NBC News Terrorism Expert: ‘We Have to Put Ourselves in the Eyes’ of Terrorists to ‘Understand’ Them

NewsBusters, By Curtis Houck, January 15, 2015:

On Wednesday’s edition of The Cycle on MSNBC, NBC News terrorism expert Evan Kohlmann was at it again, telling the hosts that we, as Americans, must “put ourselves in the eyes” of Islamic terrorists considering “there wouldn’t be violent attacks but there would be an uproar” and “anger” among Christians if Muslims burned crosses or trampled “Christian artifacts.” After giving his thoughts on freedom of speech and the broader freedom of expression, Kohlmann launched into explaining how we must come to understand those who commit terrorist acts in the name of Islam: “We have to put ourselves in the eyes of our adversaries sometimes and we have to understand that reacting violently, burning Korans, getting very worked up about this, it doesn’t necessarily help our agenda.”

 

Seeking to further impose his hubris upon viewers, he added: “If our agenda is to promote peace and reconciliation and understanding, you know, saying bad things about Islam is not going to solve that problem.” Kohlmann’s attempt at creating another moral equivalency between Western civilization and ruthless Islamic terrorists came for the second time in a week, as he blasted the French National Front party on Friday, declaring that they are “as much of the problem as jihadists are” for France going forward. Back in August, he blamed the news that the Islamic terror group ISIS was waterboarding its captives on “the behavior that they’ve seen meted out to prisoners at Abu Ghraib, at Guantanamo to their own captives.” (h/t: Right Scoop)

Daniel Greenfield: “Moderate Islam is our new religion”

Daniel Greenfield’s famous, classical chronicle on how Leftist politicians invented “moderate Islam” to make voters accept the import of Muslim voters for the Left. Statistics backing Greenfield’s point here.

Via Dispatch International:

I have been searching for moderate Islam since September 11 and just like a lost sock in the dryer, it was in the last place I expected it to be.

There is no moderate Islam in the mosques or in Mecca. You won’t find it in the Koran or the Hadiths. If you want to find moderate Islam, browse the newspaper editorials after a terrorist attack or take a course on Islamic religion taught by a Unitarian Sociologist wearing fake native jewelry.

You can’t find a moderate Islam in Saudi Arabia or Iran, but you can find it in countless network news specials, articles and books about the two homelands of their respective brands of Islam.

You won’t find the fabled land of moderate Muslims in the east. You won’t even find it in the west. Like all myths it exists in the imagination of those who tell the stories. You won’t find a moderate Islam in the Koran, but you will find it in countless Western books about Islam.

Moderate Islam isn’t what most Muslims believe. It’s what most liberals believe that Muslims believe.

The new multicultural theology of the West is moderate Islam. Moderate Islam is the perfect religion for a secular age since it isn’t a religion at all.
Take Islam, turn it inside out and you have moderate Islam. Take a Muslim who hasn’t been inside a mosque in a year, who can name the entire starting lineup of the San Diego Chargers, but can’t name Mohammed’s companions and you have a moderate Muslim. Or more accurately, a secular Muslim.

An early generation of Western leaders sought the affirmation of their national destinies in the divine. This generation of Western leaders seeks the affirmation of their secular liberalism in a moderate Islam.

Even if they have to make it up.

Without a moderate Islam the Socialist projects of Europe which depend on heavy immigration collapse. America’s War on Terror becomes the endless inescapable slog that the rise of ISIS has once again revealed it to be. Multiculturalism, post-nationalism and Third World Guiltism all implode.

Without moderate Muslims, nationalism returns, borders close and the right wins. That is what they fear.

If there is no moderate Islam, no moderate Mohammed, no moderate Allah, then the Socialist Kingdom of Heaven on Earth has to go in the rubbish bin. The grand coalitions in which LGBT activists and Islamists scream at Jews over Gaza aren’t the future; they’re the Weimar Republic on wheels.

Flash back to Obama in his tan suit wearily saying that he has no strategy for ISIS. The original plan was to capture Osama alive, give him a civilian trial, cut a deal with the moderate Taliban and announce the end of the War on Terror before the midterm elections.

So much for that.

Moderate Islam is a difficult faith. To believe in it you have to disregard over a thousand years of recorded history, theology, demographics and just about everything that predates 1965. You have to ignore the bearded men chopping off heads because they don’t represent the majority of Muslims.

slander-prophet-islam-mohammad-barack-hussein-obama-muslimNeither does Mohammed, who did his own fair share of headchopping. The real Islam is a topic that non-Muslims of no faith who hold sacred only the platitudes of a post-everything society are eager to lecture on without knowing anything about it.

Their Islam is not the religion of Mohammed, the Koran, the Hadiths, the Caliphs or its practitioners in such places as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq or Indonesia. Their Islam is a religion that does not exist, but that they fervently believe must exist because without it their way of life is as doomed as the dodo.

They aren’t Muslims. They have no faith in Allah or the Koran. Instead they have faith in the goodness of an Islam that exists without resort to scriptures, theology or deity. This may seem strange to actual believers, but after all their own poor tattered scraps of Christianity or Judaism don’t bother paying too much attention to deities or scriptures except when it comes to cherry-picking quotes about tolerance.

Is it any wonder that they treat Islam the same way?

The true moderate Muslims are secular liberals of loosely Christian and Jewish persuasion who have invented and believe in a moderate Islam that doesn’t exist outside of their own heads. This secular Islam, which values all life, is dedicated to social justice and universal tolerance, is a counterpart of their own bastardized religions. And they are too afraid to wake up and realize that it doesn’t exist.

When American and European leaders insist that Islam has nothing to do with the latest Islamic atrocity, they are not referencing a religion practiced by Muslims, but an imaginary religion that they imagine Muslims must practice because the alternative is the end of everything that they believe in.

Their moderate Islam is light on the details, beyond standing for social justice, fighting Global Warming and supporting gay rights, because it is really multiculturalism wearing a fake beard. When a Western leader claims that the latest batch of Islamic terrorists don’t speak for Islam, he isn’t defending Muslims, he’s defending multiculturalism. He assumes that Muslims believe in multiculturalism because he does.

Moderate Islam is just multiculturalism misspelled. Its existence is a firm article of faith for those who believe in multiculturalism.

Dissuading a believer in moderate Muslims from his invented faith by citing the long trail of corpses or the hateful Hadiths that call for mass murder is futile because these are not the roots of his religion. He doesn’t know what a Hadith is nor does he care. As a social justice man in good standing, he attributes the violent track record of Islam to European colonialism and oppression.

10409654_540202849458314_5604537804951454046_nHe has never read the Koran. He has read a thousand articles about how Muslims are oppressed at the airport, in Gaza, in Burma and in Bugs Bunny cartoons. They are his new noble savages and he will not hear a word against them. Having colonized their identities in his imagination (despite the marked up copy of Edward Said’s Orientalism that he keeps by his bedside) he treats them as reflections of his ego.

When you say that moderate Muslims don’t exist, you are calling him a bad person. When you challenge Islam, you are attacking multiculturalism and he will call you a racist, regardless of the fact that Islam is as much of a race as Communism, Nazism or the Mickey Mouse Fan Club were races.

The moderate Muslim is an invention of the liberal academic, the secular theologian, the vapid politician and his shrill idiot cousin, the political activist. Like the money in the budgets that underpin their plans and the scientific evidence for Global Warming, he does not exist.

And it is not necessary that he should exist. It is only necessary that we have faith in his existence.

The degraded lefty descendants of Christians and Jews wait for a moderate Muslim messiah who will reconcile the impossibilities of their multicultural society by healing the conflicts between Islam and the West. Until they find him, they have to believe, not in a divinity, but in the moderate Muslim.

Republicans Must Investigate Where the Media Fear to Tread

timthumb (9)AIM, Cliff Kincaid, January 5, 2015:

On Saturday and Sunday, The Washington Post’s liberal reporters warned that Republican victories in November on the national and state levels have given the GOP the opportunity this year to become “aggressive” and pass their own legislation and initiatives. “GOP will flex muscles in the states” ran on Saturday, with an article, “Eager GOP sets its goals,” about their national effort running on Sunday. But there is something else the Republicans could do to really strike fear into the hearts of liberals—restore internal security panels that once examined “un-American” activities.

The liberal media are terrified that Republicans will actually do something with their power. On foreign policy, the Post feared that Republicans could put in jeopardy President Obama’s “outreach to Cuba and Iran.” The term “outreach” implies that Obama is pursuing a wise and correct approach to our enemies in the communist and Muslim worlds. This is how a major liberal paper attempts to intimidate Republicans into letting Obama and the far-left have their way. Let’s hope the Republicans are smart enough to see through this propaganda disguised as “news.”

The liberals are worried indeed, because, as the Post notes, there are 246 Republicans in the House, the party’s largest majority since just after World War II, and the GOP now controls 31 governorships and 68 of 98 partisan legislative chambers.

On the national level, there is no formal process underway to re-establish a House or Senate internal security panel, but the need is clearly there. The proceedings of old House and Senate panels on un-American Activities or internal security have proven to be absolutely essential in understanding the rise of Barack Obama and the modern “progressive” movement. Hearings into communist activities in America were cited by such books such as Jerome Corsi’s The Obama Nation and David Freddoso’s The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media’s Favorite Candidate. That’s because Obama’s Marxist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, and his lawyer, Harriet Bouslog, had figured so prominently in the investigations of Soviet-sponsored networks on American soil. Bouslog defended Davis against charges that not only was he a member of the Communist Party, but a suspected Soviet espionage agent.

The Republicans have controlled the House and conducted some worthwhile investigations. The Post refers to these as probes into “alleged” wrongdoing at the IRS, the Department of Justice, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Such hearings were necessary because of the media’s failure to aggressively investigate the Obama administration. Congress has failed, however, to investigate such topics as Muslim Brotherhood penetration of the executive branch. That’s why panels looking at internal security are so desperately needed.

The failure of the House to investigate the Muslim Brotherhood lies at the feet of House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), who denounced his fellow Republicans when they sought a probe of Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s controversial foreign Muslim connections. Boehner was also slow to embrace a special committee to investigate Benghazi.

Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy notes that the Muslim Brotherhood’s influence is so pervasive within the U.S. government and civil institutions “that a serious, sustained and rigorous investigation of the phenomenon” is in order. He adds, “To that end, we need to establish a new and improved counterpart to the Cold War-era’s HUAC [House committee on Un-American Activities] and charge it with examining and rooting out anti-American—and anti-constitutional—activities that constitute an even more insidious peril than those pursued by communist Fifth Columnists fifty years ago.”

The House Homeland Security Committee, under the chairmanship of Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) has proven to be a major disappointment. He even refused to investigate the expansion of the Muslim Brotherhood channel, Al Jazeera, into the U.S. through the purchase of Al Gore’s Current TV.

The Senate once had a Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism that held hearings in 1982 on such topics as “The role of Cuba in international terrorism and subversion.” Such a subcommittee is badly needed today, as the Obama administration wants to drop Cuba from the official list of state sponsors of terrorism. Cuban dictator Raul Castro said of Obama’s announcement: “His decision to review the unjustifiable inclusion of Cuba on the list of state sponsors of international terrorism is encouraging.” It is time for Congress to once again document how Cuba sponsored such groups as the Weather Underground and the Puerto Rican FALN, and their bombing campaigns on American soil. The role of the Weather Underground in facilitating the prison escape of cop-killer Joanne Chesimard and her arrival in Cuba, where she remains, should be a prime topic of inquiry. She is living in Cuba with such fugitives as William Morales, the notorious FALN bomb-maker who also escaped from prison and fled.

In the same speech, Castro referred to the release from U.S. prison of the “Cuban Five” spies, saying, “I must reiterate our profound, sincere gratitude to all the solidarity movements and committees which struggled to obtain their freedom, and innumerable governments, parliaments, organizations, institutions and figures who made a valuable contribution.”

These “solidarity movements and committees” have been active on American soil for many years. I covered one of their conferences last year at a Baptist church just a few blocks from the White House. It was orchestrated by the Cuban Interests Section in Washington, D.C. and the Workers World Party, a Marxist-Leninist group. It is time for hearings into these activities and their role in the change in Obama’s Cuba policy. If Cuba is given a full-fledged embassy in Washington, D.C., we can anticipate more spying and subversion on American soil. Is that in America’s national interest?

The Post notes that, in the Senate, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), plans a “rigorous hearing process” on Obama’s recognition of the communist regime in Cuba. But the hearings will prove to be inadequate unless the pro-Castro network in the U.S. is identified and examined—and we find out what the FBI knows about these “solidarity movements and committees.”

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) can do some good work as the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere. But a subcommittee on internal security could be revived and do a lot of specialized work into the activities of the pro-Castro lobby.

In addition to re-establishing a congressional panel on internal security, Republican-controlled states can work in the same area. Some of the best hearings into internal subversion were conducted years ago by the state legislature in California through the California Un-American Activities Committee. The Golden state is no longer in the Republican camp, but a number of states now under Republican control could decide to form legislative committees or panels and open hearings in this area.

The creation of these committees would lead to cries of “McCarthyism.” Papers like the Post would say that Republicans are being too “aggressive” and “partisan.” But the conservative base is clearly demanding action to stem the tide of Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of America. They know they can’t count on the major media to investigate the Obama administration. Another opportunity like this may never happen again.

Also see:

Obama’s Anti-Cop Jihad

obama-glareBy: William Michael
misterchambers

The Protests were Organized for one Specific Purpose – Dead Cops

In December 2012, a respected Egyptian news magazine named six Obama administration officials who were in fact agents of the international terrorist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood. They claimed that these individuals had helped change the White House “from a position hostile to Islamic groups and organizations in the world to the largest and most important supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

One of these alleged agents was Imam Mohamed Magid, a Koranic scholar from Sudan. In the Obama administration, Magid was appointed to the Department of Homeland Security’s Countering Violence and Extremism working group in 2011. He is on the FBI’s Sikh, Muslim, and Arab advisory board (yes, we have one of those). He has trained and advised personnel affiliated with the FBI and other federal agencies.

Under Obama’s dictates since he entered the Oval Office, the United States government decided to publicly announce a softer approach to countering Islamic terrorism and the ideology behind jihad (i.e., war in the name of Islam). Imam Mohamed Magid has been a centerpiece in Obama’s show of tolerance (of violence) and diversity (of means of death), so much so that he and his organization have been “cited … as the primary means of outreach to the American Muslim community.”

It’s now known that Magid has a remarkable connection to the murderer of two NYPD officers this December.

***

Unlike his approach toward American Muslims, who apparently (at least based on policy since 2009) need the White House to reassure them that they are not “violent extremists,” Barack Hussein Obama’s attitude toward police officers has been hostile from the beginning. Multiple instances mar the six year old administration’s relationship with law enforcement.

The anti-police stance of the administration has been toxically mixed with anti-gun propaganda, and the blatant fanning of racial tensions that have resulted in violence, murder, and even city-wide chaos.

The first example came in July 2009, when Harvard Professor Henry Louis ‘Skip’ Gates was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct by the Cambridge Police department. Sgt. James Crowley saw Gates trying to break into a home, and, not realizing it was actually his own home, arrested Gates. The charges were later dropped by the police, but not before Obama said on national television that the police “acted stupidly,” and further insinuated that the arrest was racially motivated. To make everyone feel better, Obama later held a “beer summit” at the White House, hosting Gates and Crowley in what was presented as some great healing moment. (No word on whether pork or all beef hot dogs were served.)

In 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder, while noting that the number of officers killed in the line of duty jumped 13% that year, blamed the increase on illegal gun ownership. In 2013, Holder went on the record saying that he had to tell his son how to protect himself from the police, because, you guessed it, he’s black. Holder said this talk was family tradition.

For his part, Obama came out in support of the 2011 anti-cop and anarchist movement, Occupy Wall Street, who were not only occupying Wall Street, but terrorizing downtown Manhattan.

Then came the February 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida. Martin was shot by George Zimmerman, as he was being violently assaulted and threatened with death while on neighborhood patrol. In what has become a national tradition, Al Sharpton and Eric Holder descended to prey upon the citizens of a small community, calling for “justice.”

In fact, mob justice is what they were looking for.

The next stop for the Obama, Holder, and Sharpton anti-police racial mob circus was Ferguson, Missouri, following the death of Michael Brown by the gun of a police officer who he was attacking and threatening. The case is familiar and fresh enough in everyone’s minds not have to rehash in any detail. Once again, Obama and the administration issued thinly veiled attacks on the police and insinuated that the officers and the department were racially motivated haters.

The caustic and raw social tumult that ensued led to widespread looting, riots, arson (even by allegedly “peaceful” protestors), and even the murder of a friend one of the trial witnesses.

Obama’s, Holder’s, and Sharpton’s carnival of hate then went prime time, this time to the Big Apple. If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere. And, with a little help from the all-too-willing Mayor Bill DeBlasio, in the Staten Island death of Eric Garner, which was caused not by bullets but by a lung condition, the carnival got what they were looking for all along: the blood of police officers.

On December 20, 2014, five days before Christmas, Officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu were assassinated by Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley in their patrol car in Bedford-Stuyvesant in Brooklyn. After weeks of anti-police protests, which explicitly shouted for “dead cops,” Brinsley had bragged to pedestrians just prior to the shooting that he was going to satiate the protestors with their pound of flesh.

***

At this time, you may be asking what Mohamed Magid, the alleged Muslim Brotherhood agent, has to do with the assassination of two NYPD officers. This will be clear to you soon enough. But first it is necessary to understand that the supposedly grassroots protests, in Ferguson and in New York, were anything but organic.

Terresa Monroe-Hamilton at NoisyRoom.net has documented the nefarious players behind the protests, and has an incredible list of organizations involved in the protests. One of the most prominent organizing groups is ANSWER, which stands for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. ANSWER is often found alongside Occupy Wall Street. A little digging into ANSWER’s coalition partners and speakers reveal their roots; groups such as the Muslim Students Association, Free Palestinian Alliance, National Council of Arab Americans, the Nicaragua Network, and Korea Truth Commission (you got me ?).

Furthermore, ANSWER is described by DiscoverThe Networks as “a principal player in all anti-war and pro-Palestinian demonstrations… ANSWER was formed a few days after 9/11 as a ‘new anti-racism, anti-war, peace and justice’ group and led its first protest just weeks later against the impending US-led attack on Afghanistan.”

To be blunt about it, ANSWER is a pro-jihad front organization that was fully behind Hamas in this summer’s Gaza war. Hamas, it’s noted, is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood – the same Muslim Brotherhood that the Egyptian magazine claimed Mohamed Magid was a member of.

***

Isn’t it odd that a Muslim Brotherhood front group would lead protests in New York City over the accidental death of a black man in the course of an arrest? Last time I was there, Staten Island wasn’t a center of Israeli-Palestinian debate, and there are no public pictures of Eric Garner smoking hookah or riding camels in Giza. On the contrary, Garner was dealing single cigarettes, and tobacco is decisively haram (forbidden) according to Islamic sharia law.

Puzzling, perhaps, but the Facebook page of Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley Muhammad ties the story’s loose ends together. According to his own biography on Facebook, Brinsely-Muhammad “Worked at: Islamic Society of North America.” The Islamic Society of North America, aka ISNA, is headquartered in Plainfield, Indiana. Hmm.

Killer's Facebook page: Obama and Magid are caught red-handed

Who is the President of ISNA, where the cop killer said he worked? That would be Imam Mohamed Magid, Obama’s advisor to DHS and the National Security Council.

Obama himself addressed ISNA’s annual convention in 2013. You can read about one of ISNA’s greatest influences, Pakistani radical Abul A’la Maududi, here.

Here are a few other facts to consider when contemplating that the Obama and Holder-inspired cop killer was, according to himself, employed at the organization of one of Obama’s most trusted security advisors, the Islamic Society of North America.

  • ISNA President and Obama advisor Imam Mohamed Magid was a lecturer at Howard University, teaching courses on the Koran.
  • The Trayvon Martin case only caught on after it was plucked from relative obscurity from a student at Howard University. This student, Kevin Cunningham, began a petition on the website change.org. Said Cunningham, a lawyer, “that’s how I think about life, is to be a social engineer.”
  • Cop killer Brinsley-Muhammad, who additionally may have attended a Brooklyn mosque associated with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, martyred himself by suicide in a subway station before being apprehended by police. He’s no longer with us to answer any questions.
  • In light of Obama’s recent embrace of Communist Cuba, it is worth noting that one of Castro’s last acts as a revolutionary leader was to order the targeted killing of Cuba’s police officers. Why? Police keep law and order on the streets, and because they’re uniformed, they’re easy targets for revolutionaries who thrive off anarchy.

Obama’s six yearlong anti-cop jihad has serious consequences. In 2014, there was an increase of 56% in police killed by guns – 50 officers, compared to 32 in 2013. Since the assassinations in New York, many infractions are going unpunished, as police are reluctant to engage with the community, fearing targeting by assassins and mobs. This is a very tenuous and delicate situation.

It might be worth mentioning, to the next person you bump into who still has a functioning brain, that Obama’s trusted advisor, Imam Mohamed Magid, had the NYPD cop killer as an employee of his nationwide Islamic organization. This, according to his own Facebook bio.

The circumstantial evidence presented above points to a deliberate plan by the administration and the Muslim Brotherhood to stoke violence that led to cop killings. These are revolutionary tactics, creating conditions that lead to chaos, anarchy, and eventually the total dissolution of societal trust. After that occurs, people beg for order, in whatever form it offers itself.

Is 2015 the year of the American Spring? In the New Year, several detailed reports will be published that point to deliberate, witting, and eager cooperation between the Obama administration and the Muslim Brotherhood aimed at precisely this end.

Major media hide who’s behind NYC protests

<> on December 19, 2014 in New York City.WND, by AARON KLEIN, 12/24/2014:

Missing from most news coverage is that the anti-police protests rocking New York are being openly coordinated and led by professional radical leftist agitators, primarily Occupy Wall Street and a communist aligned anti-war, anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian extremist organization.

A WND review of major news coverage of the protests finds headlines such as these:

USA Today: “NYC protesters defy mayor’s call for moratorium.”

Bloomberg: “Protesters Defy NYC Mayor’s Call to Hold Off While Slain Cops Are Mourned.”

Reuters: “NY protesters reject plea for hiatus despite police slayings.”

New York Daily News: “Protests resume in New York to oppose police brutality despite Bill de Blasio’s plea to suspend demonstrations.”

The headlines and coverage largely leave the impression the demonstrations are spontaneous reactions to recent actions by law enforcement officials that some contend were motivated by racism. The protests have focused on the deaths of African-Americans Eric Garner and Michael Brown, both of whom were killed by police officers.

However, the protests, aimed at shutting down Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue shopping district ahead of Christmas, are being organized openly by radical leftist groups whose intent may not simply be the protest of alleged racism.

Some of the news articles entirely fail to mention the protests were organized by the Act Now To End War & Stop Racism Coalition, or ANSWER, together with Occupy Wall Street and at least 10 other so-called economic justice and pro-Palestinian groups.

Scores of article note the protests were coordinated by ANSWER but fail to give any context, such as ANSWER’s radical background and history, or mention of the other groups supporting the protest movement.

USA Today, for example, simply reports: “The action, organized by the Act Now to End War & Stop Racism Coalition, came hours before the city’s landmarks, including the Empire State Building, the Chrysler building, One World Trade Center, were to dim their lights at 9 p.m. for five minutes to honor officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos.”

No further details about ANSWER are provided.

Reuters similarly reported: “Answer Coalition, organizers of a march on 5th Avenue in midtown Manhattan, said a ‘peaceful protest against police violence’ would continue as planned.”

Founded in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, ANSWER is an umbrella group famous for its protests against Israel and against America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The group is known to be one of the most extreme among the progressive community in its positions on Israel and on U.S. military action. Its steering committee is made up of progressive groups, socialists and advocates from the Muslim, Arab, Palestinian, Filipino, Haitian and Latin American communities.

During the height of the second Palestinian Intifada, or terrorism war targeting Israel, ANSWER in April 2002 organized a demonstration in Washington, D.C., that the group claims was the biggest pro-Palestinian rally in U.S. history.

In August, ANSWER led another Washington, D.C., rally against what the group described as “the Israeli massacre against people in Gaza.” At the time, Israel was at war with the Hamas terrorist organization, which fired thousands of rockets from territory under its control in Gaza into Israeli cities.

ANSWER has expressed support for the Palestinian intifada. Discover The Networks notes the group released a statement expressing its “solidarity with the call issued [to hold]… activities timed to coincide with the third anniversary of the second Palestinian Intifada.” http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/answerprofilestand.html

ANSWER has supported so-called resistance against U.S. troops in Iraq. A May 2003 downloadable flyer on “Counter-revolution and Resistance in Iraq” states: “Having achieved their victory [the U.S. in Iraq], however, the occupiers now confront a people who have a long and proud history of resistance. The anti-war movement here and around the world must give its unconditional support to the Iraqi anti-colonial resistance.”

Some of ANSWER’s leaders are associated with the Stalinist Workers World Party.

Meanwhile, almost entirely unreported by the news media is that Occupy is a co-sponsor of the anti-police protests targeting Fifth Avenue and may be hijacking the demonstrations for its own goals.

On its website, Occupy Wall Street wrote: “Fifth Avenue is the world’s most expensive shopping street – a playground for the global 1%. **This 1% is precisely who the police serve and protect. They flood black, Latino and other oppressed communities like an occupying army so as to intimidate us into accepting things the way they are.”

On its Facebook page, Occupy Wall Street ranted about the protest: “The people will not be intimidated. We will not accept poverty wages, racist courts and a corrupt political system.”

Other sponsors of the Fifth Avenue protests include:

  • Crystal House
  • El Grito De Sunset Park
  • Existence is Resistance
  • New Yorkers Against Bratton
  • NYC Solidarity with Palestine

With additional research by Joshua Klein.

Also see:

BROOKLYN COP KILLING TIES TO ISLAM

BrinsleyCherson and Molschky, by RACHEL MOLSCHKY:

Two police officers were murdered in cold blood on Saturday, December 20. Ismaaiyl Brinsley, who’s middle name is reportedly “Abdullah,” was identified as the killer of NYPD officers Wenjin Liu and Raphael Ramos in Brooklyn before shooting himself. He had apparently shot his girlfriend in the stomach earlier in Baltimore before traveling to New York.

Investigators are said to believe the police murders were revenge killings for the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown. In fact, Brinsley said as much in his final Instagram post.

Additional clues to the motive are found in his Facebook page, where he included “Arabic” as one of his languages and more importantly, contained a page out of the Muslim holy book with the verse Qur’an 8:60, which includes the phrase, “Strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah.”

The New York Daily News reports that Brinsley was a member of the Black Guerrilla Family prison gang, which was started by Black Panther member George Jackson. The mainstream media take is that Brinsley was a gangbanger, with no mention of Islam whatsoever.

However, back in August, the former head of the New Black Panthers and President of the Black Lawyers for Justice said that his group, along with the New Black Panther Party and Nation of Islam were working together to control the situation in Ferguson.

Evidently connected to what’s taken place in Ferguson, the Quranic verses featured on the killer’s Facebook page provide more insight.

Additionally, this attack comes just two months after the hatchet attack on four New York City police officers by a Muslim convert.

The investigation continues. For now, there is more info here and at NBC News.

***

Government Sponsored Cop Killing?

 

Also see:

The anger is being fueled by a dangerous blend of political leaders trying to take advantage of, and even worsen, the racial discord, and a BGI structure more than willing to promote the hatred as a tool to advance their own influence and affluence.

Various leftist groups, Socialists / Communists etc., will add fuel to the grievance fire, as they too seek advantage from the fires.  You will also identify a strong Muslim and Islamist thread which weaves throughout the fabric of hate, and various gang groups like the recent “Gangster Disciples” and “Black Out Squad” members will act upon the rage they are pumped with.-  Sundance

the-anger-games

How Western Media Enable Islamic Terrorism

la-epa-egypt-unrest2-jpg-20130819-450x300Frontpage, by Raymond Ibrahim, December 19, 2014:

If the West is experiencing a rise in the sort of terror attacks that are endemic to the Islamic world—church attacks, sex-slavery and beheadings—it was only natural that the same mainstream media that habitually conceals such atrocities, especially against Christians and other minorities under Islam, would also conceal the reality of jihadi aspirations on Western soil.

As The Commentator reports:

[T]he level of the [media] grovelling after the tragic and deadly saga in Sydney Australia over the last 24 hours has been astounding.

At the time of writing, the lead story on the BBC website is of course about that very tragedy, in which an Islamist fanatic took a random group hostage in a cafe, ultimately killing two of them.

He did this in the name of Islam. But you wouldn’t get that impression if you started to read the BBC’s lead story, which astoundingly managed to avoid mentioning the words Islam, Islamic, Islamist, Muslim, or any derivations thereof for a full 16 paragraphs. The New York Times, which led by calling the terrorist, Man Haron Monis an “armed man”, waited until paragraph 11.

In the Guardian’s main story – whose lead paragraph simply referred to a “gunman” — you had to wait until paragraph 24.

If you’d have blinked, you’d have missed it.

….

In the wider media, reports about Muslim fears of a “backlash” have been all but ubiquitous.

If these are the lengths that Western mainstream media go to dissemble about the Islamic-inspired slaughter of Western peoples, it should now be clear why the ubiquitous Muslim persecution of those unfashionable Christian minorities is also practically unknown by those who follow Western mainstream media.

As with the Sydney attack, media headlines say it all. The 2011 New Year’s Eve Coptic church attack that left 28 dead appeared under vague headlines:“Clashes grow as Egyptians remain angry after attack,” was the New York Times’ headline; and “Christians clash with police in Egypt after attack on churchgoers kills 21” was the Washington Post’s—as if frustrated and harried Christians lashing out against their oppressors is the “big news,” not the unprovoked atrocity itself; as if their angry reaction “evens” everything up.

Similarly, the Los Angeles Times partially told the story of an Egyptian off-duty police officer who, after identifying Copts by their crosses on a train, opened fire on them, killing one, while screaming “Allahu Akbar”—but to exonerate the persecution, as caught by the report’s headline: “Eyewitness claims train attacker did not target Copts, state media say.”

A February 2012 NPR report titled “In Egypt, Christian-Muslim Tension is on the Rise,” while meant to familiarize readers with the situation of Egypt’s Christians, prompts more questions than answers them: “In Egypt, growing tensions between Muslims and Christians have led to sporadic violence [initiated by whom?]. Many Egyptians blame the interreligious strife on hooligans [who?] taking advantage of absent or weak security forces. Others believe it’s because of a deep-seated mistrust between Muslims and the minority Christian community [what are the sources of this “mistrust”?].”

The photo accompanying the story is of angry Christians holding a cross aloft—not Muslims destroying crosses, which is what prompted the former to this display of Christian solidarity.

Blurring the line between victim and oppressor—recall the fear of “anti-Muslim backlashes” whenever a Muslim terrorizes “infidels” in the West—also applies to the media’s reporting on Muslim persecution of Christians.

A February 2012 BBC report on a church attack in Nigeria that left three Christians dead, including a toddler, objectively states the bare bone facts in one sentence.  Then it jumps to apparently the really big news: that “the bombing sparked a riot by Christian youths, with reports that at least two Muslims were killed in the violence. The two men were dragged off their bikes after being stopped at a roadblock set up by the rioters, police said. A row of Muslim-owned shops was also burned…”

The report goes on and on, with an entire section about “very angry” Christians till one confuses victims with persecutors, forgetting what the Christians are “very angry” about in the first place: nonstop terror attacks on their churches and the slaughter of their women and children.

A New York Times report that appeared on December 25, 2011—the day after Boko Haram bombed several churches during Christmas Eve services, leaving some 40 dead—said that such church bombings threaten “to exploit the already frayed relations between Nigeria’s nearly evenly split populations of Christians and Muslims…”  Such an assertion suggests that both Christians and Muslims are equally motivated by religious hostility—even as one seeks in vain for Christian terror organizations that bomb mosques in Nigeria to screams of “Christ is Great!”

Indeed, Boko Haram has torched 185 churches—to say nothing of the countless Christians beheaded—in just the last few months alone.

Continuing to grasp for straws, the same NYT report suggests that the Nigerian government’s “heavy-handed” response to Boko Haram is responsible for its terror, and even manages to invoke another mainstream media favorite: the poverty-causes-terrorism myth.

Whether Muslim mayhem is taking place in the Islamic or Western worlds, the mainstream media shows remarkable consistency in employing an arsenal of semantic games, key phrases, convenient omissions, and moral relativism to portray such violence as a product of anything and everything—political and historical grievances, “Islamophobia,” individual insanity, poverty and ignorance, territorial disputes—not Islam.

As such, Western mainstream media keep Western majorities in the dark about the Islamic threat, here and abroad.  Thus the “MSM” protects and enables the Islamic agenda—irrespective of whether its distortions are a product of intent, political correctness, or sheer stupidity.

‘He Must Have Loved Ones, Too’

BN-GA343_botwt1_M_20141215134945WSJ, By JAMES TARANTO, Dec. 15, 2014:

“Two hostages and the gunman at the centre of a siege at a cafe in Sydney’s CBD [central business district] were shot dead when armed police stormed the building,” the Australian Broadcast Corp. reports. The victims were a 34-year-old man and a 38-year-old woman; the number of surviving hostages is “as yet unknown.” The siege—at the Lindt Chocolate Café on Martin Place, a pedestrian mall—went on for more than 18 hours and ended at 2:10 a.m. local time (10:10 a.m. EST).

The gunman has been identified as 50-year-old Man Haron Monis, né Manteghi Bourjerdi, an Iranian native who had received political asylum in Australia. ABC describes him as having been a “cleric”; Australia’s 9News adds that he was of the “radical Muslim” variety. Shortly after the Monday morning attack, a widely circulated image showed a black flag bearing the Islamic Shahada, or statement of faith, which translates from the Arabic as “There is no god but God, and Muhammad is the messenger of God.” (The Sydney Morning Herald notes that the banner was not, as some had thought, the similar one used by the Islamic State.)

Hours before the siege ended, the Morning Herald rushed out an editorial titled “Martin Place Siege Response Tests Our Humanity.” It’s a textbook example of what scholar Barbara Oakley calls pathological altruism.

Much of it is inoffensive, if obvious: “The balance between extra vigilance and our long fought for democratic rights needs to be adjusted after incidents such as this, but not amid the heightened emotions of a terrible crime.” But the editorialists also suspect their countrymen of bad motives: “The temptation will be to pursue vigilante justice. . . . The test of our humanity is to rise above the calls for exclusion and persecution.”

Exhortations like this are obnoxious not because one disagrees with them—who’s in favor of vigilante justice, exclusion and persecution?—but precisely because one doesn’t, and the high-handed lecture seems gratuitous. But this isn’t the worst part of the editorial.

“First and foremost,” it proclaims, “we have faced yet another test of our empathy. . . . Our thoughts are with the innocent victims. . . . Our thoughts are with their loved ones, too, for the hard times ahead.” Amen to that—but not to this:

Perhaps we face an even more difficult test of our empathy as well. How should we feel for the perpetrator so far witnessed and his family? While we do not know his story or his motivation, we know he was once someone just like those people whose lives he has now treated with such disdain. He must have loved ones, too. Forgiving him will be very difficult, and it will take time. Without forgiveness, though, we have to live with destructive hate.

“He must have loved ones, too.” Well, yes, in a manner of speaking. According to the 9News report, Monis “received attention from police in November last year when he allegedly organised the murder of ex-wife and mother-of-two Noleen Hayson Pal. Ms Pal had been stabbed and her body set alight in a Werrington apartment block, allegedly by Ms Droudis.” That would be Amirah Droudis, whom the story identifies as his “partner.”

When he attacked the Lindt Café, he was out on bail after having been charged earlier this year with dozens of counts of sexual assault. He allegedly committed those crimes, 9News reports, “while working as a spiritual healer in Wentworthville, where he claimed to be an expert in astrology, numerology, meditation and black magic.”

Empathy does not seem to have been Monis’s strong suit. “He has gained media attention in the past for a ‘hate mail’ campaign, protesting the presence of Australian troops in Afghanistan,” 9News reports. Monis and Droudis sent “hate-filled letters” to the families of fallen Australian soldiers. “We sat in our homes, reading these letters,” 9News quotes widow Bree Till as saying at the time. “This man accusing my husband of being a child killer.” Her husband, Brett Till, was killed by a roadside bomb in 2009.

“In November 2009 Monis appeared in court claiming to be a peace activist,” 9News recounts. Later he “chained himself to the courthouse in protest of charges laid against him. Monis escaped jail time but was sentenced to 300 hours of community service and placed on a two-year good behaviour bond in September 2013.”

Sydney’s Daily Telegraph reported in August 2013 that Monis had “pleaded guilty to several charges of using a postal or similar service in a menacing, harassing and offensive way from 2007 to 2009.” In America, he probably could not have been prosecuted for such letters unless they contained actual threats. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Snyder v. Phelps (2011) that members of the Westboro Baptist Church, a fringe antigay sect, were within their free-speech rights when they held a foul protest outside the funeral of Matthew Snyder, a Marine corporal who was killed in Iraq.

One wonders if the Morning Herald’s American equivalent, the New York Times , would respond to a similar attack with an editorial urging “empathy” for the attacker. We suspect not. In a 2010 editorial on the Phelps case, the Times sided with the appellants, but only on principle. It called the Westboro Baptists “odious” and their speech “deeply repugnant but protected by the First Amendment.”

Since Monis used a firearm, the Times editorialists would no doubt seize on the opportunity to call for more gun control—a “remedy” the Aussies have already more or less exhausted. We reckon that, for whatever it’s worth, Australia’s mainstream left is in some ways even farther gone than America’s.

***

This is the typical leftist suicidal delusion that “deep down we all share the same values” as exemplified by Hillary Clinton’s latest speech on “empathy for our enemies” -

Hillary Clinton under fire after saying America should ‘empathize’ and ‘show respect’ to its enemies (dailymail.co.uk)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali fights radical Islam’s real war on women

In early April of this year, Brandeis University, under pressure from student activists and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, reversed its decision to give an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a global advocate for women’s rights. (Graeme Jennings/Examiner)

In early April of this year, Brandeis University, under pressure from student activists and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, reversed its decision to give an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a global advocate for women’s rights. (Graeme Jennings/Examiner)

By Ashe Schow:In early April of this year, Brandeis University, under pressure from student activists and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, reversed its decision to give an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a global advocate for women’s rights.

The decision was triggered by Hirsi Ali’s outspoken criticisms of Islam. The Somali-born activist has sounded alarms about the prevalence of extremism in Muslim countries and the misogyny that pervades even mainstream Islam.

During the Brandeis controversy, a CAIR spokesman called her “one of the worst of the worst of the Islam-haters in America.”

But Hirsi Ali’s warnings about Islamic extremism were quickly supported by world events, as just a week after Brandeis rescinded her honorary degree, the Islamist terrorist organization Boko Haram kidnapped more than 200 Nigerian schoolgirls in the first of many such abductions throughout the summer. A few months after the kidnappings began, news spread that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, another terrorist group, was selling Yazidi women into sexual slavery.

Related: Seven horrific examples of the real “war on women”

In recent years, as part of its efforts to leverage its historical electoral advantage with female voters, Democrats in the United States have promoted the idea that Republicans have been waging a “war on women.” At various times, the term has been associated with politicians who oppose late-term abortions; conservatives who defend the right of religious business owners to decline to provide contraception coverage to employees; and those who question the assumptions behind the statistic that women on average earn 77 cents for every dollar that men earn. During the 2014 midterm election season, Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz even claimed Tea Party Republicans were “grabbing [women] by the hair and pulling us back.”

Many on the Right have responded to this campaign either by mocking the idea that a war on women exists or by challenging many of the claims liberals make to perpetuate the narrative — pointing out, for example, that nearly all of the gender wage gap can be explained by the career choices women make. But the truth is that there is a war on women. It just isn’t occurring where American liberals claim it is, but rather in countries where women are forbidden to leave their homes without a male escort; seen as nothing more than chattel to be sold or abused; killed if they disobey their family’s wishes; mutilated to prevent them from having sex; and attacked with acid when they try to escape.

If American liberals were as concerned about women’s rights as they claim to be, they would have to shift their focus to other countries, but that would mean giving up a cherished narrative about conservatives here at home and acknowledging the threat radical Islam poses to women worldwide.

From Earlier: Ayaan Hirsi Ali slams modern American feminism’s “trivial BS”

The real horrors facing women in the world aren’t discussed in America, where those who try to point out what is going on in other countries or criticize the trivial nature of feminist obsessions are sidelined from the public debate.

But recent events have cast a glaring light on the brutal treatment of women by those claiming to act in the name of Islam, posing a challenge to the American Left by creating a conflict between the liberal desire for women’s equality and a multicultural reluctance to criticize other cultures. This philosophical tension gained national attention in October, when HBO’s liberal host Bill Maher noted the connection between Islamic ideology and violence, igniting a bitter argument with celebrity guest Ben Affleck.

Bundled up and fearful of shaking hands because of a cough, Hirsi Ali sat down with theWashington Examiner in November before being presented an award by the Independent Women’s Forum at its Women of Valor Dinner in Washington. She noted that where extremist ideology spreads, death and mayhem flourish.

“That consequence you see today in parts of Iraq and Syria,” Hirsi Ali said. “You see it in what Boko Haram is doing. You’ve seen it with the Taliban and al Qaeda. Everywhere where that idea is implemented it has a sudden pattern.”

Critics have attacked Hirsi Ali as Islamophobic and have argued that the portrait she paints is not representative of Islam at large. But her disagreements with Islam are rooted in her own East African upbringing.

Hirsi Ali was subjected to female genital mutilation at the age of 5 in her home country, Somalia, while her father, who opposed the traditional practice, was in prison. Her father escaped and moved the family to Saudi Arabia, then to Ethiopia and finally to Kenya when Hirsi Ali was 11 years old.

MORE: The real “war on women”: A victim speaks

She grew up as a Muslim woman, reading and accepting the Quran and its teachings. But when her family prepared to force her into an arranged marriage, she fled to the Netherlands. She eventually became a translator, speaking on behalf of Somali women who, like her, were seeking asylum.

Hirsi Ali discovered many women continued to suffer under Islam even in the secular, liberal Netherlands. She decided to enter politics to bring attention to the plight of Muslim women and girls, and in 2003 she was elected to the Dutch parliament.

Her charisma and criticism of Islam as a member of parliament gained the attention of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh. She wrote and narrated his film “Submission” about oppressed women in Holland, a film that outraged Dutch Muslims. On Nov. 2, 2004, an Islamist shot and stabbed van Gogh to death in Amsterdam as he rode his bicycle to work. A letter was pinned to van Gogh’s dead body with a knife, a letter that included a death threat against Hirsi Ali.

She moved to the United States in 2006 following her resignation from parliament amid accusations that she lied on her asylum application. But even in America, a security detail accompanies her wherever she goes.

Hirsi Ali has a reputation as a fearless critic of Islam, but she spoke quietly, almost timidly, even though her security detail was on alert just outside the secluded room where our interview took place.

Liberals, she said, protect Islamic extremists partly because the Left has no idea what really goes on in Muslim countries.

“They feel all religions are the same, and they’re not,” she observed. “I think if I adopt the position in good faith to multiculturalists and leftists, I would say [they take the position they do] because they see them [Muslims] as victims. They see them as victims of the white man and so they think: ‘Let’s protect them from the white man. Let’s protect them from capitalism.’… That is misguided at best and malicious at worst.”

One need only remember the tragic shooting at Fort Hood in 2009 to see such indifference to extremism in action. U.S. Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 people and wounded many more after becoming radicalized and corresponding with Yemeni-American terrorist leader Anwar al-Awlaki. Despite evidence that Hasan’s rampage was religiously motivated — he shouted “Allahu Akbar” (“Allah is great”) before opening fire — the Obama administration classified the attack as “workplace violence.”

The Left’s kid-glove treatment of even radical Islam exposes the logical flaw at the heart of multiculturalism. How does one tolerate the murderous intolerance of another culture? Is someone really a principled supporter of diversity, of women’s rights, of gay rights, if he refuses to resist or even acknowledge the mortal threat that is posed to those causes by a different culture?

Read more at Washington Examiner

Also see:

“Islamophobia” Joins the Rainbow Coalition

IslamophobiaThreat-300x181Jihad Watch, by Andrew Harrod, DECEMBER 4, 2014:

“Same-sex marriage bans” and “anti-sharia/anti-‘foreign law’” bills seek “to disenfranchise historically marginalized groups,” according to the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU)’s latest “Islamophobia” study, “Islamophobia: A Threat to All.” An audience of around fifty at a recent panel discussion on the study at Georgetown University’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU) witnessed an unconvincing attempt to integrate combatting “Islamophobia” into a broad leftist coalition.

The study’s “manufacturing bigotry” section analyzes correlations between “restrictive legislative agendas” in American state legislatures across six areas: “voter identification,” “immigration laws,” “right-to-work,” “laws restricting abortion rights and access,” and the aforementioned topics. Assessing the study, panel moderator Dalia Mogahed—ISPU research director and longstandinganti-Israel apologist for radical Islam—proclaimed that an “injustice to one is really a threat to all.” ISPU, she added, is however “focused on the Muslim-American community.”

Lead study researcher Saeed Khan dismissed American alarm over sharia law encroachments as prejudice. This lecturer in the department of classical and modern languages, literatures, and cultures at Wayne State University, Detroit is a regular speaker at the University of California, Berkeley’s annual Islamophobia conferences. In light of Obama’s successful elections, Khan strained credulity by predicting that the future replacement of the country’s historic white protestant majority with a “majority-minority country” would cause a “moral panic that America is irreversibly changing.” “Islamophobia within this broader demographic shift,” he argued, “is not really an isolated or unique phenomenon.” Accordingly, one of his PowerPoint presentations recommended that Muslims, “explore potential intersections with other issues,” however unrelated to Islam.

Georgetown labor historian Joseph McCartin—Jesuit employer and Catholic undergraduate education notwithstanding—portrayed anti-sharia efforts as “connected to other regressive policies,” such as opposition to abortion and homosexuality. According to McCartin, homosexuals, feminists, and others allegedly targeted by “regressive policies . . . have to stand together” with sharia’s defenders. Laughably, in his imagination, the “things that unite us are more important than the things that divide us.” Drag queens, burka-clad Muslims, and union workers of the world unite!

In leftist jargon, McCartin described the “othering” of Islam within a “carefully orchestrated attack” on workers and voting rights, while assuming that enforced unionization and a lack of identification safeguards, respectively, best protect these interests. Referencing past animosity towards Irish-Catholic immigrants, while seemingly oblivious to modern American diversity, McCartin reiterated the worn out trope that Americans are only comfortable with minorities “as long as they don’t have power and voice.”

National Black Caucus of State Legislators policy director Ajenai Clemmons, meanwhile, was “incredibly grateful” for a study that is “deeply reaffirming to our experience” of “structural racism.” A “large part of the electorate,” Clemmons claimed, advocates “policies that are especially destructive to people who don’t look like them,” such as racially neutral right-to-work laws. She dismissed voter identification laws, or “legislation ostensibly combatting voter fraud,” as merely “intensifying efforts to suppress the vote.”

While decrying “ultra-conservative messages,” Clemmons praised Democratic congressman Keith Ellison as a “great” example of a Muslim politician. She seconded McCartin’s superficial unity appeal, emphasizing “how important it is for all our communities to collaborate” by “seeing your fate and stakes as one” in “transformational coalition building.” Fortunately, no rousing “kumbaya” rendition followed.

Madihha Ahussein, an attorney with Muslim Advocates (MA), praised the study’s findings that Muslims like her—or those supposedly suffering from “Islamophobia”—are “not alone.” Accordingto the Investigative Project on Terrorism, MA “reflexively criticizes counter-terrorism investigations.” Ahussein claimed there had been a “noted increase” in FBI-recorded anti-Muslim hate crimes since 2010, although 2012 figures show the majority of America’s religiously motivated hate crimes targeting Jews—a longstanding trend. Lamenting that the “industry of hate . . . particularly the anti-Muslim hate network, is very large” and “extremely vocal and active,” she warned that a “huge population on the Internet . . . can mobilize very quickly . . . within seconds.” Rather than the term “Islamophobia,” Ahassein pointed out that MA prefers “anti-Muslim hate or bigotry,” for Islam’s critics “are not afraid of Muslims” and are “very deliberate.”

Jonathan Brown, ACMCU Chair of Islamic Civilization, boasted that co-host ACMCU is a “huge supporter” of research on “civil liberties, Islamophobia,” and “bigotry.” He argued that “to deprive a group of Americans of rights” via “Islamophobia” calls into question American exceptionalism, or Americans’ belief “that there is something special about their country.” Apparently for Brown, victimhood promotion looms larger than America’s considerable human rights legacy.

Although IPSU’s study seeks to foment the type of leftist-Muslim alliance seen throughout the world, most recently in Ferguson, Missouri’s racial unrest, reception attendees indirectly demonstrated the unwieldiness of this coalition. Deepa Iyer, for example, formerly led South Asian Americans Leading Together, a group that has collaborated with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a radical faux civil rights group. Yet, demonstrating that not all South Asian “people of color” think alike, Harsh Voruganti’s Hindu-American Foundation has focused on Muslimrepression of Hindus.

Such disparate and, at times, mutually contradictory ethnic and political interests cannot effectively coalesce with some Muslims’ concerns, genuine or not, over “Islamophobia.” Muslims, in turn, risk alienating conservative Americans with ill-considered leftist political alignments. Yet anti-Western Islamic groups have no choice for support and legitimacy other than the political left, given the unifying hatred of Judeo-Christian, bourgeois society in the United States, Israel, and elsewhere. Observers of Islamist groups should carefully consider these political tactics.

Andrew E. Harrod is a freelance researcher and writer who holds a PhD from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a JD from George Washington University Law School. He is a fellow with the Lawfare Project; follow him on twitter at @AEHarrod. He wrote this essay for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.

The West’s Dangerous Enchantment with Islam: Muslim Women Thrown “Under the Bus”

Gatestone Institute, by Uzay Bulut, Nov. 9, 2014:

There are no women’s rights in Islam; there are no women’s rights in most Muslim countries. And there is no freedom of expression in these countries; people have become virtually voiceless.

To make a positive change in Muslim countries, we need to be able to speak openly, without putting one’s life at risk, and tell the (too-often criminalized) truth about what Islamic teachings and traditions actually contain.

If one is called “racist” or “Islamophobe,” the answer is that these are the accusations bullies always use to silence those who disagree with them. The real Islamophobes are those who degrade, abuse and kill their fellow Muslims.

If oppression of women is rooted in the culture, shouldn’t one be asking, ‘what makes a culture that misogynous?’

There is a situation even more frightening. It now seems to be difficult to speak openly about fundamentalist Islam even in Western countries. The worst thing any Western progressive or feminist can do is to stay silent.

The loudest voices in the West now seem to come from many progressives who say that criticizing of Islam is racist, intolerant, bigoted and Islamophobic. Injustices, they claim, take place all around the world, not just among Muslims or in Muslim countries. The criticism, they go on, comes from wrong interpretations of Islamic teachings. They say that Islam respects women, and that there are good and bad Muslims, just as there are good and bad people in all religions.

In just seven years, however, between 2002 and 2009, the rate of murdered women in Turkey has increased by 1400 percent.[1]

There are also more than 181,000 child brides in Turkey.[2]

When those figures are provided by state authorities, they are based on factual statistics. But when they are expressed in a critical manner by Canan Arin, a lawyer and women rights activist, they are, apparently, a “crime.”

Canan Arin, 72, is a feminist lawyer who has dedicated her life to women’s rights struggles in Turkey.[3]

The Antalya Bar Association, in December 2011, invited her to its newly founded Women’s Rights Enforcement Centre to give training to the lawyers on violence against women. There, she delivered a speech about early and forced marriages, and gave two examples — one from the 7th century, the other from the 20th century — to clarify her point.

The first example concerned Muhammad, the founder of Islam, who married a girl of seven. The second was about Abdullah Gul, then-President of the Turkish Republic, who became engaged to his wife when she was 14 and married her when she was 15, in 1980.

Although both of those examples are supposedly based on the truth, speaking the truth in Turkey now seems to constitute a crime. A year later, therefore, a warrant was issued for Arin’s arrest, and on December 12, 2012, she was brought to court for “insulting religious values adopted by a part of the society” (Turkish Penal Code Article- 216/3) and for “insulting the President” (Turkish Penal Code- Article 299/1).

On May 30, 2013, the court declared its final decision, which was the adjournment of the trial. According to the ruling, if Arin commits a similar crime in three years and receives a punishment for it, her case will be reopened.

“If I do not open my mouth for three years, and do not engage in [discussions of similar] subject matters, this trial will be ignored. Their ruling is like running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. But this trial should have never been opened in the first place,” Arin said to the Turkish newspaper, Hurriyet.

It is bewildering that any prosecutor actually considers child marriage a “value.” According to the Turkish Statistical Institute, in 2012 alone, the rate of parental consent for legal marriage under the age of 18 increased by 94.2%. This increase is not taking place in a country ruled by Islamic sharia law, but in Turkey, the only so-called “secular” Muslim country.

There are no women’s rights in Islam; there are no women rights in most Muslim countries. And as there is no freedom of expression in these countries, people have become virtually voiceless.

Yet many people, especially the so-called progressives, seem to find limitless excuses for fundamentalist Islamic atrocities against women. These include beheadings, stonings, domestic violence, honor killings, female genital mutilation, official legal inequality, home confinement, child marriages, and Saudi Arabia’s prohibition against women driving, to name a few.

Statements that come up with “multicultural” excuses to provide cover for the practices of fundamentalist Islam, however, never have, and never will, help to liberate women who suffer under Islamic misogyny, gender apartheid and jihad.

To make a positive change in Muslim countries, we need to be able to speak openly and tell the (too-often criminalized) truth about what Islamic teachings and traditions actually contain. Yet in Muslim countries, it is impossible speak openly about what is in these Islamic teachings and traditions, without putting one’s life at risk.

There is a situation even more frightening. It now seems to be difficult to speak openly about fundamentalist Islam even in Western countries, in part thanks to the dangerous enchantment of Western progressives and feminists who romanticize Islamism.

Women in the Muslim world desperately need the voice of Western progressives and feminists. But when it comes to finding excuses to neutralize critical questions about Islamic violence, Western progressives seem endlessly creative. Known by an increasing number of women as “Excuses for Abuses,” these include:

Criticizing Islam is racist and reveals “intolerance,” “bigotry” and “Islamophobia.”

For the record, Islam is not a race. Moreover, if you discuss the violent and misogynous teachings of Islam, it does not mean that you hate or are intolerant of Muslims, just of violence and misogyny.

It does mean that you care about Muslim women; that you do not want them to be forced to find four male “witnesses” to “prove” they have been raped, or to be punished by Islamic courts as adulterers if their rapists do not confess. It means you believe that their testimony in court, or their inheritance, should be valued as highly as a man’s; that you do not want them to be the victim of honor killings or child marriages at the hands of their Muslim family members, and that you do not want their husbands to be able beat them with impunity.

It also means that you want children to grow up to be honest, informed, compassionate adults, filled with love for life and fellow human beings, and who can speak up for rights and liberties that can never be taken for granted — all gained as a result of centuries-long wars, struggles and social movements.

It means you do not want to see children blowing themselves up on a bus, or people buying or selling women, or killing their sisters for not wearing the hijab. And finally, it means that you do not want children getting married at the age of seven, especially to men they have never met, or to be hypocrites who have to say, “Islam is a religion of peace” to defend themselves every time another Muslim commits a crime justified by proclaiming Islamic beliefs.

“Injustices against women take place all around the world, not just against Muslims or in Muslim countries.”

If the oppression of women is rooted in the culture, shouldn’t one be asking, ‘what makes a culture that misogynous?’

What is progressivism if its objectives do not include helping emancipate women from Islamic oppression, such as honor killings, child marriages, stonings, flogging and punishing rape victims (while releasing rapists) — all of which are employed in the Muslim world, in line with Islamic teachings, allegedly to “protect” and “respect” women and to keep them “pure,” but more probably to keep women in their place?

“What you are seeing is not the real Islam; Islam has been hijacked.”

The problem with this view is that Islam actually does teach that a woman is worth less than a man. Many teachings in Islam are misogynous — from wearing veils; requiring four male witness to prove rape; issues of inheritance; court testimony; rules of marriage; rules of divorce and remarriage; a man’s “right” to marry up to four women and then beat them, and so on.

If Western progressives and feminists care at all about their Muslim sisters, they need to protest against the actual roots of this injustice: these Islamic teachings.

Many progressives, however, seem not even to want to learn about them, let alone speak out against them. Perhaps they fear that if they knew more, they might actually have to speak out. Or perhaps they remain silent from indifference or inertia. But if all they really care about in the West is their (understandable) ability to get abortions and equal pay for equal work, they have badly failed to grasp the consequences of a theocracy on everyone, not only on women.

If they wished to inform themselves, they might read just the verses of the Quran relating to women and glance at the hadith sunnah literature — all easily found on the internet. Then — if they sincerely wished to raise future generations with humanitarian values, equal justice under law, and a respect for human rights — they might educate others about those teachings, while basing their opinions on knowledge, not on wishful thinking.

“If you accommodate Islamic misogyny,” says the writer Pat Condell, “you legitimize it and you invite it into your own life and into the lives of your children … because it’s coming your way. You also help to ensure that the woman in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, who gets beaten every day, will continue to be beaten and treated as a piece of property, as will her daughters and granddaughters all the way down the line.”

“It is not about Islam. Crimes were committed and are being committed in all places throughout history.”

The world is no paradise, but in the West, if economic, political or social causes of injustices are freely discussed, why should religious, or Islamic, causes be exempt from discussion?

In many Muslim countries, where only Islam — but not the people — has the right to survive, such discussion is impossible without extreme risk. Even in Turkey, considered one of the most “liberal” of Muslim countries, if you dare to discuss or criticize the teachings of Islam, you can be killed, arrested, attacked, exposed to social and psychological lynching campaigns, brought to court and given a prison sentence.

Do progressives not oppose supremacy and oppression? Why then do they turn a blind eye to Islamic supremacy and oppression?

In Gaza, for instance, for whom Western progressives claim to have so much sympathy, women are systematically murdered in honor killings, and the Hamas government does not protect them. Appeals court judge Ziad Thabet, told Al-Monitor that “during his time in the judiciary, he had noticed that honor killing defendants were usually given light sentences. Three years in prison was the harshest…. Life sentences or execution were never a consideration.”

Al Jazeera also reported that “the number of so-called ‘honor killings’ in Palestine doubled in 2013 from the previous year. … For the past three years, the number of women killed has increased each year.”

Can Western feminists not stand up even against a terrorist group, Hamas, on behalf of Gazan women, who cannot speak up for themselves for fear of reprisals? Or would this not be as pleasurable as condemning Israel, the only Middle Eastern country where Muslim women do have equal rights? Or can these progressives only parrot propaganda, such as, “Palestinian women are exposed to honor killings by angry Palestinian men due to the Israeli occupation”?

“Not all Muslims are the same. There are good and bad Muslims, just as there are good and bad people in all religions.”

First of all, thank you very much for this genius discovery. But how can it help reduce the Islamic violence around the world?

Of course it is true that there are many good Muslims, whose values do not follow Islamic teachings verbatim, but also include humanitarian values. They do not wage war on other religions or try to bring them under submission to Islam. In the eyes of jihadis or Islamists, however, who live by the harshest interpretation of most doctrinaire Islamic teachings, such a quality makes them “bad Muslims.”

“All religions are essentially the same.”

Well, not quite. Biblical values are far more benign than Islamic ones, and generally descriptive rather than proscriptive. Furthermore, the most violent of them were long ago abandoned.

No religion, for instance, other than Islam, has ever commanded that those who insult or leave it should be put to death. (See Surahs 6:93, 33:57, 33:61)

On September 24 after being found guilty of “heresy” and “insulting prophet Jonah,” Mohsen Amir Aslani, 37, an Iranian psychologist, was hanged in a prison near the city of Karaj west of Tehran, according to the Human Rights Activists News Agency. Aslani, it seems, had given religious classes where he provided his own interpretations of the Quran. In one of his classes, he apparently told his audience that Jonah could not have emerged from the whale’s belly; it was this statement that led to his charge of insulting the prophet Jonah, the Iran Wire websitereported.

Left: Canan Arin, a feminist lawyer arrested in Turkey for “insulting religious values adopted by a part of the society” and “insulting the President,” after she mentioned that the Muslim prophet Muhammad married a 7-year-old girl and the President of Turkey married his wife when she was 15 years old. Right: Mohsen Amir Aslani, an Iranian psychologist who was hanged in Iran for the crimes of “heresy” and “insulting prophet Jonah,” after he said that the biblical prophet Jonah could not have emerged from a whale’s belly.

How much time will pass until Islam is reformed or reinterpreted? How many people will be killed, attacked or enslaved until that happens? How many Muslims have the free will or courage to speak out? Will Islamists even ever allow them to, without threatening retaliation? Are the Islamists so uncertain that what they are preaching can stand on its merits — as the Quran instructs, “without compulsion” — that they cannot even tolerate even a single comment about one of their prophets?

What Western progressives and feminists are doing for the sake of political correctness — or a well intentioned, if misguided, “multiculturalism” — does nothing to help Muslim women. On the contrary, “political correctness,” silence, or making excuses for atrocities caused by Islam, can only add to the suffering of women in the Muslim world.

If progressives truly want to protect Muslims, they cannot achieve this goal by “protecting” Islam from criticism.

If one is called “racist” or “Islamophobe,” the answer is that these are accusations bullies always use to silence people who disagree with them. The real Islamophobes are those who degrade, abuse and kill their fellow Muslims.

The worst thing any Western progressive or feminist can do in the face of the suffering caused by Islamic teachings, is to stay silent.

Uzay Bulut is a Turkish journalist based in Ankara.


[1] According to the Turkish Ministry of Justice, 2009.

[2] According to the data of the Turkish Statistical Institute in 2012.

[3] Arin co-founded the Purple Roof-Women’s Shelter Foundation, the Association for the Support of Women Candidates and the Women’s Rights Enforcement Centre of the Istanbul Bar Association. Between 1994 and 1997, she acted as an expert on violence against women for the Gender Equality Commission of the Council of Europe.

Centers for Islamic Studies: a Cold-War-Style Influence Operation?

hjby Oleg Atbashian:

The launch of a new Center for Global Islamic Studies at the extremely leftist University of Florida in Gainesville may have been planned as a purely academic affair, but the announcements in the local and national media, including AP and Fox News, exhibited more than a purely academic interest in this event. To compare, one doesn’t often see national media announcements about, let’s say, a local center for the study of viruses — unless the virus is Ebola. And just like with any news about Ebola studies, any news about studies of Islam attracts attention from the general public, who want to know if there’s a hope for the cure, containment, and safety from danger.

Unfortunately, these may not be the kind of Islamic Studies that answer those hopes. The Center opened on September 18th with a conference on “Global Islam and the Quest for Public Space,” headlined by none other than Georgetown professor John Esposito, a known apologist for radical Islam and founding director of the Saudi-sponsored Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding in the Walsh School of Foreign Service.

A small group of protesters picketed the event outside the Pugh Hall on the university campus, with a dozen creative posters and a vinyl banner pointing out that John Esposito and the leader of ISIS both hold PhDs in Islamic Studies: “Same goal, different tactics.” The video of the protest can be seen online.

The protest organizer, Randy McDaniels of ACT for America and the Counter-Terrorism Advisory Group, stated that our students certainly need to study Islam, as long as such studies are based on scientific objectivity and critical analysis. But the presence of John Esposito as the keynote speaker indicated that the new Global Islamic Studies Center was likely to go the way of many other universities, opening their doors and exposing our children to political Islam under the guise of education, with programs funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other state sponsors of Islamic fundamentalism.

While many among the leftist faculty and the students were visibly upset with the protest, complete with occasional angry obscenities, a few others were interested in the message and asked for a flyer. Some of them asked, “What’s wrong with having an Islamic Studies Center, even if it’s financed by foreign money?”

The short answer would have been to compare such a project to active measures undertaken in America by the KGB during the Cold War — except that, unfortunately, most American students aren’t familiar with this term. Their knowledge of the Cold War has been thoroughly sanitized by the leftist faculty, especially if the professors are Marxists who used to root for the other side. The resulting perceived absence of the Soviet subversion, propaganda, disinformation, and other influence operations inside the U.S. and around the world creates the impression of an ideologically neutral world, in which America’s response to protect liberty can very easily be misconstrued as imperialist aggression against the innocent.

Ignorance about the enemy leads to confusion about one’s own nation’s role in the world, regardless of the historical era or the current adversary. Whether we admit it or not, we are now in a new global conflict that has many parallels with the Cold War; it is often fought by similar means and sometimes even by the same actors.

Now, just as it was then, we’re up against a supremacist collectivist ideology whose goal is to establish a totalitarian utopian society on a global scale. The two deadly pipe dreams — global communism and the global caliphate — may have their differences, but in practical terms they both view the United States as the main obstacle in their quest of world domination. There is no reason why one can’t learn from the other’s vast experience in subverting this country.

Read more at Front Page

Also see:

THE IDIOCY OF ISLAM’S GREAT DEFENDERS

ben-affleck-hbo-real-timeBreitbart, by BEN SHAPIRO:

On Friday night, Bill Maher hosted atheist author Sam Harris, actor Ben Affleck, former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele, and New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof to discuss Maher’s rant last week in which he discussed the violence of radical Islam and the prevalence of belief in radical Islam. Harris sided with Maher; Maher defended his comments.

Affleck, Kristof, and Steele, however, all suggested that Maher’s criticism of Islam went too far. Steele said that moderate Muslims just don’t receive media coverage. Affleck actually suggested that Maher’s criticisms of Islam were akin to calling someone a “shifty Jew.” Kristof said that because Maher and Harris had the temerity to quote polls about acceptance of anti-Muslim violence by Muslims all over the world, he was talking “a little bit of the way white racists talk about African-Americans.”

Maher, correctly, stated, “What you’re saying is, ‘because they’re a minority, we shouldn’t criticize.’” He added that Islam is the “only religion that acts like the Mafia that will f***ing kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture, or write the wrong book. There’s a reason why Ayaan Hirsi Ali needs bodyguards 24/7.”

After 9/11, Americans wondered why the Bush and Clinton administrations had failed to connect the dots. Perhaps it’s because the culture of political correctness means that we must see every dot as disconnected, rather than as part of a broader intellectual and philosophical framework. If you stand too close to a Seurat painting, you’re likely to miss the fact that you’re looking at a Sunday Afternoon on the Island of la Grande Jatte, rather than a random series of colored dots.

By acting as though terrorists and their supporters are outliers, occasional needles hidden within massive haystacks, we fail to make policy based upon reality. The politically correct mob insists we look at terrorist incidents as occasional blips, rather than outgrowths of a dangerous ideology that must be uprooted completely. And so we miss signals. We miss red flags.

Now, it is possible that our politicians lie to us. It is possible that they see the patterns and monitor those patterns. It’s possible they understand the radical Islamic funding of mosques all over the world, the recruitment of Muslims across the planet to support jihad.

But those lies – if they are lies – have consequences. They are parroted by fools, both left and right, who cite Bush and Clinton and Obama and all the rest for the proposition that Islam means peace and that Islamic terror groups are not Islamic. Instead, they claim, Islamic terrorists are merely crazy folks. Which means we don’t have to take their ideology seriously, their appeal seriously, or their outreach seriously.

And so we don’t. That’s why the State Department released an ad in early September showing crucifixions, Muslims being shot in the head, a blown-up mosque, and a beheaded body. Apparently, the State Department believed their own press: they believed that by castigating ISIS as an un-Islamic outlier, they could convince potential allies to stay away. That’s idiocy. ISIS releases precisely the same sort of videos as recruitment efforts – the Islamic terrorists understand that they are, in fact, Islamic. So do those they target.

In order to defend an ideology or a religion, one should know something about the ideology or religion. Ben Affleck, Nicholas Kristof, and Michael Steele are not Islamic scholars. Neither are George W. Bush, Barack Obama, or Bill Clinton. In fact, when it comes to points of Islamic law, any average member of ISIS likely knows more than any of the aforementioned defenders of Islam.

The West cannot be the great defender of Islam, because we have no capacity to slice radical Islam out of broader Islam. We are radically unqualified to do so. We can only fight those who share an ideology dedicated to our destruction. And defending that broader ideology by downplaying a so-called “fringe minority” only emboldens those of the radical minority.

Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the new book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). He is also Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.orgFollow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.

 

Published on Oct 3, 2014 by Dole Mite

Also see:

In Search of the ‘Moderate Islamists’

pic_giant_091514_SM_Hasmas-Muslim-BrotherhoodBy Andrew C. McCarthy:

It is not out of ignorance that President Obama and Secretary Kerry are denying the Islamic roots of the Islamic State jihadists. As I argued in a column here last week, we should stop scoffing as if this were a blunder and understand the destructive strategy behind it. The Obama administration is quite intentionally promoting the progressive illusion that “moderate Islamists” are the solution to the woes of the Middle East, and thus that working cooperatively with “moderate Islamists” is the solution to America’s security challenges.

I wrote a book a few years ago called The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America that addressed this partnership between Islamists and progressives. The terms “grand jihad” and “sabotage” are lifted from an internal Muslim Brotherhood memorandum that lays bare the Brotherhood’s overarching plan to destroy the West from within by having their component organizations collude with credulous Western governments and opinion elites.

The plan is going well.

As long as the news media and even conservative commentators continue to let them get away with it, the term “moderate Islamist” will remain useful to transnational progressives. It enables them to avoid admitting that the Muslim Brotherhood is what they have in mind.

As my recent column explained, the term “moderate Islamist” is an oxymoron. An Islamist is a Muslim who wants repressive sharia imposed. There is nothing moderate about sharia even if the Muslim in question does not advocate imposing it by violence.

Most people do not know what the term “Islamist” means, so the contradiction is not apparent to them. If they think about it at all, they figure “moderate Islamist” must be just another way of saying “moderate Muslim,” and since everyone acknowledges that there are millions of moderate Muslims, it seems logical enough. Yet, all Muslims are not Islamists. In particular, all Muslims who support the Western principles of liberty and reason are not Islamists.

If you want to say that some Islamists are not violent, that is certainly true. But that does not make them moderate. There is, moreover, less to their nonviolence than meets the eye. Many Islamists who do not personally participate in jihadist aggression support violent jihadists financially and morally — often while feigning objection to their methods or playing semantic games (e.g., “I oppose terrorism but I support resistance,” or “I oppose the killing of innocent people . . . but don’t press me on who is an innocent”).

Understandably, the public is inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to people the government describes as “moderates” and portrays as our “allies.” If transnational progressives were grilled on these vaporous terms, though, and forced to concede, say, that the Muslim Brotherhood was the purportedly “moderate opposition” our government wants to support in Syria, the public would object. While not expert in the subject, many Americans are generally aware that the Brotherhood supports terrorism, that its ideology leads young Muslims to graduate to notorious terrorist organizations, and that it endorses oppressive Islamic law while opposing the West. Better for progressives to avoid all that by one of their dizzying, internally nonsensical word games — hence, “moderate Islamist.”

I rehearse all that because last week, right on cue, representatives of Brotherhood-tied Islamist organizations appeared with Obama-administration officials and other apologists for Islamic supremacism to ostentatiously “condemn” the Islamic State as “not Islamic.”

As I recount with numerous examples in The Grand Jihad, this is the manipulative double game the Brotherhood has mastered in the West, aided and abetted by progressives of both parties. While speaking to credulous Western audiences desperate to believe Islam is innately moderate, the Brothers pretend to abhor terrorism, claim that terrorism is actually “anti-Islamic,” and threaten to brand you as an “Islamophobe” racist — to demagogue you in the media, ban you from the campus, and bankrupt you in court — if you dare to notice the nexus between Islamic doctrine and systematic terrorism committed by Muslims. Then, on their Arabic sites and in the privacy of their mosques and community centers, they go back to preaching jihad, championing Hamas, calling for Israel’s destruction, damning America, inveighing against Muslim assimilation in the West, and calling for society’s acceptance of sharia mores.

The Investigative Project’s John Rossomando reports on last Wednesday’s shenanigans at the National Press Club. The Islamist leaders who “urged the public to ignore [the Islamic State’s] theological motivations,” included “former Council on American-Islamic Affairs (CAIR) Tampa director Ahmed Bedier, [who] later wrote on Twitter that IS [the Islamic State] ‘is not a product of Islam,’ and blamed the United States for its emergence.”

Also on hand were moderate moderator Haris Tarin, Washington director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC); Imam Mohamed Magid, former president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA); and Johari Abdul-Malik, an imam at the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Va. All of these Islamists are consultants to the Obama administration on policy matters; Magid is actually a member Obama’s Homeland Security Advisory Council.

Where to begin? CAIR, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out, is a Muslim Brotherhood creation conceived to be a Western-media-savvy shill for Islamic supremacism in general, and Hamas in particular. At the 2007–08 terrorism-financing prosecution of Hamas operatives in the Holy Land Foundation case — involving a Brotherhood conspiracy that funneled millions of dollars to Palestinian jihadists — CAIR was proven to be a co-conspirator, albeit unindicted. Mr. Bedier, who is profiled by the Investigative Project here, is a notorious apologist for Hamas — the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch, which is formally designated as a terrorist organization under U.S. law. He also vigorously championed such terrorists as Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s Sami al-Arian (who pled guilty in 2006 to conspiring to provide material support to terrorism).

I’ve profiled MPAC here. It was founded by disciples of Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna and champions of both Hezbollah and the Sudanese Islamists who gave safe-haven to al-Qaeda during the mid Nineties. After the atrocities of September 11, 2001, MPAC’s executive director, Salam al-Marayati, immediately urged that “we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list.” Without a hint of irony, MPAC’s main business is condemning irrational suspicion . . . the “Islamophobia” it claims Muslims are systematically subjected to. Like many CAIR operatives and other purveyors of victim politics, MPAC officials tend to double as Democratic-party activists.

Read more at National Review

Multiculturalism: What the Left Would Prefer You Didn’t Know…

Screen Shot 20140831 at 144923Breitbart, by JAMES DELINGPOLE, Sep. 1, 2014:

All right, so it was only a straw poll conducted among viewers of yesterday’s BBC Sunday Morning Live debate programme: 95 per cent of Britons think multiculturalism has been a failure.

But as majority verdicts go, it was a pretty resounding one – and it was delivered despite the BBC’s best efforts to muddy the waters, first by wheeling out two of the nation’s Multi Culti Apologist big guns Owen Jones and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, and second by pretending that multiculturalism means something other than what it actually means.

Multiculturalism is a very specific political philosophy which could scarcely be further removed from the idea that we should live in one big, happy, multi-ethnic melting pot and all just get along. That’s because it means the exact opposite. It’s about separatism, not integration.

It was championed from at least the 1970s onwards by effete bien-pensants like Labour MP turned Social Democrat Roy Jenkins and is essentially a manifestation of the cultural guilt and self-hatred that afflicts the left-wing chattering classes. Rather than accept the truth which to most of us is glaringly obvious – that some cultures are manifestly superior to others – it urges us all to celebrate our differences and to accept values that we may personally find alien or even abhorrent in the name of creating a fairer, more tolerant and inclusive society.

So, for example, we in liberal Western culture generally take a dim view of marrying members of your own family, female genital mutilation, forced or arranged marriages, second-class status for women, voter fraud, systematic political corruption, honour killings, the organised grooming, trafficking and rape of underage girls, and so on.

In some of our immigrant communities, though, such practices are considered more or less acceptable. (And I’m only using that “more or less” modifier out of politeness).

We know, for example, that two thirds of Pakistani mothers in Bradford are related to the father of their child.

We know that every year about 20,000 girls in Briton are considered “at risk” of female genital mutilation (FGM). (Somalis, mainly)

We know that among certain cultures – Pakistan’s, for example – that corruption is endemic. As Rod Liddle noted, Pakistani is 139th on Transparency International’s list of most corrupt countries – the higher the number, the more corrupt. And as Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk has corroborated, these practices have been “imported” into some of our “northern towns and cities.”

We know that in Britain every year at least a dozen women are victims of “honour killings” – and that the justice process is often hampered by the refusal of family members or people in the local community to testify in court.

And we can, I think, take with a fairly hefty pinch of salt the notion that the rape gang phenomenon is something which the broader Pakistani-Kashmiri community in Britain finds unacceptable. If this is really the case, how come it has been allowed to persist, unchecked for up to fifteen years, across Britain on an epic scale, without the perpetrators being named and shamed by their friends, families, colleagues, their community elders or their imams?

The failure of multiculturalism is not, of course, a new thing. Some of us have been warning for years that it is a disastrous policy for various obvious reasons: it militates against social cohesion; it violates the principle that all should be equal before the law and no groups – as contra the parallel Sharia courts now operating in Britain – should be singled out for special treatment; it strains Britain’s culture of tolerance to breaking point, while simultaneously diluting the national character and rejecting those qualities which once made (and still do make, up to a point) Britain such a desirable place to live; it makes it that much more likely that FGM, honour killings, voter fraud, rape gangs and the rest can carry on unchecked.

But these sensible arguments against multiculturalism have often been drowned out by the liberal-left either with the cry of “racist” or through the more subtle, but no less effective methods of distraction and dissimulation.

We saw both the latter techniques being used on BBC Sunday Morning Live. Owen Jones – fluent political operator that he is – tried to claim the moral high ground by arguing that blaming the Rotherham gang rape phenomenon on “multiculturalism” not only lets the perpetrators off the hook but also ignores the plight of the victims. (Short answer: it does neither and if you believe it does Owen, you’re thick and if you’re only saying it for effect then you’re wicked. You choose).

Worse still, almost, was the way at one point during the multicultural debate, the show decided to canvas the opinions of two festival organisers at Mela 2014 (“Europe’s biggest outdoors South-Asian festival”), both of whom assured us that they thought “multiculturalism” was a jolly good thing without for one second grappling with the philosophical or cultural implications of the term. The impression given was that to be against multiculturalism is like being against chicken tikka masala, or bhangra, or arts festivals or smiley brown skinned people or fun generally.

But multiculturalism isn’t and never was a handy synonym for “multiethnic”.  And at last, it seems, the majority of British people have twigged.

Multiculturalism is the philosophy that says the grooming, trafficking and mass rape of underage white girls by Muslim gangs is not as bad as being thought Islamophobic.

Multiculturalism is the philosophy that says it’s better to let a little African girl get tortured to death by her relatives than it is to be thought culturally insensitive or judgemental.

Multiculturalism is the philosophy whereby when, say, a grant application is made to try to save for the nation an object of incalculable heritage value like the Fourteenth Century illuminated prayer book the Macclesfield Psalter, some politically correct gimp of a grants officer asks: “And how would this be relevant to the owner of the local Chinese takeaway?”

People have had enough of this nonsense. Finally.