Tolerating Hate Is Not an Option

 

Frontpage, by Brigitte Gabriel:

Editor’s note: The keynote speech below was delivered by Brigitte Gabriel at the United Nations on September 8, 2014 during a symposium on Global Anti-Semitism: A Threat To International Peace And Security.

Ladies and Gentleman,

It is an honor and privilege to be here today speaking in defense of Jews worldwide and against the evils of anti-Semitism. As you notice, I am wearing a Star of David. This necklace was given to me during a book signing in Dallas, TX by a man who lost his beloved wife in a tragic crash. He said to me crying,

“This necklace was my wife’s favorite, she died wearing it. She considered you her hero for your stand for the Jewish people. I want you to have it. Promise me you’ll wear it.”

I couldn’t find a more befitting time to honor her, than now — wearing this Star of David as a Lebanese giving a keynote speech at the United Nation in defense of the Jewish people.

We are here to address the rise of global anti-Semitism.

Ten years ago, Natan Sharansky explained:

“[C]lassical anti-Semitism is aimed at the Jewish people or the Jewish religion, ‘new anti-Semitism’ is aimed at the Jewish state.”

Mr. Sharansky devised what he called the “3D test.” The three Ds are “demonization,” “double standards” and “delegitimization.”

“Demonization” is making bizarre, ugly claims that have no basis in reality. Comparisons between Israel and the Nazis, or assertions that Israel has been committing “genocide” against the Palestinians are examples of “demonization.” Such claims are nonsense. If Israel has been committing “genocide” against the Palestinians, then why has the population of Palestinians increased more than 600% since 1948? Israel must be the most incompetent mass murderer in the history of the world.

When Israel is held to a standard that no other country in the world would be expected to meet, that double standard is itself anti-Semitism. For instance, Israel is a vibrant democracy where human rights are protected and respected. And yet the United Nations’ so-called Human Rights Commission spends most of its time and effort investigating and condemning Israel, while they gloss over or ignore the massive and continuing human rights violations that occur in Iran, Cuba, China and many other brutal repressive autocracies.

Delegitimization of Israel is to assert that, of all the peoples in the world, only the Jewish people do not have a right to statehood. In fact, Israel’s historical, legal and moral right to exist as a Jewish State is a codified principle of international law. This codification is explicitly based on the long, continuous and well-documented connection of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel. To deny the connection of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel is anti-Semitism in its purest form.

But why should anti-Semitism matter to the rest of the world? It should — not merely because it’s morally repugnant, which it most definitely is.

The world should care about anti-Semitism because of fundamental self-preservation.

The stark truth is that the world stands at the edge of a deep, dark precipice. At the bottom lurks another Holocaust that has already begun. This time the genocide is not only against the Jews. The so-called “Islamic State” has made it abundantly clear it can be committed against non Jews. ISIS is persecuting and killing members of every religious, ethnic and nationalist community it encounters.

ISIS is slaughtering Syrians, Iraqis, Lebanese, Palestinians, Christians, Sunnis, Shiites, Alawites, Kurds, Druze, and Yazidis.

ISIS floods the Internet with stomach-churning images and videos of mass executions, severed heads and crucifixions. We see children slaughtered in front of their parents, and parents in front of their children. This viciousness is part of a calculated strategy explicitly intended to terrorize anyone and everyone who does not submit to their version of Islam.

ISIS has officially declared its intent to rule the world. Their founding document, the declaration of their caliphate, bears the modest title of [Arabic], “This Is The Promise of God.” They declare that God promised to Muslims, quote, “leadership of the world and mastership of the earth.” End quote.

Their declaration of a world-wide caliphate reveals their governing philosophy:

“By Allah, if you disbelieve in democracy, secularism, nationalism, as well as all the other garbage and ideas from the west, and rush to your religion and creed, then by Allah, you will own the earth, and the east and west will submit to you.”

Remember, ladies and gentlemen, savagery is not merely their strategy. It is an article of their faith. They commit genocide in the name of Allah.

Israel has been familiar with the concept, and the reality, of genocide in the name of Allah for a long time. The war that ISIS has declared on the world is the same as the war that Hamas has been waging against Israel for decades. The only difference, again, is focus. ISIS seeks a world-wide caliphate. Hamas is focused on the destruction of Israel.

However, their motivation, methods, and morals are the same.

In terms of brutal methods and lack of morals, ISIS has recently shot, hacked and killed its way to the top of the world’s terrorist organizations. Meanwhile Hamas has been committing mind-numbing mass atrocities for decades. They use to wrap their children in dynamite and nails, and send them to blow up Israeli buses and restaurants. They rejoiced at the death of Israeli children, and glorified the death of their own. Today they use them as human shields

I know something about children being used as human shields. In 1976 when I was 11 years old, Palestinians in South Lebanon used me and my family as human shields. They employed exactly the same technique that Hamas uses in Gaza today. They set up artillery or rocket launchers in front of my bomb shelter and fired a barrage towards Israel.   They would pack up and run as quickly as possible, leaving my family to the devastation of return fire.

Today, Hamas hides behind human shields on a much larger scale. Hamas routinely uses schools, mosques, hospitals and other civilian locations for weapons storage, missile launch sites, and other military purposes. They fire rockets and mortars from these places with the explicit intention of drawing return fire from the Israelis, hoping that will produce photogenic civilian corpses for display in the media.

Hamas and ISIS share a common motivation. They want to impose Islam. This is in the charter of Hamas as it is in ISIS’s declaration of the “caliphate.” The charter of Hamas declares that “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it.”

The most revealing words in the Charter of Hamas are a quotation from Islamic scripture:

“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.” [Hadith of Sahih Muslim, BOOK 41].

But Hamas has a problem.

In Israel, Jews don’t hide behind stones or trees. They stand up and defend themselves. Israelis have learned from history that if someone repeatedly says they’re going to kill you, they mean it. A lesson the world is only now learning.

Seventy years ago the world stood by as the Jews of Europe went up the chimneys.   Today, the Jews of Israel aren’t going to go quietly to the slaughter as they sit on the front line of fighting for Western civilization. Those who seek to exterminate the Jews are not going to stop with the Jews. That should have been the lesson of the Holocaust. That must be the lesson of the rise of ISIS.

Once the intentional mass murder of innocent civilians was legitimized against Israel, it was legitimized everywhere, constrained by nothing more than the strong-held beliefs of those who would become the mass murderers.  Because the Palestinians were encouraged by most of the world to believe that the murder of innocent Israeli civilians is a legitimate tactic to advance the Palestinian nationalist cause, the Islamists believe that they may commit mass murder anywhere in the world to advance their holy cause. As a result, we suffer from a plague of Islamic terrorism, from Moscow to Madrid, from Bali to Beslan, from Nairobi to New York, authored and perfected by the Palestinians. Israel and the United States are not separate targets of Islamic terrorism. The whole world is their target.

Evil dwells when courageous men become bystanders. Lies spread when the informed become silent. Society deteriorates when apathy replaces activism. Tyranny comes when leaders become mediocre and haters become organized.

Today we are summoned to lead in our communities and our nations. We are summoned to wake up the apathetic and inspire the despaired, to silence the liars and educate the concerned, to speak tolerance instead of resentment, forgiveness instead of revenge, love instead of hate, and peace instead of war. We are here at the United Nations today because each one of us is a leader and an instrument of change with history as our final judge.

I, as the leader of ACT! for America.org, the largest national security organization in America with chapters in 11 countries around the world, am committed to do whatever possible to stand up with the Jewish people and defend them.

The civilized world must band together in solidarity to ensure that people of all faiths can live in peace and harmony and that Jews are never persecuted and victimized by barbaric, murderous ideologies ever again. That Jews can walk in any street in the world with their head held high and safe. That Israel, the Jewish state, the only democracy in the Middle East, continues to shine as a beacon of light in the darkest region in the world.

Thank you.

Also see:

Council On American-Islamic Relations Seeks to Undermine the Land of the Free

free-speech-protest-AP (1)Breitbart, by ANDREW E. HARROD,  June 16, 2014:

The fact pattern and references to anti-Islamic “hate speech” sound depressingly similar to so many other cases abroad. Yet this incident occurred courtesy of the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ (CAIR) Chicago chapter, showing how precious and precarious American free speech rights are.

A Chicago suburb chapter of ACT! For America, an anti-sharia group, screened on May 17 the film Geert Wilders Warning to America at the Des Plaines Public Library (DPPL) after having met there since fall 2013. In the film, the Dutch politician Wilders addresses an American audience with his well-known thesis that “Islam is not a religion, Islam is a totalitarian ideology.” Amidst interspersed images of Islamic atrocities worldwide, Wilders, among other things, demands an end to construction in Western societies of mosques and Muslim schools, the latter termed by him a “fascist institution.”

Library parking lot flyers advertising the film drew opposition from CAIR-Chicago and the Islamic Community Center (ICC) of Des Plaines against the film screening. The library, a “safe haven for knowledge, education, and enlightenment… is now being tarnished,” CAIR-Chicago executive director Ahmed Rehab stated. Rehab worried about perceptions of the library endorsing the event. ICC board president Fazal Mahmood also questioned the appropriateness of a publicly-funded library as the film’s venue.

“I’m just practicing common sense not to let hate spark in our community,” Rehab said. Rehab “believed there should be limits on freedom of speech when it harms or incites someone else,” yet nonetheless conceded ACT!’s speech rights. “I understand and respect freedom of speech, but where do you stop?” Mahmood also said.

Media reports also persistently noted ACT! for America’s “hate group” listing by theSouthern Poverty Law Center without, however, mentioning SPLC’s leftist partisanship. Also unmentioned were CAIR’s deeply disturbing, numerous associations with precisely the kind of people against whom Wilders warned, including CAIR’s status as anunindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case over financing of terrorism.Rehab himself has had such connections while asserting “Jewish control over the media” and that the “history of the Jewish film producers in particular have shown that they predate on weak minorities by default.”

“Personally, leadership at DPPL finds the materials being shared by ACT! for Des Plaines reprehensible, bigoted and Islamaphobic and we in no way agree with the hateful sentiments they express,” Library Director Holly Sorensen said in a statement. However, Sorenson noted that American free speech law obligated the library as a public forum to host the screening. “It is our hope the controversy this event generates will expose the areas within our community where bigotry and racism exist and we fully support our Islamic community’s efforts to peacefully fight this prejudice.”

ACT! for Des Plaines founder Sara Schmidt denied hating Muslims but rather radicals “who want to destroy our way of life, who want to take over our country… and make us all Islam” are what concern Schmidt. “They don’t have the right to do that and they have devious ways to do that.” Schmidt cited a recent lawsuit by the American Islamic Center against the Des Plaines City Council after truck traffic zoning and safety issues prompted denial of a building permit for a community center.

In the end, the screening passed without event, although ICC members there to present questions and protest actually constituted the majority of the audience. Schmidt invited the gathered Muslims to collaborate against “Islamic extremists” and then showed the Wilders film. Most of the audience dissipated before a second showing.

“Americans enjoy more freedom than Europeans,” Wilders stated during a May 12, 2011, address in Nashville, Tennessee; “you cannot imagine how we envy your First Amendment.” While Europeans and Canadians “are dragged to court for telling the truth about Islam,” Americans “are still allowed to tell the truth.” “The day when America follows the example of Europe and Canada and introduces so-called ‘hate speech crimes’… America will have lost its freedom.”

The Des Plaines nonevent confirms Wilders. Accusations of “hate” and “Islamophobia,” including a partisan position from a public official theoretically committed to impartiality, did not stop a public gathering. Wilders appeared on screen in Des Plaines while opposing Muslim and non-Muslim views received an open airing without any legal repercussions.

Wilders’ Nashville warning, though, shows how easily sentiments against “hate” can harden into laws dictating speech crime and punishment. America’s legal walls protecting free speech create what has been called the world’s “last bastion” of free speech concerning Islam. Yet often self-proclaimed minders of public morality like CAIR in Des Plaines and elsewhere remain ever ready to undermine and outflank these protections in America’s land of the free. Such subversion would simultaneously weaken freedom and the ability to discuss threats to it. “We have to be able to speak up or we’ve lost it,” Schmidt rightfully observed.

Washington Post Engages in Propaganda Exercise against Benghazi Conference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dylan Byers tweet

Tapper tweet

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

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

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

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

 

Benghazi Panelist’s Fiery Response to a Muslim Student’s Question That Made the Audience Erupt in Cheers

The Blaze, By Erica Ritz:

Author and terrorism expert Brigitte Gabriel, the CEO of ACT! for America, spoke heatedly at the Heritage Foundation’s Benghazi panel on Monday after being asked a question by a Muslim law student from American University. Gabriel’s response made the audience erupt in cheers, with some even jumping to their feet. But that’s not the end of it: the student herself even elicited applause at the end.

“I know that we portray Islam and all Muslims as bad, but there are 1.8 billion [followers] of Islam,” the law student, who identified herself as Saba Ahmed, began. “We have 8 million plus Muslim Americans in this country, and I don’t see them represented here. But my question is: how can we fight an ideological war with weapons? How can we ever end this war? The jihadist ideology that you talk about, it’s an ideology. How can you ever win this thing if you don’t address it ideologically?”

American University law student Saba Ahmed spoke at the Heritage Foundation's panel on Benghazi June 16, 2014. (Photo: The Heritage Foundation via Media Matters)

After a response from Frank Gaffney, Gabriel began by thanking Ahmed for the question. Then she launched into a heated explanation of why radical Islam matters, even if the majority of Muslims are peaceful.

“There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world today – of course not all of them are radicals!” Gabriel said. “The majority of them are peaceful people. The radicals are estimated to be between 15 to 25 percent. … But when you look at 15 to 25 percent of the world Muslim population, you’re looking at 180 million to 300 million people dedicated to the destruction of western civilization. That is as big as the United States. So why should we worry about the radical 15 to 25 percent? Because it is the radicals that kill. Because it is the radicals that behead and massacre.”

Gabriel continued to note that the majority of Germans, Russians, Chinese, and Japanese in the 20th century were peaceful people, but the radicals in charge massacred tens of millions of people.

“The peaceful majority were irrelevant,” Gabriel said repeatedly.

“I’m glad you’re here, but where are the others speaking out?” Gabriel asked, before being drowned out by a round of applause. “As an American citizen, you sat in this room and instead of standing up and [asking] something about our four Americans that died [in Benghazi] and what our government is doing to correct the problem, you stood there to make a point about peaceful, moderate Muslims.”

Ahmed did not seem defensive or angry over Gabriel’s response, kindly responding that “as a peaceful American Muslim,” she would like to think that she is not “irrelevant.”

“I’m just as much an American, and I’m very deeply saddened about the lives that were lost in Libya, and I hope that we will find justice for their families,” Ahmed continued. “But I don’t think that this war can ever be won by just the military. You have to bring Muslims to the table to address this.”

The panelists all agreed that the dilemma cannot be solved by the military alone, before one asked Ahmed: “Can you tell me who the head of the Muslim peace movement is?”

The law student laughed and said: “I guess it’s me right now. Thank you.”

That’s when the panel and the audience cheered her.

The exchange has caused some controversy on the web, with Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank describing it as “ugly taunting of a woman in the room who wore an Islamic head covering.” Media Matters also picked up the story, and posted video of Gabriel’s response via the Heritage Foundation’s livestream.

Watch the video below to make your own decision about whether it was an “ugly” exchange (relevant comments start around 4:15):

ALAC Protects Constitutional Rights Against Foreign Laws – Including Shariah

american-justice2 (1)ACT! for America:

Recently, there has been a great deal of confusion and misinformation about efforts in Oklahoma to prevent the infiltration and insinuation of Shariah law in the Sooner State.

The confusion stems from a ruling earlier this month by Federal Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange requiring the state of Oklahoma to pay the legal fees of a plaintiff who successfully sued the state over the so-called “Save Our State Amendment” from way back in 2010.

This was just the latest legal setback for that beleaguered initiative.

On 15 August 2013, the same US District Judge, Vicki Miles-LaGrange, struck down the amendment (also known as SQ755) that forbade Oklahoma’s courts from considering Islamic law (Shariah) in judicial decisions.

SQ755 had overwhelmingly passed a vote of the people in Oklahoma in November 2010.

This decision was not a surprise and echoed an earlier ruling by the Tenth US Circuit Court of Appeals also in 2010. As detailed in this article, SQ755 contained several flaws which rendered it counterproductive:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/american_laws_for_american_courts.html

Fortunately, as ACT! For America members know, there is an effective and constitutional alternative to measures such as SQ755 and, thanks to the foresight and tenacity of State Representative Sally Kern, Oklahoma joined a host of other states last spring in passing it into law. That law is called American Laws for American Courts (ALAC).

Authored by Representative Kern, ALAC passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives 85-7 and the Oklahoma Senate 40-3. The bill was signed into law by Governor Mary Fallin on 22 April 2013.

The passage of ALAC in Oklahoma was the culmination of a 3-year effort by Representative Kern that she embarked upon when she learned that SQ755 was likely to run into trouble in the courts.

ALAC has now been passed into law in Tennessee, Louisiana, Arizona, Kansas, Oklahoma and North Carolina. A version of ALAC also passed into law for specialty courts in the state of Washington. Moreover, ALAC passed the Alabama legislature overwhelmingly last year as a constitutional amendment and goes to a vote of the people on the ballot in their next statewide election in November.

ALAC remedies the flaws in Oklahoma’s SQ 755, and in many ways takes a diametrically opposite approach to SQ 755:

• ALAC is facially neutral. In an honest debate, it cannot be accused of discriminating against any religion or protected class.

• ALAC is based on a completely different legal premise from SQ 755’s. Rather than seeking a ban on foreign or international law, ALAC seeks to preserve the constitutional rights and state public policy protections of American citizens and legal residents, in cases involving foreign laws in the particular dispute being adjudicated. If a case arises in which a foreign law or foreign legal doctrine is involved in a dispute in a state court, ALAC prevents the use of that foreign law or foreign legal doctrine if any of the parties’ fundamental constitutional rights or state public policy would be violated in the process. This is very different from a blanket ban on foreign laws.

• ALAC is not vague. It provides specific guidance for judges on complex legal issues involving comity, choice of law, choice of forum, conflict of laws and forum non conveniens, protecting fundamental constitutional rights.

Because of the careful planning and thought behind ALAC’s wording, in contrast to SQ 755, from a practical standpoint, it is effective in preventing the enforcement of any foreign law – including shariah law – that would violate U.S. and state constitutional liberties or state public policy.

And the need for an effective law preserving constitutional rights against the enforcement of unconstitutional foreign law is both real and urgent: an independent study found 50 cases in 23 states where shariah law had been introduced into state court cases, including some appellate and trial court cases where the judges ruled for shariah law over U.S. law. Most victims of foreign laws in these cases had come to America for freedom and individual liberty – including American Muslims seeking to escape shariah.

It is important to point out that ALAC has been in force since 2010 and has never been challenged in court, simply because there is no basis on which to challenge a law that expressly protects constitutional rights.

Muslim Brotherhood organizations, such as the HAMAS-tied Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), have opposed ALAC, just as they opposed SQ755. This shows their true motivation; they are not interested in freedom, liberty and our constitution that guarantees them. CAIR has another, more sinister, hate-filled agenda.

Nevertheless, the states that have passed ALAC, such as Oklahoma, have moved to prevent the kind of “creeping shariah” that has occurred in Western Europe, Great Britain in particular. Despite what you might read from the so-called “mainstream” media, the threat from shariah is real and must be guarded against. It is naïve to think that “it can’t happen here.” Shariah is ALREADY here and groups like CAIR are promoting it actively.

Thanks to Representative Kern and her colleagues in the Oklahoma legislature, with the support of ACT! For America’s thousands of members in Oklahoma, we have made sure that the laws applied in Oklahoma courts will be AMERICAN laws.

Coolness Prevails At ACT! Meeting

ACT meeting

The mood was cautiously civil last week as area Muslims attended a gathering for what they feared was a hate group.

Des Plaines for ACT!, a chapter of the national ACT! For America, has been meeting at the Des Plaines Public Library bi-monthly since last fall. ACT! works to curb Islamic extremists by speaking out within communities. The group has drawn concern from organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center, which labels ACT! as a hate group.

Local organizers have said ACT! is trying to inform their communities about the threat posed by radicals, not everyday Muslims.

Still, the group raised concerns within Des Plaines’ Islamic community after distributing fliers in Metropolitan Square early last week. The fliers promoted the screening of a controversial speech about the dangers of Islam by Dutch politician Geert Wilders. That screening was part of ACT!’s meeting at the library Saturday, May 17.

Leaders from the Des Plaines Islamic Center organized members and attended the meeting. People began showing up around noon, about an hour before the start time. ACT!’s members locked the room while they set up chairs and tables and began allowing visitors in just before 1 p.m.

Members of Islamic Community Center told a Journal & Topics reporter they were interested to see what the ACT! members had to say. By the time the event started the majority of the crowd was Muslim visitors.

Sara Schmidt, co-founder of Des Plaines for ACT!, welcomed the protestors and invited them to join the group and work against Islamic extremists. They then showed the Wilders speech and gave community members 2 minutes each to speak.

Most of the crowd then dissipated before the screening of a second film.

“I think they accomplished everything they were going to accomplish,” library spokesperson Heather Imhoff said.

FLORIDA LEGISLATURE MOVES TO PROTECT ITS CITIZENS FROM FOREIGN LAWS

download (99)

From ACT! for America:

This week, the Florida state legislature passed SB 386, a bill supported by ACT! For America that will help protect Floridians from foreign law that is inconsistent with American values, such as Islamic sharia law.

There has been a great deal of mis- and disinformation about SB 386, so we wanted to set the record straight on what the bill accomplishes.

When hopefully signed into law by Governor Scott, the bill will:

  • Help protect Florida parents who face loss of their children to a foreign custody judgment;
  • Help protect spouses who face unfair foreign judgments of divorce, spousal support, or marital property distributions;
  • Help protect parents and spouses from marital contracts (including Islamic marital contracts often named mahrs) that would force decisions regarding child custody, spousal support and marital property distributions to be decided in foreign courts or under foreign law in American courts;
  • And, help protect parents and spouses from having disputes regarding child custody, spousal support and marital property distributions from being dismissed by Florida courts in favor of being decided in foreign courts.

Although American and Florida courts have held in the past that foreign law should not be applied when the foreign law offends public policy, this concept has not previously been strengthened by statute. Further, under current Florida child custody statutes a judge can refuse to enforce a foreign custody judgment only “if the child custody law of a foreign country violates fundamental principles of human rights.” Unfortunately, statements by the U.S. State Department suggest that “fundamental principles of human rights” should be interpreted more narrowly than how most Americans would interpret the phrase. SB 386 authorizes a Florida judge to refuse to enforce a foreign custody judgment under the much broader standard of whether the judgment offends the public policy of Florida.

Therefore, the most important effect of the change in the law in Florida would be to protect parents from losing their children to foreign custody decrees, which has happened before.

For example, a Maryland appellate court, in Hosain v. Malik, enforced a Pakistani custody order, issued under a sharia rule granting sole custody to the father when the child reaches the age of seven, handing a little girl who was being cared for by her mother over to the father.

Further, a California appellate court, in In re Marriage of Malak, enforced a Lebanese custody decree granting custody to the husband, even though the trial court had found that the wife had been denied due process in Lebanon, and the Lebanese Islamic court did not base its ruling upon the best interests of the child.

SB 386 grants Florida parents the ability to dissuade Florida courts from following such shocking rulings enforcing foreign sharia judgments, and thereby not lose their children to similar rulings.

Much has been made of the fact that the SB 386 applies to family law. From a practical standpoint, this represents no real difference when compared to American Laws for American Courts laws in other states, since 80% or more of cases in US state courts in which sharia has arisen involve family law disputes.

SB 386 is a significant step forward in protecting Florida’s court systems from the infiltration of sharia law and in protecting Florida’s citizenry from all offensive forms of foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines.

ACT! for America is a 501 (c) 4 non-profit, non partisan organization that educates and empowers citizens to help play a role in enhancing our nation’s public safety. Today, ACT! has 280,000 members and 875 chapters nationwide including chapters in 11 countries around the world as far as Australia, South Africa and Israel.

Attempting to Rewrite the History of September 11th

september-9-11-attacks-anniversary-ground-zero-world-trade-center-pentagon-flight-93-second-airplane-wtc_39997_600x450ACT! for America, By Brigitte Gabriel:

On May 21st, more than 13 years after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, the National September 11 Memorial Museum will open its doors to the public to make certain that Americans will never forget what happened that day.

Unfortunately, some are working to ensure that future generations of Americans never fully understand the attacks, which were the most deadly terrorist attacks in the history of the United States.

One of the exhibits in the museum will feature a 7-minute film called “The Rise of Al Qaeda.”

In that film, the Al Qaeda terrorists are referred to as “Islamists” who were waging “jihad” with the attacks upon America.

Those two words, “Islamists” and “Jihad” have caused a controversy, with a variety of critics calling for whitewashing the description of Al Qaeda and the attacks by sanitizing the museum commentary by removing those two words.

This would be a tragic mistake.

Despite the complaints, the use of the terms “Islamist” and “jihad” in no way suggest that all Muslims are terrorists or support violence. No serious analyst in his or her right mind would make such an assertion.

Nevertheless, in warfare the enemy’s reality becomes your reality, so it makes perfect sense to call Islamists “Islamists” and to call Jihad “Jihad.” After all, in World War II, Nazis were referred to as Nazis, because they themselves referred to themselves as such.

America’s enemies in the war on terror do NOT refer to themselves as “extremists,” “militants,” or “radicals.”

They refer to themselves as Jihadists and Jihadis.

Interestingly, critics on both sides of the issue seem to dislike the term “Islamist.” Apologists for organizations such as Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood claim that the term too closely identifies Islam with “extremism.” Many in the countershariah and counterjihad movement say that the term “Islamist” is a term concocted in the West that has no meaning in the Islamic world.

Both are wrong.

The first known use of the term “Islamist” came from the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the late dictator of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism.

Khomeini said: “We are neither capitalists nor communists. We are Islamists.”

There are many different definitions listed for the term “Islamist,” but that is not the point. The point is that one of the world’s most prominent Muslim leaders coined the term to describe the revolution he led. It is entirely proper for the 9/11 museum to use the term “Islamists” to describe Al Qaeda.

The same is true for the term “jihad.” There has long been a debate about the use of the term jihad, with Muslim Brotherhood organizations such as CAIR particularly objecting to its use to describe violent warfare or terrorism.

The Muslim Brotherhood in America aims to convince Americans that Jihad only means “to struggle” or, more specifically, an internal, personal struggle.

This is only partially correct and any campaign that claims that the term Jihad only means an internal, personal struggle amounts to disinformation. The dualistic nature of Islam, in this case as it applies to the meaning of “Jihad,” is well documented both in historical Islamic doctrine and in contemporary use of the term.

And Jihad definitely does not only mean an internal, personal struggle. In fact, the most widespread meaning of the term that is of particular interest to Westerners who are threatened by Jihad does in fact entail violence.

A false and misleading statement has been attributed to the San Francisco chapter head of CAIR, Zahra Billoo:

“A common misconception of the word jihad is that it means armed struggle or holy war, and that is something that has been perpetrated by many who’ve made careers out of pushing anti-Muslim sentiment.”

Such a meaning for Jihad has nothing to do with anyone with an “anti-Muslim sentiment.” It has everything to do with Islam itself.

Let us examine definitions of Jihad from two authoritative sources.

Jihad According to the Quran

The first is the Quran itself. In this case, specifically The Noble Qu’ran, translated into English by two scholars: Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, PhD, professor of Islamic Faith and Teachings at the Islamic University, Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah, Saudi Arabia and Dr. Muhammad Mushin Khan of the same institution. The Noble Qu’ran was published by Darussalam Publishers and Distributors, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It has been catalogued by King Fahad National Library. On page 818, in a glossary accompanying the text of the Quran, The Noble Qu’ran provides the following definition of Jihad:

“Jihad: Holy fighting in the Cause of Allah or any other kind of effort to make Allah’s Word superior. Jihad is regarded as one of the fundamentals of Islam.”


Can the Quran itself be promoting “anti-Muslim sentiment” as CAIR’s Zahra Billoo asserts?

Jihad According to Shariah

Our second source is Reliance of the Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.

Reliance of the Traveler is one of the world’s most widely read manuals of Shariah law. It has been endorsed by a variety of Islamic authorities, including Al Azhar University in Cairo, IIIT (International Institute of Islamic Thought) in Herndon, Virginia, the Fiqh Council of North America, the Islamic Fiqh Academy in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, the Mufti of the Jordanian Armed Forces and the Imam of the Mosque of Darwish Pasha in Damascus, Syria.

These can hardly be termed as those pushing “anti-Muslim sentiment” as Billoo claims.

On page 599 of Reliance of the Traveler, readers can find the following passage:

o9.0 JIHAD

(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion…

The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus is such Koranic verses as:

(1) “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2:216);
(2) “Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4:89);
(3) “Fight the idolators utterly” (Koran 9:36);

and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

“I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah”;

and the hadith reported by Muslim,

“To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.”


Jihad According to Terrorists

If Jihad truly means to “struggle” and not warfare to establish the religion, how does CAIR explain the names of all these terrorist organizations?

Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami (Pakistan, Bangladesh, India)
Islamic Front for Armed Jihad (Algeria)
Islamic Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine (Lebanon)
Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine (Israel)
Islamic Jihad Organization (Lebanon)
Islamic Jihad Union (Uzbekistan)
Jama’at al-Jihad al-Islami (Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Russia)
Laskar Jihad (Indonesia)
United Jihad Council (India)

So, it is completely appropriate for the 9/11 museum to use the term “jihadist” and “jihad” to describe Al Qaeda terrorists and their activity.

Conclusion

We suspect that the sensitivity expressed with regard to the 9/11 museum goes way beyond the use of the terms “Islamist” and “jihad.”

The fact is, our country has never truly come to terms with the role that Islam plays in Jihadist terrorism.

It would be great if there was truly no connection whatsoever between Islam and Jihad. But the reality is Jihad is a tenet of Islam.

As previously stated, in warfare the enemy’s reality becomes your reality. It makes no difference what Americans think about the stated motivations and doctrine behind the actions of Al Qaeda. The only thing that truly matters is what the leaders and members of Al Qaeda think about why they wage warfare.

The fact of the matter is, Al Qaeda justify their actions by invoking Islam and Allah:

In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate,

The General Command of the al-Qaeda Organization Statement on the Succession of Sheikh Osama Bin Laden in the al-Qaeda Organization’s Command

With hearts that are satisfied with Allah’s ordainment, and assured of Almighty Allah’s promise and His good reward, the Islamic umma, the mujahideen in the al-Qaeda Organization, and in other groups received the news of the martyrdom of the reviver imam, the jihadist immigrant Sheikh Osama Bin-Muhammad Bin Laden, may Allah rest his soul in peace. We pray to the Almighty Allah to raise his rank and to reward him, on behalf of us and the Muslim umma, with the best of rewards.

Since jihad is continuing until the Day of Resurrection … the General Command of the al-Qaeda Organization announces, after completion of consultations, that Sheikh Dr Abu-Muhammad Ayman al-Zawahiri, may Allah guide him to success, has taken over command of the group…

Statement from Al Qaeda
Announcing Zawahiri as the
New leader of Al Qaeda after
Osama Bin Laden’s death


All these sins and crimes committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger and Muslims.

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies – civilians and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in every country in which it is possible to do it…

We, with Allah’s help, call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it.

Ayman al-Zawahiri
Leader of Al Qaeda


It would be a tragic mistake if the 9/11 museum was to erase the role that their Islamic faith played in the leadership and membership of Al Qaeda’s horrific actions on September 11th, 2001. 

VA terror-linked mosque honored … and you’re surprised?

“MAS believes that Islamic principles, when applied appropriately, can give rise to a good way of life and promote a healthy society. … As such, MAS encourages American Muslims to actively engage in shaping America’s legislation. This is not counter to American values, but is in fact an attempt by loyal citizens to improve society from their perspective.”
-
 Muslim American Society 

 

In the wake of the Virginia legislature’s commendation of the Falls Church, Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center earlier this month, outrage is being heard.  People are asking,  how could this have happened?  What were our representatives thinking?  Don’t they know the history/terror ties of the mosque? How could they be so manipulated?

Simple answer: they are politicians.  They listen to the loudest voices that bring the most votes.

How many that had expressed outrage simply went on to check out “March Madness” and/or watch Dancing with the Stars (or something similar)? It would be a safe guess that the vast majority of those expressing outrage and shock have never written their local representatives.

Most Americans don’t even  stay in touch with their representatives through newsletters, tweets,etc. — a good percentage couldn’t even name their representatives.

Political apathy.

The Islamist activists know who their representatives are.  They remind all Muslims attending the mosque who the representatives are, how to effectively contact them and what issues to push.  This happened in Virginia and this is happening all over the U.S.A.. Muslim political awareness/action is well organized and happening across the nation at the local,state and national levels with great success.

For example:

  • This week MPAC sent out a notice that, “Congress is in Recess! Schedule a Meeting with Your Representative“.   The webpage includes tools on how to locate their representative and a guide for followup.
  • United Voices of America (CAIR/Florida)  hosts Muslim Capital Day in Tallahassee.  Similar events are being held/organized in other states.
  • Tampa’s Oaktree Institute has programs to train Muslim activists to organize and work the legislative system.

In other words, the Islamists have learned how to work the U.S. legislative system quite well.  They realize that time is on their side.  Western apathy and political correctness works to their advantage. They have learned that even though they represent a small minority in this country, a repeated and persistent voice produces results with politicians – it’s a force multiplier – especially when most of the electorate has no interest in what is happening in their state capital.

Islamists in North American know that politicians are the key for success in implementing their agenda and reaching their goals.  Through patience, perseverance, votes  and campaign contributions, any obstacles are slowly chipped away.  The following is from the Muslim American Society (MAS) website:

11. How does MAS define its position regarding the Khilafa (Caliphate), Islamic State and Islamic Law?

MAS aims to move people to strive for God-consciousness, liberty and justice, and to convey Islam with utmost clarity. MAS envisions a virtuous and just American society where Muslims are exemplary citizens actively engaged in helping to improve the society. It is not the goal of MAS to establish khilafa, an Islamic state or impose Islamic law in the United States.
Despite the lack of a current model of proper application of sharia (Islamic law) anywhere in the world, MAS believes that Islamic principles, when applied appropriately, can give rise to a good way of life and promote a healthy society. 
All Americans, without exception, have the right to advocate for legislation that they believe is beneficial for society, within the framework of the American constitution, and guided by their faith and values. As such, MAS encourages American Muslims to actively engage in shaping America’s legislation. This is not counter to American values, but is in fact an attempt by loyal citizens to improve society from their perspective.

Now back to Virginia  …

Keep in mind that state legislatures pass bills commending just about everything under the sun.  This includes credit unions/banks/churches/corner gas stations — you name it.  It’s simply “feel good” gestures aimed at getting re-election votes down the road.

Legislators in attendance usually are not even listening to that portion of the session dedicated to these type of bills.   They simply vote yes.

The bill honoring the “9/11″ mosque (HJ484) was introduced by Del. Alfonso Lopez (D-Arlington) with support from co-patrons Del. Kaye Kory (D-Falls Church)Del. Ken Plum (D-Reston)Del. Mark Sickles (D-Alexandria)Del. Marcus Simon (D-Falls Church), and Del. Vivian Watts (D-Annandale).

All these democrats represent areas with a large number of Muslim constituents AND ALL were endorsed by the Virginia Muslim Political Action Committee (VMPAC) in 2013.  Rest assured, this endorsement was a factor in support of the bill.

Should they be ashamed of themselves? You bet, but the reality is most politicians have very little shame – if any.  It’s the nature of the beast.

Let’s hope this acts as a wake-up call to those residents in Virginia as well as others across the nation.  Get involved!

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

Here is how you can get involved -

ACT! for America is building an effective grassroots national security citizen lobby with over 875 chapters across the country and 279,000 members so far.

An open letter signed by 1,000 ACT! for America members in opposition to the commendation of the Dar al-Hijra Islamic Center was hand delivered to the Virginia legislature by Lisa Piraneo last week. And over 25,000 e-mails have been sent to them from concerned citizens all across the nation! As Lisa said, “they know they’ve stepped in it!” 

Join ACT! for America by signing up for their action alerts. Go to the Action Center to learn more:

logo (1)

URGENT ACTION ALERT! Why Did the VA Legislature Publicly Commend a 9/11 Terror Mosque?

state-capitol-cover-jan-14-20136What is going on in the Virginia state legislature? by By Brigitte Gabriel

Something is terribly wrong with the Virginia state legislature.

On Wednesday, March 5th, in House Joint Resolution 484, the elected representatives of the people of Virginia commended the notorious, terror-tied Dar al Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church.

Dar al Hijrah has a history of ties to multiple known and convicted terrorists, led by its former Imam, Anwar al-Awlaki, who became head of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, before he was killed in a US air strike in 2011.

It was this institution that the Virginia House and Senate agreed to commend by voice vote.

This amounts to an official government endorsement of an entity whose members and employees have been tied to Jihad for many years.

In addition to the fact that an Imam at Dar al Hijrah mosque from 2001-2002 was Anwar al-Awlaki, not just an Al Qaeda terrorist, but the leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the mosque has a macabre history and other Imams that have preached there have expressed violent extremist views as recently as 2013:

Other Imams at Dar al-Hijrah have expressed extremist views as well:

• Imam Sheik Shaker Elsayed of Dar al-Hijrah called for armed jihad in a speech at a high school in Alexandria, Virginia in February 2013.

Dar al-Hijrah is affiliated with three Muslim Brotherhood front groups (The Muslim Brotherhood has been designated a terrorist organization by Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.) in the United States:

• The Muslim American Society

• The Islamic Society of North America

• The North American Islamic Trust

All three of these organizations were named as unindicted co-conspirators in the largest successful terrorism financing prosecution in US history: the US v the Holy Land Foundation.

This hardly seems like the type of organization that any governmental body in the United States—on any level—should be praising.

The members of the Virginia legislature—especially the leadership in both the House and Senate—should be ashamed. They should move right away to rescind the unjustified honor that they bestowed on Dar al-Hijrah and replace it with a resolution condemning the mosque’s numerous ties to terrorists and extremists.

*** TIME-SENSITIVE VIRGINIA ACTION ALERT! ***
EXPRESS YOUR OPPOSITION TO THE VIRGINIA
GENERAL ASSEMBLY’S COMMENDATION
OF A 9/11 MOSQUE!
by Lisa Piraneo, Director of Government Relations

ACT! for America

As you may know, the Leadership of the Virginia General Assembly recently allowed a resolution to come to the floors of the House and Senate (via voice vote, no less) that commends the Falls Church, Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center – an organization that has a long history of ties to multiple known and convicted terrorists – including the perpetrators of 9/11.

Using your tax dollars, the Leadership in both the Virginia House and Senate agreed to allow H.J. Res. 484, to come to the floor for a vote….and they allowed it to be passed by “voice vote” so there is no trace of how each legislator acted on the matter. This one rests squarely on Leadership’s shoulders. Shame on them.

Silence by the voters of Virginia will send a clear message that outrageous acts like this are O.K. Loud and vocal opposition, however, will send quite another message: This is unacceptable.

Next week, the Virginia General Assembly will return to session for a very brief period of time to address some still-pending budget matters.

This is the time for the General Assembly Leadership – who allowed this resolution to come to the floor for a vote via voice vote – to hear how their constituency feels about this matter – and to understand that the Virginia voters expect this wrong to be corrected.

*** IMPORTANT AND TIME-SENSITIVE ACTION ITEM! ***

It will only take one minute for you to individually express your opposition about H.J. Res. 484 by signing our Open Letter to the Leadership of the Virginia General Assembly, but when all of our voices are joined together, it will create an enormous roar. That’s what they need to hear.

Will you please read and sign our letter today?

UPDATE: 

We have written a sample call and e-mail script for you, to make this as easy as possible.

Click HERE TO CALL and click HERE TO E-MAIL.

Then, please pass it along to everyone you know who thinks that no legislative body should publicly endorse and commend institutions with ties to terrorists.

Thank you!

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

Also see:

Virginia Honors 9/11 Mosque (investors.com) -

Political Correctness: The only thing more revolting than building a mosque next to the World Trade Center would be honoring the mosque that helped the 9/11 hijackers. Yet that’s just what Virginia has done.

CAIR’s Attack on Zuhdi Jasser’s Funders Raises the Questions: Who is CAIR and Where Does Its Money Come From?

John-G600x338ACT! for America, By John Guandolo:

Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), served for eleven years as a medical officer in the United States Navy where he was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal. Dr. Jasser is a Past-President of the Arizona Medical Association, and currently has a private practice in Phoenix specializing in internal medicine and nuclear cardiology.
Dr. Jasser, as many are aware, is an outspoken critic of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement in the United States, and is harshly critical of those seeking to impose sharia (Islamic Law) in America. He strongly supports the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

Zuhdi Jasser is a patriot, an American hero, and a Muslim – which is why Hamas (doing business as CAIR) is attacking him.

Last week, Hamas (dba CAIR) launched yet another assault on Dr. Jasser. In 2012, CAIR unsuccessfully tried to block his appointment to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), where he currently serves. CAIR is calling on the USCIRF to investigate the sources of funding for Dr. Jasser’s organization AIFD.

The fact that a Hamas organization like CAIR could operate so openly in the U.S. without disruption from the current administration is, in and of itself, astonishing. CAIR’s brazenness in attacking an honorable American like Dr. Jasser begs questions that must be answered – Who is CAIR and Where Does Its Funding Come From?

Let us together take a walk through the place CAIR never wants us to go – into the land of facts and evidence.

CAIR was incorporated in 1994 by Nihad Awad, Omar Ahmad, and Rafeeq Jaber. All three of these men were leaders of the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP), a now-defunct Hamas organization in the U.S. Musa Abu Marzook, the Deputy Political Chief for Hamas and the Leader of Hamas in the United States (Chairman of the U.S. Palestine Committee), was a member of the IAP Board of Directors. FYI, Hamas is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the U.S. government.

In 1993 and 1994, Omar Ahmad served as the National President for IAP, and from 1994-2005 was the Chairman of the Board for CAIR. Omar Ahmad was also on the Executive Committee of the U.S. Palestine Committee (Hamas). Rafeeq Jaber served as the National President of IAP from 1996-98 and 1999-2005.

U.S. government prosecutors and the Department of Justice identify CAIR as a member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, which is Hamas in the United States.

In 1993, the leaders of the U.S. Palestine Committee (Hamas) met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The meeting was covered by the FBI via physical surveillance, microphones in meeting rooms, and wiretaps on phones. An “Action Memo” from FBI’s Assistant Director for Counterterrorism Dale Watson declared this was a “Meeting among senior leaders of Hamas, the HLFRD, and the IAP.” FBI analysis of the Philadelphia meeting, which was entered into evidence at the US v Holy Land Foundation (hereafter “HLF”) trial reveals “All attendees of this meeting are Hamas members.” Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmad were present at this meeting.

Recorded conversations of this meeting captured Awad and Ahmad discussing the creation of a new public relations organization for Hamas which investigators testified was CAIR, created in summer of 1994, less than a year after the Philadelphia meeting.

The HLF Indictment (2004) states: “The purpose of this (1993 Philadelphia) meeting was to determine their course of action in support of Hamas’ opposition to the peace plan and to decide how to conceal their activities from the scrutiny of the United States government.”

In a 2004 FBI raid at the Annandale, Virginia residence of Ismail Elbarasse, a senior Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood (MB) operative, the archives of the U.S. MB were discovered. One of the documents found lists the leaders of the U.S. Palestine Committee (Hamas) – the names of CAIR founders Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmad (alias Omar Yeheya) are on that list.

Because of the overwhelming evidence that CAIR is a Hamas entity, U.S. prosecutors list CAIR as a member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee (Hamas) and as an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF trial – the largest Hamas and terrorism financing trial ever successfully prosecuted in U.S. history.

In the government filing requesting a denial of CAIR’s motion to have its name removed from the Unindicted Co-Conspirator list in the HLF case, U.S. prosecutors state, “The U.S. Muslim Brotherhood created the U.S. Palestine Committee, which documents reflect was initially comprised of three organizations: the OLF (HLF), the IAP, and the UASR. CAIR was later added to these organizations…the mandate of these organizations, per the International Muslim Brotherhood, was to support Hamas.”

In his ruling, the federal Judge in this case, Jorge Solis, stated: “The Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA, and NAIT with the HLF, the Islamic Association of Palestine (“IAP”), and with Hamas.”

The question of why the President of ISNA sits on the Department of Homeland Security’s Advisory Committee, works directly with the Secretary of State, briefs National Security staffs, moderates panel discussions at CIA Headquarters, and has been given awards by the FBI will have to be addressed at a later date.

Is anyone else wondering how CAIR and its leaders are allowed to operate freely and unimpeded in America, with their headquarters only a block from the U.S. Capitol?

More evidence…

In the December 2007 government filing in the US v Sabri Benkhala appeal, the government stated: “From its founding by the Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists.” So, CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood organization which supports terrorists. It would appear federal law is being violated here.

This would explain why CAIR has a long record of defending jihadis and jihadi organizations, while publicly condemning the counterterrorism efforts of the U.S. government and local law enforcement. Noteworthy is CAIR’s vigorous defense of Hamas leader Musa Abu Marzook after his arrest, and their criticism of our government for its investigation and indictment of the Holy Land Foundation – another Hamas entity.

What do senior government officials who have seen the evidence have to say about CAIR?

Former FBI Assistant Director Steve Pomeranz stated: “By masquerading as a mainstream public affairs organization, CAIR has taken the lead in trying to mislead the public about the terrorist underpinnings of militant Islamic movements, in particular, Hamas.”

In a 2003 Senate Sub-Committee hearing on radical Islam, Senator Charles Schumer stated, “To make matters worse, the prominent members of the Council’s (CAIR’s) current leadership who you Mr. Chairman invited to the hearings today – they declined to testify – also have intimate connections with Hamas.”

In June 2009, on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Frank Wolf (VA) gave a lengthy speech in which he laid out a great deal of the evidence against CAIR and its ties to Hamas. The transcript of this speech can be found at http://wolf.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/wolf-gives-major-floor-speech-on-fbis-cooperation-with-cair

In a letter dated April 28, 2009 from the FBI’s Assistant Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, to U.S. Senator John Kyl (AZ), the FBI leader details why the FBI cut off all formal ties to CAIR and identifies it as an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF trial because of its relationship with Hamas.

In a letter dated February 12, 2010 to U.S. Congresswoman Sue Myrick (NC) from Assistant U.S. Attorney General Ronald Weich, Mr. Weich wrote “Enclosed (is)…evidence that was introduced in that trial (US v HLF) which demonstrated the relationship among CAIR, individual CAIR founders, and the Palestine Committee. Evidence was also introduced that demonstrated a relationship between the Palestine Committee and Hamas.”

Screenshot of scanned check given to Islamic organization Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) by the terrorist organization Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Screenshot of scanned check given to Islamic organization Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) by the terrorist organization Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

For those of you who forgot Junior High School math, please allow me to review: If A=B and B=C, then A=C. There is a relationship between CAIR and the U.S. Palestine Committee. There is a relationship between the U.S. Palestine Committee and Hamas. Therefore, there is a relationship between CAIR and Hamas. As was previously stated, on the order from the International Muslim Brotherhood, the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood created the U.S. Palestine Committee to raise “media, money, men and all that” for Hamas. The U.S. Palestine Committee created four organizations to support Hamas with propaganda, money, and recruits: The Occupied Land Fund (which became the HLF), the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP), the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), and CAIR.

In the sporting world we call this a slam dunk. But what about the money CAIR receives. Certainly if they are attacking Dr. Jasser and his organization for improprieties in his sources of funding, CAIR must be squeaky clean, yes?

No, actually.

Actually, the Hamas front called the Holy Land Foundation provided CAIR with $5,000 of seed money shortly after CAIR was founded, and, in return, CAIR raised money for HLF. Is there another violation of U.S. law here?

CAIR has also received funds from overseas organizations like WAMY (World Association of Muslim Youth) and IIRO (International Islamic Relief Organization). Both WAMY and IIRO are Saudi-funded groups whose U.S. offices were raided by the government because of their possible ties to Hamas and Al Qaeda.

Most notably, In 1999, CAIR received $250,000 from a Saudi-based bank headed by the former Director of the Muslim World League (MWL). Osama bin Laden identified MWL as a primary source of funds for Al Qaeda. Federal investigators raided MWL’s U.S. offices. It is not a far reach to see that CAIR received money from a source the leader of Al Qaeda recognized was a “primary” source of funding for AQ.

It should be noted the information in this article is a small amount of the massive evidence revealing the Council on American Islamic Relations is a Hamas entity whose role in the greater Islamic Movement here is to “support terrorists” as the U.S. Department of Justice has stated. They do this in a variety of ways. As a matter of fact, CAIR’s website acknowledges that all money donated to it via zakat goes to jihad fisabillillah – the seventh category under Islamic Law – but maybe we should save that discussion for another article.

As CAIR launches its attacks against honorable Americans like Dr. Zuhdi Jasser who are standing firm on the truth about a real and present threat to the American people and our nation, another question must be asked…

Where are the U.S. agencies charged with protecting and defending Americans like Dr. Jasser, and why are they not shutting CAIR down, arresting its leaders, and seizing all of its assets? Maybe they haven’t seen the facts.

John Guandolo is the founder of UnderstandingtheThreat.com and the author of the book Raising a Jihadi Generation, detailing the Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement in the United States. He works closely with ACT! for America and helped with the creation of ACT’s Thin Blue Line Project which educates law enforcement, military, and intelligence professionals about the threat from the Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement, and gives them investigative tools and strategies for addressing this threat. Mr. Guandolo is a 1989 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, a former active duty combat Marine Infantry and Reconnaissance Officer, and a former Special Agent with the FBI. For more information, please go to www.UnderstandingtheThreat.com.

 

Muslim Woman Discomforted by Truth at the Bartlett Festival in Tennessee

ACT at FestivalBy Jerry Gordon:

The Bartlett Festival near Memphis is a major fall event in Shelby County, Tennessee.  Among the presenters at the Festival was the ACT! Memphis Chapter who paid the required  $50 fee to set up an information booth to present its views, free speech under our First Amendment.  The Memphis ACT! Booth at the bucolic Bartlett Festival had information that discomforted a local Muslim woman attendee. She lodged a complaint triggering a local Channel 5 WMC TV news investigative report. She said it had no place at a local family event with what she alleged was an anti-Muslim message. However, her action simply drew attention to the realities about the activities of the radical elements in the Shelby County Muslim Community thereby raising the visibility of the ACT! Memphis Chapter awareness campaign.

Watch the WMCTV report, Controversial Festival Booth.

Following the kerfuffle over the WMCTV report, the Memphis ACT! Chapter posted the following response on its website:

It is unfortunate that a woman was offended when ACT! Memphis staffed a booth at the Bartlett Festival.

But we must wonder;

  • Was she offended when a HAMAS Intelligence officer was found living in Collierville and deported?
  • Was she offended when the president of the Muslim Student Association at the University  of Memphis declared the that  MSA was a regular donor to the Holy Land Foundation, which was convicted in a federal trial in Dallas, TX of funding a terrorist organization, Hamas?
  • Was she offended when federal agents raided the Memphis home of a Syrian citizen and found a photograph of him shouldering a rocket-powered grenade launcher in Bosnia while standing next to an associate of Osama bin Laden?
  • Is she offended that the mortgage of a Memphis mosque is held by a front organization of the Iranian government that had its assets seized by the federal government?
  • Was she offended when an Islamic school in Memphis announced that they hired a consultant who was listed in a secret Muslim Brotherhood document that was seized as evidence by federal agents?
  • Was she offended when an Islamic school in Memphis had a former employee of the Holy Land Foundation as a guest speaker to introduce the new principal?
  • Is she offended that several mosques in Memphis are owned by NAIT, an organization that was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial, the largest terrorist financial case to be prosecuted in the United States?
  • Was she offended when a young man from Memphis was radicalized by persons at mosques in Nashville and after returning from “training” in Yemen, went on to shoot down two U.S. Army recruiters in Little Rock, killing one and seriously injuring the other?
  • Was she offended when federal agents raided the apartment of an Egyptian student, near the University of Memphis and next to a mosque and found an airline captain’s uniform and a training video labeled, “How an Airline Captain Should Look and Act?” Was she offended when this student was deported for using a false Social Security number and determined to have been in the country illegally?

Yes, it seems the lady has much to be offended about. But exposing the truth is not one of them.

Read more at  New English Review

September 11, 2013 — Has Anything Changed?

change from nine elevenBy Citizen Warrior:

Has anything changed since 2001? In many ways it would be justifiable to answer no. Politicians and the media are still pitifully reluctant to speak honestly about anything Islam-related. Stealth jihad is still progressing, and bloody jihad is going on as before.

However, many important things have changed. Many more people have awakened to the fact that Islamic doctrine is dangerous to non-Muslims, and our growing numbers have allowed some good legislation to pass. ACT! for America’s membership is multiplying and its clout is growing along with it. Several states in the U.S. have passed American Laws for American Courts legislation, and more are in the process. But the one change that really stands out is the amount of good educational material available about Islam.

When the Towers came down, many of us tried to find answers. We wondered why it happened. Who did this and what motivated them? And those answers were hard to find. That has changed completely. When someone looks for information about Islam now, they can get real answers easily. If you Google the question, “Is Islam dangerous?” or “Does Islam promote violence?” or “Why do Muslims want to kill us?” you will find good answers on the first page of search results. The Koran, the Sira and the Hadith are available in readable form now. That wasn’t the case in 2001. And of course, web sites like WikiIslam.net and TheReligionofPeace.com and blogs and Facebook pages and so on are all over the place now.

People are continually waking up to the disturbing truth about Islamic doctrine. I hear from people all the time who have only recently started looking into Islam because of the Lee Rigby beheading or because of the Boston Marathon bombing. Maybe they were too young on 9/11 to grasp what had happened. But the point is, when people look for answers, now they can find them, so the pace of awakening our fellow non-Muslims is accelerating.

I know it may not seem like it in your personal life sometimes. You reach impasses with people. Some of your own family members might refuse to talk any more about it. But it is also true that sometimes you don’t realize you reached someone. You may have struck a nerve with them and even though they argued with you at the time, later they think about it or something else happens, like the Fort Hood shooting, or the Andy Long murder, and it becomes the last straw and they finally decide to look into it, and once someone looks into it sincerely, we gain another counterjihadist.

Some of us are finding new ways to reach people. Some have been creating excellent pamphlets and leaflets — which can help us reach people (some people are willing to read one just because it’s short). Lots of DVDs and YouTube videos have been created since 9/11. And books, of course. We recently published an article (here) about a group with a booth in Santa Monica on a main thoroughfare every Saturday night to engage people about Islam. One of the comments on that article is illustrative about how new approaches are stimulating creativity in others. The commenter wrote:

I stopped by on Saturday to see the table (I’m visiting Santa Monica). Very nice people! I’m so glad to see them out there. There were lots of Muslims passing by; some stopped to stare or argue, and my friend engaged one of them to try to hear “the other side,” but the only counterargument she got from him was, “This is crap.” If I were doing a table like this — and maybe someday I will be, in a different part of the country — I might want to try a few different ways to hook people and see what works best, like having a poster saying something like, “Could Islam rule the world?” or “Speak up for American freedoms” or “Some conspiracy theories are true” — leading to a graphic of the Muslim Brotherhood and its tentacles. Because people who aren’t already in the counterjihad probably have no idea why we’re “bashing” Islam and they won’t connect the dots, and making them aware in the first 30 seconds that there’s a specific threat — an international movement to take over the world for Islam — would be good. Just an idea to try. God bless these people for being out there.

People are awakening. And it is getting easier to help them awaken. That may seem like a small thing compared to the magnitude of what we are up against, but a little more knowledge is what motivated Flight 93 to stop the hijackers from reaching their intended target. Just a little more knowledge made the difference. You and I need to make sure the people in our lives have a little more knowledge about Islamic doctrine. Let’s roll.

ACT! for America Campaign to Defend Free Speech gearing up for September events

freedom of speech day

ACT! chapters are gearing up nationwide to host events aimed at increasing awareness of  the growing threat to our freedom of speech.

HOST AN EVENT IN YOUR COMMUNITY

From ACT! for America:

It began decades ago as a few lonely voices around the world. A few Muslim leaders clamoring for restrictions on speech that “insults,” “defames,” “offends” or “denigrates” Islam and Muhammad.

The worldwide riots by Muslims in response to the Danish cartoons escalated this demand for restrictions on free speech. Numerous European countries now have “hate speech” laws that restrict speech that Muslims find offensive.

Lars Hedegard, Geert Wilders, and ACT! for America chapter leader Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff have been victims of these laws.

But too many Americans say “this could never happen here.” Really?

What about all the “speech codes” on college campuses that restrict speech for reasons such as “speech that causes offense”? We ignore the rising tide demanding restrictions on free speech at our own peril.

“Americans United to Defend Free Speech” is ACT! for America’s response to this threat. Below is just a small sampling of the growing worldwide effort to restrict speech deemed “offensive” to Islam. (Google searches turn up hundreds of examples.)

EXAMPLES OF ATTACKS ON FREE SPEECH

UN RESOLUTION 16/18 & THE ISTANBUL PROCESS.

Our very own State Department worked with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to pass UN Resolution 16/18. The resolution contains the very “hate speech” language that has led to the criminalization of certain speech in many European countries. The OIC’s true intentions for UN Resolution 16/18 were made clear in a February 18, 2013 article in the Saudi Gazette, “OIC gears up to get denigration of religions criminalized.”

Here’s a quote from that article:
Getting the go-ahead from the Cairo Islamic Summit, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has been actively trying to get the denigration of religions recognized as a criminal offense, according to a top official.

“Next session of the Istanbul Process on Islamophobia will be held in the first half of this year, and the session will squarely focus on the issue of criminalizing denigration of religions,” said Rizwan Saeed Sheikh, director of cultural affairs at the OIC general secretariat and spokesman for the OIC secretary general.

ATTEMPTS TO SILENCE CANADIAN JOURNALISTS

In 2008, journalist Ezra Levant was hauled before a Canadian human rights commission because he published the Danish cartoons. Author Mark Steyn endured a similar fate.

US MUSLIM LEADERS PROMOTING LEGISLATION BANNING FREE SPEECH

In 2012, the Islamic Society of Greater Kansas City launched an online petition calling for legislation that “outlaws any action that may insult one’s religion.” Muslim leaders in New Jersey joined this effort.

U.S. EMBASSY IN CAIRO

Remember the U.S. Embassy in Cairo’s immediate response to the riots on September 11, 2012 outside its compound? “We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

AFTERMATH OF THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 RIOTS

In the aftermath of the September 11, 2012 riots, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Yemen spoke out: “Insults against the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, are not acceptable,” said Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi. “We will not allow anyone to do this by word or by deed.” “There should be limits for the freedom of expression,” added Yemen’s president, Abed Rabbu Mansour Hadi, “especially if such freedom blasphemes the beliefs of nations and defames their figures.” Saudi Arabia went even further and advocated an international censorship body to crush blasphemy on the Internet.

CAIR MISSOURI SUPPORTS PROSECUTING FREE SPEECH

Early this year, the director of the Missouri affiliate of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) posted on his blog that Muslim activists should “Report anti Islamic and anti Muslim content on the internet to appropriate authorities to take action to remove it and go after those who post it online and prosecute and take actions according to the Shariah ruling.”

UN SECRETARY GENERAL SUPPORTS RESTRICTING FREE SPEECH

In the aftermath of the YouTube video controversy in the fall of 2012, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon joined the chorus of those supporting restrictions on speech, saying that speech that “humiliates others’ beliefs…cannot be protected.”

“COMMON DECENCY” IS DEFINED BY SHARIA LAW

In an October 8, 2009 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Sheikh Ali Gomaa, the grand mufti of Egypt wrote: We [the Dar al Iftaa, Egypt’s supreme body for Islamic legal edicts over which Gomaa presides] upheld the right of freedom of conscience and of free of expression within the bounds of common decency. As Gomaa made clear in the op-ed, “common decency” is defined by sharia law.

“MUSLIM FAMILY DAY” AT THE SIX FLAGS

In 2007 Joe Kaufman was sued by several Dallas–area Muslim organizations in response to an article he wrote about “Muslim Family Day” at the Six Flags Over Texas amusement park. After two years of legal battles the suit was dismissed.

Read more at ACT! for America’s Free Speech Day page


In this national webcast on March 14, 2013, ACT! for America documents the growing worldwide clamor for suppression of speech perceived as “offensive” to Islam, and what ACT! for America is doing to combat this increasingly serious threat to the First Amendment:

Part One with Brigitte Gabriel and Guy Rodgers:

Part Two with Deborah Weiss:

Part Three with Guy Rodgers:

What Counterjihadists do Saturday Nights in Santa Monica

Citizen Warrior:

The following was originally published in The English Review:

Group Photo Santa Monica CJCMost folks chill out on Saturday nights; shopping at malls, dining out, or catching a movie at a multiplex. That is most folks. A group calling itself Counter Jihadists Coalition of Southern California spend Saturday nights at a booth in the busy Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica engaging in what I call anti-Da’wah — countering the call to Islam.

They endeavor to get the word out about what is inside the Qur’an, the Hadith, Mohammed’s exemplary bio, and the ever-reliable guide to Islamic doctrine and Sharia, The Reliance of the Traveller. They number among their group some members of the West Coast branch of The United West. They even have a Coptic Christian member who can translate Arabic spoken by Muslim passersby who either walk by muttering or engage the doughty band.

Last Saturday evening marked the culmination of Ramadan with the Feast of Eid al-Fitr. So the group set up their booth laden with pamphlets and related materials elucidating the totalitarian creed that lies within the Islamic doctrine — a creed that denigrates all unbelievers and denies civil and human rights for women, those who leave Islam by choice, gays, and, of course, The People of the Book (Christians and Jews).

As Ramadan had ended the group prepared a poster from a recent score card of violence that occurred in the Ummah and elsewhere during Ramadan that they downloaded from the Religion of Peace websiteThe Ramadan Bombathon Scorecard for 2013. The Religion of Peace website notes:

TheReligionofPeace.com has been reporting on the number of people killed and injured in the name of religion throughout the month of Ramadan, which just ended. Here are the totals for 2013. All but one were carried out by Muslims, and that one didn’t result in any deaths or injuries.

Tell your Muslim friends you are happy Ramadan is over along with the yearly spike in Islamic terror attacks around the world.

What follows is a report from one of the leaders of the Counter Jihad Coalition, Steve Amundson: 

Scenes from a Saturday Night at a Pedestrian Mall in Santa Monica

The Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica, CA, is one of the busiest pedestrian malls in Southern California. Hundreds of tourists and locals stroll the mall to shop, watch the street performers, and to take in the ethnic and cultural variety that makes Santa Monica so vibrant.
A group of activists called the Counter Jihad Coalition is also there to inform the public about the many ways Islamic ideology threatens the American way of life. We are armed only with a collection of illustrated brochures addressing as poignantly as possible the major concerns about Islamic ideology. Here is a list of some of the most popular brochures:

Islam in a Nut-Shell (which you can see here)

The Muslim Brotherhood

The Three Stages of Jihad

Are you a Muslim Born in a Foreign Country? (Containing challenging questions for Muslims who have never experienced freedom of speech and thought)

Women who marry into Islam may have to abandon all rights

An African-American Muslim is a Slave to a Racist Ideology

Is it “Un-Christian” to speak out about Islam?

There is no excuse for domestic violence, except Islamic Sharia Law

We attract visitors to our information table by posting large graphic signs about recent Islamic outrages — like the Boston Marathon bombing or the daylight beheading of Lee Rigby by Quran-quoting terrorists. Last Saturday, we used a 3’ by 4’ blow-up of the 2013 Ramadan Bombathon Scorecard published by http://www.thereligionofpeace.com.

Ramadan-Bombathon-2013_jpg II

This poster with the smiling jihadi holding an automatic got lots of attention. Passersby were signing up for the local American Congress for Truth (ACT), complementing us for speaking out, and (Muslims, of course) complaining how we have misunderstood their ideology. Having an Arabic-speaking Copt Christian and a woman on our team went a long way to diffusing the usual red-herrings dragged across our message.

As we engage the public, we are learning a number of things that other anti-Islamic activists must take into consideration:

1) Most non-Muslims are woefully uninformed about Islam to the point that many could not determine if we were for or against Islam.

2) CAIR and other Islamist propaganda organizations have been relatively successful in convincing American non-Muslims that Islam is a “religion” protected by the First Amendment instead of a political ideology operating under the cover of religious protection.

3) Muslims are terrified at even touching anti-Islamic fact sheets or looking at selected verses of the Quran in English translations provided by mosques and other Muslim sources.

4) Muslims are obsessed with displaying their Islamic “gang symbols” in public to show that “we are here and you have to accept us.”

No we don’t. Tolerance of the intolerant is cultural suicide.

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

If you are inspired to do a little activism of your own Citizen Warrior has pamphlets and flyers that you can print to hand out and here is the link to Crusader’s Armory Flyers

(Information on handing out flyers legally here and here)