entry in Pam Geller’s competition, which appears at the top of this page. It’s by Bosch Fawstin, an Eisner Award-winning cartoonist and an ex-Muslim of Albanian stock. Like many of the Danish and French cartoons, it’s less about Mohammed than about the prohibition against drawing Mohammed – and the willingness of a small number of Muslims to murder those who do, and a far larger number of Muslims both enthusiastic and quiescent to support those who kill. Mr Fawstin understands the remorseless logic of one-way multiculturalism – that it leads to the de facto universal acceptance of Islamic law. All that “Prophet Mohammed” stuff, now routine even on Fox News. He’s not my prophet, he’s just some dead bloke. But the formulation is now mysteriously standard in western media. Try it the other way round: “Isis News Network, from our Libyan correspondent: Warriors of the Caliphate today announced record attendance numbers for the mass beheading of followers of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ…”

On Fox the other day, Bill O’Reilly was hopelessly confused about this issue. He seems to think that Pam Geller’s cartoon competitions will lessen the likelihood of moderate Muslims joining us in the fight against ISIS. Putting aside the fact that there is no fight against ISIS, and insofar as the many Muslim countries in the vast swollen non-existent “60-nation coalition” are going to rouse themselves to join the fight it will be because the Saudi and Jordanian monarchies and the Egyptian military understand it as an existential threat to them, put aside all that and understand that Islamic imperialism has a good-cop-bad-cop game – or hard jihad, soft jihad. The hard jihad is fought via bombings and beheadings and burnings over barren bits of desert and jungle and cave country in the Middle East, Africa and the Hindu Kush. The soft jihad is a suppler enemy fighting for rather more valuable real estate in Europe, Australia and North America, so it uses western shibboleths of “diversity” and “multiculturalism” to enfeeble those societies. And it does so very effectively – so that when a British soldier is hacked to death on a London street in broad daylight, you can’t really quite articulate what’s wrong with it; or that, upon the death of the ugly king of a state where Christianity is prohibited, the Christian ministers of Westminster Abbey mourn his passing; or that, when Australians are held siege in a Sydney coffee shop, the reflexive response of progressive persons is to launch a social-media campaign offering to battle Islamophobia by helping Muslims get to work; or that, when violent Muslims stage their first explicit anti-free-speech attack on American soil, everyone thinks the mouthy free-speech broad is the problem. This soft jihad goes on every day of the week, and Bill O’Reilly doesn’t even seem to be aware that it exists.

So on the one hand we have Pamela Geller. On the other we have Francine Prose, a former president of PEN and one of those dozens of novelists who’s boycotting the posthumous award to Charlie Hebdo. I’ve never read one of Ms Prose’s books, so this piece by her in The Guardian was my first exposure to her, er, prose:

The narrative of the Charlie Hebdo murders – white Europeans killed in their offices by Muslim extremists – is one that feeds neatly into the cultural prejudices that have allowed our government to make so many disastrous mistakes in the Middle East. And the idea that one is either “for us or against us” in such matters not only precludes rational and careful thinking, but also has a chilling effect on the exercise of our right to free expression and free speech that all of us – and all the people at PEN – are working so tirelessly to guarantee.

This is a writer? This dessicated language is how Ms Prose deploys the tools of her trade? It isn’t a “narrative”, it’s real life.That’s real blood of real writers all over the Charlie floor – and it’s not all “white European” blood, either: it includes people with names like “Mustapha Ourrad”, Charlie‘s copy editor. Surely he’s a fitting victim for Ms Prose as she goes around “working so tirelessly”? But no. The Prose “narrative” is too simple for complicating factors like blokes called Mustapha for whom the point of living in western societies is to live all the freedom of those societies.

If you make the concessions that Francine Prose and Michael Ondaatje are implicitly demanding, what kind of art remains? There was a big fuss a few weeks ago when Steve Emerson said on Fox News that Birmingham, England was a Muslim no-go zone, and the BBC gleefully mocked him because it’s only 28 per cent Muslim or whatever. That 28 per cent is pretty spectacular in just a couple of generations. How long before it’s 40 or 50 per cent? So, if, circa 2030, you’re a PEN member in Birmingham and you want to write a novel about your turf, it will necessarily involve a consideration of the relationship between an ever more Islamic city and what remains of its non-Islamic elements.

But Islam is telling you that subject’s closed off. Not long after 9/11, some theatre group in Cincinnati announced a play contrasting a Palestinian suicide bomber and the American Jewish girl she killed. Local Muslims complained, and so the production was immediately canceled – because all the arty types who say we need “artists” with the “courage” to “explore” “transgressive” “ideas” fold like a cheap Bedouin tent when it comes to Islam. The Muslim community complained not because the play was anti-Muslim: au contraire, it was almost laughably pro-Palestinian, and the playwright considered the suicide bomber a far more sensitive sympathetic character than her dead Jewish victim.

But that wasn’t the point: the Muslim leaders didn’t care whether the play was pro- or anti-Islam: for them, Islam is beyond discussion. End of subject. And so it was.

So what kind of novels will PEN members be able to write in such a world?

Can Islam be made to live with the norms of free societies in which it now nests? Can Islam learn – or be forced – to suck it up the way Mormons, Catholics, Jews and everyone else do? If not, free societies will no longer be free. Pam Geller understands that, and has come up with her response. By contrast, Ed Miliband, Irwin Cotler, Francine Prose, Garry Trudeau and the trendy hipster social-media But boys who just canceled Mr Fawstin’s Facebook account* are surrendering our civilization. They may be more sophisticated, more urbane, more amusing dinner-party guests …but in the end they are trading our liberties.

A final cartoon from Bosch Fawstin:

1281

“Stay quiet and you’ll be okay:” Those were Mohammed Atta’s words to his passengers on 9/11. And they’re what all the nice respectable types are telling us now.

[*His Facebook page is back now.]

Also see:

And more videos have been added to my collection including Jeannine Pirro’s 5/9 great open on free speech but disappointing disrespectful interview of Pamela Geller.

The Art of Politics

garland-shooting-450x338Frontpage, by Dawn Perlmutter, May 8, 2015:

The American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and Jihad Watch co-sponsored the ‘First Annual Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest’. The contest was a response to the Charlie Hebdo Massacre where jihadists murdered twelve people in the Paris offices of the satirical magazine. It was organized in the same spirit as the Je Suis Charliedemonstrations and artists from all over the world who drew cartoons in support of free speech and freedom of the press. Many of the political cartoons reacting to the massacre included cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. Similar to many other art contests, entries were submitted online for cash prizes with the winning entries appearing on the sponsor’s websites. The exhibit was held on May 3rd at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas, which was chosen because it was the site of the “Stand with the Prophet” conference that denounced ‘Islamophobia’ shortly after the Charlie Hebdo massacre.

Co-sponsors Pamela Geller, president of AFDI, and Robert Spencer, Director of Jihad Watch, spent 10,000 dollars on extra security for the opening of the exhibition. During the event two gunmen, Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi of Phoenix, wearing body armor and carrying assault rifles pulled up to the event in a car. They immediately got out and began shooting at a police car wounding a security guard. A traffic officer working after-hours as security for the event armed only with a service pistol shot and killed them – demonstrating the saying ‘Don’t mess with Texas’. Investigators searched the suspects’ vehicle for explosives and detonated the vehicle for precaution.

Elton Simpson linked himself to the Islamic State, aka ISIS, in a tweet posted just before the attack. The Islamic State subsequently took responsibility for the attack broadcasting on its Al Bayan radio station that “two soldiers of the caliphate” carried out Sunday’s attack and promised the group would deliver more attacks in the future. ISIS also threatened to kill Pamela Geller:

“The attack by the Islamic State in America is only the beginning of our efforts to establish a wiliyah in the heart of our enemy. Our aim was the khanzeer Pamela Geller and to show her that we don’t care what land she hides in or what sky shields her; we will send all our Lions to achieve her slaughter. ……We have 71 trained soldiers in 15 different states ready at our word to attack any target we desire. Out of the 71 trained soldiers 23 have signed up for missions like Sunday, We are increasing in number bithnillah. Of the 15 states, 5 we will name… Virginia, Maryland, Illinois, California, and Michigan. The disbelievers who shot our brothers think that you killed someone untrained, nay, they gave you their bodies in plain view because we were watching.”

In the face of the Islamic State’s frightening death threats against Americans, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer have been vilified in the press instead of being hailed as brave defenders of freedom. The rhetoric is getting uglier every day. CNN’s Alisyn Camerota cited critics who said there was a “fine line between freedom of speech and being intentionally incendiary and provocative.” MSNBC’s Chris Matthews accused Geller of provoking the violence, “I think [Geller] caused this trouble, and whether this trouble came yesterday or it came two weeks from now, it’s gonna be in the air as long as you taunt.” Surprisingly Bill O’Reilly accused Pamela Geller of provoking the violence that occurred in Texas. His May 5th talking points commentary titled ‘Defeating the Jihad by Not Being Dumb’ referred to the American Freedom Defense Initiative as “the anti-Muslim group who ignited the situation”

In an interview with Megyn Kelly, O’Reilly said “So they wanted to defy the fear the jihadists have imposed on the world?” O’Reilly asked…..”But there’s always cause and effect,… this is what happens when you light the fuse — you get violence.” That is the same argument the left wing media used when they accused O’Reilly of inciting the murder of abortion doctor George Tiller. Obviously Bill O’Reilly has been drinking the left’s Kool-Aid. In addition to blaming the victims the media continues to pejoratively characterize the event as Anti-Muslim, controversial and provocative because depicting the Prophet Muhammad is considered blasphemous, irreverent and sacrilege. Although there is an abundance of sensitivity in not offending Muslims, there are no outcries when the sacred in Christianity is desecrated.

The few reporters that defended the event argued that art that offends Christians does not provoke the same outrage by the press or violence by worshippers. Piss Christ, the 1987 photograph by the American artist Andres Serrano depicting a crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist’s urine is often cited as the classic example of art that insults Christianity. It is both an actual and symbolic desecration of the sacred in Christianity. Adding insult to injury, it was the winner of a National Endowment for the Arts sponsored competition making it government sanctioned defilement.

Almost 30 years later desecrating a cross escalated from a photograph to performance protest artists mimicing shoving a crucifix into their anuses in the middle of Vatican square to simulate anal sex to protest the Popes religious morals. If you have not read about that protest art performance it is probably because CNN and MSNBC do not report when Christians are offended. Political correctness has created a cult of victimhood that has programmed the media to diminish Christian and anti-Semitic so called protest art while reporting any and all incidents of what Muslims find offensive.

There are many more examples of provocative, offensive and incendiary art and art exhibits that are not criticized because they support liberal agendas. Similar to the Muhammad Cartoon contest, many art exhibits are organized on line around a political theme. For example ‘Artists Against Police Violence’is a blog run by a small group of self-described artists-activists of color who are calling all artists across the U.S. and the world to rise up against anti-Black police violence. They have created an online space “featuring graphics and artwork to be used for communities against police murders of Black people”. Artists Against Police Violence state on their website:

“We strive to feature and generate a diverse collection of hi-res images to empower families, protests, social media, the streets and beyond. When the language that white supremacy and anti-Blackness have given us fails, we must rise with our broken tools and forge a new visual language toward accountability and justice….In light of the upcoming protests across the country, we are calling all artists across the US and the world to rise up against anti-Black police violence. ….With that in mind, we also acknowledge that the way police officers terrorize Black communities is not limited to extrajudicial killings, but include sexual violence, the violence of the medical establishment, and the violence of the prison industrial complex. …Police and prisons play essential roles in enacting, compounding, and colluding with the abuse, incarceration, and gender and sexual violence targeting Black women (trans women in particular)”

This online art exhibit is controversial and provocative. In fact it can be described as having the potential to incite protesters to commit violence against police who it claims murder and rape black people. The political message behind the Draw Muhammad Cartoon event was the protection of free speech. The political message of the Artists Against Police Violence exhibit is to empower people to rise up against alleged police violence for accountably and justice. While Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are labeled Islamophobes and anti-Muslim for organizing an art exhibit to protect free speech, political correctness prohibits anyone from labeling the artists-activists Against Police Violence as racists, black supremacists or as an anti-government hate organization. When the cause is liberal it is not inflammatory they are just artists.

The line between art and protest is often blurred in what is referred to as performance art, performance protests or guerrilla actions. It is perfectly acceptable to desecrate churches, Christian and Jewish religious objects, interrupt traffic, and spew hatred as long as it is in the name of feminism, anarchism, socialism or Islam.

An interesting example of liberal bias is the only group that was not targeted by Western media for insulting Islam. FEMEN, founded in 2008 in the Ukraine and currently based in Paris, is an international feminist protest organization that became known for organizing topless protests on women’s issues. Their mission is “fighting patriarchy in its three manifestations – sexual exploitation of women, dictatorship and religion” and resulted in protests against both Christian and Islamic religious institutions. The self-described “sextremists” have staged protests at the belfry of Saint Sophia Cathedral in Kiev and at Saint Peter’s Square in Vatican City.

Three topless FEMEN activists used a chainsaw to cut down a large wooden crucifix near Maidan Nezalezhnosti in Kiev in support for the Russian group Pussy Riot. Topless Femen activists dressed as nuns to counter Catholics against same-sex marriage march in Paris. The topless activists wearing nuns habits had “In Gay We Trust” and Fuck G-d written on their bare chests. During a Pro-Life demonstration in Madrid, Spain FEMEN activists were holding crosses sprayed with red paint and had ‘abortion is sacred’ written on their naked chests. Three FEMEN activists went to Vatican square and wearing only black ankle boots, leather miniskirts, and flower garlands in their hair, dropped to all fours and began mimicking putting crucifixes in their anuses simulating anal sex. Written on their backs was ‘Keep it Inside’ indicating that the Popes activities should stay within the papal enclave in Rome. Where is the outrage? Blasphemy only makes the news when Muslims are offended. There are no limits to insulting Christianity.

FEMEN also staged a topless protest at the 2012 Summer Olympics in London to draw attention to what they call “bloody Islamist regimes” taking part in the Olympics. Two topless women were painted with the slogans “Olympic shame” and “No Sharia”. Imagine if Pamela Geller had done that instead of a cartoon contest. On April 4, 2013 FEMEN activists staged protests in various European cities in what they dubbed “International Topless Jihad Day” in support of a young Tunisian activist named Amina Tyler, 19, who received death threats for posting topless pictures online in which “F–k your morals” and “My body belongs to me and is not the source of anyone’s honor” were written in Arabic on her naked chest and stomach.

Women demonstrated in support of Tyler in several European countries outside Tunisian embassies and mosques including in front of the Ahmadiyya-Moschee in Berlin. They protested topless with writing across their chests with slogans such as “No Sharia” and “No Islamism” and held signs that read “Naked Freedom,” “No Masters No Slaves,” and “Free Amina.” They also burned the Salafist Black flag in front of the Great Mosque of Paris. There were a few accusations of Islamophobia to which Inna Shevchenko, leader of FEMEN France tweeted “I’m not an Islamophobe but a religiophobe.”

That is why FEMEN receives positive press from the Western liberal secular media. If you are hosting an online Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest fighting for free speech you are an Islamophobe. If you are a naked beautiful feminist burning the Black Salafist flag in front of the Grand Mosque of Paris fighting against patriarchy then you are a freedom fighter. These double standards are part of a brilliant strategy of symbolic warfare designed to silence free speech, incite protests, promote Muslim and black victimhood and suppress criticism of jihadists and anti-police groups.

Also see:

Author exposes the ‘cabal’ of leftists and corporatists unwittingly supporting jihad through U.S. refugee resettlement

Between 1,000 and 2,000 Syrian refugees will be brought to the U.S. by the end of September, and several thousand more in 2016.

Between 1,000 and 2,000 Syrian refugees will be brought to the U.S. by the end of September, and several thousand more in 2016.

The Blaze, by Benjamin Weingarten, May. 8, 2015:

Recently there have been several stories published regarding secretive American refugee resettlement programs under which a disproportionately high percentage of Muslim immigrants are being dispersed across the United States, an issue that Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina has brought to the State Department with respect to a town in his Congressional district.

Ann Corcoran, a patriotic citizen living out on a farm in rural Maryland has been the providing oversight that Congress has not on this issue for years via her blog, Refugee Resettlement Watch.

Based on her findings, Ms. Corcoran has recently published a book, the subject of our in-depth interview, titled “Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America.”

In the book, Ms. Corcoran makes the case that the federal government at the urging of the United Nations is accepting thousands of immigrants each year, including from Muslim-majority countries hostile to the U.S., without concern for assimilation or any of the national security implications of such decisions. Corcoran believes that these programs aid and abet those individuals seeking to fulfill an element of jihad of hijra, in a bid to ultimately spread Islam and Shariah law in America.

Corcoran explains:

The hijra … is the Islamic doctrine of immigration. And Muhammad instructed his followers that one of the five responsibilities … that Muslims are supposed to do — one of them is to migrate and that migration is a form of jihad. And the refugee resettlement program as it is now constructed in the United States is now bringing large numbers of Muslims into the country from countries that hate us. We’ve brought over 100,000 Somalis, we have brought over 100,000 Iraqis — and most of the Iraqis … are Muslim. We’re about to admit potentially 11,000 Syrians, 93% so far that have come into the country are Muslim — into the country that the United Nations have picked for us. And thus, I’m making the case that the refugee resettlement program — that is by the way where the UN picks our refugees, U.S. State Department distributes them around the country is in fact a significant contributor to the hijra to America.

While Americans may be aware of the fact that as Corcoran argues during our interview, there are refugees being resettled all over the country with little to no local control over such programs or federal oversight — assisted by leftist religious groups that are taxpayer funded — perhaps less noticed is an alliance between leftist activists and big business enabling jihadists to come into the country, as we have seen for example in the Somali population of the Minneapolis area.

Corcoran explains:

… [T]he financial driving factor behind this … is cheap labor, which goes across all of these immigrant areas. The meat packers out in places like Minnesota have enormous power. And they’re working with left-wing foundations to convince local elected officials that this is all just a wonderful thing, diversity is a wonderful beautiful thing, but there’s really — money is driving this… And of course there’s the ideology, and the need for Democrat voters, or the wish for more Democrat voters… But there’s a big money component to all of this. And that’s why you see these elite Republicans supporting this program because it involves big money, big business, I call it “big meat” for example.

Corcoran continues:

… I should mention that for example with the meat packers, they were using illegal immigrant labor for the longest time. Well first off, they used to pay I’m told by people who worked in the meat industry, that they used to pay very well, good wages to American workers. Then they discovered the illegal alien. Well that didn’t work out so well because they were getting busted. And then the next thing they discovered was the refugees as a source of cheap labor. And it’s especially mean to the refugees I think because the refugees are captive essentially — they can’t just walk away from the job or go back to their home country or anything, so they’re really captive cheap labor… So there’s a big driving force there behind it. And it’s a convenient thing — you’ve got the hard leftist who wants the Democrat voters joining forces with the elite Republicans who with big business and financial backers — and it’s a terrible combination that’s a juggernaut essentially against the average American citizen worker.

As a microcosm of what is occurring, Ms. Corcoran told us about a situation she is studying that has recently come to light in St. Cloud, Minnesota:

… There’s a couple of men out in Minnesota near St. Cloud who did some research on their own, and here’s what they found … St. Cloud by the way is part of [former Rep.] Michelle Bachmann’s district … [T]here’s apparently a foundation called the Blandin Foundation — a left-wing foundation — that takes elected officials, and it’s hooked up with I’m told The Hormel Foundation which is a meat company foundation, and they take elected officials and community leaders and they train them for a week with this diversity training and then they send them back to their communities expecting them to carry the water on how wonderful diversity is for the community. And as a reward, the community gets little grants for little things that they might need … the community might get a new soccer field if they’re sufficiently welcoming… So there’s this cabal of foundations — left-leaning foundations, the meat industry and elected officials — all working together to shove diversity down the throats of their communities, and the community is rewarded with grant money if they’re sufficiently welcoming to the new Somalis. But then there’s this other factor in there: The local cronyism kicks in and the local builder gets the job of building the new subsidized housing facility that they’re gonna put the Somalis in. And the car dealer is happy to get money selling cars to the new refugees, so that there’s this money component that flows through the whole thing. In the meantime the average citizen out there who says “Whoa whoa whoa, this is changing the culture of our community,” is shoved out by this combination of supposed Republicans in some cases, and foundations, left-leaning foundations and big business… And of course they don’t care about the jihad aspects of all of this… It’s all about money I’m sorry to say.

During our interview, which you can find in full below, we also had a chance to discuss several other issues including:

  • How Ms. Corcoran became an activist on the issue of refugee resettlement
  • The theological background of “hijra”
  • The size and scope of America’s refugee resettlement programs
  • The danger of diversity visas
  • The complicity of leftist religious groups with the government in perpetuating these programs
  • The states rights issues at play
  • And much much more

Counter Jihad is about HUMAN RIGHTS

islam-violates-human-rights

Published on May 1, 2015 by Eric Allen Bell

Liberty and Islam cannot coexist. Free Speech and Islam cannot coexist. Women’s Rights and Islam cannot coexist. Human Rights and Islam cannot coexist. Critical Thinking and Islam cannot coexist. Weapons of Mass Destruction and Islam cannot coexist. The future and Islam cannot coexist. http://www.EricAllenBell.com

Ferguson-Palestine Seed Bearing Fruit in Baltimore Riots

blumenthal tweetPJ Media, By Susan L.M. Goldberg On April 28, 2015:

From Legal Insurrection:

This is becoming a recurring theme.

When there is a riot or other protest in the U.S., particularly if involving minority communities, “pro-Palestinian” activists try to hijack it and turn it into a criticism of Israel.

We saw it in Ferguson where “pro-Palestinian” activists spread lies that Israel trained the Ferguson police, and actually embedded themselves in the protests to try to turn the protests into anti-Israel protests.

The same thing has happened repeatedly with #BlackLivesMatters protests, most notably the dangerous blockade of the San Mateo – Hayward Bridge.

This is part of the emerging theme of anti-Israeli activists trying to tie unrelated movements, such as fossil fuel divestment, to Palestinian issues. Now we are seeing it with the Baltimore riots.

Max Blumenthal, notorious anti-Zionist and self-hating Jew, joined in to fuel the fire with Tweets like:

tweeets

rest of tweet

and

2Blumenthal tweet

Blumenthal’s attempt to join in the community organizing through social media is yet another illustration of the yuppie socialist class fueling insurrection for their own nefarious political purposes. Like Ayers and Soros, these folks never let a good crisis go to waste, and when there isn’t one to be had, one can easily be made. It is no secret that the #BlackLivesMatter movement, along with associated organizations, has been funded and prepped to turn riot-like community organizing into violent expressions of pro-Palestinian unity. We’ve seen what this terror-backed rage can do in places like the Gaza Strip and Israel’s West Bank. What can we learn from Israel before our cities go down in flames?

***

***

ISIS Flag in Baltimore (pamelageller.com)

Screen-Shot-2015-04-28-at-10.03.56-AM-800x399

History of the Soviet-Islam Connection

4261455653Listen to Frank Gaffny interview with Trevor Loudon at Center for Security Policy

TREVOR LOUDON, a New Zealand political activist, speaker, and author of “The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists, and Progressives in the US Congress”:

PART ONE:

  • The Soviet science of subversion from WWII to today
  • How agents of influence destroyed the Australian/New Zealand/United States military alliance
  • Was the European Peace Movement merely an instrument to destroy NATO during the Cold War?
  • Tracing the current Administration’s three greatest achievements back to the Communist Party USA, courtesy of Frank Marshall Davis

PART TWO:

  • The American Civil Liberties Union’s origins as the security apparatus of communist America
  • Using constitutional projections to empower enemies of the United States
  • The Council for a Livable World’s promotion of U.S. disarmament
  • The rise of George Soros and how the Center for American Progress continues to disseminate socialist ideals

PART THREE:

  • Is George Soros supporting radical attacks on the U.S. justice and economic system?
  • Threats from Islamists and their links to communism, as seen in the Palestinian Intifada Movement
  • Vladimir Putin’s anti-western propaganda now integrating radical Islam
  • Evidence that Pres. Obama has a foot in both the Islamist and Marxist camps

PART FOUR:

  • Is the U.S. internal security apparatus being destroyed from within?
  • Purging of anti-Islamist material from American military and law enforcement training manuals
  • Controversy over Rep. André Carson’s appointment to the U.S. House Select Committee on Intelligence

The Black Book of the American Left: Volume IV: Islamo-Fascism and the War Against the Jews

dh1

Frontpage, April 15, 2015 by Jeffrey Herf:

To order David Horowitz’s “The Black Book of the American Left: Volume IV:  Islamo-Fascism and the War Against the Jews,” click here.

In this spirited and savvy collection of recent essays and speeches, David Horowitz argues that progressives, that is, left of center politicians, journalists and intellectuals have contributed to “undermining the defense of Western civilization against the totalitarian forces determined to destroy it.” Specifically, the threat comes from “the holy war or jihad waged by totalitarian Islamists in their quest for a global empire.” (p.1) These essays, many of which are lectures at university campuses or reports about those lectures, will reinforce the views of those who already agree that “Western civilization” is a good thing, that Islamism is a form of totalitarianism and that its Jihad is quest for a “global empire.” They may not convince those who think Western civilization is another name for racism, imperialism and war, that totalitarianism is an ideological relic of the Cold War and that an otherwise peaceful and tolerant Islam has been “hijacked” by violent extremists who misconstrue its texts and their meanings. Yet they may strike a nerve with those liberals who think it is absurd to deny the clear links between Islamism and terror and who, especially after the murders in Paris in January, understand that Islamism is a threat to the liberal traditions of Western politics and culture.

This volume addresses a by now much discussed paradox of our political and intellectual life. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks of 9/11, the liberal intellectual Paul Berman in Terror and Liberalism made the compelling case that the Islamist ideology that inspired the Al Qaeda terrorists emerged from a profoundly reactionary set of ideas which had lineages to Nazism and fascism. In Germany, Matthias Kuentzel, in his Jihad and Jew-Hatred:  Nazism, Islamism and the Roots of 9/11 examined in more detail the illiberal views of the 9/11 terrorists as well as the political and ideological connections between Islamism and Nazism. A number of us historians have documented those connections. The irony of the years since 2001, and especially of the Obama years, is that, with some exceptions, much of the sharpest criticism of the reactionary nature of Islamism and defense of classically liberal values has not come from the historic home of anti-fascism among leftists and liberals. Rather, as the 55, mostly short essays in this collection indicate, that critique has migrated to centrists and conservatives or those who are now called conservatives.

“Islamophobia,” the longest essay in the collection is co-written with Robert Spencer, also importantly draws attention to the international connections of Islamist organizations in the United States. The authors write that “the purpose of inserting the term ‘phobia’ is to suggest that any fear associated with Islam is irrational” and thus to discredit arguments that suggest a connection between Islamism and terror as themselves forms of bigotry. Horowitz and Spencer connect this criticism of the concept to discussion of the organizational connections between the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2005, the FBI seized the Northern Virginia headquarters of the Holy Land Foundation, then the largest Islamic “charity” in the United States. In a trial in 2007 that led to the conviction of the Foundation’s leaders on charges of supporting a terrorist organization, the prosecution entered a seized a remarkable document entitled “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.”(18)  The group’s goal was the establishment of “an effective and stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood, which adopts Muslim causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at directing and unifying Muslim’s efforts, presents Islam as a civilizational alternative, and supports the global Islam state wherever it is.”  Muslims, it continued “must understand their work in American is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” Horowitz and Spencer perform an important service in drawing attention to this document and to the political campaign that it has inspired.

The memo called for the creation of front organizations including the Muslim American Society, the Muslim Students Association, and the Islamic Society of North America, the Islamic Circle of North America, the Islamic Association for Palestine and the parent group of the Council on American-Islamic Relations or CAIR. Another front group identified in the Holy Land memo was the International Institute for Islamic Thought, said to have invented the term “Islamophobia.”  Horowitz and Spencer’s discussion of CAIR’s “Islamophobia campaign” is particularly interesting. In the Holy Land case, the US Department of Justice named CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator and produced evidence that it has received $500,000 dollars from the Holy Land Foundation to set itself up.  CAIR was created in 1994 as a spinoff of a Hamas front group, the Islamic Association for Palestine, a group that the US government shut down in 2005 for funding terrorism. CAIR has defined Islamophobia as “closed minded prejudice against or hatred of Islam and Muslims” and has described anti-terror measures adopted by the US government as forms of “prejudice” and “hatred.” The authors argue that the use of such terms has been an effective instrument in blunting or stifling criticism of Islamism.

On American university and college campuses, the Muslim Students Association and “Students for Justice in Palestine” have sponsored “Israel Apartheid Weeks.” In recent years, the MSA has been particularly active at the campuses of the University of California in Davis, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles in the anti-Islamophobia campaigns. Remarkably, such efforts have received support from coalitions of leftwing student groups active in student governments. The authors write that “perhaps the chief asset possessed by the jihadists is a coalition of non-Muslims-European and American progressives—who support the anti-Islamophobia campaign,” one that “had a venerable antecedent in the support that progressives provided to Soviet totalitarians during the Cold War.” (p.48) Again, the remarkable aspect of the current coalitions between Islamists and leftists was that these leftists were making common cause with organizations famous for anti-Semitism, subordination of women to second class status or worse and deep religious conviction, a set of beliefs at odds with some of the classic values of the radical left in the twentieth century. Then again, in view of the anti-Zionist campaigns of the Soviet Union and its allies during the Cold War and the hostility of the global radical left to Israel in recent decades, such “Red-Green” leftist-Islamist coalitions of recent years are not so surprising.

Horowitz sees a parallel between the “secular messianic movements like communism, socialism and progressivism” and the religious creeds they replaced. “It is not surprising therefore, that the chief sponsors of the blasphemy laws and the attitudes associated with them have been movements associated with the political left. It is no accident that the movement to outlaw Islamophobia should be deeply indebted to the secular left and its campaign to stigmatize its opponents by indiscriminately applying repugnant terms to them like ‘racist.’”  The invention and application of the concept of Islamophobia “is the first step in outlawing freedom of speech, and therefore freedom itself, in the name of religious tolerance.”(55)

The remainder of this volume elaborates on these themes with twenty essays on Islamo-fascism, thirteen on the Middle East Conflict and eleven on “the Campus War against the Jews.” Horowitz’ reports on his many speeches at various campuses where some of the above mentioned Islamic organizations turn up to protest. There the front organizations of the Muslim Brotherhood, especially the Muslim Students Association, emerged to challenge his arguments about the links between Islamism and fascism. Two essays are particularly important—and depressing. In “Suicidal Jews” and “”Hillel”s Coalitions with Israel’s Enemies,” Horowitz describes instances in which liberal and left-leaning Jewish undergraduates turn their criticism towards him rather than towards the anti-Israeli activists on campus.

This fourth volume of Horowitz’s essays depicts the bizarre nature of our contemporary political culture in which leftists make common cause with Islamists, Israel is denounced as a racist entity while the anti-Semitism of the Muslim Brothers, Hamas and the government of Iran are non-issues for leftists, and the United States government refuses to state the obvious about the connection between Islamist ideology and the practice of terrorism. The defense of liberal principles has liberal advocates but as this valuable collection indicates the core of the defense has become a preoccupation of the center and right of American intellectual and political life. This volume is an important document of that endeavor.

Jeffrey Herf, Distinguished University Professor, Department of History, University of Maryland, College Park. His most recent book is Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World. His work in progress is entitled “At War with Israel: East Germany and the West German Radical Left, 1967-1989.”

Pentagon: Bible and U.S. Founding Documents Promote ‘Sexism’

By Raymond Ibrahim, April 14, 2015:

Here again we see why Western “elites,” including the highest echelons of the U.S. military, are clueless and incapable of acknowledging — much less responding to — Islam:

Modern sexism is rooted in the Bible, U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, according to a Pentagon-approved seminar.

In a presentation prepared by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI), a Department of Defense joint services school based in Florida, the Bible, U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, along with Great Man theory, are to blame for “historical influences that allow sexism to continue,” The Daily Caller reported.

“Quotes from the Bible can be misinterpreted as having a sexist influence when brought out of context and not fully understood,” the course says. “In 1776, ‘We the people…’ only included white men: Slaves and women were not included until later in history.”

The course also cites the Declaration of Independence as a historical cause of sexism for referring to only “all men” being created equal.

[…]

“While there is no DoD Policy that requires persons to take these online courses,” the spokesman told The Daily Caller, 2,075 Department of Defense personnel have taken the “Sexism” course since 2011.

Meanwhile, to even hint that Islam’s core texts promote sexism — if not downright misogny — can get one fired.  Yet the Koran declares that women are inferior to men, that men have authority over them and are permitted to beat them, that polygamy is permissible — each man can have four wives — that females only inherit half of males’ inheritance, that female testimony in an Islamic court of law is equivalent to half a man’s.

And every day, in every Muslim country, every woman experiences these very real, “non-abstract” distinctions.

Islamic prophet Muhammad himself likened females to dogs and other animals — “for all are ridden” —  and said that women are deficient in intelligence and make up the majority of hell’s denizens.

Yet, it’s the Bible, U.S. Constitution, and Declaration of Independence that women need fear, says the Pentagon.

The West’s Romance with Iran and Islamists

Gatestone Institute, by Uzay Bulut, April 6, 2015:

The West seems to have lost the capacity and the will to criticize political Islam.

While “peace-loving” liberals in the West show support and sympathy for Hamas, and have removed Hamas from Europe’s terror list, Hamas leaders have been busy expressing their support and sympathy for Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.

Why then, for Europeans, is Hamas a “more acceptable” terrorist group than ISIS? Because it targets Jews?

If these Islamic jihadist groups cannot carry out their mission right away, it is not because they do not want to. It is because they do not have enough power to — at least for now.

In the eyes of most Islamists — whether or Sunni or Shia — nothing is cheaper or more worthless than human life. It can be seen in the accelerating rate of executions in Iran since the “moderate” President Hassan Rouhani arrived on the scene, and in the ghoulish slaughters committed by ISIS.

As terrorists throughout the Muslim world lay down their own lives to bring death, the U.S. and Europe silently watch Islamic terrorism in Sudan, in Pakistan, in Iraq and Syria by ISIS, in Nigeria by Boko Haram and especially in Iran by the Mullahs’ regime, which the P5+1 (the permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) deludedly still seem to think will turn nuclear warheads into plowshares.

 

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, proclaims “Death to America” on March 21, 2015. (Image source: MEMRI video screenshot)

U.S. and Iranian foreign ministers continue talks past deadline after deadline to give Iran — one of the most corrupt, repressive and genocidal countries on the planet – a nuclear weapons capability to threaten the rest of the Middle East, the U.S. and Europe. Granting nuclear capability is seen as a reward for lying, cheating and breaking treaty after treaty. What a brilliant precedent for everyone else.

The West seems to have lost the will to criticize political Islam. Not speaking out or taking action against Islamists is a sickness not only of the current U.S. government; many intellectuals also seem to suffer from it. In the West, there are goodhearted intellectuals who also apparently wish to deny what an all-enveloping role religion — and particularly Islam — plays in shaping and influencing how people think and act.

The Marxist view holds that religion is just a placebo in the face of economic oppression. So, the thinking goes, if there is a problem in a Muslim society, it must mainly stem from poverty, inequality and class conflicts, as well as “Western imperialism.” Many people influenced by this view therefore tend to believe that after the overthrow of capitalism and imperialism, the “oppressed” will cast off religion, to which they cling merely for consolation and the hope of a better future in an afterlife. Those who maintain this view remain silent on viciously repressive governments such as Hamas, Iran and North Korea, even as they claim to fight “imperialism” alongside regimes that hate Jews, Christians and women, and, in their effort to expand, are often themselves “imperialist.”

In the meantime, many of these intellectuals, who include government leaders, seem to fantasize about the future of the Western and Muslim worlds as if once “capitalism,” “American imperialism” and “Zionist occupation” were abolished, these despots would suddenly discover they no longer need violence or Islamic radicalism, and that a sunny new era of peace would begin. So, their view seems to go, if you criticize Islamism, you are an intolerant, hard-hearted “racist” or “bigot,” and your remarks are obviously “hate speech.”

It seems painful for many intellectuals in the West to understand or accept that a religious ideology which permits enslaving girls, beating “disobedient” wives or chopping off the heads of infidels can exist. They come up with supposed explanations for these acts, including poverty, “American imperialism,” or mental illness.

Poverty or imperialism, however, do not cause people to burn people alive, kidnap schoolgirls and sell them at a slave market, while saying that God commands the practice. Poverty, anger or alienation do not cause people to behead or crucify non-Muslims; cite relevant verses of their holy book as a justification, and brag about and film what they do.

These leaders and intellectuals seem wrongfully to associate political Islam with “being oppressed.” Political Islam, however, is not the ideology of the oppressed. It is an ideology that oppresses. It brings about the very the sufferings to which these intellectuals object.

Even Egypt’s Muslim President, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, seems to have realized that a worldview which makes excuses based on Islamic theology for many of the crimes committed in the Muslim world, only enables even more kidnappings, beheadings and deaths.

While “peace-loving” liberals in the West show support and sympathy for Hamas, as well as removing it from Europe’s terrorist list, Hamas leaders have been busy expressing their support and sympathy for Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban:

In 2005, Dr. Mahmoud Zahar, co-founder of Hamas and a member of the Hamas leadership, said, “The Taliban are 1,000 times more honorable than the American occupation and its collaborators… We are not a copy of the Taliban… Judge us according to what we are. Everyone must stop blaming the Taliban for things that in fact characterize the people of the West, who seek to turn the international community into a swamp of corruption and destruction, and to spread abomination and disease in the name of absolute freedom…”

In 2011, Ismail Haniyeh, head of the Hamas’s administration in the Gaza Strip said: “We regard this (the killing of Osama Bin Laden) as a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood… We condemn the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior. We ask God to offer him mercy with the true believers and the martyrs.”

Why then is Hamas a “more acceptable” terrorist group than ISIS? Because it targets Jews? How can Hamas’ Western sympathizers be so sure that the same extreme Islamic jihadist groups will not target them, “the infidels,” in the future, as they say they will?

If these Islamic jihadist groups cannot carry out their mission right way, it is not because they do not want to. It is because they just do not have enough power to — at least for now.

Uzay Bulut, a journalist born and raised a Muslim, is based in Ankara, Turkey.  Follow Uzay Bulut on Twitter

Also see:

Let Us Count the Gulags – Why utopian dreams inevitably become totalitarian nightmares

A watch tower stands in a museum commemorating victims of Soviet-era political repressions located in a former prison camp, some 110 kms (69 miles) northeast of the west Siberian city of Perm, Russia, Friday, March 6, 2015.  (AP Photo/Alexander Agafonov)

A watch tower stands in a museum commemorating victims of Soviet-era political repressions located in a former prison camp, some 110 kms (69 miles) northeast of the west Siberian city of Perm, Russia, Friday, March 6, 2015. (AP Photo/Alexander Agafonov)

PJ Media, By David Solway, March, 13, 2015:

There are many threats to the continuity of the modern world, of which Islam in its manifold guises — international terrorism, the razia of unfettered immigration, Iranian nuclear ambitions — is the most prominent. But the Islamic agenda would not be what it is without the “progressivist” mentality and attendant policy making that are handing the barbarians the keys to the city. Islam and progressivism, to cite Jamie Glazov, are United in Hate. Indeed, as Executive Director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism Stephen Schwartz remarks in First Things, the deep complicity between Islam and the left goes a long way back, to the writings of the chief Communist impresarios, Marx and Lenin, as well as to lesser lights like Bolshevik intellectual Karl Radek. America’s far-left, pro-Muslim president has merely continued the dismal tradition.

Thus, we need to consider the broader canvas to which the camel in the room directs our attention. The obsession with multiculturalism that is destroying our civilizational patrimony is a sign of the feverish intoxication with the humanly improbable that characterizes leftist thinking: that we are all born equal (true with respect to rights, but not with respect to talent, intelligence or personal qualities); that sociopolitical changes can eradicate the flaws and blemishes of our nature (demonstrably wrong); that competition is a social evil that must be eliminated for the general advantage (pure fairyland); that education should be politically motivated to promote what is absurdly termed “social justice” (the death knell of critical thought); that tolerance for the “Other,” however defined, trumps due process in the courts (the erosion of equity); that ancient guilts require present expiation (rank unfairness); and, the great canard of our time, that all cultures are on an existential par, none being “better,” more ethical or more advanced than any other (manifestly false).

Hence the dogma of cultural and moral equivalence to which the liberal/left adheres, as practiced most conspicuously by the jerk in the White House and by the majority of our political, community and institutional leadership. No culture, religion or civilization, apparently, is superior to any other, an axiom derived, as I observed in a 2011 PJM article, “The Origins of Postmodernitis,” from the early anthropologist Franz Boas. Boas laid it down in his seminal The Mind of Primitive Man that all cultures should be regarded with sympathy, that we should hold the conviction that all “races” —  today we would say “ethnicities” —  have “contributed to cultural progress in one way or another” and that they are equally capable of “advancing the interests of mankind.” Unfortunately, as I conclude there, what started out as a methodological discipline in the field of anthropology has mutated into an intellectual sickness that regards our own culture as nothing more than a provisional adaptation. We are all, it appears, moral and cultural isomorphs.

The utopian malady runs deep in the leftist psychodrama. Consider the irony of the Charlie Hebdo attack. As Clash Daily contributor William Spencer-Hale points out, “The employees, artists, writers and editors of Charlie Hebdo were all true to life followers of the Church of Leftism. They…eagerly embraced all the tenets of liberalism. They, like so many of their fellow countrymen, voted to implement those policies that are the hallmark of the modern leftist. Among them being gun control and unfettered immigration.” The fantasy world continues to impinge upon the real one, regardless of deadly consequences.

There is a lesson to be learned from contemplating the lasting damage that such torpid maunderings and emotional convulsions can inflict.  Of course, one should try to be circumspect and impartial in one’s judgments. I recall in this connection James Madison’s summation in Federalist #55: “As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence.” In other words, both facets of human nature need to be taken into account in forming our view of life, arriving at a mature conception of morality and determining the substance of our political commitments. A strong element of human sympathy leavens Madison’s skepticism. But he had already recognized in Federalist #37 just where choice and temptation tend to lead, making him — like the Founders in general — a reliable authority on the follies and perils of uninstructed human nature and their political implications. The “brighter aspects” of our nature, he wrote, “serve only as exceptions to…darken the gloom of the adverse prospects to which they are contrasted.” Madison is referring chiefly to narcissism, self-righteousness and bickering self-interest leading to political faction.

Such vices are inherent in the utopian prepossession, issuing inevitably in the assumption of infallibility and the application of ruthless force. Utopianism envisages a world in which the concepts of merit, achievement, genuine novelty and civic responsibility have been retired in favor of the misguided and banausic program of affirmative action, mandated mediocrity and cultural self-abasement. And, according to its promoters, it is a world that must be imposed, whether through violence or legislation. As such it cannot be separated from what Madison in #37 calls the “infirmities of human character,” or what we might call the tyranny of results. As Milan Kundera memorably puts it inThe Book of Laughter and Forgetting: “Once the dream of paradise starts to turn into reality…people begin to crop up who stand in its way. And so the rulers of paradise must build a little gulag on the side of Eden. In the course of time this gulag grows ever bigger…while the adjoining paradise gets even smaller and poorer.”

Gulags come in many shapes and forms. The physical hell the Soviets built. The moral and intellectual quicksand of leftist ideology. The prison-house of thought built by the mainstream media. And the fetid oubliette of the contemporary Academy to the legal and verbal constraints, aka political correctness, we ourselves impose upon our freedom to serve the purposes of those who would limit it. The conviction that Islam is a “religion of peace,” despite its millennium and a half of conquest, massacre, looting, slavery, punitive cruelty and cultural desecration, and that something called Islamism is merely a violent deformation of its central tenets, is a mental gulag that its deluded captives actually relish. Some gulags, it appears, are readily mistaken for idyllic acreage. They may not be discernible as gulags, but each is a cordon sanitaire of intellectual besottedness. The gulag from which one rarely escapes is a species of enchantment, namely, the shuttered enclosure of Edenic infatuations that inevitably brings and prolongs human suffering — the wages of cognitive imbecility. Living inside a stockade of groundless and uninhibited raptures does not represent a viable political future.

Whether we believe in the discredited canard of global warming, or the easily dispelled myth of Palestinian stewardship in the Holy Land, or the utterly transparent falsehood of Israeli apartheid, or the facile notion that anything but the Koran is the “root cause” of Islamic terror, or the lethal illusion that unbridled multiculturalism is a social blessing, or that big government stimulates rather than stifles economic vigor, or that gender is a social construct, or that we live in a rape culture or that being a white male is an unwarranted privilege — or any of a virtual calendar of such idols and figments, we are living in a gulag of our own gratuitous making. We are no longer self-reliant and independent human beings capable of responsible thought or of embarking on a free-ranging journey toward the truth of things.

Indeed, we have done more than surrender to the “infirmities” of our nature; we have consciously revalued them as ornaments of the moral life and embellishments of character. This is perhaps an even greater plummet than Madison envisaged, the cultural diagnosis of a crippling malady as a form of robust health. With this sordid declension in mind, one’s redemptive ambitions — assuming a modicum of sanity and prudence — should be oriented toward reality and not anchored in childish illusions, quixotic fictions and mellifluous fables. The world is a damn serious place and the romantic infantilisms, along with the venal calculations, of our elites must somehow be checked. Nor are ordinary people exempt from such rainbow apparitions. As Victor Davis Hanson writes in a comprehensive sweep of the political cretinism and cultural stupefaction afflicting the West today, “either the chaos grows and civilization wanes and tribalism follows, or the iron hand of the radical authoritarian Left or Right correction is just as scary, or a few good people in democratic fashion convince the mob to let them stop the madness and rebuild civilization. I hope for option three. I fear option one is more likely at home. And I assume that option two will be, as it always is, the choice abroad.”

All sensible people hope for option three. Only in this way is minimal progress at least conceivable — or at best, illimitable harm partially avoidable. We must not give up the effort to reclaim what we are in danger of losing. But reality compels us to recognize that options one and two are the more likely alternatives. German philosopher Johann Christian Friedrich Schiller was probably right when he declared, Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens: Against stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain. This is the self-imposed gulag from which even the Lord despairs of freeing us.

The bleakness of our condition, as Madison recognized, is only partly relieved by the thoughtful exceptions among us. Let us thank the Lord that they exist. But it is, I suspect, only when the gulag becomes unsustainable, when it collapses upon itself, that a few fortunate inmates may glimpse their salvation.

David Solway is a Canadian poet and essayist. He is the author of The Big Lie: On Terror, Antisemitism, and Identity, and is currently working on a sequel, Living in the Valley of Shmoon. His new book on Jewish and Israeli themes, Hear, O Israel!, was released by Mantua Books. His latest book is The Boxthorn Tree, published in December 2012. Visit his Website at www.davidsolway.com and his Facebook page here.

Also see:

Birds of a Feather: Obama, the Left, and Islam

!cid_image003_jpg@01D059FAAmerican Thinker, By Victor Volsky, March 11, 2015:

Is Barack Obama a Muslim or even an Islamist? Or is there another explanation for his open, heartfelt affinity for all things Muslim?

There is a veritable mountain of indirect evidence that he is indeed an acolyte of Islam. His late father was a Muslim. At the tender age of six, little Barack was taken by his mother to her new Indonesian husband’s homeland where he spent four crucial, formative years in a Muslim environment.

As president, he openly indicates his reverence for Islam — from a carefully mimicked Arabic accent when pronouncing the word the Muslim Scripture, the Quran, invariably preceded by the obligatory qualifier “Holy”, and a dewy-eyed reference to “one of the most beautiful sounds on Earth at sunset”, the muezzin’s call to prayer, to his declaration from the U.N. General Assembly rostrum that “the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”. Obama’s long-time spiritual guide, the Reverent Jeremiah Wright, interviewed by Ed Klein for his book, related that when Obama had joined his church, he “was steeped in Islam, but knew nothing about Christianity.”

And what about his public tirades about America’s sins and apologies for its “crimes?” What about his ridiculous statement that “Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding” or that Muslims have made a tremendous impact on American history and culture? What about his order to reorient NASA from space research to building bridges to the world of Islam and extolling the (imaginary) contributions of Muslims to space exploration?

Obama’s first telephone call to a foreign leader was to the head of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmud Abbas; his first trip abroad was to several Muslim countries; his first public speech during that trip delivered in Cairo was an appeal to the Muslims of the world to be friends. When Obama broke the tradition and rules of etiquette by slavishly bowing to Saudi King Abdullah, was he honoring a monarch or the keeper of the greatest sacred sites of Islam?

He took an active part in overthrowing Egyptian President Mubarak, an old, loyal friend of the United States, and eagerly supported the Muslim Brotherhood – so much so that to this day he refuses to forgive the Army and people of Egypt who threw Islamist President Mohamed Morsi out of office. Likewise, he helped destroy Col. Qaddafi, destabilizing Libya with grave consequences for the entire Middle East. His half-hearted aerial campaign against ISIS, a reluctant response to public pressure, is a joke, and he refuses to help Egypt and Jordan repel the Islamist threat.

He has been trying to ingratiate himself with Iran at the expense of America’s old Arab allies, but ignores the genocide of Christians in the region. He doesn’t like Israel, to put it mildly, and during last year’s Gaza War he all but openly took the side of Hamas even though it shows up on the State Department list of terrorist organizations. He demanded that Israel agree to a ceasefire on terms tantamount to capitulation; in the midst of fighting he instituted a partial embargo on military supplies to Israel and on a ludicrous pretext banned U.S. aircraft from using the Ben Gurion Airport, in effect declaring economic war on the Jewish state.

And to add insult to injury, he steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that the worldwide Islamist terrorist campaign has anything to do with Islam or even that terrorism exists. At least that’s the impression from the administration’s official vocabulary which bans such words as “terrorist”, “jihad” and the like. It’s always “violent extremism” or “workplace violence” or some such ludicrous euphemism. His Middle East policy can be summed up as antagonism toward America’s friends and appeasement of if not collusion with her enemies.

Worse, he insists that we have no right to get high and mighty about ISIS in view of the awful crimes committed in the name of Jesus Christ during the Crusades and Inquisition. The implication is that the 900-year-old campaign to liberate the Holy Sepulcher from the clutches of the Muslims is equivalent to the Jihadists enslaving and killing women and children, beheading Western journalists and “people of the Cross,” burning and burying prisoners alive. This is a page straight out of the Islamist playbook.

So there is no escaping a highly plausible conclusion that Obama is indeed a Muslim, right? Not so fast. A pretty strong case could be made that rather than an acolyte of Islam, he is in fact a far-left radical with a destructive, anti-American agenda.

He was raised by his mother, a fanatical America-hater, and leftist grandparents. His early mentor was Frank Marshall Davis, a card-carrying Communist. He attended three colleges, Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard, all known hotbeds of student radicalism. He admits in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father, that in college he sought out the company of the most radical professors and students. Upon graduation, he went to Chicago, Frank Marshall Davis’s old stomping grounds and home of the country’s most powerful black political machine, where he again fell in with the revolutionary crowd. As president, he brought with him a large retinue of like-minded radicals, such as Eric Holder, Van Jones, etc. And the mainstay of his domestic policy is “social justice,” a barely disguised revolutionary program to radically transform America that he openly advocated running for president.

America is the source of all evil in the world; her prosperity was built on the sweat of black slaves and exploitation of the oppressed peoples of the Third World. America is the enemy of mankind and must be destroyed and her wealth returned to the rightful owners: African-Americans and the oppressed masses of the Third World. Israel is America Lite and likewise must be wiped off the face of the world. Muslims are part of the Third World and thus are always beyond reproach. They are innocent victims of U.S. imperialism; anything they do is justified by their suffering. Terrorism is a legitimate response to the depredations of America — in short, she deserves her fate.

And then there is a time-honored tradition of American revolutionaries colluding with their country’s enemies, from the North Vietnamese communist regime to the Muslim Brotherhood that openly describes its activities in America as “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within…”  What’s not to like, if you are an American revolutionary? And so Obama and his circle are very cozy with this outfit and with its U.S. offshoot, CAIR, which the White House views as the go-to organization on all matters Muslim.

Another case in point is Hillary Clinton’s long-time, confidential aide Huma Abedin (Mrs. Anthony Weiner) who belongs to an activist family with extensive Muslim Brotherhood and Wahhabist connections. By all accounts, Huma Abedin is extremely close to Hillary and was privy to the nation’s highest secrets when her boss was secretary of state. Thus it is likely that the Muslim Brotherhood was fully informed about the decision-making process behind the U.S. Middle East policy. Yet it appears that Secretary Clinton was not at all concerned about the penetration of the U.S. government by the Islamists. Huma Abedin still enjoys the prospective presidential candidate’s full confidence.  On at least one occasion Hillary Clinton, at Huma’s behest, personally intervened to allow prominent Muslim Brotherhood leader Tariq Ramadan to enter the United States, overturning the ban imposed by the previous administration.

So tell me the difference between the Islamist enemies of the United States and its radical foes of the home-grown variety as far as their attitude toward America is concerned? Their ultimate goals dovetail to such an extent that from where I sit, it’s six of one and half a dozen of the other. Whether as a Muslim or a far-left radical, Obama is indifferent to the national interests of the country he swore to defend when taking an oath of office. His sympathies clearly lie with the world of Islam and his foreign policy for all intents and purposes boils down to the support of Islamism.

So is Barack Obama a Muslim or a Communist? What difference, at this point, does it make?!

Deborah Weiss Speaks on the Muslim Brotherhood’s Influence Operations in Hollywood

 

American Thinker, By James Simpson, March 1, 2015:

This past Tuesday, Cliff Kincaid held his National Press Club conference, America’s Enemies in Hollywood Then and Now. Cliff’s guests included Allan Ryskind, long-time editor of Human Events; Lawyer, author, and 9-11 survivor Deborah Weiss, who describes the breadth of CAIR’s malevolent machinations, including influence operations in Hollywood; and Trevor Loudon, the intrepid researcher from New Zealand who has exposed much of what we know today about Obama’s radicalism.

***

Deborah Weiss

Deborah Weiss is a lawyer, 9-11 survivor and founder of the website Vigilance Now (www.vigilancenow.org). She is also the main author and researcher for the book Council on American-Islamic Relations: Its Use of Lawfare and Intimidation. Weiss detailed eye-popping influence operations of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Hollywood and throughout media.

For those unaware, CAIR is a spawn of the Islamic Association of Palestine and HAMAS, both state designated terrorist organizations. CAIR is also an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holyland Foundation trial, the largest trial of its kind ever prosecuted against Islamic terror-supporting organization in the U.S. According to Weiss, CAIR had a hand in making fundamental changes to many prominent movie scripts, including:

  • The Sum of All Fears. A nuclear bomb is detonated in Baltimore, destroying the city. In the original storyline, Muslim terrorists are the bad guy. CAIR got the script changed to point the finger at Australian neo-Nazis. The movie starred Islam apologist Ben Affleck.
  • True Lies. Produced by 20th Century Fox about Islamic terrorist with spy who had unfaithful wife. Producer agreed to include disclaimer that the movie was a work of fiction and was not intended to malign any religion.
  • Syriana. The movie starring George Clooney (who also produced the film in an Oscar-winning role, blames us foreign policy for conduct of Islamic terrorists. In the end Clooney is killed by a predator drown, along with a progressive Arabian prince whose work is threatening American oil interests.

The UN Alliance of Civilization created a fund that ran between 2008 and 2009 that was supposed to combat Muslim stereotypes. Hollywood backed the fund.

Weiss discussed the Muslim Public Affairs Council’s (MPAC) Hollywood bureau that offers consultations for script approval and connects aspiring writers and actors with Hollywood professionals. MPAC provides media awards honoring “artists, actors, activists and executives for their ‘Voices of Courage and Conscience.’” Past honorees include Alec Baldwin, Michael Moore, George Clooney’s Three Kings, Slumdog Millionaire, and others.

Weiss says that CAIR NY is one of the most extreme branches and attempted to reshape CBS’s broadcast content, claiming that the network aired shows describing Islamic terrorism. In June 2001, CAIR NY initiated an online petition to boycott all CBS TV and radio shows and advertisers and sought to block the network’s broadcasts into the 54 Organization of Islamic Conference countries and the Palestinian Territories. The petition was scrubbed following 9-11, but remained online at other sites nonetheless.

Weiss states that the Islamist propagandists push Hollywood elites to promote messages denigrating Christianity, and rewrite history to mask Islamist influence. They use lawsuits, infiltration, and disinformation, exactly like the organized Left. Weiss calls it a war of ideas and concluded her remarks by challenging the audience to fight for classical liberal ideas. She said it was essential to discuss Islamic terrorism. The media plays major role in shaping world opinion and is not allowing an honest dialog. There needs to be a concerted pushback.

Read more

Also see:

Muslims Trump All Other Minorities Because of the Victim Value Index

terrorism-2-450x337Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Feb. 27, 2015:

James Kirchick has written an extensive piece on the Victimhood Olympics replete with examples and references. He notes that…

Trans beats gay and Muslim beats black. As someone who writes frequently on the topic of homosexuality, I have learned the hard way what happens to those who challenge the orthodoxy of transgender activists…

This is because in the progressive imagination, the perceived plight of Muslims now trumps the sufferings of all other groups. It is this conceit that goes the furthest in explaining President Obama’s remark to Vox earlier this month that the murder of four Jews at a kosher supermarket in Paris last month was “random,”…

But he fails to explain what the basis for this hierarchy is. Why do Muslims trump Jews and why do trannies trump gay men?

There is a clear Victim Value Index. It’s not random. It has a definitive basis. That basis is the value of a victim identity to the left.

The first thing to understand is the dirty little secret of the Victim Value Index. While loud vocal assertions of suffering are very important, the substance of such suffering is unimportant when moving up the ladder of the Victim Value Index…

Actual suffering doesn’t matter. Neither does historical justice. Both of those are easy to make up, and in a dogma-ridden environment no one will look past the politically correct line anyway.

The Victim Value Index is calculated based on one overriding factor: Disruptiveness. Those who are most disruptive go to the head of the line.

This is the most obvious thing that people have noted about the Social Justice Warrior twitter mobs. They’re angry. They’re disruptive. This is also their virtue.

SJW code assumes that the angrier you are, the more oppressed you are. (Unless you’re a straight white male who isn’t pretending to be a woman and isn’t angry on behalf of an oppressed minority group.) But your anger is only useful if it serves the left.

The angriest groups, the ones with the newest rawest edge make the cut. A propensity for violence helps. Ergo, Muslims win.

Progressivism is a revolution in slow motion, and revolutions need revolutionaries. Disruption is more than just grievance, it’s violence. Those who are willing to ruthlessly attack the status quo clearing the ground for revolution are the ones who go to the head of the line and the dais of honor on top. A little murder and mayhem, and progressives will trot out “moderate” versions of the murderers and mayhemists, usually linked to them, and offer to represent them and tamp down the violence in exchange for meeting their demands.

September 11 and its aftermath is why Muslims have gone to the top of the Victim Value Index. The left may swear up and down that they are interested in Muslim civil rights, but if the Muslims were Sikhs, they would merit a place somewhere in the back. Before Muslims began prominently blowing things up in the United States, the left barely paid any attention to them. Once they did, they began outweighing every other group in the country because killing 3,000 people is the gold standard of revolutionary mayhem.

The Victim Value Index places the most disruptive groups at the front, the somewhat disruptive groups in the middle and the least disruptive groups at the back. The status of groups within the Index can change with their behavior. Muslims used to be shelved in the back with Asians, Indians and Jews. The War on Terror dramatically upgraded their status. The other groups are stuck there because they are relatively successful and aren’t rioting or blowing things up.

Latinos are still somewhere in the middle. Native Americans are in the back along with most unclassified minorities. Homosexuals are somewhere near the front, but behind African-Americans. Their status tends to drift wildly depending on current events, but they cannot overtake African-Americans or fall behind Latinos. Not unless some drastic events take place that change their status. Women are, and have always been, in the back.

The hierarchy can and does change. If Muslim violence were to suddenly disappear, the left’s interest in them in the US would go away. That’s a simple fact. The left values violent groups over non-violent ones. In the social media era, that can be virtual  violence, cyberbullying and social media mobs. All that counts as activism and the left is keen to recruit activists for its cause.