Shilling for the Jihadis: NYT and WaPo stand with the Muslim Brotherhood

morsi-sign-reutersBreitbart, by DR. SEBASTIAN GORKA:

Just this week, on the same day, the New York Times and the Washington Post simultaneously decided to take sides in the current war in the Middle East. Unfortunately, they chose the Islamists.

On Thursday, as rockets were landing on Israeli suburbs, two pieces were published by the so-called “papers of record,” that sided with the Muslim Brotherhood. Writing in the New York Times, Kareem Fahim focused ostensibly on the Egyptian response to the war between Israel and the terrorist group Hamas. The author focused on what he saw as the lack of Cairo’s response, especially to helping those in Gaza.

Fahim, who has been in trouble in the past for his less than objective writing on the “rebels” in Syria, pushes a narrative in which the guilty party is the new democratically elected President of Egypt. Retired General Abdel Fattah el Sisi is painted as obsessed with the security threat in the Sinai when in fact he should be reprising the 2012 role of his predecessor, Mohammad Morsi, as mediator between Israel and the terrorists of Hamas.

The fact that Morsi was the head of a theocratic Muslim Brotherhood government committed to destroying democracy in the Middle East, and that Hamas is formally a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood that the US government lists officially as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, does not come into Fahim’s reasoning. The fact that Hamas’ own charter makes clear both that it is part of the Brotherhood and committed to destroying Israel seems to have escaped the author too.

At this point, just one quote from the introduction to the Hamas Charter indicates how any mediator would fail to make a honest negotiator out of Hamas, even President Sisi:

“Our battle with the Jews is long and dangerous, requiring all dedicated efforts. It is a phase which must be followed by succeeding phases, a battalion which must be supported by battalion after battalion of the divided Arab and Islamic world until the enemy is overcome, and the victory of Allah descends.”

Any mediator – unless they were, like Morsi, a member of the MB – would fail to bring a lasting peace since Article Two of the charter states quite clearly that Hamas is “a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood chapter in Palestine.”

Adam Taylor of the Washington Post takes us even deeper down the rabbit hole of MB propaganda with his piece entitled “The Man the Israeli Palestinian Crisis Needs Most: Egypt’s Mohamed Morsi.” For Taylor, it is not President Sisi who needs to step in, but Morsi himself, presumably released from prison and exonerated for trying to turn Egypt into a one-party theocratic state.

Mr Taylor, who started his journalistic career interning for the Huffington Post and Time magazine, also seems to have failed to have read the Brotherhood’s founding document. If he had, he and his NYT colleague may have had trouble imagining a scenario in which Hamas would negotiate in good faith with the Jewish state of Israel based upon the organization’s own avowed goals. For as Hamas’ Charter declares:
“In the shadow of Islam it is possible for the followers of the three religions-Islam, Christianity, and Judaism-to live in peace and harmony, and this peace and harmony is possible only under Islam.”
This vision of a world in which Jews and Christians live under the dominion of Islam should surprise no one who is familiar with the origins of the Brotherhood, since its founder, Hassan al Banna made it clear in his original manifesto that for perfection on Earth, all that is required “is a strong Eastern power to exert itself under the shadow of Allah’s banner, with the standard of the Qur’an fluttering at its head, and backed up by the strong soldiers of unyielding faith; then you will see the World living under the tranquillity of Islam.” Peace is indeed possible: as long as Islam reigns supreme over the Earth.
But you don’t have to go back to the origins of the Brotherhood to understand why there will never be a negotiated settlement with the terrorists of Gaza. One last quote from the Hamas Charter makes that clear. Article 8 gives us Hamas’s official motto:
Allah is our Goal.
The Messenger is our Leader.
The Quran is our Constitution.
Jihad is our methodology, and
Death for the sake of Allah is our most coveted desire.
Only one obvious question remains. If Taylor and Fahim have read Hamas’ creed of Holy War, why do they, and their papers, support it?
Sebastian Gorka Ph.D is the Major General Matthew C. Horner Distinguished Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University and the National Security and Foreign Affairs editor for the Breitbart News Network.

 

Video: Jamie Glazov on Obama’s Islamist Odyssey

United-in-Hate-coverby Frontpagemag.com:

In a recent special episode of The Glazov GangAnn-Marie Murrell interviewed Frontpage Editor Jamie Glazov about his recent battle on Hannity against Jihad-Deniers, in which he called out progressives’ willful blindness in the face of the Islamic threat.

Due to the overwhelming interest and support that Jamie’s confrontation with the Unholy Alliance has garnered from our readers, Frontpage’s Editors have decided to run an earlier two-part video interview that Josh Brewster conducted with Jamie about his study of the Left’s romance with tyranny and terror.

high noonThroughout the interview, Josh asks Jamie about his critically-acclaimed United in Hate and most recent, High Noon For America: The Coming Showdown. Jamie crystallizes the impulses that draw leftists, such as Obama, to make alliances with America’s enemies — namely with contemporary jihadist forces such as the Muslim Brotherhood. Jamie also discusses his family’s struggle for freedom, David Horowitz’s work, influence and contribution to freedom, and much, much more:

 

 

Both parts of the two part series are below:

 

Unrighteous Among the Nations

Screen Shot 2014-07-06 at 12.24.42 PMWSJ, by SOHRAB AHMARI:

The abduction in June of three Israeli teenagers by West Bank Islamists placed the world’s top two human-rights organizations, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, in an awkward spot. Both groups are committed partisans of the anti-Israel cause, yet the kidnapping of minors called for some form of condemnation.

Amnesty on June 17 released a statement running to 19 paragraphs. Of these, only four could reasonably be construed as expressions of concern for the fate of the three teenagers, whose bodies Israeli authorities eventually discovered buried in shallow graves. The rest of the statement was devoted to castigating Israel for a litany abuses and to discouraging the Jewish state from defending itself.

HRW’s response was more coldblooded. “Attending school at illegal settlement doesn’t legitimize apparent kidnapping of #Israel teens,” Kenneth Roth, HRW’s executive director, tweeted on June 14. “They should be freed.”

Both organizations, in other words, treated the abduction as an inconvenient fact that required a minimal level of moral throat-clearing before they could resume the routine business of attacking Israel. Sixty-six years after its founding, this was the sum total of compassion the Jewish state could elicit from the leading lights of the human-rights movement.

Why did so many progressives abandon Israel and Zionism? That’s the question Joshua Muravchik sets out to answer in “Making David Into Goliath: How the World Turned Against Israel.” Part polemic, part intellectual history, this thoughtful and timely study explores Zionism’s shifting position in the progressive imagination, “from a redemptive refuge from two thousand years of persecution to the very embodiment of white supremacy,” as Mr. Muravchik puts it.

The author, a fellow at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, recalls how during its first two decades of existence the Jewish state attracted sympathy from broad swaths of the Western left. That support reached its apogee during the Six Day War, when some 3,700 academics signed a letter in the New York TimesNYT -1.13% calling on the U.S. to militarily intervene in the conflict—on Israel’s side. At the height of the war, the cause of Israel’s survival united Hannah Arendt, Lionel Trilling, Ralph Ellison, Martin Luther King, Pablo Picasso and Jean-Paul Sartre, among other progressive luminaries.

Yet 1967 would also prove to be a turning point. Around the same time, the Palestinians launched a war of ideas against Israel’s legitimacy that persists to this day. Having redefined themselves as a nation separate from the Arabs, the Palestinians thenceforth articulated their struggle as one for national self-determination against a colonial power.

This strategic reframing of the Palestinian cause coincided with momentous transformations then taking place within the international left. Having exhausted its energies, the old Marxist ideal, based on class struggle and collectivism, gave way in the late 1960s and early ’70s to a “paradigm in which the central drama of our time is the conflict of the ‘West against the rest,'” Mr. Muravchik writes.

The Arab cause, once seen as reactionary and rejectionist, was hitched to this new paradigm in no small part thanks to the efforts of Edward Said, according to the author. Well-versed in the obscurantist lexicon of postmodern academe, the late Palestinian-American literary theorist persuaded a generation of Middle East scholars that “every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was . . . a racist, an imperialist, and almost totally ethnocentric,” as Said wrote. Said’s own people, the Palestinians, became the emblematic victims of all this racism.

Reinforcing the dialectic of mutual alienation between the left and Israel was the Jewish state’s movement, starting with Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s government, away from its founding socialist ethos. For many leftists, a Jewish state that no longer stood for collectivism wasn’t worth defending. In Israel, the disappointment of the socialist camp led to the creation of a domestic anti-Zionist culture that, as Mr. Muravchik writes, lent “an indigenous imprimatur to the most jaundiced interpretations of the country’s actions and motives.”

Mr. Muravchik provides a nuanced and illuminating guide to the ideological developments that have led many on the left to detest Israel. Yet those developments, without more, don’t fully account for why many progressives turned against the Middle East’s only liberal democracy while embracing Islamist terror groups as “social movements that are progressive,” as the feminist theorist Judith Butler described Hamas and Hezbollah in 2006.

The other main factor was a pathological self-hatred.

Mr. Ahmari is a Journal editorial page writer based in London.

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

Listen to Joshua Muravchik and Frank Gaffney on Secure Freedom Radio in a special two part program to discuss his new book, “Making David Into Goliath: How the World Turned Against Israel.”

Video: Jamie Glazov Discusses His Battle on Hannity Against the Unholy Alliance

kl-450x250In this special episode of The Glazov GangAnn-Marie Murrell interviews Frontpage Editor Jamie Glazov about his battle on Hannity against the Unholy Alliance:

Southern Poverty Law Center Named Propagandist for Jihad Terrorists

as000016517-300by John Perazzo:

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a self-described “civil-rights organization” committed to “fighting hate and bigotry,” says that ever since 9/11 a host of “anti-Muslim hate groups”—exhibiting “extreme hostility” toward Muslims—have arisen across the United States. The current edition of SPLC’s quarterly Intelligence Report names David Horowitz as “the godfather of the modern anti-Muslim movement.” The lead accusation in the report says: “For Horowitz, Muslim Student Associations ‘are arms of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the fountainhead of the terrorist jihad against the West.’”

Apparently SPLC deems it bad manners for anyone to notice that when the national Muslim Students Association (MSA) was established in 1963, its three principal founders were all members of—you guessed it—the Muslim Brotherhood. It is equally bad form, in SPLC’s view, to draw any conclusions from the fact that a Muslim Brotherhood memorandum explicitly names the MSA as one of the Brotherhood’s arms, and as an organization that could help the Brotherhood carry out a “grand Jihad” aimed at “eliminating and destroying … Western civilization from within.”

SPLC’s report also turns a blind eye to the fact that in recent years MSA members and guest lecturers in numerous venues have: raised money for Hamas and Hezbollah; professed support for Islamic Jihad; called for Islam to dominate “the halls of Congress”; declared that “the only relationship [Muslims] should have with America is to topple it”; extolled Islamic suicide bombers as noble “martyrs”; and chanted “Death to Israel!” and “Death to the Jews!”

Moreover, Patrick Poole, an anti-terrorism consultant to law-enforcement and the military, notes “a rather lengthy list of top MSA leaders who have been arrested and convicted on a wide array of terrorism charges, ranging from material support of terrorist groups to being actively involved in terrorist plots.” One of the most famous was Anwar Al-Awlaki, who served as president of the Colorado State University MSA and later as chaplain of the George Washington University MSA, before migrating to Yemen where he became a high-ranking leader of al Qaeda.

But by SPLC’s reckoning, not even a shred of “hate” or “bigotry” is evident in any of this. Thus the organization directs its criticism not at the Muslim Students Association or the Muslim Brotherhood, but at the “Islamophobes” who brazenly dare to suggest that the MSA is in any way radical.

SPLC is also squeamish about anyone mentioning the Muslim Brotherhood’s connection to jihad and terrorism, even though the Brotherhood’s own credo states explicitly that “jihad is our way, and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations”; even though Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna himself wrote that “jihad is an obligation from Allah on every Muslim”; even though al-Banna emphasized that “it is the nature of Islam to dominate [and] to impose its law on all nations”; and even though another Brotherhood leader, Ahmed Yassin, personally founded the jihadist group Hamas, which proudly identifies itself as “one of the wings of the Muslim Brothers in Palestine.” Mohammed Ayoob, Coordinator of the Muslim Studies Program at James Madison College, states outright: “Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.” And Richard Clarke—who served as chief counterterrorism advisor on the U.S. National Security Council during both the Clinton and Bush administrations—told a Senate committee that Hamas, al Qaeda, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are all “descendants of the membership and ideology of the Muslim Brothers.”

But none of this matters at all to SPLC, which simply views concern over these matters as the paranoia of hateful “Islamophobes.”

SPLC takes further umbrage at Horowitz’s depiction of Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s longtime closest adviser, as a “Muslim Brotherhood operative” who has managed to “penetrate” the U.S. government. Clearly, it is of no consequence to SPLC that Huma’s mother is a well-known advocate of Sharia Law, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s division for women, and a board member of a pro-Hamas Islamic Council that is part of a larger, international terrorist-abetting coalition led by the Brotherhood luminary Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Nor does SPLC care that from 1996-2008, Huma herself was employed by the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), whose agenda, as Andrew C. McCarthy explains, is “to grow an unassimilated, aggressive population of Islamic supremacists who will gradually but dramatically alter the character of the West.” Neither does SPLC give a whit that for at least seven of those twelve years, Huma’s presence at IMMA overlapped with that of the Institute’s founder, a major Muslim Brotherhood figure with ties to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

For SPLC, this is all mere trivia that occupies the minds of Islamophobes. Can’t everyone just leave poor little Huma alone?

Read more at Front Page

Washington Post Engages in Propaganda Exercise against Benghazi Conference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dylan Byers tweet

Tapper tweet

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

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

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

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

 

SPENCER: The Left’s Hypocrisy About ‘Right-Wing Terrorism’

millersTruth Revolt:

In covering the killings in Las Vegas by Jerad and Amanda Miller this week, mainstream media commentators once again displayed their hypocrisy and double standard regarding Islamic terrorism and terror attacks that are supposedly “right-wing.”

CNN’s national security analyst Peter Bergen wrote Tuesday the Millers “appear to have been motivated by extreme far-right views. The couple left a flag at the scene of the crime with the words ‘Don’t Tread on Me,’ a Revolutionary War symbol used by some anti-government extremists.”

Bergen went on to emphasize that “countering violent extremism cannot simply be a demand placed on Muslim communities to prevent jihadist violence. In the decade since 9/11 right-wing extremists have demonstrated their ability to be just as deadly as their homegrown jihadist counterparts.”

Yet while Bergen is ready to equate “right-wing terrorists” with jihadists, he is much less ready to examine the motivating ideology of the latter. While he readily ascribed the Millers’ murders to “extreme far-right views,” when writing in 2006 about the root causes of the 9/11 jihad attack, Bergen stated:

In the many discussions of the “root causes” of Islamist terrorism, Islam itself is rarely mentioned. But if you were to ask Bin Laden, he would say that his war is about the defence of Islam. We need not believe him but we should nevertheless listen to what our enemies are saying. Bin Laden bases justification of his war on a corpus of Muslim beliefs and he finds ammunition in the Koran to give his war Islamic legitimacy. He often invokes the “sword” verses of the Koran, which urge unprovoked attacks on infidels. Of course, that is a selective reading of the Koran and does not mean Islam is an inherently violent faith, but to believers the book is the word of God.

He has demonstrated no similar anxiousness to exonerate “right-wing” beliefs from responsibility for the violence supposed committed because of them. And at the Daily Beast, “Muslim comedian” Dean Obeidallah went even farther in a piece entitled “Home-Grown, Right-Wing Terrorism: The Hate the GOP Refuses to See.” Obeidallah was certain that conservative views led to violence, and that that was why Republicans had ridiculed the idea of “right-wing terrorism” when the Obama Administration’s Department of Homeland Security issued a warning about it in 2009. “The actual reason Republicans won’t investigate right-wing extremists,” Obeidallah claimed, “is that it would not only anger their base, it would actually indict some parts of it. Let’s be honest: In a time when establishment Republicans are concerned about getting challenged in primaries by more conservative Tea Party types, calling for hearings to investigate right-wing organizations could be political suicide.”

This is the same Dean Obeidallah who recently wrote this about the jihadists of Boko Haram, the Congregation of the People of the Sunnah for Dawah and Jihad: “The Nigerian terrorist group that kidnapped hundreds of schoolgirls has nothing to do with Islam, and it’s grotesquely irresponsible of the media to suggest it does.”

So an avowedly Islamic group that has repeatedly proclaimed that it is fighting in order to establish an Islamic state is not Islamic, and it’s “grotesquely irresponsible” to suggest otherwise. The leader of Boko Haram, Abubakar Shekau, must have been “grotesquely irresponsible” when he declared: “The reason why I will kill you is you are infidels…The Koran must be supreme, we must establish Islam in this country.”

Obeidallah, who has produced and starred in a “comedy” film about “Islamophobia,” claims that the jihadists are twisting and hijacking his peaceful religion, and that only non-Muslim “Islamophobes” would dare think that anything they do has any justification in Islamic texts and teachings. But the possibility that murders such as Jerad and Amanda Miller are twisting and hijacking peaceful conservative principles that do not in any essential or legitimate way incite to violence does not cross his mind.

Read more at Truth Revolt

How to Destroy a Country – Part Three

a rippled union flag background representing the united kingdomLiberty GB, June 10, 2014, by Paul Weston:

The following article is the final part of a three-part series outlining the background of the leftist assault on Britain and Western Civilisation. Part One can be viewed here, Part Two here.

Segregate the Generations

In the course of a political argument, an ancient lady was told by her grandson that she came from a different generation, to which she replied: “No, I come from a different civilisation.”

Quite so. There is little point in controlling the medium of Socialist education if the wisdom of the older ‘reactionary’ generations can still be passed down to the younger. In Africa, the tribal elders are respected and listened to, but in Britain those over a certain age are mocked at worst, or sidelined at best, because they come from a pre-revolutionary era. Those born after 1970 come from the post-revolutionary era, and never the twain shall meet. The educational and media establishments are run in the main by the young or the very young, all soaked in Marxist ideology, and their output is principally aimed only at the young. This is deliberately done in order to ensure the segregation of those who could present an alternative voice to their incessant and twisted Socialist propaganda.

Promote Conformity in the Guise of Individualism

Has there ever been such conformity amongst the youth of a democratic nation before? Most young people are politically correct. They have been reared to believe in themselves as individuals, and to hold their own self-esteem (their very high and often unearned self-esteem) as an intrinsic part of said individuality. But in reality they have been socially engineered into individuals who all believe the same thing. This is because the conformist herd is so much easier to control than the non-conformist individual, particularly so when the herd mentality just happens to be the ideology of the Socialist state. The heavily propagandised ideology shared by the vast majority of the young is not quite as compassionate as they think, however, because the stark reality of it guarantees their immediate cultural destruction, and their eventual racial destruction.

Create an Anarchic Youth

Remove the various traditions and taboos that bound previous societies together; deem discipline in schools to be an archaic bourgeois form of child abuse; promote the ideology of self before group and pleasure before duty; promote licentiousness through early-age sex education coupled with pornographic music videos à la MTV; downplay heterosexual marriage as one of many equally valid lifestyle choices; remove the taboo of illegitimacy and reward it through welfare payments; offer abortions to teenage girls without their parents’ knowledge; promote an ideology of “Me, me, me! Now, now, now!” above outmoded ideas such as sacrifice, thrift, duty, honour, morality, truth, decency and patriotism.

Destroy Competitiveness

This is dressed up with words like egalitarianism and equality, but what it really means is dragging everything down to the lowest common denominator, which is far easier than dragging people upwards. Grammar schools were ‘elitist’, and therefore had to be destroyed, even though the main beneficiaries were working class children. Competitive sport meant that for every winner there were several losers, so that too had to be sidelined in some state schools. But the rest of the world does not play by the same suicidal rules. China is already an economic superpower; how can we hope to compete when they worship elitism and strive for success, whilst we worship the lowest-common-denominator ideology of egalitarianism, and reward failure?

Destroy Self-Reliance

Building a dependent class is of great importance to left liberals. Firstly, the dependents will vote for the hand that feeds them the most, and secondly it enables the ruling elite to exercise control they could never dream of exercising over a non-dependent class. This explains why Britain’s public sector is favoured above the private sector by left liberals, and why the deliberate formation of a permanent state-dependent underclass seems to worry them so little. In 2008-9 the welfare payment bill was actually higher than the total P.A.Y.E. tax-receipts, however. And, quite astonishingly, there are more people registered as disabled (and claiming benefits) than were registered disabled immediately after World War One! This is obviously unsustainable, and confirms Alexander Tytler‘s view that democracies collapse when the money provided by the rulers in return for their vote eventually runs out, after which dictatorship inevitably follows. Tytler’s famous quote is as follows:

From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back into bondage.

 

Destroy Democracy

Britain is no longer a truly democratic country. 80% of our new legislation is now enacted in Brussels at the behest of twenty-eight Commissioners whom we never elected and can never democratically remove from office. The British government is essentially just a puppet council, allowed to remain in place to reassure the gullible public that we still run our own affairs – which we don’t. In addition, the flooding of Britain by Third World immigrants was an undemocratic act. The electorate was never asked if we wished to transform Britain into a multi-ethnic, multicultural country. If we had been asked, we would have said “No!” And, just to rub salt into the wound, immigrants vote overwhelmingly for left liberal politicians – which, of course, is partially why they were imported in the first place.

The Labour Party’s introduction of postal voting also means our elections are now influenced by fraudulently obtained ballot papers not only in Britain’s large Muslim enclaves, but also – and this is completely surreal – via proxy votes in Pakistan and Bangladesh! In the 2010 British elections the Conservatives failed to win a majority by a very slim margin, leading Lady Warsi, a Conservative Muslim, to lay the blame squarely on Muslim electoral fraud. When British elections (such as they are, now the EU is the real power) are illegally influenced by Pakistanis in Mirpur, I think we can safely say our democracy is dead.

Introduce Mass Immigration

The white working class betrayed the hard Left when they failed to rise up in the much longed-for proletarian revolution, and they failed to rise up because they had become too affluent. The Marxist solution was to introduce a new, foreign-born ‘oppressed proletariat’ as a means to Socialism’s ongoing march toward total power. The number of Third World immigrants runs into the millions. This deliberate dilution of an indigenous people has never before happened on such a scale. If UN guidelines on genocide are taken quite literally, it amounts to the ethnic cleansing of the English.

White children are now a minority in London schools and in many schools within other British cities. Demographers predict the indigenous population will become a minority by around 2060, with the young suffering that fate even earlier. Feminist ideology has dramatically decreased the indigenous demographic whilst the Islamic population is doubling every decade through continued immigration and high birth rates. Islam is already a huge problem in Britain, yet, as their numbers grow, so will their demands on traditional Britain, which lives its life in a manner markedly different to life under sharia law – which surveys suggestsome 40% of British Muslims wish to see enacted.

Why do left liberals act as apologists for Islam? Hugh Fitzgerald puts it thus:

Nothing shows better the extreme hatred liberals have for Western Civilisation than their unashamed alliance with a movement (Islam) which is mortally opposed to liberalism’s sacred calves – women’s rights, gay rights, abortion and multiple cultures. Yet Islam and the liberal/ left are in harmony on the major issues. They are anti-Christian and anti-Jew, they are anti-democracy and anti-individual rights, they are anti-capitalist and they regard the individual as existing merely to serve the collective. Consequently, they have the same common enemy – Western Civilisation.

 

Promote Racial Division

The successful integration of happy foreigners with a happy indigenous population is hardly going to foment revolution, hence the ideology of multiculturalism which intentionally divides races and cultures. Multiculturalism was designed to destroy any sense of national pride and patriotism amongst the indigenous population, whilst actively encouraging the same amongst the incoming races and cultures. It also encourages ethnic minorities to believe their lack of success is due to (or if they are successful, in spite of) historical white imperialist oppression and current white Western institutional racism. This makes them united, vengeful, angry and strong. Multiculturalism actively instils guilt in the indigenous white population for our past oppression and current racism, which makes us apologetic, disunited and weak. We can only, it seems, be forgiven our historical racial sins once the ethnic minorities have matched or surpassed the demographic and political power of the indigenous people.

Destroy Native Resistance

New laws have been passed to criminalise those who dare to speak out against their territorial, racial and cultural dispossession. Children are brainwashed into ‘celebrating’ their dispossession with such Orwellian intent that thousands as young as three have been officially noted as possessing ‘racist’ tendencies –a situation we can only expect to worsen as the demographic gap between white and non-white inexorably narrows. Race is the biggest weapon the left liberals use in their war against traditional Britain, so resistance to that weapon is both criminalised and subsequently labelled the evil of all evils – RACISM – in order to strip us of our only peaceful defence mechanism. Of course there are some racist whites, but they are a statistical minority compared to the ethnic minorities who physically attack whites at a far greater ratio than vice-versa. The only true racists in Britain are the treasonous anti-white politicians, policemen and journalists who seek to cover up the real statistics about racial crime and racial hate.

Use Selective History to Counter Native Resistance

British education ignores the crimes of Communism and concentrates only on the crimes of Hitler, portraying him principally as a racist. The evils of Nazism can then be used as an attack against indigenous peoples who protest their cultural and territorial dispossession, by simply labelling the protestors as Nazi racists and therefore no better than Hitler himself. In reality the left liberals are as obsessed with race – in its diverse form – as Hitler and the Nazis were with race in its pure form. And they are using race with the express intention of achieving what Hitler failed to do – the absolute conquest of Britain, Europe and the West, at the expense of its indigenous peoples.

Distract the Population

This is a tried and tested principle dating back to the Roman times of bread and circuses. Just look at the output of the mainstream media, which deals in fantasy and trivia rather than reality and substance. This sadly works just as intended. The majority of Brits have been gradually sucked down into an infantile world of vapid celebrity worship, football, X Factor and gutter sensationalism, all promoted 24/7 by the media establishment. As a direct consequence, they have little interest in matters that really matter.

No doubt the left liberals will denounce this series of articles as the ranting of a right-wing conspiracy theorist. But facts are facts; the Communists did set out to subvert the capitalist West; the anti-Western ‘Critical Theory‘ of the Frankfurt school is now the ideology of the educational and media establishments; the left liberal politicians did set out to transform Britain via mass Third World immigration; our industry was destroyed, as have been our educational establishments etc. etc., and the people behind this destruction were and are Marxists, leftists or useful idiot liberals.

Every single one of the deliberately destructive policies I have outlined above could destroy a country over a lengthy period of time, even without the Third World invasion. When they are combined, however, and mass immigration is added to the mix, our destruction is not only assured, it is assured over a relatively small time-span.

Consequently, the speed of Britain’s destruction has been astonishingly fast. Anyone over the age of 40 or 50 will tell you that Britain today is not the Britain they were born into, and that Britain is simply not sustainable in its present condition. But the left liberals have made a terrible mistake. The future will not be one of Marxist revolution and permanent leftist control. Whilst mass Third World immigration may have been their main weapon of choice to destabilise the country, they simply did not reckon with such a rapidly expanding, cohesive and militant Islam.

The future of Britain can logically be one of only two options. A country dominated by Islam, or a country dominated by the right wing, which is rapidly growing as a wholly natural response to the combined threat of Islam and the Left. No one knows which side will emerge triumphant in the battle between Islam and the emerging right, but whichever it is, one thing is very strongly assured: they will hold no great regard for the left liberals – to put it very mildly indeed.

At the beginning of this series, I asked whether the appalling destruction carried out in the name of left-wing ideology was well-intentioned liberal stupidity, or brilliantly-planned leftist malevolence. Perhaps it really was done to realise György Lukács’s dream: “I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution. A worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.”

Or perhaps it wasn’t. It is quite possible it was caused by liberal stupidity of criminal proportions, but all that really matters now is that the damage wreaked by the left liberals be redressed – and we have little time remaining in which to do so.

The New York Times: Making the world safe for terrorism

Obama’s Alliance with Boko Haram

mo

Obama is trying to bring down governments that fight Islamic terrorism, whether in Egypt, Israel or Nigeria, and replace them with governments that appease terrorists. This shared goal creates an alliance, direct or indirect, open or covert, between Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama and the PLO and Obama and Boko Haram.

by :

Leftist policy is the search for the root cause of evil. Everything from a street mugging to planes flying into the World Trade Center is reduced to a root cause of social injustice. Throw poverty, oppression and a bunch of NGO buzzwords into a pot and out come the suicide bombings, drug dealing and mass rapes.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s Boko Haram, the Islamic terrorist group that kidnapped hundreds of Nigerian schoolgirls, or a drug dealer with a record as long as his tattooed arm.

Obama and Hillary resisted doing anything about Boko Haram because they believed that its root cause was the oppression of Muslims by the Nigerian government. Across the bloody years of Boko Haram terror, the State Department matched empty condemnations of Boko Haram’s killing sprees with condemnations of the Nigerian authorities for violating Muslim rights.

Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton haven’t championed #BringBackOurGirls because it’s a hashtag in support of the kidnapped girls, but because it undermines the Nigerian government. They aren’t trying to help the kidnapped girls. They’re trying to bring down a government that hasn’t gone along with their agenda for appeasing Boko Haram and Nigerian Muslims.

The hashtag politics aren’t aimed at the terrorists. They’re aimed at helping the terrorists.

There’s a reason why the media and so many leftists have embraced the hashtag. #BringBackOurGirls isn’t a rescue. It denounces the Nigerian government for not having already gotten the job done even as the State Department stands ready to denounce any human rights violations during a rescue attempt.

Obama and Boko Haram want to bring down the Nigerian government and replace it with a leadership that is more amenable to appeasement. It’s the same thing that is happening in Israel and Egypt.

State Department officials responded to Boko Haram attacks over the years with the same litany of statistics about unemployment in the Muslim north and the 92 percent of children there who do not attend school. When Hillary Clinton was asked about the kidnappings by ABC News, she blamed Nigeria for not “ensuring that every child has the right and opportunity to go to school.”

Clinton acted as if she were unaware that Boko Haram opposes Muslim children going to school or that it would take the very same measures that her State Department has repeatedly opposed to make it possible for them to go to school. This is a familiar Catch 22 in which the authorities are blamed for not fixing the socioeconomic problems in terrorist regions that are impossible to fix without defeating the terrorists and blamed for violating the human rights of the terrorists when they try to defeat them.

The mainstream media has been more blatant about carrying Boko Haram’s bloody water. Their stories begin with the kidnapped schoolgirls and skip over to a sympathetic reading of history in which Boko Haram only took up arms after government brutality.

Read more at Front Page

Boko Haram and the Failure of Obama’s Counter-terrorism Strategy

hillary_obama_glare_reuters Breitbart, By Katie Gorka, May 10, 2014:

During Hillary Clinton’s tenure, the State Department failed to designate Boko Haram a terrorist organization, in spite of the fact that Boko Haram had become second only to the Taliban as the deadliest terrorist organization. Clinton will rightly have to bear blame for that, but the lack of a designation also reflects the much deeper problem of the Obama administration’s overall approach to Islamic extremism. It is an approach that has led to bad policies, not only with regard to Boko Haram, but also to Iran, the Syrian rebels, Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Benghazi.

The heart of the problem is that President Barack Obama and many of his top counter-terrorism advisers see Islamic extremism from the leftist perspective of social movement theory. Originating in the socialist labor movements of the 1800s and revived with the protest movements of the 1960s, social movement theory seeks to understand collective action. Academics concerned with what they saw as the relationship between “cultural imperialism” and “Islamic movements” began looking at Islamist extremism through the lens of social movement theory around 1984. It might have remained an obscure academic pursuit but for the fact that Obama elevated one of its principle proponents, Quintan Wiktorowicz, to the position of Senior Director for Global Engagement at the National Security Staff, where he became an architect of Obama’s counter-extremism strategy.

The singular impact of Wiktorowicz was to shift the focus away from the ideology driving Islamic extremism and to recast it as “Islamic activism.” He argued that Islamist violence is not a function of the call to jihad found in the Qu‘ran or in various contemporary fatwas, but is rather a calculated and rational response to state oppression:

In contrast to popular views of Islamic radicals as fanatics engaged in irrational, deviant, unpredictable violence, we argue that violent contention is the result of tactical considerations informed by the realities of repressive contexts. Islamists engage in a rational calculus about tactical efficacy and choose modes of contention they believe will facilitate objectives or protect their organizational and political gains. Violence is only one of myriad possibilities in repertoires of contention and becomes more likely where regimes attempt to crush Islamic activism through broad repressive measures that leave few alternatives. …From this perspective, violent Islamist contention is produced not by ideational factors or unstable psychological mentalities but rather by exogenous contingencies created through state policy concerning Islamists.

Thus, terrorism becomes “a mode of contention,” and terrorists are not to blame for their violence; “exogenous contingencies” are at fault. Sources in the Koran, Islamic jurisprudence, or even contemporary calls to jihad are not to blame; state policy is. Dr. Mohammed M. Hafez, an associate professor at the Naval Postgraduate School who also influenced U.S. policy, echoes this perspective in his book Why Muslims Rebel:

Muslims rebel because of an ill-fated combination of institutional exclusion, on the one hand, and on the other, reactive and indiscriminate repression that threatens the organizational resources and personal lives of Islamists. Exclusionary and repressive political environments force Islamists to undergo a near universal process of radicalization.

Radical Islamists, therefore, bear no personal responsibility for their acts of terrorism or disruption. Rather, they are forced by a political environment that excludes or represses them to undergo an inevitable process of radicalization.

For the Obama administration, Islamist extremism (except for Al Qaeda) is not a categorical evil which stands opposed to America’s good; it is, rather, an extreme expression—among a range of expressions—of protest against legitimate grievances. Islamic radicals such as Boko Haram are not responsible for their actions; they are forced to radicalism by their circumstances. And it definitely has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, not even a distorted version of Islam.

On the very day that the U.S. announced the designation of Boko Haram as a terrorist organization, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield said that “Boko Haram’s activities call our attention not just to violence, but also to poverty and inequality in Nigeria.” The State Department’s 2012 report on human rights in Nigeria spends far more time on abuses by Nigeria’s security forces than it does on Boko Haram’s violence. The report states, “The population’s grievances regarding poverty, government and security force corruption, and police impunity and brutality created a fertile ground for recruiting Boko Haram members.” By all accounts, police brutality and incompetence in Nigeria were on an epic scale, but as Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) famously said at a hearing on Boko Haram, to blame terrorism on poverty is a disservice to the millions of poor people across the globe who never turn to violence.

Because of the Muslim-extremist-as-victim meme, the administration generally, and the State Department particularly, have repeatedly portrayed Muslims as the principle victims of groups such as Boko Haram, with Christians only a minor side note. The State Department has repeatedly said that Boko Haram is not religiously motivated and is more destructive to Muslims than to Christians. On the day Boko Haram was designated an FTO, Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield said that Boko Haram “had killed numerous Christians and an even greater number of Muslims,” in spite of the fact that attacks on Christians represented 46% and on Muslims only 3%, according to Jubilee Campaign.

The argument currently being put forth by the mainstream media is that the United States has been poised and ready to help Nigeria, but that Nigeria has been slow to ask, and that is a message likely coming directly from the White House. Now that the world has woken up to the evil being perpetrated by Boko Haram, President Obama is trying to portray himself as caring deeply about this issue. He told ABC News that he hoped the event would help “to mobilize the entire international community to finally do something against this horrendous organization that’s perpetrated such a terrible crime.” And Michelle Obama tweeted a photo of herself holding a sign that read: “#BringBackOurGirls.”

But members of the Obama administration—from the President himself to his National Security Staff to his Secretary of State and to his undersecretaries and their staffs—have all, until this episode, downplayed Boko Haram’s truly evil nature and prevented steps from being taken much earlier that could have prevented this tragedy, and those 276 abducted girls, instead of being held hostage, could still be sitting at their desks doing their schoolwork.

While social movement theory might provide insights into the formation and operation of Islamic activists, it cannot provide a foundation for American counter-terrorism policy. To do so is both detrimental to U.S. national security and to the security of numerous nations who are in a life-or-death struggle with the threat. The United States must stop the misguided narrative that terrorism and extremism have nothing to do with Islam. As Dr. Sebastian Gorka said in testimony to members of Congress, “We need to bankrupt transnational jihadist terrorism as its most powerful point: its narrative of global religious war.” Until the U.S. begins to acknowledge and address the ideology, we will not be able to challenge its ability to recruit, motivate, and inspire those who would abduct innocent schoolgirls.

Katie Gorka is the president of the Council on Global Security. She is the coeditor of Fighting the Ideological War: Winning Strategies from Communism to Islamism.

The Glazov Gang-Dr. Phyllis Chesler on “An American Bride in Kabul.”

Frontpage:

Dr. Chesler joined the program to discuss her memoir and all of its ingredients, including being trapped in Afghanistan as a young bride, her terrifying experiences under Islamic Gender Apartheid, her views on the burqa and on how the feminist Left has betrayed Muslim women, her main message, and much, much more:

American Bride in KabulPhyllis Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies at City University of New York, best-selling author, legendary feminist leader, Fellow at the Middle East Forum and the author of 15 books. She is the author of her new memoir, An American Bride in Kabul.

300 Christian Nigerian Girls Forced Into Slavery by Islamic Jihadis

Mothers of kidnapped school girls react during a meeting with the Borno State governor in ChibokFamily Security Matters, May 4, 2014, By Alan Kornman:

CBS news reports today the number of Nigerian Christian girls kidnapped by followers of Islam at gunpoint, on April 14, 2014,  may total more than 300.   The kidnapped girls are reported to range in age from 15-18.

News reports speculate the girls have been moved by force into the adjacent countries of Cameron and Chad.  Many of the Christian girls were sold off to their kidnappers for approximately $12.45 US and forced to ‘revert‘ to Islam.  The remainder of the girls will likely be sold off as sex slaves to the highest bidder as booty by supposedly their Boko Haram kidnappers.

NAACP, NOW, ACLU, CAIR

A quick look at the National Association For The Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) website makes no mention of these 300 black Nigerian Christian girls being kidnapped and sold into slavery.  Since April 14, Lorraine Miller, Interim President & CEO of the NAACP has been silent on this modern day slavery of black girls.

The recent May 2 home page of the NAACP website is obviously more concerned with the LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling’s offensive remarks and Wisconsin’s voter ID Laws.  The NAACP says they are also concerned about Human Rights issues by sending a 13 member group to Geneva, Switzerland to address the UN Human Rights Commission.  The problems the NAACP were addressing in Geneva was voter suppression, stand your ground laws, and felon voter disenfranchisement.

Let’s move on to NOW the National Organization For Women.  The May 2 NOW website front page was silent on these Nigerian girls forced slavery.   The ‘NOW Read This’ current events does not mention these 300 Nigerian Christian girls being kidnapped, sold into slavery, and many of their forced conversions to Islam.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) website on May 2 had no mention of these 300 Nigerian schoolgirls ultimate violation of their civil liberties.  The ACLU has a long history of speaking out on Civil Liberty issues outside the United States, which makes this groups silence on these Nigerian schoolgirls so problematic.

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) makes no mention of the Nigerian Christian girls sold into slavery by followers of Islam.  When CAIR leadership says there is no compulsion in the Islamic religion they need to explain why Boko Haram is forcing these girls at gun point to become Muslim.

Perhaps a big dose of public shame will force the NAACP, NOW, CAIR, and the ACLU to do what’s right and condemn the Boko Haram followers of Islam.  If past history is any indication of future performance, public statements from these so called civil rights groups  will  condemn the acts of violence, but not name names or the terrorists political ideology. But I wouldn’t bet on it.

Boko Haram

Who are these followers of Islam who kidnap innocent Nigerian Christian girls, make them slaves, victims of forced marriages, and demand they revert to Islam?  Their name  is the Islamic group is Boko Haram.

The full name for Boko Haram is ‘Congregation of the People of Tradition for Proselytism and Jihad – Jama’at Ahl as Sunnah lid-da’wa wal-Jihad’.   In Hausa, or the Chadic language, Boko Haram can be translated into “Western education is sinful.”

Andrew Walker, 2012 US Institute For Peace reports, Boko Haram was founded by Mohammed Yusuf in 2002, the organization seeks to establish a “pure” Islamic State ruled by Sharia law.  If kidnapping innocent Christian girls and selling them into slavery as booty is ‘Pure Islam’, then this is a problem only the followers of Islam can solve and eradicate.

The Nation reports, “Nigeria came yesterday under focus as Pope Francis prayed for an end to the Boko Haram insurgency in his Easter message to faithful and to the World…”We beg for … a halt to the brutal terrorist attacks in parts of Nigeria,” he prayed.

Boko Haram has ordered Christians to leave Northern Nigeria. Its leader has stated, “We are also informing Christians all over the country to embrace Islam or they will be attacked. If they fail to do so, there is nobody to blame but themselves.”

EGYPT

International Christian Concern (ICC) has learned that at least eight Egyptian Christians from the Minya province have been abducted since January 25, 2014. The abductions, thought to be carried out by members of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), are just a handful among the hundreds of similar cases in the last few years.

The new Egyptian government has declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, arresting MB Jihadis and dismantling MB infrastructure throughout Egypt.

Adam Kredo of The Washington Free Beacon, Feb 5, 2014 reports, “A senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood was recently hosted at the White House for a meeting with President Barack Obama…Anas Altikriti, a top British lobbyist for the Muslim Brotherhood whose father heads Iraq’s Muslim Brotherhood party, recently met with the president and Vice President Joe Biden as part of a delegation discussing problems in Iraq.  The Obama administration has been criticized for its outreach to the Muslim Brotherhood, the international Islamist organization whose members’ brief reign in Egypt was supported by the White House.”

Boko Haram, Muslim Brotherhood, and Christian Association of Nigeria Logos

Boko Haram and The Muslim Brotherhood have similar logos and ideology.  Both terrorist groups logos have crossed swords meaning war and wording there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger.

The Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) message says, “That All May Be One John 17:21″  The CAN logo sends the message that Muslim and Christian can live together as proud Nigerians with a national identity.  The differences in the messaging of these logos can’t be ignored, suppressed, or sanitized – it is what it is.

Boko Haram

Boko Haram

The Muslim Brotherhood

The Muslim Brotherhood

Christian Association of Nigeria

Christian Association of Nigeria

Conclusion

The kidnapping, selling into slavery, and forced conversions of close to 300 innocent girls in Nigeria is an evil barbarity of such magnitude people of conscience can not and should not remain silent.

Those who do remain silent for reason of politics, religious sympathies, fear, political correctness, or Multiculturalism are complicit by their silence.  The Christians of all denominations must make immediately a stand protecting their persecuted fellow Christians wherever they are.

Because it is the right thing to do!

Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Alan Kornman is the regional coordinator of The United West-Uniting Western Civilization for Freedom and Liberty. His email is: alan@theunitedwest.org

 

 

Where Does Naomi Wolf’s Hypocrisy End, Or Does It?

nwFront Page, by :

Naomi Wolf has joined the Hamas chorus by attacking feminist hero Phyllis Chesler with being a Zionist agent. How facilely Wolf has adopted the language of Jew-haters the world over — an even more bitter irony coming from someone who has written an entire book comparing democratic America to Nazi Germany.

And Chesler’s sin? To have dared to challenge the Left’s party line of defending the Islamic mutilators of adolescent girls, and practitioners of gender apartheid. But then again, this isn’t anything new for Wolf, seeing that she is on the record as finding the burqa sexy.

In her recent article, “Brandeis Feminists Fail the Historical Moment,” Phyllis Chesler criticized Brandeis’ phony feminists for their complicity in the University denying an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  In a response on her Facebook page, Wolf joined the anti-Semites of the Mearshimer-Walt-Blumenthal set, claiming that Chesler has no mind of her own but is merely a puppet of the organized Jews:

“She is funded these days by pro-Israel advocacy organizations that support journalists and writers to advocate ‘the party line’ in terms of hardline anti-Islam and right-wing policy outcomes regarding Israel.”

This is pretty crude even for a brain-dead Marxist.

Wolf goes on to complain that Chesler,

“has made some outlandish, grossly factually incorrect attacks on me whenever I write anything that encourages Western readers to have a deeper understanding of Islam.”

What she means is a more grovelling supine attitude of appeasement towards barbaric Islamic attitudes and practices. When Wolf encourages people to have a “deeper understanding” of Islam, she is not alluding to caring more about the horrifying Islamic practices of female genital mutilation, honor killing, forced marriage and veiling, acid attacks practices against Muslims in the name of a perverse view of Islam. Chesler has already answered Wolf’s sick attack with a little tongue in cheek acidity:

“Naomi: Are you on the payroll of the public relations crisis management team Brandeis has reportedly hired? Are you now or have you ever been funded by George Soros? Or merely by the Democratic Party? Is Al Gore, for whom you once consulted, and who sold his cable channel to Al-Jazeera, backing you? Is he supporting your Woodhull Institute? Or are the Jordanian royals helping you? I know you visited with them and wrote about them very favorably.”

Wolf’s attack on Chesler is an extension of the collision that occurred between the two a few years back, after Wolf went on a political pilgrimage to the Muslim world and returned singing the praises of the burqa. Chesler dismantled Wolf’s embarrassing fairy tales of the female gulag that Islam has constructed for nearly a billion women with such precision that one wonders why Wolf is now even bothering stepping back into this mismatch. Unlike Wolf, Chesler is a true scholar of Islam and as the former bride of a Muslim in Afghanistan, she has first-hand experience of the horrors of Islamic gender apartheid.

Naomi Wolf is a sad emblem of the pathetic state of the Left and of its pseudo feminist wing: ignorant, arrogant, bigoted, anti-Semitic, anti-American and an embarrassing fifth column for the Islamic barbarians of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

Brandeis Feminists Fail the Historical Moment

by Phyllis CheslerPhyllis Chesler

April 16, 2014

The Brandeis professors who demanded that Ayaan Hirsi Ali be “immediately” dis-invited wrote that “we are filled with shame at the suggestion that (Hirsi Ali’s) above-quoted sentiments express Brandeis’s values.” The professors also castigated Hirsi Ali for her “core belief of the cultural backwardness of non-western peoples” and for her suggestion that “violence toward girls and women is particular to Islam.” The professors note that such a view “obscure(s) such violence in our midst among non-Muslims, including on our own campus.”

This is exactly what these professors are teaching the more than four thousand Brandeis students who signed a petition to rescind Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s award. (Read it here.)

Are eight year-old girls being genitally mutilated at Brandeis or forced into polygamous marriages with men old enough to be their grandfathers? Are they being forcibly face-veiled or honor murdered for refusing to marry their first cousins? Perhaps they are being executed because they have been raped, for leaving an abusive marriage, or for daring to express an independent opinion?

Eighty seven professors or 29% of the Brandeis faculty signed this letter. These professors teach Physics, Anthropology, Near Eastern and Jewish Studies, English, Economics, Music, Film, Computer Science, Math, Sociology, Education—and Women and Gender Studies. Four percent of the signatories teach Anthropology, 6% teach Near Eastern and Jewish Studies, 9% teach Physics—and 21% teach Women and Gender Studies.

In my 2005 book, The Death of Feminism, this is precisely what I was talking about, namely, the feminist departure from universal human rights, a greater focus on anti-racism than on anti-sexism, and a deadly multi-cultural relativism. These Brandeis feminists, both male and female, are defending Islamist supremacism, (which is not a race), and attacking an African Somali women, who happens to be a feminist hero.

Feminists have called Hirsi Ali an “Islamophobe” and a “racist” many times for defending Western values such as women’s rights, gay rights, human rights, freedom of religion, the importance of intellectual diversity, etc.

The 1960s-early 1970s feminism I once championed — and still do — was first taken over by Marxists and ideologically “Stalinized.” It was then conquered again by Islamists and ideologically “Palestinianized.” I and a handful of others maintained honorable minority positions on a host of issues. In time, women no longer mattered as much to many feminists — at least, not as much as Edward Said’s Arab men of color did. The Arab men were more fashionable victims who had not only been formerly “colonized” but who, to this day are, allegedly, still being “occupied.”

Feminists became multi-cultural relativists and as such, refused to criticize other cultures including misogyny within those other cultures.

Feminists have been attacking Ayaan Hirsi Ali for years as a “racist” and an “Islamophobe.” They are guided by the same false moral equivalents which the above Brandeis professors share. It is similar to the kind of false moral equivalence that author Deborah Scroggins made when she compared Hirsi Ali to one Aafiya Siddiqui in her 2012 book: Wanted Women. Faith, Lies, and the War on Terror: The Lives of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Aafia Siddiqui., Scroggins is far more sympathetic to the Pakistani-born, American-educated Aafia Siddiqui, who became an Islamist terrorist and a rabid Jew hater (she is known as Lady Al Qaeda), than she is towards the Somali-Dutch feminist and apostate Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who eloquently opposes Islamic jihad, Islamic gender and religious apartheid. Hirsi Ali also supports the Jewish state.

Siddiqui married the nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), one of the masterminds of 9/11. She disappeared into Pakistan for many years. Then she was found wandering in Afghanistan, in Ghazni, where she was arrested by American soldiers after they found her carrying bomb-making and chemical warfare instructions. In captivity, she picked up one of the soldiers’ guns and shot at him.

Guess what? Siddiqui received a Ph.D. in Neuroscience from Brandeis University. The university is certainly not to blame for her actions. However, according to Scroggins, as a student in America, Siddiqui joined the infamous Muslim Students Association and fell under the spell of one of bin Laden’s own mentors who ran a Muslim charity in Brooklyn, New York. This is the same Muslim Student Association (a Muslim Brotherhood- and Hamas-related enterprise in America) that has just played such a prominent role in the Brandeis campaign to dis-invite Hirsi Ali.

Scroggins still views Siddiqui as a victim. Siddiqui is a religious Muslim, veiled to the eyeballs, and has been sentenced to 86 years in prison. Many Muslims view her as a freedom fighter and, therefore, as innocent and as unjustly imprisoned.

Scroggins—and the “dis-invite her” Brandeis professors–represent your typical left point of view. The West has caused jihad due to its allegedly imperialist, colonialist, racist, and capitalist policies. Anyone who does not blame the West, especially America and Israel, is politically suspect. Scroggins, like so many left feminists, has absolutely no idea about the long and barbaric history of Islamic imperialism, colonialism, racism, slavery, and its practice of gender and religious apartheid.

Hirsi Ali championed the West, democracy, women’s rights, human rights, religious tolerance, etc. over and above the Islam that she had been exposed to in the Middle East. She became an apostate, a member of the Dutch Parliament, and ultimately, a woman who needed round-the-clock security against all the Islamist death threats against her.

Nevertheless, throughout the book, Scroggins shares Aafiya’s political analysis and condemns and challenges Ayaan’s views. Only on the very last page of her book, does Scroggins admit that the entire premise of her “morally equivalent” comparison is flawed. She writes:

“That is not to say they are equivalent figures, morally or otherwise. They are not. Ayaan…fights only with words whereas the evidence leads me to conclude that Aafiya was almost certainly plotting murder during her missing years and perhaps prepared to further a biological or chemical attack on the United States on a scale to rival 9/11.”

I wonder if the above Brandeis professors would also sympathize with Aafiya Siddiqui. I mourn the loss of an activist, vibrant, intellectually independent, and politically incorrect feminist Academy.