Tag Archives: Censorship

None Dare Call It Islamism

Posted on by
1

islamist-450x252By Daniel Greenfield:

The Associated Press, after putting up a brief defense of the English language, ceded the term “gay marriage,” then “illegal immigrant” and finally “Islamist.” The left has a long history with political language and the media, so these latest triumphs were only a matter of time.

“Don’t tell me words don’t matter,” Obama once said, while insisting that they meant the opposite of what we thought they meant. The left believes that words matter because they allow people to communicate the wrong sort of ideas. Change the words and you change the ideas.

Islamism is one of those ideas. The idea is that people ought to live under Islam. This was thought to be a bad idea, back in those dark days before we learned that Islamism is as American as Mom, Other Mom and Apple Pie.

Now we know that Islamism is actually the best defense against Islamism so long as it’s the good kind of Islamism that involves terrorist groups winning elections and shooting their people in the streets instead of the bad kind of Islamism which involves terrorist groups shooting people in the streets without first running for office.

The Muslim Brotherhood used to be the bad kind of Islamists that set off bombs and shot people in the streets, but then they disavowed violence, ran for office, shredded what was left of the law and began torturing and killing their opponents who protested the shredding.

Opponents of Islamism, the word not the idea, warn that if we associate Islamism with Islamist terrorist groups, then Muslims will get the idea that Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood are the same thing. The only argument that they present in favor of them not being the same thing is that the media always calls the Muslim Brotherhood a moderate group. And if they’re a moderate group, they clearly can’t be torturing and killing their opponents, even if the same news stories that call them moderate also report that they are torturing and killing their opponents.

Read more at Front Page

Related article

CAIR tells School: Don’t Criticize Hamas and the Taliban

Posted on by
Reply

Islamist Watch,  Mar 18, 2013 

by Marc J. Fink:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has called for called for a Justice Department civil rights investigation against a small-town Washington teacher for “racism.” Her offense? According to Brigitte Gabriel of ACT! For America, “during a class on bullying, she referred to Hamas and the Taliban as examples of organizations that use violence to bully people.”

In a statement, the teacher said:

I explained to [the students] that I was not talking about Muslims and Arabs in general, but groups that chose to impose their will by training people to intimidate and kill other people. … It is related to a state mandate that public schools teach students about bullying and not allow it.

CAIR’s attack against the teacher is specifically aimed at the education system, threatening to constrict the capacity of our youth to comprehend the world. The implications of an education system dominated by the Islamist group are dire and in direct conflict with the American way of life.

Hamas Deliberately Targets Children. In 2011, the terror group launched an anti-tank missile directly at a yellow school bus. A 16-year-old boy, the only passenger on the bus, was critically wounded. The driver had just dropped off 30 other students. The New York Daily News called the attack “subhuman.”

86

The Taliban Regularly Stone Women to Death. In 2010, ABC News reported on a video showing a woman stoned to death by the Taliban. Below is an unedited, graphic video of the horrific crime.

 

The Islamist Group CAIR Has Penetrated Deep Into America.

CAIR has penetrated areas far from traditional Muslim population centers such as Dearborn, MI and Northern New Jersey. CAIR's latest assault is against a teacher in Concrete, WA (A pin), an isolated town 100 miles from Seattle.

CAIR has penetrated areas far from traditional Muslim population centers such as Dearborn, MI and Northern New Jersey. CAIR’s latest assault is against a teacher in Concrete, WA (A pin), an isolated town 100 miles from Seattle.

A rally in support of the teacher will take place Tuesday, March 19 at 7:30 p.m. at the Concrete Assembly of God, Concrete, WA.

 

Related articles

Facebook’s “Accidental Mistake” and Free Speech in the Arab World

Posted on by
Reply

FB censoringby Khaled Abu Toameh

Many Palestinian journalists, and those in the Middle East, are forced to use Facebook to publish what their own media will not accept. But the problem becomes worse when Facebook itself starts removing material that bothers dictatorships and tyrants. One can only hope that the same Facebook employee who “accidentally” removed the article will make the same mistake and and close down the accounts belonging to terrorist organizations and their leaders. It is the duty of Facebook and Western societies to side with those seeking freedom, and not to be complicit in suppressing there voices.

“All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently, the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.” — George Bernard Shaw

Earlier this week, Facebook closed down this writer’s account for “security reasons,” arguing that he had posted an item that violates its terms of use.

Twenty-four hours later, Facebook issued a “sincere apology” and said that a member of its team had “accidentally removed something you posted on Facebook. This was a mistake.”

Although Facebook did not say which “problematic” item had prompted it to take such a drastic measure, apparently it was referring to an article that had been published by Gatestone Institute: The Palestinian Authority’s Inconvenient Truths.

Facebook’s move came at a time when Arab dictatorships in general, and the Palestinian Authority in particular, have been cracking down on Facebook users.

During the past year alone, a number of Palestinian journalists and bloggers were arrested by Western-funded Palestinian Authority security services in the West Bank for criticizing the PA leadership on their Facebook pages.

Among those detained was Esmat Abdel Khaleq, a university lecturer in journalism. She was held in detention for two weeks for posting comments on her Facebook page that allegedly insult Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Many Palestinian journalists, and those in the Middle East, are forced to use Facebook to publish what their own media will not accept. The media in the West Bank is mostly controlled by the Palestinian Authority, which has repeatedly demonstrated a large degree of intolerance toward any form of criticism. The same applies, of course, to most Arab dictatorships.

Arab governments have obviously become wary of the use their critics are making of Facebook to air their grievances and opinions. In some countries, including the Palestinian Authority, intelligence services have set up special teams to monitor Facebook and other social media networks in search of critics and “dissidents.”

But the problem becomes worse when Facebook itself starts removing material that bothers dictatorships and tyrants.

One can only hope that the same Facebook employee who “accidentally” removed the article will make the same mistake and close down accounts belonging to terrorist organizations and their leaders.

Take for example, the account of senior Hamas official Izzat al Risheq, or the numerous accounts that promote hatred and violence and are openly affiliated with terrorist and jihadi groups.

All one has to do is log in to these accounts, especially the ones in Arabic, to see how most of them are engaged in all forms of incitement.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Related articles

The Rutherford Reader Under Assault

Posted on by
Reply

By Justin O. Smith:

Once again ‘The Rutherford Reader’ is under assault by Leftists,
islamofascist sympathizers and the Associated Press over its defense of our
First Amendment from Sharia Law corruption and infiltration of our legal system. The Associated Press sinks to desperate tactics by going back to 2010 and quoting an unintelligent Melissa Eads (Kroger corporate office) as saying ‘The Reader’ was removed from their stores due to a pattern of “hate rhetoric”; she actually said “hate-speech”, which she was at a loss to define when asked. And now, Sara Mitchell and others are attempting to have ‘The Reader’ removed from other locations.

Using the term “hate rhetoric” illustrates that whoever wrote the AP article did not have a good grasp of the English language, could not understand sentences structured around facts and had never read the Western classics of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle; by the same token, Sara Mitchell’s and her accomplice’s actions make it obvious that they do not want to live in a society ruled by freedom of thought, opinion or speech.

I was one of the first to speak out against the vandalism and burning of the Columbia, TN mosque in 2008, however, just as neo-nazi white supremacists would trample on the Civil Rights of peoples of color and reduce them to second class citizens if they could, or just as the New Black Panthers state “we need to kill a whole lot of white babies” and have no qualms disenfranchising whites, so too would Muslims foist the same on all Americans, by eradicating free speech and religious freedom as it has typically existed from our nation’s founding, until the past four decades and especially since 2008; Islam and Sharia represent something much worse than nazifascism as they now stand, which is the reason I write often about Islam’s perverse nature, its incompatibility with democracy and the U.S. Constitution and the need to
halt all Islamic immigration to the U.S. immediately due to Muslims often stated
goal of subordinating and subjugating the entire U.S. under Sharia law
dominance. I simply oppose any attempt to legitimize illiberal, unConstitutional
and anti-Freedom ideologies within these United States!

Islam and Sharia law are more cruel and more steeped in fascist tenets than America’s white supremacist movements or Hitler’s 1940s brand of fascism, within a simple added religious context; so many of the Greatest Generation died fighting this very sort of totalitarian ideology all across Europe…Aren’t Islamic atrocities just as horrible as those perpetrated by the Nazis?…CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood have already insisted on applying Sharia concepts within our state governments and public education system, and Muslim sympathizers like Mitchell, unless they are Leftists too, do not understand that fully applied Sharia law incorporates much more than prayer, food or hygiene rules; Sharia law always becomes an instrument of murder and totalitarianism!

Worship however you desire. Worship trees, goats, earthworms… or Allah…or Jesus Christ… or Buddha… but do not try to force me to worship as you or to submit in any manner to your religious doctrine. Not Christianity… not Hinduism… not Buddhism… Only Islam tries to force itself on others wherever it appears! While I am aware of some peaceful Muslims who truly worship only according to the Abrahamic passages they have stolen from Judaism and Christianity, give me a hundred thousand Buddhists or Sikhs at America’s shores over one Muslim any day!

Has America fallen to the point where only a few lucky
elitist arbiters from the political Left get to decide what is “free speech” and
what is not?

Even the Obama administration is now advocating limits on free speech. We heard Secretary of State Hillary Clinton state that no one should denigrate or insult any religion after our U.S. Ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens was murdered during a planned assault, that UN Ambassador Susan Rice still describes as a “spontaneous protest” over a U.S. made film insulting Islam. As of December 2011 and in contravention of the U.S. Constitution, Clinton has been supporting the UN Resolution 16/18 that criminalizes criticizing Islam in any nation that signs it, and yet, all America regularly witnesses Christianity assaulted, denigrated and insulted in the vilest of manners without any ensuing riots, mayhem and murder occurring (Remember the crucifix in the jar of urine displayed at the Smithsonian and called art?) The Islamic nations simply have not entered the 21st century and are far from civilized.

Whether or not one agrees with any of my positions or those of my esteemed colleagues and the editors of ‘The Rutherford Reader’, our articles are nearly always full of information and facts that the liberal “mainstream media” refuses to address, especially anything relating to Islam, Sharia law and islamofascist tactics or Muslim inspired terrorism in America. From the liberal press perspective, anything that tears apart the fabric of Judeo-Christian principles helps in their battle to fully abrogate the U.S. Constitution and usher in an “elite” Leftist authoritarian government, in which all these little Red-Diaper Doper Babies, such as foot-soldiers like Mitchell, think that they will be a part of that “elite”… probably just described Mitchell’s and accomplice’s fantasy. However, despite their efforts, I will continue speaking and writing the truth, even should there come a time the government calls my words “a crime”… It is my God-Given Right!… And the Truth shines like a Light in the darkest of nights!

People such as Mitchell and others serve Political Correctness and a Leftist agenda, and as lackeys of Islam and the Left they must stick to a script slyly imposed upon them through indoctrination and their own weak minds. How fearful they must be of looking the Truth in the face and denying facts; they are afraid of not being sufficiently aligned, obedient, servile, and thus risk “moral” exile as imposed by immoral socialist societies who blackmail their citizens. They would rather sell their souls to the Islamists and Obama’s Progressive Communists than take a risk, show courage and Live Free! “The secret of happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom is Courage,” said Pericles.

Kaye and Pete Doughtie, editors/owners of ‘The Rutherford Reader’, fight the fascist tactics of the New Left and Islam fearlessly with intelligence and knowledge, as myself and millions of others across Our Beloved America stand with them and refuse to endure such despotism or submit and remain silent in the face of this new combined and growing Left-Muslim fascist movement. And, anyone even remotely considering removing ‘The Rutherford Reader’ should look deep within their own world view… their own souls… to remove ‘The Rutherford reader’ would be a betrayal of every good and decent principle that built this nation… anyone removing ‘The Rutherford Reader’ does a great disservice to the Freedom-Loving People of Rutherford County, the State of Tennessee and these United States!

What Orwell Can Tell Us About the Liberal Appeasement of Islam

Posted on by
Reply

Posted by Daniel Greenfield:

Suppose there were a worldwide movement which openly proclaimed its goal of taking over in your country and every country with the purpose of imposing its system on every human beings on earth. Also suppose that this movement had carried out murders and terrorist attacks in your own country, that members of this group promoted violence while gaining political influence. Suppose also that is was highly unfashionable and politically incorrect to speak out against them.

I am not speaking of Islam here, but of Communism. The current wave of censorship and denial toward Islam is not a new development. It is rather a very old one. Islamophobia, like Red-Baiting, is a political term that serves the function of cutting off any discussion of the subject. It precludes any listing of the facts or debates on the issue, by declaring it to be off-limits. To raise the issue is to expose yourself as a bad person whose ideas are unacceptable for public distribution.

When George Orwell was struggling to find a publisher for Animal Farm, he was repeatedly turned down on the grounds that the book would offend the Soviet Union. One publisher wrote to Orwell that he had been dissuaded from publishing the book by an important official in the Ministry of Information (an agency that would become the Ministry of Truth in his novel, 1984) who had told him that publishing such a book would be ill-advised at this time. That official was, incidentally, a Soviet spy.
The publisher went on to say that the book might be acceptable if it applied generally to dictators, but not specifically to the USSR. Finally the publisher added, “It would be less offensive if the predominant caste in the fable were not pigs. I think the choice of pigs as the ruling caste will no doubt give offence to many people, and particularly to anyone who is a bit touchy, as undoubtedly the Russians are.”
Change around a few names and this is exactly the rejection letters that courageous books critical of Islam have received. It’s fine to make general criticisms of religious fanaticism, so long as those criticisms are universally applied, and do not offend those touchy people who religious fanaticism occasionally expresses itself in dangerous ways.
In a generally deleted preface to Animal Farm, Orwell wrote, “The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news — being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact.”
There are quite a few sensational facts and news items that are kept out or minimized in our own media because it would not do to mention them. There are rarely any government officials dictating this censorship, certainly in the United States there are no legal codes that make it mandatory, but this censorship is voluntary. It consists of people censoring themselves, of publications censoring people out of fear of violence, of publishers who feel that this is an ill-advised time to stir up tensions and of a larger body of liberal thinkers who feel that we should sympathize with Islam and ignore any of its violent and supremacist activities.
Read more at Sultan Knish

Conservative’s Anti-Jihad Subway Ad Leads to New Policies: NYC Authority Can Now Ban Ads That Could ‘Incite or Provoke Violence’

Posted on by
Reply

By :

The epic battle between American Freedom Defense Initiative executive director and blogger Pamela Geller and The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) culminated with a court decision that forced the transit authority to permit the display of controversial ads about radical Islam. But the story didn’t end there. As TheBlaze reported this morning, Geller’s case caused the MTA to rethink the manner in which it handles First Amendment issues, leading to the adoption of some potentially-controversial measures.

(Related: Read TheBlaze‘s initial report about the MTA’s changes here)

On Friday, TheBlaze spoke with a spokesperson who confirmed some of the details surrounding the case, while clarifying the new changes that passed on Thursday. As noted, one of the emergent provisions that was added into the public company’s advertising standards in the wake of the Geller debate allows the MTA to deny ads it believes could incite violence (this was not mentioned in the press release the agency put out about the changes).

As previously noted, a document, reflecting yesterday’s changes, was provided by the MTA to TheBlaze this morning. It highlights the transit authority’s advertising standards and reads, in part, “The licensee (‘advertising contractor’) shall not display or maintain any advertisement that falls within one or more of the following categories.” One of the category sections reads:

The advertisement, or any information contained in it, is directly adverse to the commercial or administrative interests of the MTA or is harmful to the morale of MTA employees or contains material the display of which the MTA reasonably foresees would incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace, and so harm, disrupt, or interfere with safe, efficient, and orderly transit operations.

It is the portion presented in bold that is new to the regulations. It’s inclusion is interesting for a number of reasons. On the surface, it appears oddly placed in the list of grievances that could lead to the banning of an advertisement. Furthermore, there is some ambiguity regarding what led to the inclusion of the “violence” reference in the first place.

Read more at The Blaze

Related articles

The New Islamic Vigilantes of Speech

Posted on by
Reply

by EDWARD  CLINE:

David J. Rusin of the Middle East Forum recently published an article on Islamist  Watch about the vandalizing of “anti-Islamic” ads. He reveals just how  pervasive the phenomenon is worldwide.

When Cyrus McGoldrick, advocacy director for the New York office of the  Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR),  logged into Facebook  on August 12 to hint at his desire to vandalize anti-jihad ads that may soon run  on city buses, he did not simply underline CAIR’s troubling attitude toward free  expression. McGoldrick’s words – and the subsequent actions of others – have  illuminated an overlooked aspect of the Islamist assault on Western speech: the  defacement, if not obliteration, of political and commercial messages.

Of particular interest is the destruction of print or commercial ads of  scantily clad women. I find this interesting because of the near psychotic or  pathological mindset about women that Islam inculcates in Muslim men.

This phenomenon has been especially prevalent in the UK. A Times of  London article revealed in 2005 that Muslims Against Advertising (MAAD) had  launched a website with instructions on how to vandalize ads and which ones to  select. “There is no longer any need to cringe as you walk past a sleazy  poster,” the group declared. “We’ll improve it.” Many answered the call, as ads  pitching bras, beauty products, and even television programs were trashed.  “Photographs of semi-dressed women are the most frequently targeted, with the  offending body parts painted over or ripped off,” the Times observed. In a  telling example, thugs destroyed images of scantily clad women on an East London  billboard promoting the series Desperate Housewives, but fully clothed  characters were untouched. Responding to the controversy, leading British  Islamist Ahmed Sheikh argued that “freedom of speech should end when you offend  others.”

Cultural jihad, or the de facto imposition of Sharia  law on Western non-Muslims, is insidiously accumulative. In Britain it begins  with such things as complaining about images or figures of pigs that Muslims  might see in a bank or a shop. They are removed so that Muslims are not  offended. Next will come a complaint about halal food not being served in  restaurants and schools. Non-Muslims will be served it, as well, with or without  their knowledge. Next will be a complaint that one must have some place to pray  five times a day, and if an employer does not provide such a space, the street  outside will do just as well, and damn the traffic jam caused by hundreds of  Muslims mooning non-Muslims as they express their obeisance to a rock thousands  of miles away. Language must also be altered to preempt potential  offense. Muslim criminal suspects are called “Asians.” Polygamy is taboo among  non-Muslims, but Muslim men collecting welfare and enjoying subsidized housing  may have several dependent wives and a dozen dependent children. The taxes  collected to pay for their special welfare is a form of jizya, or a tax  levied on conquered infidels. Muslims may demonstrate en masse, displaying signs  that damn freedom of speech, sneer at British culture, warn of violence if  non-Muslims resist, and predict the Islamization of Britain, and not be charged  with hate speech. Any other group behaving in such an obnoxious manner would see  its members hauled into court. Criticism of Islam is forbidden and  regarded as “defamation,” “bigotry,” or “racism.” Muslim activists are  aggressive in this respect, going after not only titillating ads but serious  discussions of Islam. Rusin writes:

Islamists also have adapted to the information age, recognizing that much of  the Western speech they despise now exists online. Al-Azhar University scholars,  representatives of the highest religious authority in the Sunni Muslim world,  even crafted a fatwa in 2008 that sanctions hacking for the purposes of jihad.  Therefore, those who criticize Islam or otherwise offend its followers often  find that their freedom of expression is no safer on the internet than it is on  a Tower Hamlets billboard. Arab News sympathetically profiled one such  hacker, a Saudi native, in 2011. “An Alkhobar woman studying in the United    States is taking credit for destroying 23 Danish websites that denigrated the  Prophet Muhammad,” the piece begins, relaying material originally published by  an Arabic-language source. “Nouf Rashid told the Arabic newspaper she was  hacking into Danish websites having references to cartoons of the Prophet along  with other sites that had questionable content in her view,” including  pornographic ones.

The focus here, however, is the pseudo-ironic and psychotic symbiosis  between a creed/ideology that finds bare female anatomy offensive, yet is lured  to it in spite of the proscriptions against it. There is a link  between such vandalizing and the rape and often disfigurement of non-Muslim  women in Europe by Muslims, the “sex slave” rings recently exposed in Britain,  and the honor-killings of Muslim-born women and girls who break Islamic rules  and “go Western.” This has everything to do with the Muslim dictum compelling  women to cover themselves up as much as possible in burqas, veils or some other  form of self-effacing garb, depending on the Islamic sect. The  phenomenon swings wildly, like bipolar dysfunction, between the vigilante  censorship described by Rusin and incidents such as the rape of Lara Logan in  Cairo, in which her clothes were ripped from her and even part of her hair torn  out during the assault. That was not the only such incident endured by Western  women in Cairo, but it is the most notorious. Her attackers wished to extinguish  Logan, to wipe her out of existence.

This is the behavior of  nihilists.

Read more: Family Security Matters

Edward Cline is the author of the Sparrowhawk novels set in  England  and Virginia in the pre-Revolutionary period, of several detective and  suspense  novels, and three collections of his commentaries and columns, all  available on  Amazon Books. His essays, book reviews, and other articles have  appeared in The  Wall Street Journal, the Journal of Information Ethics and other  publications.  He is a frequent contributor to Rule of Reason, Family Security  Matters,  Capitalism Magazine and other Web publications. 

Guest Column: Muslim Brotherhood ‘Crucifies’ Opponents, Attacks Secular Media

Posted on by
Reply

by Raymond Ibrahim:

Last week in Egypt, when Muslim Brotherhood supporters terrorized the secular media, several Arabic websites—including Arab News, Al Khabar News, Dostor Watany, and Egypt Now—reported that people were being “crucified.” The relevant excerpt follows in translation:

A Sky News Arabic correspondent in Cairo confirmed that protestors belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood crucified those opposing Egyptian President Muhammad Morsi naked on trees in front of the presidential palace while abusing others. Likewise, Muslim Brotherhood supporters locked the doors of the media production facilities of 6-October [a major media region in Cairo], where they proceeded to attack several popular journalists.

That there were attacks and violence—both in front of Egypt’s presidential palace and at major media facilities, is well-documented. An August 9 report by El Balad, a widely read Egyptian website, gives the details:

Last Wednesday, August 8, “thousands of the Muslim Brotherhood’s supporters” attacked 6-October’s media facilities, beat Khaled Salah—chief editor of the privately-owned and secular Youm 7 newspaper—prevented Yusif al-Hassani, an On TV broadcaster, from entering the building, and generally “terrorized the employees.”

El Balad adds that the supporters of Tawfik Okasha, another vocal critic of President Morsi—the one who widely disseminated the graphic video of a Muslim apostate being slaughtered to cries of “Allahu Akbar”—gathered around the presidential palace, only to be surrounded by Brotherhood supporters, who “attacked them with sticks, knives, and Molotov cocktails, crucifying some of them on trees, leading to the deaths of two and the wounding of dozens.”

Far from condemning these terrorists, Al Azhar, Egypt’s most authoritative Islamic institution, has just issued a fatwa calling for more violence and oppression, saying that “fighting participants in anti-Muslim Brotherhood demonstrations planned for 24 August is a religious obligation.”

Most of the aforementioned Arabic sites point out that these attacks are part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s campaign to intimidate and thus censor Egypt’s secular media from exposing the group’s Islamist agenda, which Youm 7, On TV, and Okasha do daily. [Note: the latter's channel was recently shut down, despite Morsi's previous reassurances that "no station or media will be shut down in my era."]

These threats are not new; back in April, an organization called the “Jihad Group to Cleanse the Country” threatened these media with “painful and severe punishments.” Apparently now that Morsi has become master of Egypt, threats are becoming reality, just as promises are being broken.

And the threats are taking their toll. Sky News, which was first to report about the crucifixions, has taken down its original article (though the URL still appears in the address box with the Arabic words “protesters-crucified-in front of-egypt’s-presidential-palace”).

Read more at IPT News

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum

Spiking the Examiner

Posted on by
Reply

By Diana West

News flash: The Washingon Examiner spiked my syndicated column on the Muslim Brotherhood and why five House Republicans — Reps. Michele Bachmann, Trent Franks, Louie Gohmert, Tom Rooney and Lynn Westermoreland — were correct to call on Inspectors General to investigate MB influence on US government policy-making. And therein lies a tale.

If the newspaper’s online search function is accurate, it is even more perplexing to note that the Examiner hasn’t run a single news story on the media-politics feeding frenzy, led by Sen. John McCain, directed at Rep. Michele Bachmann for raising questions about strong indications of Muslim Brotherhood penetration of the Washington policy-making chain. The geyser of Left-cum-GOP-Establishment hysteria arose from Bachmann et al pointing out in a letter to the State Department IG that Huma Abedin, a top advisor of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has close family members involved in MB-associated groups and movements, which are dedicated to the destruction of the West. Indeed, it was on the mention of Huma Abedin that the Examiner told me the paper turned down my column (full column reprinted below).

A little backstory.

I have noted before with dismay that the Washington Examiner automatically spikes any syndicated column I write regarding what might be referred to as President Obama’s identity issues.

These include: the debate over the constitutional requirement that the president and vice president be “natural born”; this same debate as it enters court in eligibility challenges litigated from New Jersey to Georgia to the US Supreme Court; and related pieces of “natural born” legislation introduced in some state legislatures, including Arizona’s. Since April 27, 2011, when Obama published a highly problematic illustration of a birth certificate on the White House website, the debate has taken a darker turn. There is now extensive evidence that fraud and forgery took place in the creation of the White House birth certificate. What that means to the Examiner is that it now also auto-spikes columns about this evidence and other sensational news coming out of the Cold Case Posse investigation mounted by the renowned Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Regrettably, Townhall.com has this year decided to spike columns on this same subject by myself and others. In fact, the silence on this epic story extends across the public square, from Left to Right, from CNN to Fox, from Democrats to Republicans. When, earlier this year, this began happening to my column in a more systematic way, I was shocked. Others, too. I will note for the record that concerned scribesexpressed outrage and alarm over such censorship, for which I remain grateful. It is a more than passing strange sensation to write about what clearly seems to be important news in our country’s history involving Americans from different states, from different walks of life — lawyers,  judges, detectives, computer experts, government officials including the president, and more — knowing full well that some outlets won’t run it because the subject is verboten in the public square. I have even come to expect this treatment on the subject, which must be some dangerous stage of complacency.

In a way, then, I almost welcome this latest, very different spike as a salutary jolt of alarm.

Here’s how Examiner editorial page editor David Freddoso explained why the column didn’t appear:

We opted not to use it this week.  We also passed over other syndicated columnists’ offerings about the insinuations against Huma Abedin.  The reason is simply that there is no hint of proof that she has done anything improper.

But the five House Republicans made no such claim. Amid their broad concerns about MB influence on US government policy-making, the members raised a red flag over Huma Abedin, Deputy Chief of Staff to the US Secretary of State. Why? Abedin’s family members have been deeply involved with groups and movements dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization. This concerns the five House members. As it should, in my opinion – which is what my fact-based opinion column argued. What we learn from this escapade is that such an opinion is not considered printable at the Examiner.

Meanwhile, as former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy writes:

A person is not required to have done anything wrong to be denied a high-ranking government position, or more immediately, the security clearance allowing access to classified information that is necessary to function in such a job. There simply need be associations, allegiances, or interests that establish a potential conflict of interest.

To sample some of what McCarthy has further reported:

1) Saleha Abedin, Huma’s mother, is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood.

2) Saleha is also a board member of the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief. The IICDR has been long banned in Israel for supporting Hamas.

3) Moreover it turns out that Huma Abedin herself was, until late 2008, a member of another of her mother’s Islamist organizations, the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs.

Huma’s parents actually started this institute in Saudi Arabia in the 1970s, McCarthy explains, “with the backing of Abdullah Omar Naseef.”

Who is Naseef?

McCarthy: “Naseef is a former secretary-general of the Muslim World League, which, as I’ve previously explained, has long been the Muslim Brotherhood’s principal vehicle for the international propagation of Islamic supremacist ideology. Under the auspices of the MWL, Naseef not only backed the IMMA” — which, remember, was Huma’s parents’ Saudi project — “Naseef founded the Rabita Trust, which …is a specially designated international terrorist organization under federal law.”

Can’t you just hear the background-checker? So, Huma, your folks were in business with a guy who started a designated terrorist group, your mom’s on a board of a group banned in Israel for supporting Hamas, and you want top secret clearance to work alongside the SecState…HAHAHAHAHA. 

And there’s even more, so much more.
Read more: Family Security Matters

Canadian document issued by the RCMP details how Mounties are supposed to talk about Islam

Posted on by
Reply

Why not confront Muslim extremism?

By BRIAN LILLEY

I know this has happened to you. You’ve been watching a newscast and there is a story about a terrorist plot being busted. You hear all about the plot, you know how many people were arrested, what they were generally attempting to do, but there is something the police seem to be avoiding.

The M word or the I word.

You know what I mean.

Police bust an Islamic terror cell, people that plan to blow up a building or shoot others in the name of Islam, and yet police will not say the words Muslim, Islam or any variant thereof. Even when the people arrested have clearly stated their goal is to carry out an attack in the name of Islam, police will not use the M word or the I word.

A document issued by the RCMP may help you understand why this happens. It’s called Words Make Worlds and it details how the Mounties are supposed to talk about Islam.

This booklet has a chapter on jihad, but it’s not the jihad you and I have come to know – the kind where people claim they will wage a holy war. No, this booklet is all about how jihad is an internal struggle “striving in the path of God.”

I’m disturbed any time government or a government agency tries to define religion, but that is what is happening here.

The document also makes a defence of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist group that now controls much of Egypt. During his campaign for the Egyptian presidency, Mohammed Morsi, a man closely tied to the Brotherhood, told a crowd, “The Qur’an is our constitution. The Prophet Mohammed is our leader. Jihad is our path and death for the sake of Allah is our most lofty aspiration.”

That doesn’t sound like a peaceful striving in the path of God to me. And it doesn’t show the Brotherhood as the benign group the Mounties want you to think they are.

The document goes on to tell the Mounties never to link Islam and terrorism. “Terms like ‘Islamic terrorism,’ ‘Islamist terrorism,’ ‘Jihadism’ and ‘Islamofascism’ succeed only in conflating terrorism with mainstream Islam, thereby casting all Muslims as terrorists or potential terrorists.”

What a load of crap.

Read more at Sun News

Gates of Vienna has two Sun News videos on the subject