Glenn Beck Takes on Grover Norquist

Beck-Gaffney-Greenfield-620x310-450x225FPM, By Daniel Greenfield:

Beck made headlines when he took on George Soros. Now he’s taking on a puppetmaster closer to home. I joined Beck and Frank Gaffney yesterday in the first of a number of shows that Glenn Beck plans to do on Grover Norquist and his agenda.

Glenn Beck on Monday began what he said is “just the beginning” of his work to reveal the background and motivations of Grover Norquist, the founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform.

Beck began by playing recent clips of Norquist calling out Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) for his efforts to derail Obamacare, noting that while he used to joke about the left’s portrayal of Norquist as a “big power player,” he’s since revised his dismissive opinion in light of the warnings that you “don’t ever take this guy on unless you’re prepared.”

Beck’s show Monday primarily concentrated on Norquist’s alleged connections to Islamists. He invited Frank Gaffney, the president of the Center for Security Policy, and Daniel Greenfield of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, to weigh in…

Greenfield later added: “If you were a freedom guy, then why would he be backing an ideology associated with a complete totalitarian regime? Why would he be backing the…misfortunes of the conservative movement? And why would he be doing everything possible to undermine the possibility that the Republican Party can back a freedom-based agenda?”

You can see the full segment and more quotes at the Blaze.

 

Grover Norquist’s Ongoing Influence Operation:

 

Much more here:

Video: Daniel Greenfield and Walid Shoebat on Obama’s Political Strategies

obamad-450x281This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Daniel Greenfield, the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s Shillman Fellow, who discussedObama’s Shutdown Strategy, the administration’s Brotherhood Romance, the Huma Abedin-Anthony Weiner saga. the Unholy Alliance and much, much more:

Don’t miss this week’s #2 Glazov Gangepisode with Walid Shoebat, the former Muslim Brotherhood terrorist who turned to love and Christianity, who exposes Obama’s brother, Malik Obama, dissects the administration’s Islamist odyssey, makes The Case for Islamophobia, and much, much more:

 

Fox News Asks Raymond Ibrahim Why Christians Persecute Muslims

raymond-ibrahim-crucified-again-smBy :

Raymond Ibrahim, a Shillman Fellow at the DHFC, recently appeared on Fox News’ “Lou Dobbs Tonight” to discuss his new book, Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians.  In the course of an engaging discussion—including why the media, academia, and government ignore Muslim persecution of Christians—Lori Rothman, filling in for Lou Dobbs, asserted “Throughout history, wasn’t it always the Christians who were doing the persecuting? Why does it seem now the tables have turned?” Be sure to watch Ibrahim’s blitzkrieg course in history giving the lie to that false but widespread notion.  And click here to order his must-read Crucified Again.

 

The Brotherhood-Benghazi Connection — on The Glazov Gang

Morsi55-372x350Front Page:

This week’s Glazov Gang had the honor of being joined by Tiffany GabbayNational Development Director for the David Horowitz Freedom CenterNonie Darwish, author of The Devil We Don’t Know, and Adib Ghobrial, an Egyptian immigrant.

The Gang members gathered to discuss The Brotherhood-Benghazi Connection, analyzing Morsi’s fall and the revelations it may yield.

The episode also featured Longing for the Brotherhood, focusing on why Obama is missing — and backing — Morsi after his overthrow.

To watch both parts of this two part series, see below:

Part I:

Part II:

Interesting question raised by Nonie at 10:52 in this video. Is Morsi’s life in danger because he knows too much?

 

Daniel Pipes Speaks On The Obama Administration’s Middle East Policy

Daniel Pipes1

Streamed live on Apr 16, 2013

(There were some sound issues in the beginning. Go to 0.13.45. Frank Gaffney starts at 0.16.59. Daniel Pipes begins at 0.24.21. 

Delivered by Dr. Daniel Pipes
“The Obama Administration’s Middle East Policy”

The Reserve Officers Association, in conjunction with the Center for Security Policy and the David Horowitz Freedom Center, hosted Dr. Daniel Pipes, President of the Middle East Forum, to give this year’s Jackson-Kyl Lecture on National Security, part of the living legacy of two our nation’s great practitioners in that portfolio: the late Senator Henry M. (Scoop) Jackson (D-WA) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ).

This event is sponsored by:

The Defense Education Forum of ROA
The Center for Security Policy

Shariah’s Assault on Free Speech: Warriors Who Refuse to be Silenced

CSP-hedegaard-web

The Center for Security Policy is pleased to broadcast Shariah’s Assault on Free Speech: Warriors Who Refuse to be Silenced, a program of the Irwin M. and H. Ethel Hausman Memorial Free Speech Speakers’ Series in Stoughton, Massachusetts on Wednesday, March 20, 2013. The event will begin at 7:00PM.

To attend in person, please purchase tickets and RSVP.

Also being made available live on youtube for free:

About the Speakers

12Lars Hedegaard is a portrait of courage, tenacity, and wit, under even the most trying circumstances.  Hedegaard is President of the Danish Free Press Society, a historian and a journalist. He is also the survivor of a recent assassination attempt on his life last month in his home in Denmark.
Lars Hedegaard in the Wall Street Journal Lars Hedegaard and the Enemies of Truthfulness

16 Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the author of twelve books, including two New York Times bestsellers, The Truth About Muhammad and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (both Regnery). His latest book is Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry Into Islam’s Obscure Origins (ISI).

19Tiffany Gabbay serves as Assistant Editor and Foreign Affairs Editor for TheBlaze and has been a writer for over a decade. Her passion for politics and expertise in Middle East affairs was fostered at an early age by her father, a successful entrepreneur and Israeli war hero. Previously, Tiffany worked as a journalist on Capitol Hill where she interviewed some of the Beltway’s biggest names including Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Rep. Michele Bachmann, Sen. Dick Durbin and many others.  She is a graduate of the National Journalism Center in Washington, D.C. and studied communications at the London Institute – University of the Arts, London.

21Andrew G. Bostom (MD, MS) is an author and Associate Professor of Medicine at Brown University Medical School. He is also well known for his writings on Islam as the author ofThe Legacy of Jihad (2005), and editor of 2008 anthology of primary sources and secondary studies on the theme of Muslim antisemitism,The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History. In October 2012 Bostom published his third compendium Sharia versus Freedom: The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism (Prometheus Books).

Michael Graham is a talk radio host, writer, and conservative political commentator. The author of four books, including the first major publisher book on the Tea Party movement-”THAT’S NO ANGRY MOB, THAT’S MY MOM!” (Regnery, 2010)-Michael is also a columnist for the Boston Herald.

Islamic Apartheid Week

2013ad

Help the Freedom Center fight back by making a donation to fund placing this ad in 50 campus newspapers across the country.

Front Page:

[Editor's note: The graphic accompanying this article was designed by Frontpage's illustrator, Bosch Fawstin]

“Israel Apartheid Week” is a common blood libel on college campuses, hosted every year by hate groups such as the Muslim Students Association and Students for Justice in Palestine. These hate weeks are designed to de-legitimize Israel and soften it up for the kill, claiming that it is an apartheid state and should be isolated. The declared goal of Hamas and the PLO is to “liberate” Palestine “from the river to the sea” – in other words, to destroy the Jewish state and push its inhabitants into the sea.

The growing BDS movement on campus (BDS stands for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions, which are the steps the movement advocates taking against Israel for its purported policies of “apartheid”) is another element in the jihadist assault. The accusations of apartheid levied on Israel are not simply lies; the truth of the true apartheid and discrimination in the Middle East has been obscured. Israel is actually the only apartheid-free state in the Middle East. Countries such as Lebanon and Jordan do in fact have apartheid-style laws on their books, and Islamic supremacy can be seen all over the world with the subjugation of women, the persecution of gays, and the persecution of religious and racial minorities. Despite the fact that these atrocities are par for the course in countries ruled by Islamic law, the Left (and especially the Women’s Studies departments and LGBT groups) on campus has remained silent.

Until now, there has been no national campaign to expose the brutal discrimination that occurs under Islamic Sharia law. But this spring, the David Horowitz Freedom Center is sponsoring “Islamic Apartheid Weeks” on over 50 campuses. These weeks will elaborate on the many forms of Muslim apartheid that have been integral to the Middle East for over a millennium and can now be seen in other regions of the world such as Africa: religious intolerance, ethnic inequality, racism, gender discrimination, denial of citizenship, political oppression and slavery, among others.

The centerpiece of each week will be panel discussions and keynote speeches featuring former victims of Sharia law and Islamic supremacism, including dissidents such as Nonie Darwish and Simon Deng, and experts on political Islam, such as Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and Andrew C. McCarthy. We will also be providing students with a full compliment of resources, such as pamphlets, flyers, and films highlighting the various human rights abuses sanctioned under Sharia law. Groups like Students for Justice in Palestine are in fact partially right: there is apartheid in the Middle East. It’s just that it’s being practiced by the Arab Muslim nations, and the David Horowitz Freedom Center is setting out to make that abundantly clear.

Islamic Apartheid Week events have already occurred or have been planned at these campuses so far:

Bellarmine University
Berea College
Bob Jones University
Brooklyn College
Cal Poly – San Luis Obispo
Liberty University
Michigan State
Missouri Western State University
Murray State University
Rutgers University
Stockton College
SUNY Courtland
Tufts
UC Irvine
UC San Diego
University of Missouri
University of San Diego
USC
Valdosta State University
Wesleyan University
Wisconsin – River Falls

The Heart of the Unholy Alliance’s Darkness

dtnBy

To know everything you ever wanted to know about the Left’s Islamist odyssey, visit DiscoverTheNetworks.org, the website that describes and exposes the networks and agendas of the political Left.

As Islamic Jihad, including its “stealth” variety, is rapidly succeeding in destroying our civilization, the Left continues its shameless and bizarre denial — not only about the threat of Islamic Jihad, but also about its own complicity with our enemy and its war on our society.

The latest example of the Left’s Jihad-Denial concerns me personally: it involves an intriguing post, written by Brian Tashman in RightWingWatch.org, titled: Beware: Human-Hating Liberals and Islamic Extremists Seek to Build Shariommunism. The post ridicules my recent appearance on CBN’s “Stackelbeck on Terror” in which I discuss the Unholy Alliance between the radical Left and radical Islam, which David Horowitz has masterfully documented in his masterpiece Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left and that I have analyzed in United in Hate: The Left’s Romance With Tyranny and Terror.

Unholy Alliance book

United in Hate book

The ingredients of Right Wing Watch’s attack on me are pathological not just in how they deny blatant reality, but also in how they in and of themselves substantiate the very realities they are denying.

Below, I will demonstrate and deconstruct the pathology in these assaults. It is more crucial than ever to expose the nature of the Left’s duplicity, lies and inner contradictions, since the Unholy Alliance’s malicious and destructive war on our civilization is now making more dangerous inroads than at any previous time.

Read it all at Front Page

See also:

“It Is High Noon For America”

imagesCABV4RXIShoebat.com:

By Drew Zahn

His parents were dissidents in the Soviet Union who braved gulags to voice the cry for freedom in a totalitarian state.

When he was five years old, his family fled to the West.

Now Jamie Glazov, editor of FrontPageMag.com, is following his parents’ footsteps, speaking out against the biggest issues threatening the freedom he found in America. And according to Glazov, the threat has never been more real or more urgent.

“It is high noon for America,” Glazov claimed in an interview with Josh Brewster of The Glazov Gang. “There’s a jihadist enemy that’s coming at the West and at America and at Israel. There’s the threat of stealth jihad and also violent, physical jihad. And … political correctness and the leftist ideology has completely blinded the West and handcuffed us behind our back, and we’ve got a media as well as people in our White House that are sabotaging us from within.”

Glazov spoke with Brewster about his family’s struggle for freedom, their run-ins with KGB interrogators, their escape to the West, the influence of David Horowitz, founder and president of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and about the release of his newest book, “High Noon for America: The Coming Showdown.”

Glazov’s earlier book, “United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror,” shows how the radical left, even in America, is willing to cover for and partner with radical Islam, because the two groups share common values: namely, a hatred for Western culture, capitalism and the Judeo-Christian heritage of the U.S., and a desire to establish a new world order in their own image.

In the interview, Glazov explains how his newest book, “High Noon for America,” was formed from years of symposia on the detrimental influence of communism, Islam, the Obama administration and more on the foundations of American freedom.

“This is a collection of the brightest minds and what they have to say about the threat we face,” Glazov said.

The interview, which has been divided into two parts, can be seen below:

Video: Free Speech vs. Anti Blasphemy: The Frontline Battle of 2012

The David Horowitz Freedom Center held its 17th Restoration Weekend November 15 – 18, 2012 at The Breakers Hotel in Palm Beach, Florida. Here is the panel discussion on Free Speech vs. Anti Blasphemy:

 

Robert Spencer:

 

Pamela Geller:

 

Deborah Weiss:

 

Brooke Goldstein:

 

Question and Answer:

A Palestinian in Texas

By Daniel Pipes:

 

“Most Muslim immigrants are law-abiding and constructive citizens in the West. But Hamad’s case fits into a persistent pattern of immigrants who bring with them the bad habits imbued by the tyrannical politics and radical ideologies. Combining Islamic supremacism with nihilist disdain, they despise all that is non-Muslim, import a mélange of extremist ideas, and feel free of moral constraints. Consequently, they engage disproportionately in antisocial behavior, criminal activities, and terrorism. Reluctantly, I concluded almost a decade ago that “Muslim visitors and immigrants must undergo additional background checks.” I reiterate this now, lest more Riad Hamads be allowed in.”

 

Riad Hamad, 55, a suicide in Lady Bird Lake, Austin, Texas.

On April 14, 2008, Riad Elsolh Hamad, 55, left his family’s apartment in Austin, Texas, to get some prescription drugs. The immigrant from Lebanon and middle school computer teacher never returned home. Three days later, the police found his body, bound with tape, floating in nearby Lady Bird Lake, and concluded that “all signs indicate this may have been a suicide.”His family indicated that he had been under stress lately and even suicidal. And with good reason: the Federal Bureau of Investigationalong with the Internal Revenue Service had searched his house on February 27, 2008, when the FBI declared him a “person of interest” in a criminal investigation.

Despite this cloud around the dead man, local news outlets reported nothing but kind words and high praise for him. After Hamad’s family issued a statement describing Riad as a “peace activist who worked tirelessly on behalf of those less fortunate than him and was loved and admired by many members of the local, as well as international community,” the press duly picked up on this moniker and regularly called him a “peace activist

Television station KVUE quoted Joshua Howell, assistant manager at the office where Hamad had a postal box, recalling him as “always in a good mood. Never upset. Never even heard him say a harsh word about anybody.” The principal at the school where he taught sent a letter to students’ parents calling Hamad “a longtime and valued” member of the faculty whose “love and passion for education touched us all.” At Hamad’s memorial service, retired Episcopal Priest Edward M Hartwell praised “his humanitarian work to help the children of Palestine [as] some of the most creative and effective work that I know of.”

Hamad himself boasted of his peaceable approach to politics: “All of our work is very transparent. We don’t work with any militant group or violent group, or anybody with a militant affiliation.”

That was the Riad Hamad praised by family, friends, admirers, and even himself. But Hamad had another side, the one that brought the FBI to search his house, that got him fired from Austin Community College for “making racist slurs and sexist jokes in the classroom,” and that made him a foul and unwelcome presence in my life. Thanks to the recent testimony by a former ally of Hamad who has turned against him, several years later, we now know something approaching his full story.

The Summons

Hamad brought himself to my attention in early June 2006 by sending me, via certified mail, a summons to appear in court in Austin. The document bore a scrawled, unkempt handwriting on a form issued by the U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, informing me that Hamad was suing me and Campus Watch for libel. (Campus Watch being a project of the Middle East Forum, he was effectively suing the Forum.)

This turned out to be the second amended complaint; I found myself in good company, as the summons also listed the Center for the Study of Popular Culture (now known as the David Horowitz Freedom Center), David Horowitz personally, the Center for Jewish Community Studies, the State of Texas, Joe Kaufman, Americans Against Hate, MilitantIslamMonitor.org, and an internet provider called CB Accounts. Hamad proceeded to file another three amended complaints and in them he tacked on yet more defendants (Freerepublic LLC, Jim Robinson, Laurence Simon, and Dotster Inc.)

His was a pro se summons, meaning that Hamad, a non-lawyer, had filled it out by himself and was representing himself – i.e., it cost him next to nothing to sue one and all.

Hamad charged each of us with 21 offences: libel and slander, malicious libel, malicious slander, defamation of character, defamation of character with intent to cause mental anguish, libeling and slandering a business name, defamation through fraud of a business name, interference with a business contract, tortious interference with a business contract, conspiracy to interfere with a business contract, interference with interstate commerce, interference with Internet commerce, conspiracy to interfere with Internet commerce, intentional infliction of mental anguish with the intent to injure, invasion of privacy, fraud, negligence, gross negligence, disparagement of a business name, disparagement of business products, and dilution of a business name.

In compensation for this long list of alleged abuses, Hamad demanded from his many defendants US$5 million in compensatory damages, $10 million for his loss of income, and $50 million in exemplary and punitive damages. Nor was that all: he sought a permanent injunction against our calling his business an “Islamic charity” or he personally a “Muslim fundamentalist.” He wanted a Department of Justice investigation into us for “criminal and racketeering work as lobbyists for a foreign country [i.e., Israel] without the proper permits and licenses.” He also insisted on public apologies by us in ten media outlets chosen by him, as well as payment for his court costs and “any and all other relief that Plaintiff might show that he is entitled to in a jury trial.”

Hamad gave insight into his mentality and his motives in the course of his lawsuit. His discovery requests of David Horowitz are particularly colorful, including:

  • Document the “Religious affiliation of members of the board of CSPC, its affiliates and editors of Frontpagemag.org.”
  • Provide a “Blood and urine sample of David Horowitz … to identify his ethnicity and religious affiliations.”
  • “Identify any and all staff of the Israeli embassy that David Horowitz and CSPC are associated with, amounts of money paid for their services by the Israeli embassy.”
  • Answer whether “David Horowitz is a devout Jews [sic] and observes the Sabbath.”
  • Answer whether “David Horowitz eats pork and violates Jewish traditions.”
  • Answer whether “David Horowitz is not a Semite and pretends to be Jewish to gain sympathy for his views and make money.”

This summons came as a total surprise, as a I had previously never heard of or mentioned Riad Hamad. Sleuthing revealed only the slightest and most indirect connection between us: Hamad had created and headed an organization called the Palestine Children’s Welfare Fund (PCWF) and in a January 18, 2004, weblog entry, “Lamyaa Hashim, Supporting Burqas and Suicide Bombers,” I had quoted Joe Kaufman who alluded to PCWF as follows:

The site belongs to the medical director for the Palestine Children’s Welfare Fund, Rosemary Davis

That’s it. I quoted 15 words from someone who mentioned someone who worked for Hamad’s organization. For this glancing reference, my pro-rated share of payments to Hamad would come to my share of at least $65 million, or about a million dollars per word.

What is the PCWF? NGO Monitor analyzed the organization in 2003 and found its primary mission to be “propagating the delegitimization of Israel.” As a 2007 summary by NGO Monitor put it, “Gaza-based PCWF openly exploits children’s issues for radical politicized agendas that promote the conflict. These activities are entirely inconsistent with its claims to be a humanitarian organization.” By way of example, NGO Monitor tells about PCWF’s children’s drawing contest in which

The judges rewarded, almost without exception, entries that featured fierce and violent hatred of Israel. The winning picture features a fire, in the shape of a map of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, consuming the Star of David with the word “Israel” written inside the flag. Another entry depicted a Palestinian flag dropping flames on an Israeli flag and burning Israelis standing next to it. Such activities serve only to advance a culture of violence and hatred.

In brief, PCWF is as crude and hate-mongering as its leader.

Read more

Mr. Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is president of the Middle East Forum.

Ten Years of Campus Watch

By Cinnamon Stillwell

It was ten years ago this week, on September 18, 2002, that Campus Watch—a project of the Middle East Forum that reviews and critiques Middle East studies in North America with an aim to improving them—opened its doors. The response was instantaneous: the Middle East studies establishment, long unused to outside scrutiny, recoiled in horror at the prospect of accountability and proclaimed themselves martyrs. Declaring “solidarity” with eight academics Campus Watch (CW) had identified as apologists for Palestinian violence or militant Islam, over 100 faculty and graduate students, most from fields other than Middle East studies, requested to be listed on the CW website. Thus was born the “Solidarity with Apologists” list and more importantly, the preposterous conceit that outside criticism of academia is a form of “McCarthyist” censorship.

Such delusions continue to this day in the form of mischaracterizations, name-calling, smears, caricatures, and false claims of victimhood; indeed, CW now has a “Setting the Record Straight” section to respond to the deluge. Meanwhile, opponents refuse to treat seriously the five problems the CW mission statement sets out to address: analytical failures, the mixing of politics with scholarship, intolerance of alternative views, apologetics, and the abuse of power over students.

Nonetheless, they now know that their discipline’s long record of radicalism and indoctrination is well known off-campus to parents, students, legislators, and donors. Its sustained critique has put the Middle East studies establishment on the defensive in a way that almost certainly wouldn’t have been accomplished by more general critics of higher education, whose attention is spread across all disciplines as well as administrative matters and finances. Campus Watch’s relentlessness has proved a great asset.

One of the most significant indicators of CW’s impact is the backhanded endorsements from Middle East studies academics. Being cited on CW’s website has become a bragging rite, with University of California, Los Angeles history professor Gabriel Piterberg even claiming as much before it was true, while the specter of CW “spies” (that is, contributors who attend public lectures and write about them for CW) haunts lecture halls, leading professors and audience members alike to publicly reference CW in ominous terms. There’s also the possibility of being ridiculed in CW’s prominently displayed “Howler of the Month.”

CW is certainly not alone in its efforts to challenge academia’s status quo, considering organizations such as the National Association of Scholars, the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the Manhattan Institute, and books such as Middle East scholar Martin Kramer’s seminal Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America and president of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME)Richard Cravatts’s Genocidal Liberalism: The University’s Jihad Against Israel & Jews. Moreover, CW, building on the work of  Stanley Kurtz and Martin Kramer to pass legislation that requires federally-funded Middle East centers to offer a diversity of opinion in their outreach activities, plans to bring those centers to account.

The stakes couldn’t be higher, for as we’ve seen time and time again, the advice of “experts” on the Middle East, both via policymakers and the media, has thwarted the nation’s understanding in the region. Whether it be the mistaken belief that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has the capacity for moderation; that Israel is the root cause of instability in the region; that Iran and its proxy Hezbollahwill undertake honest negotiations;that Islamist Turkey and Tunisia are models of governance; that the rise of Islamism in the wake of the “Arab Spring” is negligible; or that “Islamophobia” is what’s ailing the Muslim world—all such misapprehensions can be traced back to the field of Middle East studies. And these are the people responsible for educating the next generation.

Read more at Front Page

2012 Tipping Point?

There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures. William Shakespeare

By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

History is replete with examples of strategic miscalculations in which an over-reach – usually born of contemptuous disdain for a foe – led to disaster for the aggressor.  Think Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in 1812.  Or Hitler’s of the Soviet Union 131 years later. We may look back at September 11, 2012 as the kick-off date for such a tipping point in our time.

To be sure, the Muslim Brotherhood and its fellow Islamists – notably, al Qaeda franchises throughout the Middle East and beyond, other so-called “Salafists,” Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia and the mullahs of Iran – were becoming increasingly aggressive towards us even before last week’s mayhem in Libya, Egypt, Yemen, etc.  Team Obama (notably in the person of its hapless and overexposed UN Ambassador, Susan Rice) and its running dogs in the elite media would nonetheless have us believe that the upset is the by-product of an amateurish short video that disparages Mohamed.

In fact, as most sentient beings have realized by now, that film is but the latest pretext for Islamists to demand our adherence to what they call shariah blasphemy laws.  [Such laws are but a part of the larger, brutally repressive Islamic political, military and legal doctrine that prohibits any expression that offends, or otherwise is unhelpful to, their faith.]

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has repeatedly conveyed a willingness to accommodate – or at least tolerate – this threat to one of our most fundamental constitutional liberties: freedom of speech.  That willingness is part of a pattern of submissive behavior that has encouraged the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies to believe that America is in retreat and that shariah’s inevitable, divinely-directed and global triumph is at hand.  Their response, predictably, is to redouble efforts to make us, in the Quran’s words, “feel subdued.”

Examples of such behavior abound.  Consider just a few of the more telling cases-in-point (for more, visit www.MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com):

  • In May 2009, President Obama insisted that Muslim Brotherhood representatives be in the audience for his first speech directed at the Islamic world.  It was delivered at Cairo University and freighted with apologies for past U.S. policies and efforts to associate himself with the beliefs and priorities of his audience.
  • Interestingly, Mr. Obama had already operationalized that policy approach two months before, by having the U.S. delegation to the UN Human Rights Council co-sponsor with Egypt a resolution drafted by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).  The object of the exercise was to further the OIC’s longstanding objective of forcing UN member nations to prohibit and criminalize expression that offends Islam.
  • In July 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton launched a formal effort with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation dubbed the “Istanbul Process” to explore ways in which our First Amendment rights could accommodate shariah blasphemy laws.  (Some of those playing an influential role in this exercise are discussed in a booklet about “The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration” I just published with the David Horowitz Freedom Center: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/frontpagemag-com/the-muslim-brotherhood-in-the-obama-administration/.)
  • In December 2011, the Istanbul Process achieved an ominous milestone:  The odious UN Human Rights Council adopted, with strong U.S. support, Resolution 16/18 committing member nations to adopt “measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief.”  Lest anyone think this a clever finesse, more or less in alignment with current U.S. law, the OIC’s secretary general made clear that his organization did not view it as “the end of the road.”  And, indeed, developments of the past week – both here and abroad, official and non-governmental – suggest that Team Obama is prepared to go farther, too.

Given such encouragement, it is not surprising that the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies would respond by demanding further accommodations to them and their shariah agenda.  What is a surprise, though, is that they are acting out their ambitions at this juncture – not after November 6th, when President Obama will, in his words, “have more flexibility.”  It suggests that the Islamists have reached their tipping point, propelled to seek decisive domination by President Obama’s perceived weakness, irresolution and submissiveness.

In the face of our enemies’ overreaching aggressiveness, however, the American people now face a tipping point of their own.  If they arrive at the only sensible conclusion – namely, that four more years of the Obama administration’s malfeasance with respect to jihadism of both the violent and the stealthy, pre-violent kind – they may just respond by refusing to re-up a presidency that enables and emboldens our foes and undermines our liberties and friends.  And should such a tipping point be realized, it will be one of truly epic historic proportions and prized by freedom-loving peoples forever.

Egypt: Kill a Christian, Collect a Reward

The three sheikhs (from left, Abdullah, Mohsin, and Sha’ban) call for the death of all who insult Islam on live TV.

by Raymond Ibrahim:

The flyers include the names and contact points for those Muslims who wish to collect their rewards for killing Christians.

Recently an Egyptian Muslim posted a YouTube videotape of himself cursing Islam and its holy book, the Koran; then tearing it to pieces and throwing it in the garbage. Here are excerpts of what he said:

There it is, Allah’s book; this is the basic catastrophe. I don’t know what day it is of this disgusting month of Ramadan. You are making the tearing of the Quran such a big and dangerous thing… it is instinctive to tear up this book, those sons of [profanity] think they can threaten me and challenge me not to tear up the Quran, but I want to prove to them that they are nothing, and what is the big deal in tearing up this book?! There it is [he starts tearing the Quran] in the trash. Are you feeling better now? You cannot touch a hair on my head. We keep blaming Hamas and Gaza, but it is not them, it is this son of [profanity] book that I am stepping on right now. That book is the source of all evil and the real catastrophe. There is nothing new here; it is not Omar Abdel Rahman, Abbud or all the others: it is this garbage that is causing us to run in a demonic, never-ending circle that will never end.

This latest Koran desecration is a reminder of the new Egypt—not merely that there are everyday Egyptians who are sick of the Islamization of Egypt, but aghast at what is in store for them.

On a recent talk show on Al Hafiz channel dealing with this incident of Koran-tearing, after playing the video of the man tearing the Koran, one of the guests, a bearded and white-robed Dr. Mahmoud Sha’ban, visibly shaken by what he had just seen, said:

Someone like him must receive the punishment he deserves—and it is death! He is an apostate… It is clear from what he says that he is a Muslim, and must be killed as an apostate. As for that act itself, it is an infidel act, and he deserves to be struck by the sword in a public place—and as soon as possible; as soon as possible; as soon as possible. It must be announced and photographed and disseminated among the people, so that all the people may know that we respect our Koran and its words from Allah, and whoever insults it, receives his punishment from Allah. If people like him are left alone, they will only get bolder and bolder.

The next guest, Sheikh Abdul Mohsin said: “I support the words of Sheikh Mahmoud [who just spoke], that this man must be killed fast, that he may be an example to others, so that all learn that we have reached a new phase in respecting Islam and the holy sanctity of the Koran and Sunna. This man has become an apostate and must suffer the penalty in front of the people.”

The third and final guest Dr. Abdullah was somewhat critical of the first two Islamic scholars—not because they called for the man’s death, but because, by focusing on the fact that the man had apostatized, it seemed as if they were exonerating non-Muslims: “The issue of killing him is not limited to his being a Muslim and then apostatizing. No, it is known to us from the Sharia that whoever insults the Prophet or tears the Koran, his judgment is death—whether he’s a Muslim or non-Muslim.”

Later, a listener called in saying, “Just so you know, if I ever meet one of these people, their life is void—they’re simply dead.” The talk show host, who agreed that the man must be slain, responded with some moderate talk about letting the state handle such people, to which the first sheikh, Dr. Mahmoud Sha’ban, erupted in rage:

“Man, we’re talking about the religion of Allah! The religion! The religion!! The woman who insulted the Prophet, he voided her life! There were ten people at the conquest of Mecca whose lives the Prophet also voided!” When the host tried to get a word in, the cleric exclaimed: “I am the sheikh, not you. I am the sheikh, not you! I am the sheikh! Hear me to the end, before I get up and leave!”

Read more at Gatestone Institute

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

U.S. Distorts Nigerian Jihad on Christians

Boko Haram’s leader, flanked by armed jihadis, calls on Nigeria’s president to “repent and forsake Christianity.”

By Raymond Ibrahim:

While the Obama administration continues to say that the Islamic group Boko Haram’s jihad against Nigeria’s Christians—which has seen countless churches destroyed, and thousands of Christians killed— has nothing to do with religion, the group once again made clear that it is all about religion. According to a recent report:

In an online video released last week, the militant Muslim group Boko Haram demanded that Nigeria’s Christian president either convert to Islam, or resign. [Boko] Haram head Abubakar Shekau told President Goodluck Jonathan to “repent and forsake Christianity,” otherwise Shekau’s followers would continue their violent campaign…

Indeed, despite the fact that the Obama administration has agreed to spend $600 million in a USAID initiative launched to ascertain the “true causes” behind Boko Haram’s murderous bloodlust, it was clear from the very beginning that the group and other Muslims were enraged that Nigeria was being led by a Christian, President Goodluck Jonathan, even though he won elections “by a landslide.”

Writing back in April 2011, Nigerian analyst Peter Run said:

The current wave of riots was triggered by the Independent National Election Commission’s (INEC) announcement on Monday [April 18, 2011] that the incumbent President, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, won in the initial round of ballot counts. That there were riots in the largely Muslim inhabited northern states where the defeat of the Muslim candidate Muhammadu Buhari was [deemed] intolerable was unsurprising…. Now they are angry despite experts and observers concurring that this is the fairest and most independent election in recent Nigerian history.

Once again, then, reality is easily ascertained—at root, Boko Haram’s terror campaign is entirely motivated by religion—even as the Obama administration refuses to designate the group as a terrorist organization, spends millions of U.S. tax dollars on superfluous initiatives (or diversions), and pressures the Nigerian president to make concessions, including building more mosques, the very structures where Muslims are radicalized and recruited to Boko Haram’s jihad.

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