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.

The Political Left Marriage to the Islamic Jihad: Are the Progressives Insane or Intentional?

735159_336012886512158_310320558_nUnderstanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Feb. 23, 2025:

This is the fourth of a 4-part series on The Political Left’s Marriage to the Islamic Jihad

********

As has been detailed in several articles on the UTT Blog as well as in the first, second, and third iterations of this 4-part series, the Political Left in America is:  promoting the Muslim Brotherhood’s (MB) Jihadi Movement in the United States; “negotiating” with Iran and the Taliban; providing material support to Al Qaeda/MB in Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere; promoting Palestinian (Hamas) causes and showing deference to them while failing to stand with Israel; flooding America with people from hostile nations (Somalia, Syria, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, etc) through the State Department’s Refugee Resettlement Program and various student programs; and failing to clearly articulate the threat while demonstrating weakness and inviting greater danger to our nation and its people.

On February 18, 2015, President Obama’s Department of State issued a statement which reads, in part:  “We are pleased to announce the appointment of Rashad Hussain as United States Special Envoy and Coordinator for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications. Special Envoy Hussain will lead a staff drawn from a number of U.S. departments and agencies to expand international engagement and partnerships to counter violent extremism and to develop strategic counterterrorism communications around the world.”

Is a Muslim with direct ties to the International Muslim Brotherhood the only qualified person in America this administration could find to hold this post?

It also seems odd this administration exclusively uses Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas organizations such as ISNA, CAIR, MPAC and others as their primary outreach partners to advise senior government officials and agencies on how to combat the “violent extremists” (read: Jihadis) across the globe and here domestically.  The President himself produced a video applauding and promoting ISNA at their annual convention.

Either the administration is divorced from the reality of what it is doing or it is being intentional.

The legal definition for “insanity” is:  “A mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality.” (Source: Psychology Today)

The question must be asked, is the President and his National Security team divorced from the reality of the facts and evidence that are clear about the organizations with which they are working, Islamic doctrine (Sharia), and the actions being taken at the ground level by Muslim armies across the globe?

This is a real and serious question, because if the answer is a resounding “No,” and the President is thoughtful, discerning and lucid, then he is intentionally working with our enemies to support their agenda.

That is called “Treason.”

On the other hand, the Islamic Jihadi Movement is not “crazy” or “insane.”  They are following the doctrine of Sharia in pursuit of destroying all “man-made governments” to impose Sharia and establish the global Islamic State (caliphate).  What is striking when you listen to leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al Shabab, or any of the other hundreds of jihadi organizations across the globe speak, they are measured and consistent in their message.  Even when they are preparing to behead someone, they go through the motions of reading the statement and then coldly do the deed of sawing another human being’s head off without any show of emotion.  While the act is barbaric, they are following what they believe they have been commanded to do within the reality of the Islamic system.

Not so with this administration and the Political Left in general.  The Progressives openly claim they support the rights of the “oppressed” and minority groups in society including religious minorities, homosexuals, women, and others – the very groups of people the Islamic Movement is currently slaughtering, or at least, enslaving.

So what is to be done?  Ultimately, we as Americans must decide.  We the people are the government and we hold the authority.  So long as our system is intact with a functioning government in all three branches, we must work within the system to make it work.

The reality is that our federal leadership is catastrophically failing to protect our nation and its people.  The burden now lies at the state and county levels to protect the citizens of America.  Strong Governors must exert the Constitutional power given to them with the support of state legislatures.  Citizens must be educated about the Muslim Brotherhood Jihadi network in America so they can put positive pressure on elected county officials to allow local police to do whatever they need to do to identify jihadis (wearing suits or planning attacks), and to weed these jihadis out of every state – one county at a time.

As citizens, we cannot fix the threat at the international level, but we can educate friends and colleagues about the true nature of this threat, especially those we know in law enforcement, military service, or the intelligence community.

We are at a dire point in American history.  The time for half measures has come and gone.  We must be engaged at the local and state level to defeat this enemy and realize that local police are now the tip of the spear.

********

Want to get engaged?  Here are a few things you can do:
1.  Get educated on the threat and educate others.  Get a copy of Raising a Jihadi Generation for yourself and others you know. Get a copy of the DVD “Understanding the Threat to America” and show it at your church or community group meeting.  Make use of other educational resources:
     * Political Islam
     * CSP 10 Part Video Series on the MB in America
     * The Global MB Watch
2.  Plug into a national grass roots organization focused on this threat, such as ACT! for America.
3.  The leaders who most need to know this information who can have the greatest impact are Sheriffs and Pastors.  Work with them to educate them and help them organize the citizens and congregations to rally behind them.
4.  Share the Thin Blue Line Project with Law enforcement officers you know.  This is a web based program designed specifically for Law Enforcement to educate them on the MB Jihadi Network in the U.S. and the broader jihadi threat.
5.  Educate local and county officials, especially local school boards.  Pay attention to what your children are being taught in school about American history, Islam, and related topics (Israel, 9/11, etc).
6.  Brighten the lamp of liberty by educating your children (and yourselves) about the Founding Principles of America, and our Godly heritage from such resources asWallbuilders.com and others.
7.  Remember that as citizens we have duties and responsibilities.  From our founding we are all citizen-soldiers whether we join the military or not.  Per Title 10 U.S. Code Section 311, all able body males (with specific exceptions) from age 17 to 45 are members of the “Unorganized Militia” of the United States.  Educate yourself about the duties of citizens.  Claremont.org is a great resource.
8.  Only elect people to office who respect the Oath they swear in allegiance to our Constitution.  If nobody fits that bill, get someone who does to run and support him/her.
9.  Hold all elected officials accountable to their Oaths of Office.
10.  Make a decision you are all in to defend you family, your community, and this nation and refuse to back down.  This is a fight, but a fight that is worth all the effort for the sake of future generations, including your children and grand children.  What price for liberty are we willing to pay?

O Beautiful, For Specious Guys

by Mark Steyn
Steyn on America
February 20, 2015

1178The US media have had a fit of the vapors over Rudy Giuliani’s suggestion that Barack Obama does not love America. As the Instapundit says, their reaction suggests that Giuliani hit a nerve.

For my own part, I am way beyond that. By the way, I’m growing rather weary of the cheap comparisons of Obama with Neville Chamberlain. The British Prime Minister got the biggest issue of the day wrong. But no one ever doubted that he loved his country. That’s why, after his eviction from Downing Street, Churchill kept him on in his ministry as Lord President of the Council, and indeed made Chamberlain part of the five-man war cabinet and had him chair it during his frequent absences. When he died of cancer in October 1940, Churchill wept over his coffin.

So please don’t insult Neville Chamberlain by comparing him to Obama. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, because conspiracies are generally a comforting illusion: the real problem with Obama is that the citizens of the global superpower twice elected him to office. Yet one way to look at the current “leader of the free world” is this: If he were working for the other side, what exactly would he be doing differently?

For example, he has spent most of this week hosting an international conference on something called “violent extremism”. Whatever may be said of Munich, Chamberlain never hosted a three-day summit on “rearmament” in general whose entire purpose was to deny that “rearmament” and “Germany” were in any way connected. Yet that is exactly the message the United States government has just offered to the world – in between such eccentric side spectacles as Marie Harf, star of the hilarious new comedy Geopolitically Blonde, explaining her jobs-for-jihadis program, and the new hombre in charge of the planet’s mightiest military machine having his woman felt up on camera by Joe Biden. Now there’s a message to send to the misogynists of Burqastan about what happens when you let the missuses out of their body bags.

Here’s John Kerry in The Wall Street Journal:

The rise of violent extremism represents the pre-eminent challenge of the young 21st century…

A safer and more prosperous future requires us to recognize that violent extremism can’t be justified by resorting to religion…

Violent extremism has claimed lives in every corner of the globe, and Muslim lives most of all…

This summit at the White House and State Department will expand the global conversation and, more important, adopt an action agenda that identifies, shares and utilizes best practices in preventing and countering violent extremism

Put simply, we are building a global partnership against violent extremism.

Success requires showing the world the power of peaceful communities instead of extremist violence.

Wait a minute, “extremist violence”? How come the spell-check didn’t catch that? Don’t worry. The very next sentence is back on track:

Success requires offering a vision that is positive and proactive: a world with more concrete alternatives to the nihilistic worldview of violent extremists

We have to devote ourselves not just to combating violent extremism, but to preventing it…

We’ve combated violent extremism before…

The 20th century was defined by the struggle to overcome depression, slavery, fascism and totalitarianism. Now it’s our turn. The rise of violent extremism challenges every one of us…

By now you may be saying, “Oh, ‘violent extremism’, I get it. You mean…” Whoa, don’t go there, girlfriend. “This is not true Islam,” insists President Obama.

Roger Kimball observes:

“ISIL is not ‘Islamic.'” Really? Was the Ayatollah Khomeini “Islamic?” How about Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Erdogan: is he “Islamic”? A few years ago, Erdogan told the world that the phrase “moderate Islam” is “ugly”because “Islam is Islam.” Democracy, he said, is just an express stop on the train whose destination is Islam…

The Saudis, the biggest and richest Sunni nation? They torture bloggers for “insulting Islam,” stone adulteresses, maim thieves, and treat women like chattel. Do they represent Islam?

But Obama has ambitions way beyond the Turks and Saudis. If the Islamic State isn’t “true Islam”, is the Taliban, our “partners for peace” in Aghanistan? Is “true Islam” the Iranian mullahs, our “partners for peace” in the Persian Gulf and beyond? How about the Houthi? They’re our Iranian partners for peace’s partners for peace in Yemen, and they were awfully sporting to let our diplomats flee without beheading them.

“Violent extremism” may have nothing to do with Islam, yet Obama’s summit on “violent extremism” was oddly preoccupied with Islam, to the extent of according it a special deference:

A Muslim prayer was recited at the start of the second day of the White House summit on “Countering Violent Extremism,” but no other religious text was presented during the portion of the event that was open to the press.

Imam Sheikh Sa’ad Musse Roble, president of the World Peace Organization in Minneapolis, Minn., recited a “verse from the Quran” following remarks by Obama administration officials and Democratic members of Congress.

But hey, what’s so odd about that? “Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding,” says the President. You might think that Islam has been entirely irrelevant to “the fabric of our country” for its first two centuries, and you might further think that Islam, being self-segregating, tends not to weave itself into anybody’s fabric but instead tends to unravel it – as it’s doing in, say, Copenhagen, where 500 mourners turned up for the funeral of an ISIS-supporting Jew-hating anti-free-speech murderer.

But President Obama knows better than you. So he organized a summit dedicated to creating and promoting a self-invented phantom enemy. Conveniently enough, the main problem with “violent extremists” is that its principal victims are Muslims. No, no, I don’t mean the thousands of Muslims being slaughtered, beheaded, burned alive, raped, sold into sex slavery, etc, etc, in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, and so on. The Muslims most at risk are right here in America. Just ask Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson:

We in the administration and the government should give voice to the plight of Muslims living in this countryand the discrimination that they face. And so I personally have committed to speak out about the situation that very often people in the Muslim community in this country face. The fact that there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world and the Islamic faith is one about peace and brotherhood.

I opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security on the basic Thatcherite principle that if you create a government bureaucracy in order to deal with a problem you’ll never be rid of the problem. But I underestimated the creativity of our rulers: The DHS was set up because 19 Muslims flew planes into skyscrapers and killed thousands of people. Thirteen years later, the head of the DHS thinks his department’s priority should be to “give voice to the plight of Muslims” who have the misfortune to live in America.

How about “the plight of Muslims” who live in Muslim countries? As I wrote in 2006 in the very prologue of the highly prescientAmerica Alone:

In the 2005 rankings of Freedom House’s survey of personal liberty and democracy around the world, five of the eight countries with the lowest “freedom” score were Muslim. Of the 46 Muslim majority nations in the world, only three were free. Of the 16 nations in which Muslims form between 20 and 50 per cent of the population, only another three were ranked as free: Benin, Serbia and Montenegro, and Suriname. It will be interesting to follow France’s fortunes as a fourth member of that group.

The “plight” of Muslim communities in America and the west is that they enjoy freedoms they could never dream of back in Somalia or Syria or anywhere else – but that they value those freedoms less than they value the pre-eminence of Islam. Canadian reader Sam Williamson wrote to me with what I thought was an interesting insight into the millions of “moderate Muslims”:

Hello Mark:

Suppose the moderate shoe was in the other foot:

You are a moderate Christian and there is a radical bunch at the far end of the spectrum of the faith that causing violence, even in your new country. Your faith is growing worldwide in numbers. You see other faiths abandoning their beliefs, and even making laws about where they may practice. But your religion is more welcomed. They say it strengthens the country. It’s in their constitution. Other countries are asking you to come.

So you can’t help but see your faith gaining influence. In some places no shopping on the Holy Day laws are being re-introduced. In some public schools they are allowing Mass to be said in the cafeteria during the day. Offensive comments about our Church, Saviour, and Saints are being condemned. And items from other religions are being hidden or removed so we don’t have to see them. Many people, including their wise teachers, professors, and prominent people in the papers and television are helping getting rid of many customs that we do not support as Catholics. Why even the other day a leader in government told the Prime Minister that it was wrong not to allow us to say the rosary during the Citizenship Ceremony.

Sure, we will condemn that bombing and those extremists if asked. They don’t represent my beliefs. But looking at the future I’m thinking my family, my children and grandchildren are going to do better in this country when it’s all Christians, and those wrong beliefs have left, and the atheists driven out, even if it is accomplished with some fear and violence. After all, ours is the one true religion and our people will once again be great.

Sam Williamson

If you were a “moderate Muslim”, what would you make of an extraordinary week in which the global superpower has piled up a mountain of preposterous, mutually contradictory official lies all designed to flatter you: Islam has been part of the fabric of America since the 18th century, and yet the plight of Muslims in this country and the discrimination they face has never been worse. We are at war with the mysterious shadowy Empire of Violentia-Extremistan, which is nothing to do with Islam, yet necessitates the saying of Muslim prayers – and Muslim prayers only – at official US government events.

On The Hugh Hewitt Show yesterday, I pointed out that the French Government estimates that some nine thousand “Frenchmen” have volunteered to fight for ISIS. That is approximately half the total western deployment in Afghanistan of around 18,000 troops from some four dozen countries. It is larger than any French military deployment in the last half-century. That 500-strong congregation of mourners for the Copenhagen killer may not be the largest funeral turnout in Denmark’s history, but it’s similarly impressive.

And yet none of that could be discussed in Washington, at a summit arising directly out of the Charlie Hebdo slaughter.

I have quoted before my old friend Theodore Dalrymple on the purposes of lies in totalitarian societies:

In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.

We are at war with a depraved enemy, but we cannot be allowed to assert our moral superiority even to head-choppers, rapists, slavers and immolators. Thus the priority of Barack (“Hey, how ’bout those Crusades?”) Obama has been to undermine our sense of probity, and make us not merely equivalent to but worse than our enemies. That was the purpose of this last week of Official Lies.

Find the ‘Countering Violent Extremism Summit’ at the Intersection of Islamists and Leftists

Salam al-Marayati (MPAC)

Salam al-Marayati (MPAC)

National Review, by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY February 19, 2015:

You may understandably think of it as an ISIS jobs fair, but the ongoing confab in Washington is officially known as President Obama’s “summit” on “Countering Violent Extremism.” That being the case, many Americans seem surprised at the appearance of Salam al-Marayati, leader of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). After all, the White House is having a public hissy fit over the upcoming speech to Congress by Obama’s bête noire, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. An odd time, one might think, for the POTUS to be so chummy with a Muslim activist best know for theorizing, right after the 9/11 attacks, that “we should put the State of Israel on the suspect list.”

But National Review readers will not be surprised. Marayati and MPAC figured in my 2010 book on the Muslim Brotherhood’s U.S. operations – The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America (“grand jihad” and “sabotage” are lifted verbatim from an internal Brotherhood memo that describes the Islamists’ objective to infiltrate and destroy our country). And three years ago, I profiled Marayati and MPAC in this NRO column.

There is a reason why Obama’s summit is striking all the wrong chords with the public: strangely sympathetic to Islamist sensibilities and grievances at the very time when rampaging jihadists, while quoting Islamic scripture, are barbarically slaughtering their enemies and conducting a pogrom against Christians (there being no Jews left to mass-murder in Syria, Iraq and Libya).

The reason is that the summit serves exactly the same purpose as is served by MPAC and Marayati: It is the nexus between Islamists and Leftists.

For the Left, radical Islamic terrorism cannot be called “radical Islamic terrorism”; it must be called “violent extremism,” to avoid offending the Left’s Islamist allies. Still, while the labeling of terrorism may be problematic, the fact of terrorism is an opportunity – a crisis that, like all crises, can be used to advance the “social justice” agenda.

Just have a look at President Obama’s op-ed in the Los Angeles Times this week. ISIS and al-Qaeda are on the march, so what does the president suppose this is the occasion for? “Our focus [in the “summit on countering violent extremism”] will be on empowering local communities.”

The public is worried about our national security because, after six years of Obama, jihadists have more safe-haven than ever to plot and train for attacks against America, Israel and Western Europe. Obama, however, sees the situation as grist for a large-scale exercise in community-organizing: A summit that gathers “governments, civil society groups, and community leaders from more than 60 nations” to address “the anger that festers when people feel that injustice and corruption leave them no chance of improving their lives.” By the president’s lights, what causes terrorism is not sharia supremacist ideology, something that is not to be discussed. Instead, “anger” over “legitimate grievances” — that always turn out to be the same grievances the Left grieves over – makes young Muslims vulnerable to “exploitation” by al Qaeda and ISIS.

For their part, Islamists share the Left’s affinity for muscular government that suffocates individual liberty. They are also anxious to gull Westerners into seeing their grievances as driven by wayward American policies rather than sharia principles. That makes an alliance with the Left a good fit – notwithstanding important differences on such matters as abortion and the rights of women and homosexuals (differences that allies can set aside when defeating a common opponent is the higher objective).

Read more

The Political Left’s Marriage to the Islamic Jihad: Culture of Death

jihad1-300x200UTT, by John Guandolo, Feb. 18, 2015:

In this second of a 4-part series on The Political Left’s Marriage to the Islamic Jihad, we will explore the Culture of Death that pervades both ideologies at their core.

To read the first installment, click here.

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

Let us begin with the fact that the Political Left is responsible for more murders in the last 90 years than all other ideologies combined, including the Islamic Jihad.  From Vladamir Lenin to Mao Zedung to Pol Pot to Adolf Hitler to Josef Stalin the communists and socialists in the 20th century killed tens of millions of people – in brutal and barbaric ways.

Elites on the Political Left will say these “extreme” examples of Stalin and Hitler are not related to their efforts to bring “equality” and “justice” to the average man and woman, and they would never support such treatment of people.  This soft-spoken language of socialism is no less dangerous because it lays the foundation for the likes of Stalins and Hitlers, and have for over 90 years.

We must also begin with the fact that America was founded on the principle that God gave us our right to life and, therefore, each of us has value and dignity in the eyes of God.  This “unalienable right” as written by Thomas Jefferson in our Declaration of Independence, is defined in legal dictionaries in the 1800’s to mean “a right that could not be taken away from you even if you tried to give it up.”  When free people surrender the right to life in any manner, we surrender it for all of us.  Tyranny knows no boundaries.

The programs and policies of the Political Left (or “Progressives” if you will) give no heed to God and call for the extermination of the unwanted in society.  A notable data point is a darling of the Left, George Bernard Shaw, who acknowledges his support for the Hitler regime and for killing people who could not justify their existence.  In this video, Shaw says, “I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board…every five years…and say sir or madam, would you be kind enough to justify your existence.”  The implications of such a statement, and his broader comments on this matter, exemplify the mindset and darkness of the Political Left.

Whether it be  forced abortions (China) or the promotion of abortion in the United States to the tune of over 1.2 million children killed each year (and over 57 million since Roe v Wade), to programs which promote the killing of elderly who are past their functional use, mentally ill people, and the disabled, the Political Left has a recorded history of a willingness to kill unjustly.  One can think of few things more institutionally evil.

Putting cover phrases on euthanasia like “dying with dignity” does not minimize the effect on society by attempting to control when the lives of its citizens should end.

There is also a more subtle angle on the Left’s Culture of Death – their silence towards a Culture of Life.  From the 1600’s when pilgrims and settlers came to places like Plymouth and Jamestown, the Bible was the first and primary book used to teach children moral principles and guide them in their lives, and is also the moral guide Americans were admonished by our Founders if this nation is to survive.  The New England Primer and other such books followed, which taught biblical principles to school children across this nation up through the 1930s.  Principles like “Love thy Neighbor” were taught to our children, and they learned their self-esteem came from knowing that the creator of the universe sees them and loves them, and, therefore, they have value.  In the 1930’s, the Progressives began working diligently to remove God from our classrooms and from the public square in direct contradiction to the ideals espoused in our Declaration, and against the legal framework of the Constitution.

By intentionally removing the principles which teach the dignity and importance of life, the Political Left made it easier for the Culture of Death to creep into our society.

The Political Left’s disconnect from reality cannot be discarded as an accelerant as we discuss this topic.  Just this week, State Department Spokeswoman Maria Harf stated on a television interview that ISIS can only be stopped if we get to the root cause of the problem (ISIS) – a lack of jobs.  This kind of soft-mindedness promotes the Culture of Death of the Islamic Movement (and others for that matter) because it intentionally refuses to address a massive threat to humans across the globe that is clear and present in our midst, and that has clearly identified itself.

That Culture of Death in Islam, is not a difficult one to uncover.  There is no disagreement among the scholars of Islam that it is a permanent obligation upon the Muslim community to wage Jihad until the entire world is subordinated to Islamic Law (Sharia).  Islamic Law specifically calls for beheadings, stonings, crucifixions, and other such punishments.  Islam teaches – because Allah commanded it – that Muslims cannot take Jews and Christians for friends (Quran 5:51: “Take not the Jews and Christians as friends and protectors…”) – although they can pretend to befriend them if it suits a purpose – so hatred that energizes the violence is a part of this ideology as well.

And all of this is taught at the first grade level in Islamic schools around the world today.

The Jihadis teach toddlers to hate and kill non-Muslims for the sake of Allah.  In this video a small girl speaks succinctly about her hatred for the Jews.  In Iran, huge crowds chant “Death to America.”

But the more compelling evidence is in the reality of what we see on the ground level daily, and the example of the Islamic prophet Mohammad.  Across the globe the world witnesses Islamic Jihadis beheading children and putting their heads on stakes, burning people alive, burying women up to their chests and stoning them to death, and similar barbaric behavior.  And the Muslim world, for the most part, is silent.

ISIS

 

The silence we hear is the silence of consent because this behavior is directly supported in the Quran and by the example of the prophet Mohammad.  Mohammad himself cut the heads off of Jews at the Battle of the Trench, instructed his followers to kill anyone who slanders Islam, taught that the Jews and Christians are the enemies of Islam, and called for Jihad until Islam rules the world.

The behavior we are witnessing by ISIS and other jihadi groups is a part of the Culture of Death in the Islamic Movement, and it finds common ground with the Progressives on the Political Left.

The Left must not be aware that when the Caliphate is established, the Muslims will kill them first.

The Political Left’s Marriage to the Islamic Jihad

LEFT_Islam-300x169UTT, by John Guandolo, Feb. 16, 2015:

This is the first of a four (4) part series on the long historical relationship between the political left/Progressives and the global Jihadi Movement over the last century and its current culmination in the attempt to bring down Western civilization in general, and the United States specifically.

In this first edition, we will review the general history of the relationship between the Left and the Islamic Jihad movement, and the disconnect from reality that must take place for the Left to believe the leaders of any totalitarian movement will allow them to survive despite a hundred years of history to the contrary.

This unholy marriage has several key areas of common ground:

   * They seek to undermine the security of Western nations in furtherance of their ultimate destruction
   * They seek to destroy the moral fabric that has undergirded the West for centuries
   * They use propaganda, lies, and deceit strategically and tactically to move their efforts forward
   * They have a culture of death that focuses on eliminating or subjugating those they see as threats
   * They are both anti-Semitic
  * They work against the Law of Nature and Nature’s God attacking our inherent rights to life and liberty while diminishing God to a position of non-existence (Political Left) or as a harsh non-loving judge of mankind (Islam)

 

During the Russian Revolution, the new Soviet government saw the Islamic community as a tactical ally in its “anti-imperialist” battle against the Western governments, and from that time through today the political Left in Europe, the United States and elsewhere continues to side with communist and socialist ideologies.  That is because they are nearly one in the same.

It can be argued that today in the United States the Political Left is the American Socialist Party.

Adolf Hitler’s alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood during World War II was born out of Hitler’s belief the Muslim hatred for the Jews was common ground.  The formation of an all-Bosnian Muslim SS Division was the culmination of this relationship.

In more recent years, the influence of the communist/socialist movements impact on the West can be seen in significant strategic examples.  One of these is the anti-nuclear movement that was strongest in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s.  Today we know all of the protests in Europe and the United States were funded by the KGB.  This is relevant because the KGB (now FSB) and leftist support for jihadis continues today.

While many groups in the U.S. from Code Pink (funded by Political Left wing mogul George Soros) to ANSWER to Occupy Wall Street claim they are for “equality” and an end to racism, these are simply covers for working at all levels of our society to see their objectives are met (see the list above).  And we see these organizations working on the ground directly with Muslim Brotherhood and other jihadi entities from obtaining joint anti-war protest permits to the international support for terrorists.

Hugo Chavez’s relationship with Iranian President Ahmadinijad, former British Member of Parliament George Galloway raising money at a Muslim Brotherhood mosque in Florida which he gave directly to the leaders of Hamas in Palestine, and protesters in London (and even in the U.S.) calling for “No War with Iran” and “We are all Hamas” are a few examples at the international level.

The America  media has to answer for its culpability for promoting and defending the political left and the terrorists here in America.  It is no secret there is an overt left-wing agenda in U.S. Media to report only that which supports a socialist/political left agenda.  With very few exceptions, there has been no hard look by the major media outlets to factually report on the Muslim Brotherhood’s jihadi network in the U.S. or globally.

The religious left in America is also directly partnered with jihadi organizations.  Nearly all “Interfaith Outreach” in America is led by the Muslim Brotherhood, specifically the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and affiliates of these organizations.  ISNA is a Hamas support entity according to evidence in the largest Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in U.S. history (US v HLF, Dallas 2008), and CAIR is a Hamas entity.

Left-wing religious organizations like the Virginians Organized for Interfaith Community Engagement (VOICE) is directly partnered with the Saul Alinsky premier organization, the Industrial Areas Foundation.  One look at the VOICE website and your research is done – http://www.voice-iaf.org.  VOICE dutifully follows the guidance provided by the Muslim Brotherhood Islamic Centers with which they work.

Most confusing of all are the Jewish organizations in America (and elsewhere) which nearly unanimously continue to work with Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood organizations, much to the dismay of thoughtful and faithful Jewish organizations and leaders.  Some Jewish leaders have even accompanied the Jihadi leaders overseas to visit former Concentration Camps in the name of “peace and tolerance.”  This is denial at a grand scale.

This denial, however, is not limited to leaders in the community who are simply blind to the truth of their adversaries.  Whether witting or unwitting, these leaders are helping to build the very situations which will lead to the destruction of their people.  The Global Jihadi Movement believes all systems of government outside of the Islamic State under Sharia – socialists, communists, capitalists, and any others – must be destroyed.

Tough-minded people must speak truth into these combined threats and bold about our founding principles.  We must courageously move around or through anyone who does not understand these truths to be victorious so that Western civilization and, specifically, our Constitutional Republic survive.

Coming Up:  Second Edition of “The Political Left’s Marriage to the Islamic Jihad” will focus on The Culture of Death they both share.

Hating Valentine’s

10942667_868958896488865_4732619675833776081_nFrontpage, By Jamie Glazov On February 13, 2015:

[Editor’s note: This article is reprinted from our Valentine’s issue of Feb. 15, 2014. It has been updated and edited to fit this year’s Day of Love.]

This Saturday, February 14, is Valentine’s Day, the sacred day that intimate companions mark to celebrate their love and affection for one another. If you’re thinking about making a study of how couples celebrate this day, the Muslim world and the milieus of the radical Left are not the places you should be spending  your time. Indeed, it’s pretty hard to outdo jihadists and “progressives” when it comes to the hatred of Valentine’s Day. And this hatred is precisely the territory on which the contemporary romance between the radical Left and Islamic fanaticism is formed.

The train is never late: every year that Valentine’s comes around, the Muslim world erupts with ferocious rage, with its leaders doing everything in their power to suffocate the festivity that comes with the celebration of private romance. Imams around the world thunder against Valentine’s every year — and the celebration of the day itself is literally outlawed in Islamist states.

This year, for example, Islamic religious leaders and officials in Malaysia have warned Muslims against celebrating Valentine’s Day. In Saudi Arabia, the morality police have, as always, outlawed the sale of all Valentine’s Day items, forcing shopkeepers to remove any red items, because the day is considered a Christian holiday.

Malaysia and Saudi Arabia are carrying the torch for the Indonesian Ulema Council in Dumai, Riau, and for the Education, Youth and Sport Agency in Mataram, West Nusa Tenggara, both of which issued a dire warning last year to people against celebrating Valentine’s Day, stating that the Day of Love “is against Islam.” This is because, as the Indonesian Ulema Council 2011 judgment explained, Valentine’s Day takes young people into a “dark world.”

Malaysia’s State mufti chief assistant Mat Jais Kamos always keeps his mind focused on that dark world and so, last year a few days before Valentine’s Day, he ordered young people to stay clear of celebrating the Day of Love: “The celebration emphasizes the relationship between two individuals rather than the love between family members or married couples,” he affirmed, and department officials backed up his command by distributing leaflets to remind Muslims of the 2006 ban on Valentine’s Day issued by the state fatwa council.

In Islamic Uzbekistan, several universities always make sure that students actually sign contracts promising not to celebrate Valentine’s.

In Pakistan on Valentine’s Day in 2013, supporters of Jamat-e-Islami, Pakistan’s main religious party, took to the streets in Peshawar to vehemently denounce the Day of Love. Demonizing it as “un-Islamic,” the Muslim protestors shouted that the day has “spread immodesty in the world.” Shahzad Ahmed, the local leader of the student wing of Jamat-e-Islami, declared that the organization will not “allow” any Valentine’s Day functions, warning that if Pakistani law enforcement did not prevent Pakistanis from holding such functions, that the Jamat-e-Islami would stop them “in our own way.” Khalid Waqas Chamkani, a leader in Jamat-e-Islami, calls Valentine’s a “shameful day.”

These Islamist forces in Pakistan cannot, of course, completely succeed in preventing couples from showing love to each other on this special day, and so many Pakistanis still cryptically celebrate Valentine’s Day and exchange presents in secret.

All these Islamic outcries against Valentine’s Day reflect myriad other efforts to suffocate the day of love throughout the Muslim War. For instance, in Aceh province in Indonesia every year, Muslim clerics issue stern warnings to Muslims against observing Valentine’s Day. Tgk Feisal, general secretary of the Aceh Ulema Association (HUDA), stated three years ago that “It is haram for Muslims to observe Valentine’s Day because it does not accord with Islamic Sharia.” He added that the government must watch out for youths participating in Valentine’s Day activities in Aceh. One can only imagine what happens to the guilty parties.

As mentioned, the Saudis consistently punish the slightest hint of celebrating Valentine’s Day. The Kingdom and its religious police always officially issue a stern warning that anyone caught even thinking about Valentine’s Day will suffer some of the most painful penalties of Sharia Law. This is typical of the Saudis of course. As Daniel Pipes has reported, the Saudi regime takes a firm stand against Valentine’s every year, and the Saudi religious police monitor stores selling roses and other gifts. They arrest women for wearing red on that day. Every year the Saudis announce that, starting the week of Valentine’s and until a certain day in the future, it is illegal for a merchant to sell any item that is red, or that in any way hints of being connected to Valentine’s Day. AsClaude Cartaginese has reported, any merchant in Saudi Arabia found selling such items as red roses, red clothing of any kind (especially dresses), toys, heart-shaped products, candy, greeting cards or any items wrapped in red, has to destroy them or face the wrath of Saudi justice.

Christian overseas workers living in Saudi Arabia from the Philippines and other countries always take extra precautions, heeding the Saudis’ warning to them specifically to avoid greeting anyone with the words “Happy Valentine’s Day” or exchanging any gift that reeks of romance. A spokesman for a Philippine workers group has commented:

“We are urging fellow Filipinos in the Middle East, especially lovers, just to celebrate their Valentine’s Day secretly and with utmost care.”

The Iranian despots, meanwhile, consistently try to make sure that the Saudis don’t outdo them in annihilating Valentine’s Day. Iran’s “morality” police consistently order shops to remove heart-and-flower decorations and images of couples embracing on this day — and anytime around this day.

Typical of this whole pathology in the Islamic world was a development witnessed back on February 10, 2006, when activists of the radical Kashmiri Islamic group Dukhtaran-e-Millat (Daughters of the Community) went on a rampage in Srinagar, the main city of the Indian portion of Kashmir. Some two dozen black-veiled Muslim women stormed gift and stationery shops, burning Valentine’s Day cards and posters showing couples together.

In the West, meanwhile, leftist feminists are not to be outdone by their jihadi allies in reviling — and trying to exterminate — Valentine’s Day. Throughout all Women’s Studies Programs on American campuses, for instance, you will find the demonization of this day, since, as the disciples of Andrea Dworkin angrily explain, the day is a manifestation of how capitalist and homophobic patriarchs brainwash and oppress women and push them into spheres of powerlessness.

As an individual who spent more than a decade in academia, I was privileged to witness this war against Valentine’s Day up close and personal. Feminist icons like Jane Fonda, meanwhile, help lead the assault on Valentine’s Day in society at large. As David Horowitz has documented, Fonda has led the campaign to transform this special day into “V-Day” (“Violence against Women Day”) — which is, when it all comes down to it, a day of hate, featuring a mass indictment of men.

So what exactly is transpiring here? What explains this hatred of Valentine’s Day by leftist feminists and jihadis? And how and why does it serve as the sacred bond that brings the radical Left and Islam together into its feast of hate?

The core issue at the foundation of this phenomenon is that Islam and the radical Left both revile the notion of private love, a non-tangible and divine entity that draws individuals to each other and, therefore, distracts them from submitting themselves to a secular deity.

The highest objective of both Islam and the radical Left is clear: to shatter the sacred intimacy that a man and a woman can share with one another, for such a bond is inaccessible to the order. History, therefore, demonstrates how Islam, like Communism, wages a ferocious war on any kind of private and unregulated love. In the case of Islam, the reality is epitomized in its monstrous structures of gender apartheid and the terror that keeps it in place. Indeed,female sexuality and freedom are demonized and, therefore, forced veiling, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, honor killings and other misogynist monstrosities become mandatory parts of the sadistic paradigm.

The puritanical nature of totalist systems (whether Fascist, Communist, or Islamist) is another manifestation of this phenomenon. In Stalinist Russia, sexual pleasure was portrayed as unsocialist and counter-revolutionary. More recent Communist societies have also waged war on sexuality — a war that Islam, as we know, wages with similar ferocity. These totalist structures cannot survive in environments filled with self-interested, pleasure-seeking individuals who prioritize devotion to other individual human beings over the collective and the state. Because the leftist believer viscerally hates the notion and reality of personal love and “the couple,” he champions the enforcement of totalitarian puritanism by the despotic regimes he worships.

The famous twentieth-century novels of dystopia, Yevgeny Zamyatin’s We, George Orwell’s 1984, and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, all powerfully depict totalitarian society’s assault on the realm of personal love in its violent attempt to dehumanize human beings and completely subject them to its rule. In Zamyatin’s We, the earliest of the three novels, the despotic regime keeps human beings in line by giving them license for regulated sexual promiscuity, while private love is illegal. The hero breaks the rules with a woman who seduces him — not only into forbidden love but also into a counterrevolutionary struggle. In the end, the totality forces the hero, like the rest of the world’s population, to undergo the Great Operation, which annihilates the part of the brain that gives life to passion and imagination, and therefore spawns the potential for love. In Orwell’s 1984, the main character ends up being tortured and broken at the Ministry of Truth for having engaged in the outlawed behavior of unregulated love. In Huxley’s Brave New World, promiscuity is encouraged — everyone has sex with everyone else under regime rules, but no one is allowed to make a deep and independent private connection.

Yet as these novels demonstrate, no tyranny’s attempt to turn human beings into obedient robots can fully succeed. There is always someone who has doubts, who is uncomfortable, and who questions the secular deity — even though it would be safer for him to conform like everyone else. The desire that thus overcomes the instinct for self-preservation is erotic passion. And that is why love presents such a threat to the totalitarian order: it dares to serve itself. It is a force more powerful than the all-pervading fear that a totalitarian order needs to impose in order to survive. Leftist and Muslim social engineers, therefore, in their twisted and human-hating imaginations, believe that the road toward earthly redemption (under a classless society or Sharia) stands a chance only if private love and affection is purged from the human condition.

This is exactly why, forty years ago, as Peter Collier and David Horowitz demonstrate in Destructive Generation, the Weather Underground not only waged war against American society through violence and mayhem, but also waged war on private love within its own ranks. Bill Ayers, one of the leading terrorists in the group, argued in a speech defending the campaign: “Any notion that people can have responsibility for one person, that they can have that ‘out’ — we have to destroy that notion in order to build a collective; we have to destroy all ‘outs,’ to destroy the notion that people can lean on one person and not be responsible to the entire collective.”

Thus, the Weather Underground destroyed any signs of monogamy within its ranks and forced couples, some of whom had been together for years, to admit their “political error” and split apart. Like their icon Margaret Mead, they fought the notions of romantic love, jealousy, and other “oppressive” manifestations of one-on-one intimacy and commitment. This was followed by forced group sex and “national orgies,” whose main objective was to crush the spirit of individualism. This constituted an eerie replay of the sexual promiscuity that was encouraged (while private love was forbidden) in We, 1984, and Brave New World.

It becomes completely understandable, therefore, why leftist believers were so inspired by the tyrannies in the Soviet Union, Communist China, Communist North Vietnam and many other countries. As sociologist Paul Hollander has documented in his classic Political Pilgrims, fellow travelers were especially enthralled with the desexualized dress that the Maoist regime imposed on its citizens. This at once satisfied the leftist’s desire for enforced sameness and the imperative of erasing attractions between private citizens. The Maoists’ unisex clothing finds its parallel in fundamentalist Islam’s mandate for shapeless coverings to be worn by both males and females. The collective “uniform” symbolizes submission to a higher entity and frustrates individual expression, mutual physical attraction, and private connection and affection. And so, once again, the Western leftist remains not only uncritical, but completely supportive of — and enthralled in — this form of totalitarian puritanism.

This is precisely why leftist feminists today do not condemn the forced veiling of women in the Islamic world; because they support everything that forced veiling engenders. It should be no surprise, therefore, that Naomi Wolf finds the burqa “sexy.” And it should be no surprise that Oslo Professor of Anthropology, Dr. Unni Wikan, found a solution for the high incidence of Muslims raping Norwegian women: the rapists must not be punished, but Norwegian women must veil themselves.

Valentine’s Day is a “shameful day” for the Muslim world and for the radical Left. It is shameful because private love is considered obscene, since it threatens the highest of values: the need for a totalitarian order to attract the complete and undivided attention, allegiance and veneration of every citizen. Love serves as the most lethal threat to the tyrants seeking to build Sharia and a classless utopia on earth, and so these tyrants yearn for the annihilation of every ingredient in man that smacks of anything that it means to be human.

And so perhaps it is precisely on this Valentine’s Day that we are reminded of the hope that we can realistically have in our battle with the ugly and pernicious unholy alliance that seeks to destroy our civilization.

On this day, we are reminded that we have a weapon, the most powerful arsenal on the face of the earth, in front of which despots and terrorists quiver and shake, and sprint from in horror into the shadows of darkness, desperately avoiding its piercing light.

That arsenal is love.

And no Maoist Red Guard or Saudi fascist cop ever stamped it out — no matter how much they beat and tortured their victims. And no al-Qaeda jihadist in Pakistan or Feminazi on any American campus will ever succeed in suffocating it, no matter how ferociously they lust to disinfect man of who and what he is.

Love will prevail.

Happy Valentine’s Day.

To get the whole story on Islam’s and the Left’s war on private love, see Ann-Marie Murrell’s interview with Jamie Glazov about his book United in Hate: The Left’s Romance With Tyranny and Terror.

What Actually Causes American Fear of Islam and Muslims?

by Daniel Pipes
Feb 13, 2015
Cross-posted from National Review Online, The Corner

An ambitious 81-page document, Fear, Inc. 2.0: The Islamophobia Network’s Efforts to Manufacture Hate in America, just appeared from the Center for American Progress, a liberal Democratic organization. Unlike its first iteration, in which a group with a $40-million annual budget and deep ties to big business had the nerve to claim that seven much smaller institutions were overpowering the country through their financial clout, this one looks at what the alleged “Islamophobia network” actually does.

3073The report, written by Matthew Duss, Yasmine Taeb, Ken Gude, and Ken Sofer, makes for interesting reading. Its premise is that critics of Islamism (1) are really anti-Islamic and (2) have single-handedly distorted a the fundamental American value, namely a “basic respect for the rights of minority groups throughout the country.” According to the CAP study, “the views of anti-Muslim actors stand in stark contrast to the values of most Americans.”

By dint of hard work, however, “a well-funded, well-organized fringe movement can push discriminatory policies against a segment of American society by intentionally spreading lies while taking advantage of moments of public anxiety and fear.” This effort “takes many shapes and forms”: a general climate, cynical political efforts, and institutional policies. Despite some setbacks, continues the CAP narrative, the network’s efforts “continue to erode America’s core values of religious pluralism, civil rights, and social inclusion.”

Those fingered as part of this network (I am one) should be perversely proud of our accomplishment: Just a handful of lying individuals manage to subvert a core American value – and all this with what CAP itself estimated to be less than $5 million a year!

The (Hindu) Rama Temple in Lemont, Illinois, raises few issues.

The (Hindu) Rama Temple in Lemont, Illinois, raises few issues.

Another way of putting it: the United States hosts about as many Buddhists and Hindus combined as it does Muslims. Yet, when did Buddhists or Hindus try to change the existing order or engage in violence on behalf of their faiths? Who ever hears about them? Who fears them?But there is a more convincing reason why Americans fear Islam and Muslims. The news is filled almost daily and even several times daily with bulletins from one Islamist front or another. I hardly need rehearse the repertoire; just turn to the day’s headlines. ISIS and theCharlie Hebdo-like massacre most dominate the news, but Islamists are all the time winning unfavorable attention for themselves by making aggressive cultural demands (say, wearing a face-covering burqa in the courtroom), pushing the superiority of Islam (don’t dare say a negative word about Muhammad), or apologizing for some repulsive practice (such as honor killings or female genital mutilation).

Maybe it’s Islamists who are prompting powerful and spontaneous responses through their threatening behavior. Maybe we critics are not “intentionally spreading lies” but honestly interpreting Islamist aggression and supremacism. Maybe CAP and its ilk should blame the fear of Islam less on we critics and more on the Islamists themselves. (February 13, 2015)

Pretense, Denial, and Treason

Gates of Vienna, Feb. 8, 2015:

On February 5 Sean Hannity featured former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich as a guest during the second hour of his radio show. During the discussion about ISIS and Islamic terrorism, Mr. Gingrich advised Americans to read Diana West’s book American Betrayal as a way to better understand the way in which the political leadership of this country has been infiltrated and suborned by agents of the Muslim Brotherhood. In particular, he discussed the Saudi funding of the terror attacks on September 11, 2001, which was allegedly redacted from the 9/11 Report.

At one point Mr. Gingrich said:

“…and I would say second, read Diana West’s book American Betrayal, which is very chilling in telling us about a similar period in the 1940s and early 1950s in which we were confronted by a Communist threat, and a very large part of our elite tried to pretend that it did not exist …”

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for editing the audio recording to make this video:

Go to Gates of Vienna for the audio…I can’t embed it here.

Newt

 

***

Newt Gingrich CItes American Betrayal by Diana West, Jan. 29,2015:

I couldn’t have been more delighted to see that Newt Gingrich has cited American Betrayal in his latest column:

As Diana West writes in her remarkable book American Betrayal, we have “new totalitarians who look to Mecca instead of Moscow.”

Old totalitarians, of course, still look to Moscow — or to the Moscow of their Marxist memories, or, perhaps better, the “Moscow” of their totalitarian fantasties where the central state controls the lives of the citizenry, and the self-selected, self-elected few control the central state. Liberals!

Newt GIngrich is discussing the clear preference President Obama shows for tyranny (Islam) over liberty, and, by extension, how far “the modern left has strayed … from the classical liberal commitment to a free society.”

More and more, I doubt the ideological Left ever had such a commitment.

Newt sums up (links from the original):

As Diana West writes in her remarkable book American Betrayal, we have “new totalitarians who look to Mecca instead of Moscow.”

Maybe we should be grateful that First Lady Michelle Obama declined to wear a headscarf during her visit there [Saudi Arabia]. It was a tiny demonstration of freedom in a country where rape victims have been sentenced to 200 lashes for being alone in a car with a man who was not a relative.

The First Lady’s fashion choices aside, the modern left has strayed so far from the classical liberal commitment to a free society that they condemn irreverent cartoonists (victims of a terrorist massacre, no less) even while they praise a totalitarian regime as a powerful voice for tolerance, moderation and peace.

It’s simply extraordinary to have an administration that “questions the judgment” of Charlie Hebdo but calls Saudi tyrants “important partners in the fight against terrorism.” And to have a president who personally attends the funeral of an Islamist monarch but sends no senior officials to the Unity March in Paris or to the funeral of Margaret Thatcher (an authentic hero in the fight against totalitarianism).

We have an administration that offers too many apologies for Islamists and too weak a defense of freedom.

For at least thirteen years since 9/11, our elites in both parties have failed to take seriously the radical Islamist war against Western civilization. As I described in a speech in Iowa on Saturday, this is a danger we can no longer afford to ignore.

Clearly the current occupants of the White House have no intention of being honest about the threats we face. Congress can and should lead with hearings to present the facts, despite the administration’s apologies of and appeasement for those who would impose tyranny.

Exclusive – ‘Tyranny of Clichés’ Excerpt: The Truth About the Crusades

tyrannyBreitbart, by JONAH GOLDBERG, Feb. 6, 2015:

Ed. Note: This is the second part of a four-part series of exclusive excerpts from Jonah Goldberg’s new book, “THE TYRANNY OF CLICHÉS: HOW LIBERALS CHEAT IN THE WAR OF IDEAS,” with an introduction from the author.

The word “crusader” has been completely captured by the forces political correctness. Whatever their sins, the Crusaders weren’t conquerors or the first invading shock troops of Western imperialism. They were warriors sent to reclaim lands taken by Islamic invaders. The great irony is that both Western progressives and Islamic fundamentalists have unwittingly bought into the same propaganda. — J.G.

—–

The Crusades

The great irony is that the zealot-reformers who want to return to a “pure” Islam have been irredeemably corrupted by Western ideas. Osama bin Laden had the idea that he was fighting the “new crusaders.” When George W. Bush once, inadvertently, used the word “crusade,” jihadists and liberal intellectuals alike erupted with rage. It was either a damning slip of the tongue whereby Bush accidentally admitted his real crusader agenda, or it was a sign of his stunning ignorance about the Crusades. Doesn’t he know what a sensitive issue the Crusades are? Doesn’t he know that the Crusades belong alongside the slaughter of the Indians, slavery, and disco in the long line of Western sins?

After all, it’s been in the papers for a while. In 1999, Muslim leaders demanded that Pope John Paul II apologize for the Crusades. “He has asked forgiveness from the Jews [for the Church’s passivity in the face of the Holocaust], so he should ask forgiveness from the Muslims,” Sheikh Ikrima Sabri, the grand mufti of Jerusalem, told the New York Times.3Across the country sports teams have been dropping their crusader mas­cots because they’re offensive to . . . someone. Wheaton College changed their seventy-year-old team name from the Crusaders to the Thunder (no word from Thor worshippers yet as to whether they are off ended). Even Campus Crusade for Christ opted to change its name to Cru partly be­cause the word crusade has become too radioactive. “It’s become a fl ash word for a lot of people. It harkens back to other periods of time and has a negative connotation for lots of people across the world, especially in the Middle East,” Steve Sellers, the organization’s vice president told Christianity Today. “In the ’50s, crusade was the evangelistic term in the United States. Over time, different words take on different meanings to diff erent groups.”4

I’ll say. Until fairly recently, historically speaking, Muslims used to brag about being the winners of the Crusades, not the victims of it. That is if they talked about them at all. “The Crusades could more accurately be described as a limited, belated and, in the last analysis, ineff ectual re­sponse to the jihad–a failed attempt to recover by a Christian holy war what had been lost to a Muslim holy war,” writes Bernard Lewis, the greatest living historian of Islam in the English language (and perhaps any language).5 Historian Thomas Madden puts it more directly, “Now put this down in your notebook, because it will be on the test: The cru­sades were in every way a defensive war. They were the West’s belated response to the Muslim conquest of fully two-thirds of the Christian world.”6

At first the larger Muslim world didn’t much care about the Christian reclamation of Jerusalem and the Holy Land. The jihad to repel the cru­saders didn’t start in earnest until the European forces pressed on into the Muslim Holy Lands approaching Mecca and Medina. Even then the Muslim world considered the fight to reclaim Jerusalem a sideshow. The real fight was in the East, where caliphs were rolling up victory after victory in the old Byzantine Empire. In 1291, the Muslims expelled the last of the crusaders, and all remaining Christians and Jews in the Islamic world lived as second-class citizens (though often better than Muslims or Jews might have in many parts of Christendom). By the sixteenth century, Islam’s empire covered all of North Africa, Asia Minor, Arabia, and much of southern Europe. Had Islamic forces not been turned back outside the Gates of Vienna, Christianity itself may not have survived. (The battle ended in victory for the Christians on September 12, but it was the day before, marking the apex of Muslim rule, that would stick in the minds of many Muslims for the next 318 years.)

By that point the Crusades period was several centuries in the rear­view mirror, and most Muslims considered them one of their many, if minor, victories.

“In the vast Arabic historiography of the Crusades period,” writes Lewis, “there is frequent reference to these invaders, who are always called ‘Franks’ or ‘infidels.’ The words ‘Crusade’ and ‘crusader’ simply do not occur.” Lewis notes that the word only starts to gain wide currency in the Middle East in the nineteenth century, when Western notions of imperialism seep into the Muslim mind. And that’s the irony. In the nineteenth century Europeans (and Americans) invoked the Crusades to justify their imperialist agenda. When imperialism fell into disrepute in the twentieth century, the Crusades fell with it. But the idea that twelfth-century Muslims–or even eighteenth-century Muslims–saw the Crusades as European imperial aggression is nonsense.7 “In other words,” Madden explains (writing back when bin Laden wasn’t fi sh food), “Muslims in the Middle East–including bin Laden and his creatures– know as little about the real crusades as Americans do. Both view them in the context of the modern, rather than the medieval world. The truth is that the crusades had nothing to do with colonialism or unprovoked aggression. They were a desperate and largely unsuccessful attempt to defend against a powerful enemy.”8

Lost in much of this discussion is that Christianity is not a Western faith imposed on the Middle East by the West. It was a faith born in the East that spread to the West. The Holy Lands were Christian for centu­ries before Muhammed was even born. The Crusades were launched not as a war of conquest but as a war to save Christians from Muslim perse­cution and conquest. Atrocities in the name of Christ were undoubtedly committed, as were atrocities in the name of Islam. One need not condone all of that. Indeed, one can single out Christianity for its hypocrisy, since the crusaders at times violated their ideals of love, forgiveness, and char­ity, while Islam was under no such restraint.

Regardless, to this day the Crusades myth saturates policy and aca­demic debates as if everyone knows what they were really about. Leading textbooks continue to describe the Crusades as the dawn of Western co­lonialism and imperialism rather than an effort to beat back Eastern colonialism and imperialism. According to the authors of Western Civili­zations: Their History and Their Culture: “the Crusades opened the fi rst chapter in the history of western colonialism. . . . Western colonialism in the Holy Land was only the beginning of a long history of colonialism that has continued until modern times.”9 The often in error but never in doubt New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote in 2003 that Bush’s foreign policy had backfired because the “neocons . . . have created new terrorist-breeding swamps full of angry young Arabs who see America the same way Muslims saw Westerners in the Crusades: as Christian expansionist imperialists motivated by piety and greed.”10

It’s a bizarre turn. Robert Frost defined a liberal as someone too broad-minded to take his own side in a fight. In their desperation not to take their own side, today’s anti-imperialists take at face value the fl awed arguments of nineteenth- and twentieth-century imperialists just so they can condemn their own country for its imperialism. And, in their conde­scension, liberal commentators assume the West was always in the position of the aggressor, the hegemon, the empire builder, and that we have noth­ing to offer to the rest of the world but apologies. They lecture the rest of us about the burning need to understand and empathize with the frustra­tion of the Arab street, and for Westerners to see things through their eyes so we don’t breed even more terrorists (see Chapter 23, Understanding).

Meanwhile, the Muslim fanatics we are hectored to understand are recognizable to liberals precisely because they’ve been colonized by the same Western clichés.

Excerpted from THE TYRANNY OF CLICHÉS: HOW LIBERALS CHEAT IN THE WAR OF IDEAS by Jonah Goldberg by arrangement with Sentinel, a member of Penguin Group (USA), Inc., Copyright © Jonah Goldberg, 2012.

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough Unleashes on Obama’s Prayer Speech: ‘Stupid, Left-Wing Moral Equivalency!’

The Blaze, by Mike Opelka, Feb. 6, 2015:

Friday morning, during a discussion of President Obama’s comments from the annual prayer breakfast in Washington D.C., MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough could not contain himself.

After playing Obama’s statement about Christians who committed violent acts during the Crusades and the Inquisition, the “Morning Joe” host blurted out, “That’s baffling to me.”

“The president having to go back, 700, 800, 900 years?” said Scarborough.  Continuing, “You see this when you have people that somehow want to paint a broad brush…’Yes, uh, radical Islam’s bad, but look what Christianity does.’”

Scarborough’s co-host, Mika Brzezinski attempted to lessen the tension by saying, “I think the timing’s bad.”

Brzezinski comment only seemed to spur the already seething Scarborough to a more aggravated level.

“Why does he feel the need to go back 800 years?”  This stupid, left-wing moral equivalency. Sometimes you can just say, ‘hey, hey, ya know what, there’s some really really bad Muslim extremists.’”

Joe’s unfiltered rant continued for another ninety seconds. Brzezinski again attempted to rein him in, saying, “OK, OK…”

To which Scarborough responded, “No, it’s not OK.” Adding, “It almost makes you ask the question, ‘Where did he go to church?’”

Watch the entire segment:

 

A bit later in the program, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser joined the show and also weighed in on the controversy,

Obama’s Criticizing of Christianity Examined by Bishop E.W. Jackson

Published on Feb 6, 2015 by Steve Laboe

“Instead of closing Guantanamo Bay, frankly sir you should try closing your mouth”
says Bishop E.W. Jackson in response to Barack Obama’s lame comments stated at the National Prayer Breakfast where he criticizes Christians instead of calling out Radical Islam

***

Also see:

Telling the Truth About Muhammad to the Bleeding Hearts


main-qimg-d0a7e7c524eb284f87b13ecd2ab69821By Eric Allen Bell:

Muslims are not what is wrong with Islam. This is what has been nearly impossible to communicate to most Liberals today.  The problem with Islam is the Prophet Muhammad.  According to Islamic scripture, in other words, what mainstream Muslims are taught to believe, the Prophet Muhammad was a slave owner, a rapist, committed mass murder, hated Jews with a passion, wanted homosexuals punished, killed his critics, stripped women of all rights and had sex with a nine year old girl, whom he married when she was six, named Aisha.

If the Prophet Muhammad was a Republican Senator from Kentucky, Liberals would oppose him vehemently. But as I have stated before, within the Liberal mind there seems to be a perceptive disability. When I say “Islam” they hear “Muslim”. Such is the nature of the Collectivist mind.

But Muslims are a symptom and not the source of the problem.  The problem is the Prophet Muhammad. If he were alive today, Amnesty International would certainly have a problem with his followers obeying his laws, which demand that certain people have their limbs amputated and their nose cut off. The Democrats would have him in their crosshairs as being at the forefront on the “war against women”. The New York Times would certainly seek to expose him and any whistle blower in his ranks would be celebrated as the next Julian Assange.

The Huffington Post and Daily Kos would be collecting signatures, to demand that our government do something to stop him. Media Matters would be reprinting all of the outrageous things he said, such as “I have become victorious through terror”.

Michael Moore would probably follow the Prophet around, trying to trick him into a “gotcha” question, then win an Academy Award for his latest documentary, “Muhammad and Me”. The poster would feature Michael Moore gloating in his baseball cap, next to a cut out of the Prophet – and then of course he would be executed, because of the piction of the Prophet.

Gloria Allred would be representing all of the women whom the Prophet Muhammad took as sex slaves. Every major women’s rights group in America would send out mailers, asking for donations to stop the Prophet Muhammad from instructing his followers to rape his enemies, as an act of war.  Rachel Maddow would have a field day, every day, with this story – and rightfully so. Organizations for the rights of women would have an issue with the Prophet Muhammad, were he alive today.

CNN’s Anderson Cooper would profile the Prophet Muhammad in his “Keeping Them Honest” segment of his highly rated show, because of all the contradictions in Muhammad’s best seller, the Holy Quran (look up “Abrogation”).  Cat Stevens would be held in Guantanamo Bay for aiding an enemy of the United States, since he is a follower of the Prophet and Muhammad says that no government is legitimate, unless it follows the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. And he would be likely be sharing a bunk with Representative Keith Ellison.

The ADL would have an issue with the Prophet Muhammad stating that Jews are all apes and pigs (see Suras 2:65, 5:60, and 7:166), rather than trying to protect the rights of Islam’s female followers to wear black sheets over their bodies, as the Prophet’s laws command. If someone were alive today, calling Jews apes and pigs, while having 1.6 billion followers, the ADL would have something to say about it.

The Daily Show would have more fun mocking the Prophet than taking pot shots at Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck.  Bill Maher and Sean Hannity would ironically be sharing a Nobel Peace Prize for their brave and pioneering work, in exposing the war crimes of the Prophet Muhammad.  No one would be drawing parallels between the persecuted yet devout followers of Muhammad and the Holocaust, if the Prophet Muhammad were conducting his mass genocide of infidels today (see Quran 9:5).

Gay rights groups would be a little concerned about the Mormon Church, but totally freaked out about anyone who follows the laws of the Prophet, known as the Sharia, because Sharia Law calls for homosexuals to be severely punished.  Every cult awareness website and organization out there would put out an alert, since the penalty for leaving the Prophet’s religion is death.

After the Prophet Muhammad beheaded an entire tribe of Jews, possibly no one would have a problem with waterboarding anyone who knew where to find him.  The Prophet Muhammad had several wives, but the one named Safiyya became his wife after he tortured and killed her father, her brothers, the men in her tribe, told his fighters to take the women of that tribe as sex slaves and then raped Safia that night. Anyone who had a problem with that, which would be anyone in their right mind, would not be called a “bigot”.

Given that the Prophet Muhammad advocated slavery and owned slaves, it would be unlikely that any African Americans would follow him.  Louis Farrakhan’s speeches would end up on a blooper reel, right next to Malcom X and of course the champion of human rights, Ben Affleck.

The young multibillionaire owner of the world’s largest social network would not be able to quietly obey the blasphemy laws of the Prophet Muhammad, were he alive today.  But the Prophet is said to have been told about his impending death by the Angel Gabriel. He was said to have been given a choice between being a great king on Earth and going to meet Allah. Apparently he chose not to remain immortal. However, if we compare the body counts of Pol Pot, Hitler and Chairman Mao against the 270 million people killed in the name of the Prophet Muhammad, I guess you can say he has become immortal after all.

Anyway, that young multibillionaire is named Mark Zuckerberg and his social network is called Facebook. At the time this article was written, there are an estimated 1.2 billion Facebook members and the average time a member spends on Facebook is 55 minutes a day. So, whatever policy Facebook decides to adopt is kind of a big deal – in some ways it has more of an impact than what the United Nations decides.

Currently the United Nations has approximately 57 nations which make up what is called the OIC, or the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.  The OIC is trying to make it an international law that criticizing the Prophet Muhammad become illegal. Vice President of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, here in the United States, Syrian immigrantAbdou Kattih, said he supports such a law.  But the OIC are lightweights compared to the power of Facebook. There is an argument to be made that the world went inside the internet and became the world.

Today as I write this, there have been about 25,000 acts of terrorism committed, just since 9/11 alone, in the name of the Prophet Muhammad.  That is several per day – approximately 2 million people actually.  But you can’t say that on Facebook. A new Facebook educational page went up this morning, called “Exposing the Prophet Muhammad” and was taken down, hours later, as it violates Facebook’s policy concerning anything that offends the followers of the Prophet Muhammad.

What did that Facebook page post that was so offensive?  It posted a video that referenced all of the Islamic scripture that tells the story of how Muhammad took Aisha as his wife when she was six years old and consummated their marriage when she was nine.  Oh, and it referenced the Islamic law that states that anyone drawing a picture of the Prophet be killed.

What does this mean for you and me?  It means that in the Information Age, the most powerful force on the internet has agreed to follow the blasphemy laws of the Prophet Muhammad.  Islamic Law is also called “Sharia”.  Do you still think the Sharia scare is some crazy Right Wing conspiracy theory?

Eric Allen Bell is a writer, filmmaker and Media Adviser living in Los Angeles, California.  While making a documentary about the construction of a 53,000 square foot mega mosque in Murfreesboro, TN he attempted to expose “Islamophobia”. Once he stated that Islam was the biggest threat to human rights in the world today, he was banned from the writing for Daily Kos and MichaelMoore.com, after LoonWatch.com created a petition to silence him. His article, “The High Price of Telling the Truth About Islam” has been widely circulated and has caused several Liberals to rethink how they look at the Religion of Peace.