National Security Expert Slams Hillary’s ‘Assault’ On Free Speech

Hillary Clinton (D-NY) places her hand over her heart during the National Anthem at the 30th annual Harkin Steak Fry in Indianola, Iowa, in this September 16, 2007 file photo. (REUTERS/Joshua Lott/Files)

Hillary Clinton (D-NY) places her hand over her heart during the National Anthem at the 30th annual Harkin Steak Fry in Indianola, Iowa, in this September 16, 2007 file photo. (REUTERS/Joshua Lott/Files)

Daily Caller, by Rachel Stoltzfoos, July 18, 2015:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton put her willingness to defend the Constitution in serious doubt when she promised Islamic countries the United States government would intimidate Americans who violate their free speech code, national security expert Stephen Coughlin told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

As Secretary of State, Clinton promised an international Islamic organization in 2011 that the United States government would “use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming” to intimidate Americans who improperly criticize Islam or Muhammad.

“An official of the United States, in an official communiqué, went to a foreign land to commit to a foreign leader that the United States Government would engage in the extra-legal practice of intimidating American citizens in the exercise of what is otherwise their protected free speech rights under the First Amendment,” Coughlin told TheDCNF.

Coughlin discusses the move in his recently published book, “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad,” and told TheDCNF it casts a pall on her record as secretary of state.

“If her willingness to sell out Americans First Amendment rights to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation by categorizing as ‘hate speech’ anything that is deemed offensive to Islam is any indication, she may be the least qualified candidate to support and defend the Constitution,” he said.

Coughlin’s an attorney, decorated intelligence officer and expert on Islamic law and terrorism who consulted the military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff for about a decade following 9/11, before the Muslim Brotherhood allegedly convinced the White House to ban him and “outlaw” his briefings.

He cites Clinton’s 2011 visit to Turkey and her cooperation with the OIC in his book as one example of how muslim ideologists wield influence in the “highest reaches” of the U.S. government.

The Clinton campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

The OIC is the second-largest intergovernmental organization after the U.N., consisting of 57 states that identify as “the collective voice of the Muslim world.”

After she helped the OIC secure passage of U.N. resolution 16/18, “Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief,” Clinton promised the U.S. would take what steps it could to curb speech critical of Islam.

“And together we have begun to overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression, and we are pursuing a new approach based on concrete steps to fight intolerance wherever it occurs,” she said in an address following the resolution’s passage.

“We also understand that, for 235 years, freedom of expression has been a universal right at the core of our democracy,” she added. “So we are focused on promoting interfaith education and collaboration, enforcing antidiscrimination laws, protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose, and to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel they have the support to do what we abhor.”

The resolution condemns “any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of print, audio-visual or electronic media.”

Coughlin argues in his book it’s part of a deliberate OIC-led effort to bring the U.S. and other countries in line with Muslim speech standards, first by condemning and eventually criminalizing unwanted speech such as depictions of Muhammad.

“Over the last few years, major left wing and Islamists organizations have been working diligently to reframe free speech in an oppositional narrative that distinguishes sanctioned speech, designated free speech, from hate speech in a long term campaign to brand nonconforming speech as hate speech that is at first to be ridiculed and then criminalized,” he told TheDCNF.

***

ICYMI:

BOOK RELEASE: The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech

I Am An Islamophobe

CI7-0c8VEAAs6BX

By George Garbow

I am an Islamophobe, I’m proud to be an Islamophobe and you should be proud to.

You should be proud of the fact that you criticise a religion that in it’s most important and fundamental texts the Quran and the Hadith’s tells it’s followers to not take non-muslims as friends, to lie to and deceive non-muslims in order to advance the spread of Islam and that there will never be any peace in the world until every single person on this planet either by persuasion or violent force becomes a Muslim. You should be proud to criticise a religion that in it’s most important and fundamental texts condones and encourages the cruel treatment of animals for Halal meat, the beating of disobedient wives and the taking of non-muslim women and children as sex slaves by muslim men. You should be proud of the fact that you speak out about a religion that instructs it’s followers in the Quran and Hadith’s to terrorise and force all non-muslims to live as subservient slaves under their Muslim masters, to crucify and behead any non Muslims who disobey their masters in any country in the world where Muslims live and to make war on anyone who tries to stop them doing this. You should be proud to oppose a religion that considers Mohammed to be the most perfect man, a man who in the Muslim Hadith’s is praised and revered for being a thief, a peadophile and a murderer. You should be proud that by being an Islamophobe you are standing up to Western politicians and the Western media who out of fear and cowardice and for their own personal greed are trying to stop you telling the undeniable truth about what Islam teaches to it’s followers and the crimes against humanity that it is responsible for throughout history and that we see happening all around the world today.

You should be proud of the fact that the use of the word Islamophobe by our politicians and the media will not silence you and will not make you live in fear as they do. Be proud of the fact that by being an Islamophobe shows you care about the victims of this religion, you care about the muslim women who are forced to wear the Burqa and are treated as second-class citizens under Islamic law, you care about the non-muslim women who are taken as sex slaves by muslim man, you care about the children who are raped by Muslim men as they follow the teachings an example of their prophet, you care about the victims of Muslim terrorism and violence who are being shot, stoned, crucified and beheaded in the name of this religion all around the world today. So be proud to be called an Islamophobe by cowards and liars because it shows that in this world you choose right over wrong and good over evil and that you will not live your life on your knees.

So be proud of the fact that you are an Islamophobe.

***

SIX SURE SIGNS SOMEONE YOU KNOW IS AN ISLAMOPHOBE by Eric Allen Bell

The word “Islamophobia” was popularized by Hamas, an Islamic terrorist organization, operating under several different names in America – most effectively as the Council on American-Islamic Relations.  Hamas is part of the Muslim Brotherhood.  The Muslim Brotherhood is the parent organization of, not only Hamas, but Al Qaeda and countless other Islamic terrorist groups.

The Holy Land Foundation trial was the result of the largest bust in FBI history of an Islamic “charity.” This organization was caught funneling about $12 million to Hamas.  These monies were to be used to enable Islamic jihadists to murder innocent civilians in the name of Islam.

During this FBI raid, a memo was unearthed.  This memo has become known as the “Explanatory Memorandum.” In summary, the Muslim Brotherhood and a couple dozen of its front groups in America declared a “Civilization Jihad.”  In plain terms, the Muslim Brotherhood stated its intention to destroy the US from within, using our own culture, media, legal system, academia, law enforcement, you name it.  Unfortunately, most people cannot or will not look at this – and consequently, the plan is moving forward like clockwork.  As author Dr. Bill Warner reminded me recently, “You can wake a man who is sleeping, but you cannot wake a man who is pretending to be asleep.

Now, as it turns out, not everyone believes in this concept called “Islamophobia.” In fact, there exists a rapidly growing number of Patriotic Americans who see this form of terrorist spin control for what it is. But unfortunately, one of the ways that the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas/CAIR has infiltrated our culture, is by using one of our greatest weaknesses, and that is the fear of not toeing the line when it comes to multiculturalism.  Those who do not drink the Kool Aid are called the “Islamophobes.”

You may already have an “Islamophobe” living in your community, or as a member of your family, an elected official, a member of your religious organization or even someone at work.  The “Islamophobes” are everywhere, and they are spreading.  Here are six ways to spot one:

1 – An “Islamophobe” loves liberty more than they love submission.  They know that the word “liberty” means “freedom” and that the word “Islam” literally means “submission.” And just like America’s Founding Fathers, the “Islamophobe” knows the value of liberty and knows it comes with a cost – a cost they are willing to pay, even when those around them neither understand nor appreciate this.

2 – An “Islamophobe” is more interested in the truth than the approval of their peers. They place their own moral intuition and the principles of the American Constitution above the group think of the times.  The “Islamophobe” is strong-willed, independent and exemplifies the American spirit.  They are unwilling to compromise the political self-determination that this great Republic was founded on, including and especially free speech.

3 – An “Islamophobe” resists passionately any attempt to impose Islamic law (Sharia) onto them.  Islamic law mandates the killing of those who leave Islam, the death penalty for homosexuals, second-class status for women, punishment for the crime of being raped (Islamic law calls this “adultery”), it forbids the questioning of Islamic doctrine, promotes slavery, forbids religious freedom and criminalizes free speech.  Although the “Islamophobes” are often smeared in the press as being irrational, the truth is that most actually realize that the more obvious forms of Sharia Law are not their most immediate concern.  Rather, it is understood among “Islamophobes” that it is “Creeping Sharia” or death by a thousand cuts that Americans have to watch out for and stand against.  The “Islamophobe” is always the first to notice when the political doctrine known as “Islam” is being given special treatment in schools, the courts and in the media.  The “Islamophobe” is often the first to realize that their own God-given right to free speech is being threatened by the slow and stealth implementation of Sharia Law into all levels of our society.

4 – An “Islamophobe” sees a pattern emerging before the rest of the population sees it, and they don’t hesitate to warn others, even when the social, professional and personal safety consequences come with a hefty price.  As David Horowitz pointed out recently, “80 percent of the American public was opposed to getting involved in WWII before we were attacked at Pearl Harbor.”  What was it that the other 20 percent were able to see?  What was the pattern they were able to identify?  An “Islamophobe” sees the writing on the walls and does not sit around passively waiting for our so-called “leaders” to get it.  An “Islamophobe” is very likely already a member of organizations such as “Act for America” because they are already taking action at the grassroots level.

5 – An “Islamophobe” is able to tell the difference between Islam, the totalitarian political ideology, and Muslims – who are human beings.  “Islamophobes” are not concerned with how Muslims worship.  Rather, it is Islamic Law that concerns them, specifically as it pertains to the treatment of the infidel, who is to be subjugated or killed.  Contrary to popular opinion, “Islamophobes” do not hate Muslims.  In fact the “Islamophobes” know better than most, that no one is more victimized by the brutality of Islam than Muslims.  “Islamophobes” look for ways to stop this pattern, so that all people can be free, have dignity and human rights.  An “Islamophobe” is often somebody with a big heart, such that they tend to care about people whom they don’t even personally know. The “Islamophobes,” however, do oppose a violent ideology which seeks to subjugate or kill the unbeliever, and they make no apologies for not tolerating such inhumanity.  Ironically, “Islamophobes” are often branded as bigots for simply being the ones willing to acknowledge the elephant in the room.  And making sure they are branded as such is the job of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Hamas front group.

6 – “Islamophobes” tend to define themselves by what they are for – and not by what they are against.  An “Islamophobe” stands for liberty, stands for human rights and cares about our national defense.  They are less concerned about complaining about the problems and are more likely to actually do something about it.  “Islamophobes” are people of action.  “Islamophobes” take the time to read the Islamic scriptures (Koran, Hadith and Sira) and to understand what we are up against.  They study the works of Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Sam Harris, Nonie Darwish, Bill Warner, Brigitte Gabriel and so many others.  An “Islamophobe” takes the time to understand the ruthless and barbaric Islamic Law (Sharia), which is committed to taking away our fundamental rights.  Consequently, many “Islamophobes” have the tools to speak to others, including their elected officials, spiritual leaders, friends and family and even the media, to affect positive social change – and preserve our American way of life.

Do you know someone who might exhibit these traits?  Is someone you know an “Islamophobe”?  Well now there is something you can do about it.  Join them!

If you love liberty more than the approval of your peers – you may already be an “Islamophobe.”

The word “Islamophobia” literally means an irrational fear of the ideology known as Islam.  It is misapplied, as this is in fact the intention of the word. Someone with an irrational fear of Islam would more likely make a statement such as, “The future must not belong to those who would slander the prophet of Islam.”  And really, what kind of a spineless coward would say something so utterly ridiculous? (Barack Hussein Obama, addressing the United Nations, October 2012.)

Those who are called the “Islamophobes” are generally anything but. However, they are strong enough not to allow cheap name calling to stop them from honoring their moral convictions.  The “Islamophobes” are our best and our brightest.  These are the people who can see around corners, connect the dots, spot a pattern, and are true to their moral intuition – even when it is inconvenient.

The so-called “Islamophobes” have the courage to speak out.  It has been said that “liberty is paid for in installments, one generation at a time.”  If you feel in your heart that you are ready to make your payment, to continue the legacy of freedom and liberty that has been paid for dearly by those brave men and women who have gone before us, then now is your time.  Now is our time.  Be willing to be branded an “Islamophobe.”  And if you are already a semi-active “Islamophobe” may I suggest becoming a “Raging Islamophobe.”  A word of caution: This could result in some people not liking you.  But if that is all that is being asked of us, for now, to stand up for liberty, to champion the cause of freedom — then being labeled an “Islamophobe” is a small price to pay.  In fact, to be an “Islamophobe” is an honor.

***

Picture-16 (1)

Download the pdf:

Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future
By: David Horowitz and Robert Spencer

BOOK RELEASE: The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech

4157972612HOW TEAM OBAMA HELPS THE ORGANIZATION OF ISLAMIC COOPERATION WAGE JIHAD ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Washington, D.C.: The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the largest Islamic organization in the world – comprised of 56 UN Member states plus the Palestinian Authority — has long been trying to silence, and ultimately criminalize, all criticism of Islam, specifically targeting America and the West. What has largely gone unremarked is the help the OIC has received from the Obama administration to this end.

Deborah Weiss, attorney, author and expert on Islamist efforts to stifle free speech reveals in a new monograph published by the Center for Security Policy Press how the OIC is working through UN resolutions, multilateral conferences and other international vehicles to advance its agenda. The goal of these efforts, according to the OIC’s 10-year program of action, which was launched in 2005, is to combat so-called “Islamophobia” and “defamation of religions”. In practice, this means banning any discussion of Islamic supremacism and its many manifestations including: jihadist terrorism, persecution of religious minorities and human rights violations committed in the name of Islam.

Upon the publication of her monograph entitled, The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech, Ms. Weiss remarked:

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation is the largest and most powerful voting bloc in the United Nations and yet most Americans have never heard of it. Of particular concern is the OIC’s ten-year program which amounts to an international effort to suppress freedom of expression under the guise of protecting Islam from so-called “defamation.” This initiative, however, is in the service of OIC’s long-term mission: the world-wide implementation of Shariah, a legal-political-judicial-religious doctrine which favors Muslims over non-Muslims, men over women, and denies basic human rights and freedoms.

Ms. Weiss’ monograph documents how the Obama Administration has collaborated with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in ways that, whether intentional or unwitting, have advanced the OIC’s supremacist agenda. As it happens, recently released State Department documents obtained by Judicial Watch through court-enforced Freedom of Information Act requests underscore the extent of Team Obama’s collusion with the OIC.

Specifically, these emails offer insights into how, in September 2012, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the White House worked with the OIC to fabricate a narrative that falsely blamed an online video “Innocence of Muslims” for the violent uprising at the U.S. special mission compound and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya.

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the documents reveal that the Obama administration immediately went into damage-limitation mode, with a well-coordinated effort to scapegoat the video as the cause of the attack. Rashad Hussain, President Obama’s envoy to the OIC, reached out to the Organization’s leadership urging it to condemn the “anti-Islamic film” and “its related violence” and to respond in a way that is “consistent with Islamic principles.”

The OIC readily obliged, issuing a statement accusing the video of “incitement” – though nothing in the video called for violence against Muslims – and claiming that it “hurt the religious sentiments of Muslims” and “demonstrated serious repercussions of abuse of freedom of expression”.

The effect was to reinforce the OIC’s goal to protect Islam from “defamation” instead of supporting the US Constitutional principle of free expression.

In her monograph, Ms. Weiss elucidates examples of the escalating assault on freedom of expression that the OIC has launched against the West and their implications. She describes the critical role freedom of speech plays in preserving religious freedom, human rights and national security efforts. As she correctly points out, “If you look around the world, you will see that freedom is the exception, not the rule.”

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President of the Center for Security Policy, observed that:

Deborah Weiss’ important new book is a clarion call to Americans and their federal representatives to end all cooperation with the Islamic supremacists of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, including cessation of participation in the anti-free speech “Istanbul Process” launched by Hillary Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State. Citizens and policy-makers alike should, instead, commit themselves vigorously and unapologetically to freedom of expression – including to its employment as an indispensable weapon in the execution of a comprehensive strategy to defeat the Global Jihad Movement.”

The Center for Security Policy/Secure Freedom is proud to present Ms. Weiss’s monograph as a superb addition to its Civilization Jihad Reader Series. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech by Deborah Weiss, Esq. is available for purchase in kindle and paperback format on Amazon.com at:

http://www.amazon.com/Organization-Islamic-Cooperations-Speech-Civilization/dp/1511960590/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=1-1&qid=1435949110.

Or download the pdf: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/OIC_Free_Speech_Jihad.pdf

The Next Phase in the Destruction of Free Speech Has Begun

shut_up-300x200Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, July 7, 2015:

Sunday’s Washington Post published an article entitled “When Is Freedom of Speech Irresponsible” in which writer David Cole omitted many facts, lied, and used Muslim Brotherhood talking points in an attempt to silence the very people and organizations whose facts and evidence detailing the jihadi threat to the United States and the West are unassailable.

UTT (Understanding the Threat) and its founder John Guandolo along with Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, and Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism were specifically targeted in this article.

Cole’s article references a new book by David K. Shipler, which is a blueprint of the coming assault on those who stand on truth to explain the growing jihadi network in America.  Mr. Shipler was allowed to attend a UTT training program last year to help him understand the threat, yet his work leaves out so many facts that it is clear his intention was and is to deceive and manipulate readers to dismiss the imminent threat to our security from the Islamic Movement.

In fact, Mr. Cole states Shipler’s objective is not to suppress free speech “but simply to demonstrate that their (Guandolo, Gaffney, Emerson) claims are vastly exaggerated and unsubstantiated. In short, he answers their speech with his speech. An objective reader cannot help but come away with a better understanding of the truth. This is the freedom of speech at its best.”

Since what Mr. Shipler writes is objectively not true it means Mr. Cole is equating matching truths with lies and calling it a great debate.  In reality, it is a facade and a deceit.

Specifically, in the Washington Post article states the focal point of everything UTT and other organizations say about the Muslim Brotherhood’s Jihadi Movement is based on one document – “An Explanatory Memorandum” – which is the strategy of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America.

Since John Guandolo has written a book on this topic entitled Raising a Jihadi Generation, and the fact he spends nine hours or so in his 3-day training program laying out the evidence of the threat, the claim that the entire understanding of the threat rests on one document is absurd.

Mr. Cole naively states “(Shipler) finds that the central document underlying most of the claims is a 15-page “explanatory memo” found in an FBI search of an Annandale, Va., home in 2004. Signed by Mohamed Akram, a member of the Palestine Committee of the Muslim Brotherhood…Shipler shows that in fact the document is nothing more than a thought piece drafted by a single individual in the early 1990s, and that there is no evidence it was ever considered, much less adopted, by the Muslim Brotherhood or anyone else. Shipler’s research shows that other supposed evidence of the grand Islamist conspiracy is similarly speculative.”

Mr. Cole fails to detail other significant evidence supporting “An Explanatory Memorandum” as a major underpinning of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement in North America, nor does he do any due diligence on the mountain of evidence which exists revealing the MB Movement and modus operandi here – which UTT teaches to law enforcement and national security professionals who acknowledge its relevance and factual/evidentiary basis.

While Mr. Cole reveals “An Explanatory Memorandum” was written by a “member” of the MB’s Palestine Committee – Mohamed Akram – he also fails to reveal to the reader that the Palestine Committee is Hamas in the U.S.  Nor does he tell the reader that Akram is the number two man on the list of the “Palestine Section in America” discovered by the FBI in the raid in Annandale, Virginia.  Furthermore, he does not mention the Memorandum was found among the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood at the home of a senior Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood leader – Ismail Elbarasse.

The Muslim Brotherhood leadership – as well as David Cole and David K. Shipler – continue to dismiss “An Explanatory Memorandum” as just some document found in some garage written by some unknown guy.  In fact, the Memorandum was written by a leader in the MB/Hamas Movement, found among the MB archives in North America, and was entered into evidence in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in U.S. history (US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, Dallas 2008).

In UTT’s 3-day “Understanding and Investigating Jihadi Network” course, an entire day is dedicated to walking through facts already in evidence revealing a massive Muslim Brotherhood jihad network threatening the United States.  This information does not hinge merely on “An Explanatory Memorandum” yet it does reveal the MB is doing exactly what the Memorandum says it should do in it’s pursuit of overthrowing the U.S. government and imposing Islamic rule.  This information includes details from dozens of other Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas documents, the results of the fifteen year (15) FBI investigation culminating in the US v HLF trial, testimony of government officials,declassified FBI documents from related investigations of major Islamic organizations like ISNA (Islamic Society of North America), NAIT (North American Islamic Trust), and others, all of which reveals a coordinated, well-funded, and continuous Islamic Movement in the United States and elsewhere with the stated goal of waging “Civilization Jihad” to destroy Western civilization and replace it with Islamic rule.

In fact, since 2006 when UTT founder John Guandolo created and implemented the first counterterrorism training program in the government specifically detailing the Muslim Brotherhood Movement, Sharia, and the penetration of our system, he has openly and repeatedly stated he will remove any information from his briefing that is not factual and supported by evidence.  To date, he has never had to do this.

In fact, Muslim Brotherhood leaders who have attended his public presentations do not say what Guandolo is saying is not true, they tell him they simply do not like that he is saying it.

Most revealing, however, is the fact that this information has been presented to law enforcement officials, military, national security professionals, and senior leaders in America, nearly all of whom have stated the information was unknown to them prior to the course, yet the information details an “insurgency” or Movement in the U.S. which constitutes a major threat that needs to be addressed.

Many of the comments about UTT’s training programs can be found on the UTT website.  These comments from law enforcement, military, and security professionals, reveal how powerful this information is.  One FBI Agent states “This training should be mandatory for every cop and federal agent in America.”

UTT’s 3-day program is the only one like it in the nation, which is why the Muslim Brotherhood and their collaborators from the progressive left continually try to shut it down.  This, in and of itself, is evidence of the power of this program and the truth of the threat.

In April 2011, Director of Central Intelligence (1993-1995) R. James Woolsey, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (1988-1991) Lieutenant General Ed Soyster, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (2003-2007) Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin, and Inspector General of the Department of Defense (2002-2005) Joseph Schmitz signed a letter supporting John Guandolo and the information he presents on the threat from the Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood.

In part, the letter reads:

“Every citizen in this country should hear what (John Guandolo) has to say. The facts he presents speak for themselves and require no commentary. For local and state law enforcement and intelligence officials, this information is critical to identifying, understanding, and thwarting threats in your locale. UTT gives specific details on how to practically implement this information in your area, which directly affects your community and your families…John is our go-to guy concerning these issues.  His research is thorough, fact-based and logically presented.  He is only biased by reality. We applaud this man of courage and hope you will make the time to hear this presentation.”

In March 2007, UTT Founder John Guandolo and Stephen Coughlin held a one-day seminar at the FBI Academy hosted by the Marine Corps Nation Capital Region Command Antiterrorism/Force Protection (MCNCRC AT/FP) Staff detailing the threat from the Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood, Sharai, and the strategy and modus operandi of this enemy.  In its official communication to the FBI following this presentation, the Colonel leading MCNCRC wrote, in part:

“The CT presentation provided a solid foundation for the pinpointed actual root of Islamic Fundamentalism that is fueling the Global War on Terrorism. In any battle, military personnel are taught to understand the enemy. This is exactly what this presentation provided: a solid understanding of the ideology the enemy is using. The presentation highlighted that the enemy knows who they are, where they come from, and what they want.

“All of the points discussed were backed up with appropriate research, citing and clearly articulating an understanding of the core issues. The research provided quotes and examples of the extremists supporting the Islamist ideological message. There is hardly a more convincing argument then using one’s own words and actions...As a result of this presentation, MCNCRC AT/FP has received numerous requests from DoD, state, federal, and local organizations and agencies who attended the CT seminar, specifically asking to receive this course of instruction and follow on training from SA Guandolo and Mr. Coughlin, in order to share this critical information with their colleagues and subordinates.

“SA Guandolo and Steve Coughlin have identified a critical information and education gap. They should be commended for their initiative to conduct such an in depth study of the enemy and their courage to share their vast knowledge in an effort to better educate others.

“It is recommended that this program be made more readily available to all levels of government and concerned citizens. It is imperative that we as leaders and as a nation understand and can contextualize this threat to our Nation.”

In fact, those who hear this information, realize the threat from the Islamic Movement is real, is present, and must be dealt with as a part of any National Security effort.

In September 2014, UTT hosted a one day training program in Phoenix, Arizona for 300 law enforcement officers from all over the state.  Prior to the course, six (6) Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas organizations in Arizona partnered with their collaborators at the ACLU loudly protested the training program calling it bigoted and hate filled.  They wrote a letter to the Maricopa County Attorney calling for the training to be cancelled.  One of the signers was Usama Shami, the leader of the Hamas/MB’s Islamic Community Center of Arizona – the home of the two jihadis killed in Garland, Texas several weeks ago who were looking to impose Sharia by shutting down free speech.

Also of note is that the MB/Hamas organizations identified by UTT as threats have supported jihadi operations across the nation as has been previously detailed by UTT.

At the end of this one-day program, only nine people in the audience raised their hands and stated they knew this information prior to the training.  Seven of them had been to a prior UTT training and two had been working with the Center for Security Policy.  Everyone in the audience raised their hands when asked if the information was critical to protecting citizens in their state.

The reality is that a strategic assault on our free speech by the progressives on the left is now unfolding and David K. Shipler’s book and support from those like David Cole of the Washington Post are simply the leading edge of this next phase.

Americans must boldly continue to speak truth, not back down, and not be silenced.  The assault on our free speech is, in the eyes of our enemies, is the key move in this war to silence us so we will go along quietly while the Republic burns.

Faithful Americans must not succumb to this.

Leftist and Islamic Policymakers Outlaw the Truth

Truth-is-the-new-hate-speechAmerican Thinker, by Sonia Bailley, July 4, 2015:

No need to worry, the recent Ramadan triple slaughter fest in Tunisia, France and Kuwait has nothing to do with Islam.  There is no linkage between Islam and terrorism, and the word Islamic need not be used to describe the terrorists because their murderous and barbaric ideology has nothing to do with Islam.  Islam is, after all, a religion of peace that is being hijacked, perverted and distorted by only a small percentage of savage extremists.

Welcome to the false narrative that Western leaders, mainstream media outlets, and academic elites are enforcing on civil society to help shape the public’s perception of Islam so that it is always presented in a positive light.  Any form of expression that reflects badly on Islam is in violation of Islamic law, which forbids any criticism of Islam, even what that criticism expresses the truth.  Stories that are reported according to this narrative need not have anything to do with factual accuracy or truth.  Both the 2009 Fort Hood massacre in Texas and the beheading in Vaughan Foods in Oklahoma last September were reported as workplace violence and not Islamic terrorism.

With the aid of leftist and Islamic policymakers shaping the course of international relations and security policies, that false narrative is finding its way into international policy to destroy the West’s hard-won, cherished core values.  Realities and facts that might tarnish Islam’s name are deemed hate speech and becoming lost through censorship. The 57-state Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), which is the world’s largest security-oriented intergovernmental organization that happens to be rooted in communism, and the 57-state Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which is the most influential and largest Muslim organization in the world pushing to criminalize any criticism of Islam, are two such policymakers who are influencing world leaders and the news media.

Most Western world leaders are bleating the same empty platitudes about the recent Ramadan terrorist attacks in Tunisia, France and Kuwait, carefully avoiding the word “Islam.”  UK Prime Minister David Cameron explained to the media that Islam is a religion of peace, and that the terrorists who “do these things…do it in the name of a twisted and perverted ideology.” When asked if it’s right to say that the recent Ramadan attacks have nothing to do with Islam, UK Home Secretary Theresa May responded to BBC’s Andrew Marr in the positive, “that it has nothing to do with Islam. Islam is a peaceful religion,” and that the terror attacks are “about a perversion of Islam.”

Instead of issuing travel warnings not to vacation in Islamic countries especially during Ramadan, the Islamic “sacred” month of feasting — a month rife with bloodshed and battle since Islam’s inception, when armed raids on Meccan trade caravans and bloody battles were waged by Mohammed and his followers (including the 1973 Yom Kippur War on the 10th of Ramadan), not to mention the ISIS Ramadan message that jihad is 10 times more obligatory during Ramadan, and that those who die will be rewarded by Allah ten times more than during the rest of the year — Western leaders like Cameron continue to nourish the official politically correct narrative of Islam being a religion of peace not linked to terrorism.

The twisted and perverted ideology to which both Cameron and May refer, pervades pages and pages of the Koran and other Islamic doctrine, inspiring jihadists and religious Muslims to “do these things,” including operating child sex slave grooming gangs throughout Europe, especially in the UK, to rape, pimp, torture and sometimes kill non-Muslim underage schoolgirls.  The Koran itself contains over 100 verses  promoting violence against non-Muslims who, to this very day, remain victims of the verse.

What lies at the heart of Islam is an antipathy towards non-Muslims, as well as a deeply-entrenched duty and commandment from Allah to wage Jihad and eventually subjugate non-Muslims worldwide to Islamic rule in the name of Allah.  Massive street prayer is one form of subjugation conducted only to intimidate and Islamize Western society, to remind non-Muslims who’s really in control. Similarly, forcing non-Muslims in their own countries, in the UK for example, to eat halal slaughtered meat — an utterly inhumane and barbaric Islamic practice, not to mention a multi-billion dollar industry controlled by Muslim Brotherhood organizations that fund jihad worldwide — when only a mere 5% of the UK population is Muslim, and when the Koran specifically exempts its followers from eating halal if it’s not available, is another way to subjugate non-Muslims.

People are becoming sitting duck targets for Islamic terrorists in Western countries and abroad because of the little-known but powerful world policymakers like the OSCE and OIC who influence world leaders to kowtow to Islamic interests.  Western leaders fail to convey an accurate picture and understanding of what is really going on in the world because it might reflect badly on Islam, and they don’t want to appear “Islamophobic” for fear of more terrorist attacks.  By failing to report the truth, they are denying citizens the opportunity to take appropriate action that could save their lives when faced with something that could be considered a threat, such as a beach vacation in an Islamic country over Ramadan.

The dead European tourists in Tunisia might still be here today had there been an undistorted flow of information to warn them that warfare and killing in the name of Islam are encouraged during the month of Ramadan.  Furthermore, people might choose to avoid Islamic countries at all times if they were aware that these countries rely upon the most non-liberal draconian and barbaric Islamic or sharia-based corporal punishments imaginable.

The anti-blasphemy narrative pushed by the highly influential but little-known OIC, ehich speaks on behalf of over 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, not only silences any expression considered to be offensive and insulting to Islam, but punishes the offenders, as Mohammed did to his dissenters and insulters.  They were either condemned to hell or killed.  Because Muslims consider Mohammed as the ideal model for mankind to follow, many Islamic countries such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran, have also made blasphemy subject to the death penalty with their anti-blasphemy laws.

It is this anti-blasphemy law that the OIC is striving to legally enforce on the world in order to curtail speech and expression when it comes to Islam — not so much for religious compliance as for the global subjugation of non-Muslims to Islam.  Since 2005, the OIC has been pushing relentlessly for a UN blasphemy resolution (Resolution 16/18 passed in 2011) to silence so-called Islamophobia — a term deliberately coined and marketed in the 1990s by the International Institute of Islamic Thought, one of the thousands of Muslim Brotherhood front groups worldwide, to drive public discourse and policy.  However, the OIC’s top priority is to globally criminalize any criticism of Islam, and is working with the Muslim Brotherhood to accomplish this. Ten years later, in 2015, telling the truth about Islam has become a crime in some European countries.

The highly influential yet little-known OSCE that is rooted in communism, is supposed to protect and promote civil liberties.  Instead, it is negotiating them away by capitulating to the OIC narrative of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose stated goal from the 1990s is to destroy Western civilization from within.  Its goal of global domination is to be accomplished not through violence, at least not yet, but rather through the slow infiltration of Western government, military, judicial and academic institutions.

So far, there has been practically no opposition from  any Western administration in power, only cooperation from world leaders, government officials, and leftist policymakers.  In fact, the cooperation from Western leaders with OSCE and OIC policymakers has been so great, that the U.S. co-sponsored Resolution 16/18 with Pakistan, and helped usher it through in 2011, despite this resolution being a direct assault on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

At an OSCE May session in Vienna (on how the media can help prevent violent radicalization that leads to terrorism), OSCE panelist Leila Ghandi, producer and TV show host on the most popular Moroccan TV channel (2MTV) that is over 60% government-owned, maintained that the truth or facts about “a community” can sometimes constitute hate speech when those facts are offensive and therefore should not be said.  The panelist’s words echo those of the new OIC Secretary General, Iyad Amin Madani, who tweeted earlier this year following the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack in Paris, that “freedom of speech must not become a hate speech and must not offend others.”  In other words, truth about Islam is designated as hate speech.

Furthermore, OSCE panelist Victor Khroul, correspondent for Rossiya Segodnya, a Russian state-owned international news agency, questions why the mainstream media throughout the world still refer to the “self-proclaimed self-established state in the Middle East” as the Islamic State. His words echo those of Madani, who proclaimed last year that the Islamic State has no connection with Islam.  Khroul claims it’s a mistake for these people to be called Muslim and their state Islamic, which only “confuses the audience with this correlation with Islam.”  He maintains that it’s still possible “to find other words to describe this so-called state and its activity,” discounting the facts that Islamic State is what ISIS named itself and its state, and that ISIS clearly credits its motivation to Islam and its acts to Allah. The name Islamic State does not have to be rectified because it accurately reflects reality, defines the organization in question, and is therefore a correct term that would sit well in the world of Confucius and his doctrine on rectifying names.

Major Stephen Coughlin, an attorney, former U.S. Army intelligence officer, and the Pentagon’s leading expert on Islamic law and jihad (until he was dismissed in 2008 for linking Islam with terrorism with his Red Pill Briefings), stresses the urgency of defining the enemy as he defines himself:  “you cannot target what you will not define…if I can’t use the concepts of Jihad that Al-Qaeda say they rely on, then I can’t understand what they are going to do.”

Author of Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, Coughlin attended the OSCE May session and responded to the OSCE jargon as follows:

“Once you decide that facts on the ground as they present themselves, can be considered hate speech, this is no longer about truth…you are subordinating facts that the public has a right to know when they formulate their decisions, and replacing them with narratives to keep them from coming to the understanding of events that can be articulated and verified.  That can never be considered hate speech. We’re not talking about speech at all. We’re talking about brazen disinformation.”

Rather than disseminate vital information to the public that can save lives, Western world leaders are betraying their citizens by submitting to the OSCE and OIC narrative of outlawing any criticism of Islam and rendering truth illegal.  Reassuring citizens that Islam is a religion of peace merely renders them incapacitated from exercising sound judgment, crippling their ability to make the right decision in the face of potential harm.

While global institutions and national security policies are being shaped, and compromised, by highly influential but ill-known world organizations such as the OSCE and OIC, it’s critical that citizens get to know who those policymakers really are, and become more engaged in public affairs and the political process in order to arrest the Islamization process of the West…before it’s too late to reverse.

***

For more on how the OIC is working to criminalize criticism of islam see:

There is a new addition to the Center for Security Policy’s Civilization Jihad Reader Series which has not been announced yet but is available at Amazon:

41nU8jwQhkL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_

A proper edit of the OSCE meeting on security and free speech from May 2015

woman-silenced.preview

Update: Gates of Vienna has the background information on the OSCE session:

The OSCE Wants to Enforce the OIC Narrative

A few days ago we posted video excerpts from one of the OSCE sessions in Vienna last month. Since then Vlad has been working on a slightly longer version using the same material. The video below includes additional comments made by the panelists, and more detailed annotations.

These excerpts were recorded at the OSCE Security Days at the Hofburg, Vienna, on May 21, 2015. The event was the Night Owl Session: “How can the media help prevent violent radicalization that leads to terrorism?” It was an official OSCE forum, with opening and closing remarks by OSCE Secretary General Lamberto Zannier.

The BPE/ICLA team at OSCE included Henrik Ræder Clausen, Stephen Coughlin, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, and Renya Matti.

The panelists, from left to right, were:

  • Victor Khroul, a correspondent for Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency and Associate Professor at Moscow State University. Rossiya Segodnya is wholly owned by the Russian government, as is MSU.
  • Leila Ghandi, a Moroccan presenter for 2M TV. She is “an award winning TV host journalist, producer, commentator, book author, speaker, photographer and civil society activist.” 68% of 2M TV is owned by the Moroccan government, with the Moroccan royal family owning 20.7%
  • Randa Habib, the director of the bureau of Agence France-Presse (AFP) in Amman, Jordan.
  • Dunja Mijatović, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, from Bosnia
  • Simon Haselock, Albany Associates

So the panel consisted of a Russian, a Moroccan, a Jordanian, a Bosnian, and a Briton. No Poles. No Danes. No Czechs. No Italians. No one from a sensible European country.

It seems reasonable to assume that the Russian gentleman represents the Russian government. The three women hail from three Muslim countries that do not enforce the wearing of hijab. But are they otherwise representing the interests of the Ummah? Based on the contributions of Ms. Ghandi and Ms. Habib to the discussion about truth vs. “hate speech”, it is at least plausible that they are.

Simon Haselock is a promoter of “global governance”, UN-style. He is described as a “pioneer in media intervention in post-conflict countries” — that is, he helps the United Nations manage the news flow in areas where the “international community” has discovered a compelling interest.

Take, for example this article from 2003 discussing his role in Bosnia:

In Sarajevo, [Simon] Haselock served as media spokesman for the Office of the High Representative, the European agency governing the Bosnians in the aftermath of the Dayton Agreement. In Kosovo, he became media commissioner.

The problem, in a nutshell: He’s British, and holds to a European view of how media should work, in terms of public responsibility, free expression, libel law, and similar issues. Haselock and others like him attempted to impose a European media regime on the Bosnian and Kosovar journalists, and there is every indication the same effort will be made in Iraq.

Put simply, this means that a governmental body will supervise media. It has already been reported that Haselock has written a proposal for control of broadcast and print media, including the establishment of state electronic media and the appointment of a board that will handle “complaints about media excesses” and levy fines for misconduct. These are exactly, down to the boilerplate vocabulary, the policies that were tried in Sarajevo and Prishtina. They failed miserably, and sometimes grotesquely.

IN BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA, the stated mission of foreign media administrators embodied pure political correctness: It was to separate media from nationalist self-expression and political parties. This meant that although Bosnian Muslims felt they had survived a deliberate attempt at genocide, and while Serbs and Croats felt they had legitimate communal demands to put forward, their journalists were forbidden from dealing with these topics. The argument of the “internationals,” as the foreigners in the Balkans love to style themselves, was that any such commentary would constitute hate speech and would incite further violence.

Same shtick, different decade.

In his remarks, Mr. Haselock references non-Islamic terror groups that sprang from European roots. What he does not mention is that we were allowed to call them by the names they called themselves. We called them the “Red Brigades”, the “Bader-Meinhof Group” [Red Army Faction], and the “Irish Republican Army”, and we identified their ideology at the same time — which is what allowed us to counter them.

The rules are different for any group that has “Islam” and “Muslim” in its name. In such cases we are told not use the name that the group uses for itself. We must instead identify it by a pseudonym invented by Simon Haselock or some other “media administrator”. And we must never, ever talk about Islamic ideology or sharia.

Mr. Haselock refers to “the narrative we are offering”. But whose universal values does such a narrative enforce? And against whom? And who decides?

In essence, the UN establishes narratives that are to be enforced against national identities as a requirement. Everyone on the OSCE panel supports these narratives and their enforcement.

By Vlad Tepes, June 26, 2015:

This is the third edit of this video although the second one was only published for an hour or so, and deleted.

The reason for so much effort on it, is that two things make it very important that needed to be underlined in the video.

1. That this meeting and these panelists matter. They affect our lives

2. That their reasoning ranges from what appears to be a dedicated pursuance of an Alinksy narrative for the destruction of nation states world wide, to simple political correct naiveté at best.

I had the opportunity to sit down and go over it with one of the participants fully and this is the result. I hope you will all feel it is worth ploughing through for a second (and for a few of you, a third) time

Entire session:

 

Why Sharia Should Have No Place in America

20150301_shariawilldominatetheworldsign (1)Family Security Matters, by Eileen F. Topansky, June 22, 2015:

There are still far too many Americans who do not perceive the terrifying Nazi-like intentions of Islamic jihadists either through their outright destruction of the infidel and/or the implementation of sharia law as Allah has ordained it to be.

The alphabet-soup-named groups’ ultimate goal of extermination of Jews, Christians and any others deemed infidels has still not penetrated the consciousness of the media or academia.  And no matter how many ardent efforts are made to educate and raise awareness of the Islamists’ goals, people either ignore or minimize the dangers.

And, yet, like Churchill, there are those of us who feel a moral obligation to continue the clarion call and not bend, dhimmi-like, to the whims and wishes of those who deliberately abuse the freedoms of this country in order to abolish those very freedoms for the rest of us.

Which is why, freedom loving Americans need to support Pamela Geller, Ayanna Hirsi Ali, Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders, Nonie Darwish and other courageous souls who refuse to cower before the appalling attacks on freedom of speech.  Given the opportunity, Islam swallows the whole body politic. Thus it has been in the past and thus it will be going forward.  After all, “Hijab Day was imposed on citizens in Minneapolis” in 2014.

Author/neuroscientist Sam Harris in his article entitled “Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks” asserts that “[t]he position of the Muslim community in the face of all provocations seems to be: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn’t, we will kill you.”  Furthermore,” [o]nly Muslims hound and hunt and murder their apostates, infidels, and critics in the 21st century.”

Contrary to Muslims’ oft-repeated assertions of victimization, it is interesting to note that the latest FBI statistics indicate that Muslims are the least discriminated among groups in the United States.  In fact, “[t]here were 1,031 incidents inspired by religion last year, 625 (60.6 percent) of which were anti-Jewish” as compared to “anti-Islamic ones [which] constituted just 13.1 percent.”  Yet Muslims play the victim game with the result that “Muslim immigrants are systematically exempted from western standards of moral order in the name of paying ‘respect’ to the glaring pathologies in their culture.”

How many Americans understand the true import of the word “dhimmitude?”  Victor Sharpe describes it as the “parlous state of those who refused to convert to Islam and became the subjugated non-Muslims who were forced to accept a restrictive and humiliating subordination to a superior Islamic power and live as second-class citizens in order to avoid death.”

Secularists from India to Indiana must understand that “by being silent about the horrendous practices in Islam, they only help toward further subjugation of women.” The veil is but one of the many symbols of “a totalitarian political system and an ideology which declares war on the non-Muslims.”  It is as clear and potent as the Nazi swastika was in its declaration of war against civilization.  Yet, when Muslim women activists speak out against sharia and Islamic gender apartheid, they are ignored by the majority of so-called Western feminists.

One need only read the March 2015 report by Baroness Cox entitled “A Parallel World: Confronting the abuse of many Muslim women in Britain today” to see what jihadist ideology is doing to the land of Churchill who, in 1897, wrote “western civilization is face to face with militant Mohammedanism.”  Baroness Cox has written that the “suffering of women oppressed by religiously-sanctioned gender discrimination; and a rapidly developing alternative quasi-legal system which undermines the fundamental principle of one law for all” would “make the suffragettes turn in their graves.”

In 2014 in their publication entitled Sharia Law: Britain’s Blind Spot, Sharia Watch warned about the encroaching sharia law that was affecting “the treatment of women, freedom of speech, finance, and the marketplace.”

Yet the West continues to contort itself to ban Islamophobia, that completely false narrative that disguises and whitewashes the true intentions of the jihadists.  What every freedom-loving individual should be doing is demanding an “Islamist Apartheid Week” to show the “genocidal, totalitarian and racist states that operate under Islamic rule.”  In fact, it isChristianophobia and Judenphobia which are endemic across the Muslim world.

Is sharia law America’s blind spot as Joanne Moudy asserts? In her June 2014 article, Moudy explains that “. . . many states have already passed laws prohibiting the use of foreign religious law in their courts. Yet despite strong voter support for these measures, the ACLU is fighting to get them all overturned. Oklahoma was one such state and – sure enough – in 2013 a federal court struck down their efforts, ignoring 70% of the population’s wishes that the U.S. Constitution take precedence.”  Moreover, “[t]he ACLU claims it is necessary to consider religious law (Shari’a) when negotiating adoptions, custody of children, executing a will and/or settling disputes over private property rights, to name a few. What the ACLU fails to mention is that within Shari’a law, women are considered property and thus have no rights, which means they have no say in court.”

In addition, Bethany Blankley in her article entitled “What America Would Look Like Under Sharia Law” notes the disingenuousness and double standards that define Islamic organizations as they stealthily infiltrate American organizations.

Blankley’s most cogent point is that since Islamists say there is no conflict between sharia law and constitutional law, “why then [do these same Islamic groups] vigilantly advertise, lobby, award ‘educational grants,’ and fund political campaigns, to implement sharia compliant American law?”

In fact, one need only look at Saudi Arabia and other sharia-ordered countries to see that Jews and gays have no civil rights in Islam.  Thus, “like everyone else, they must either submit to Islam or die.  But they are especially forbidden and targeted for death — because the Qur’an instructs it.”  According to Uzay Bulut, born and raised a Muslim, “[t]he Muslim regimes, which do not know even the definition of liberty–and their systematic criminalization of free speech; their suppression of inquiry and creativity; and their unending intertribal fights–are the reason their people have remained in the seventh century.”

Amendment VIII in the Constitution states that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”  Yet, in sharp contrast, “every day, arrests, trials, floggings, torture and the murder of journalists, poets, students and human rights activists are a routine practice” in the world of sharia law.

In fact, “[i]n Islamic Sharia law, a free mind is the most inexcusable crime in the Muslim world.”

Under “sharia, no free exercise of religion exists, especially for Muslims who choose to leave Islam.”  Additionally, “blasphemy laws exist worldwide to criminalize offensive speech or actions related to the Qur’an, Allah, and Muhammad.” Thus, anything that is deemed “offensive” is illegal.  And finally, “inequality, slavery and murder are enforced through the Islamic construct of dhimmitude.”

To further understand what life would actually be like for women under an Islamic state, it behooves readers to study the manifesto on women by the Al-Khanssaa Brigade in the February 2015 piece entitled Women of the Islamic State. A propaganda piece to recruit young girls to ISIS, some highlights include a “lengthy rebuttal of the ills of Western civilisation [.]”  ISIS has proposed a curriculum that would ‘begin when [girls] are seven years old and end when they are fifteen, or sometimes a little earlier.'” In essence, “the role of women is inherently ‘sedentary’, and her responsibilities lie first and foremost in the house [.] This role begins at the point of marriage which, . . . can be as young as nine years old. From this point on, it is women’s ‘appointed role [to] remain hidden and veiled and maintain society from behind.'” In actuality, “the ideal Islamic community should refrain from becoming caught up in exploring [science], the depths of matter, trying to uncover the secrets of nature and reaching the peaks of architectural sophistication.”  Consequently, “the implementation of sharia,” and doing “jihad” is paramount.

In Wisconsin and Ohio public school female students are now being asked to pretend to be Muslims.  This subtle propaganda is a first step to indoctrinating American youth.  In fact, much of American life is now being tainted with militant and violent Islamic ideology, be it in public schools, hospitals, and mosques.

Concerning actual sharia incursions into American life, on the one hand, Elizabeth K. Dorminey in her March 2012 article entitled “Sharia Law in American Courts” asserts that “[s]o long as U.S. courts and the federal and state legislatures adhere to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, Sharia’s proscriptions and prohibitions cannot displace constitutionally-guaranteed rights in the United States.”  Likewise Eugene Volokh believes American jurists will halt sharia-like incursions.

But in reality, American courts are already using sharia to adjudicate cases; this is highlighted in the December 2014 booklet entitled Shariah in American Courts, which pdf is available here and whose blurb states that “[t]his monograph also suggests that the effort to invoke shariah in U.S. courts is expanding. Worse yet, the total number of such cases is surely far larger in light of the fact that the proceedings of the vast majority of them are not published.”

In fact, Frank Gaffney emphatically asserts the “need for state legislators to clearly define public policy related to foreign law and Shariah.”  Consequently, . . .  in every case where foreign law and Shariah emerge in the court of a state that has yet to define clearly this policy, it creates one more advance in the Islamists’ determined campaign to have us destroy ‘our house’ by ‘our own hands.'”

Moreover, Gaffney underscores that “Shariah is distinctly different from other religious laws, like Jewish law and Catholic Canon, and distinctly different from other secular foreign laws” because of the “fundamental Shariah doctrine that Islamic law must rule supreme in any jurisdiction where Muslims reside.”  This three minute you-tube is a short version of the article entitled “Shariah vs. Jewish Law and encapsulates the stark differences.

Most alarming is that in “146 cases found, the court upheld the use of Shariah in 27 cases. This means that, statistically, one out of five American judges fail[ed] to reject foreign law that violates U.S. and state public policy.”  Consequently, there is an “increasing effort to insinuate Shariah into American civilization.”  Multi-cultural tolerance is being turned on us. Being paralyzed by political correctness eliminates what self-preservation demands.

In the June 2014 booklet entitled “Siding with the Oppressor: The Pro-Islamist Left” published by One Law for All, the authors explain that “[f]undamentalist terror is predicated on “. . . controlling all aspects of society in the name of religion, including education, the legal system, youth services, etc. When fundamentalists come to power, they silence the people — they physically eliminate dissidents, writers, journalists, poets, musicians, painters – like fascists do. Like fascists, they physically eliminate the ‘untermensch’ – the subhumans -, among them ‘inferior races’, gays, mentally or physically disabled people. And they lock women ‘in their place [.]'”he Campaign La All

Why would we want to import any part of this to our shores?

Eileen has been a medical librarian, an Emergency Medical Technician and a Hebrew School teacher.  She is currently an adjunct college instructor of English composition and literature.  Active in the 1970’s Soviet Jewry Refusenik movement, she continues to speak out against tyranny.  Eileen is also a regular contributor to American Thinker. She can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com

Americans know better than politicians on the Islamist threat

1484545495Center for Security Policy, June 12, 2015:

Last month, Kellyanne Conway’s the Polling Company conducted a phone survey of 802 Americans to gauge their opinions on various topics related to shariah law, jihad, immigration, refugee resettlement, the nuclear deal with Iran, and free speech.

In the brief videos below, Kellyanne highlights the most striking results from the survey, which support the thesis that the political and media classes lag far behind the common sense of the American citizenry when it comes to the national security threats of our day.

Part 1: Americans Know Better on Shariah and the Iran Deal

  • More than half of Americans now know the term “shariah.” Is this a watershed?
  • Americans are deeply skeptical of any deal with Iran. Why have the media and administration told us otherwise?

Part 2: Americans Know Better on the 1st Amendment and Blasphemy

  • Nearly 2/3 of Americans believe the freedom to offend Muslims (or anyone) is guaranteed in the Constitution. How has this colored their reaction to the Mohammed cartoon violence in Frank, Denmark and Texas?

Part 3: Americans Know Better on Dangers of Refugee Resettlement

  • Americans want the U.S., not the U.N., to determine who qualifies for the refugee resettlement program.

AFDI Rolls Out New Free Speech Billboard Campaign Featuring Muhammad Cartoon

AFDI-billboard-640x480Breitbart, by Pamela Geller, June 8, 2015:

The human rights advocacy group the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) has announced a new billboard campaign to defend freedom of speech and stand up to violent intimidation.

AFDI President Pamela Geller said in a statement: “Because the media and the cultural and political elites continue to self-enforce the Sharia without the consent of the American people by refusing to show any depictions of Muhammad or showing what it was in Texas that had jihadists opening fire, we are running a billboard ad featuring the winning cartoon by former Muslim Bosch Fawstin from our Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest in Garland, Texas.”

The new free speech campaign went up on 100 billboards today in St. Louis.

Geller explained: “Drawing Muhammad is not illegal under American law, but only under Islamic law. Violence that arises over the cartoons is solely the responsibility of the Islamic jihadists who perpetrate it. Either America will stand now against attempts to suppress the freedom of speech by violence, or will submit and give the violent the signal that we can be silenced by threats and murder.”

“Speech that is offensive to some must not be curtailed, but protected (i.e., the Mohammed cartoons). Freedom of speech is the foundation of a free society. Without it, a tyrant can wreak havoc unopposed, while his opponents are silenced. If speech that offends a group is outlawed, that group has absolute power, and a free society is destroyed. A group that cannot be criticized cannot be opposed. It can work its will no matter what it is, and no one will be able to say anything to stop it.”

Geller added: “There is nothing about this cartoon that incites violence. It is within the established American tradition of satire. If America surrenders on this point, the freedom of speech is a relic of history.”

AFDI Vice President Robert Spencer stated: “Many people on both the Left and the Right are saying that we should do nothing to provoke Islamic fundamentalism. The immediate answer would seem to be that we should do nothing to provoke violent jihadis, that the prudent thing to do would be to avoid doing things that anger them. But if we did that, they would not they stop coming at us. Last September, an Islamic State spokesman boasted: ‘We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women, by the permission of Allah, the Exalted. This is His promise to us; He is glorified and He does not fail in His promise. If we do not reach that time, then our children and grandchildren will reach it, and they will sell your sons as slaves at the slave market.’

In light of that, what is the point of asking whether or not we should provoke them? They’re already provoked. A more useful question now is whether it is really productive and helpful to signal to them that we will acquiesce to their threats of violence and change our behavior accordingly, or whether we will instead signal to them that their violent threats are not going to frighten us into submission.”

The ads have been submitted to run on billboards in the St. Louis area. The next city will be going up tomorrow.

AFDI stands for:

  • The freedom of speech – as opposed to Islamic prohibitions of “blasphemy” and “slander,” which are used effectively to quash honest discussion of jihad and Islamic supremacism;
  • The freedom of conscience – as opposed to the Islamic death penalty for apostasy;
  • The equality of rights of all people before the law – as opposed to Sharia’s institutionalized discrimination against women and non-Muslims.

Join the AFDI Facebook page here.

Egypt Proposes ‘International Law to Criminalize Contempt of Religion’

Reuters

Reuters

Breitbart, by THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, PH.D, June 8, 2015:

On Sunday, Egypt’s minister for Religious Endowments, Mohamed Mokhtar Gomaa, called for an “international law to criminalize contempt of religion,” which would make it a crime to publish articles or cartoons showing disdain or ridicule of religions.

Contempt of religion is already illegal in Egypt, with a punishment of between six months and five years in prison and a fine of 500 to 1,000 Egyptian pounds. In recent years, many people have been arrested on this charge and faced trial. As recently as last week, an Islamic show host was sentenced to prison in absentia for accusations of being in contempt of religion.

A Ministry official announced the proposal in Gomaa’s name during a conference for world religious leaders in Kazakhstan this weekend.

Though Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has not publicly weighed in on the proposal, he has been calling upon Egypt’s Islamic institutions, including Al-Azhar, the Ministry of Religious Endowments, and Dar Al-Iftaa to “renew religious discourse” since early this year.

The president has emphasized the importance of “correcting religious speech so that it is in accordance with the tolerant Islamic teachings,” as well as insisting that it “eliminate sectarian disputes and confront extremism and militancy.”

This is not the first time such a proposal has been made. Last January, following the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris, the Qatar-based International Union of Muslim Scholars called for protection for “prophets” and urged Islamic countries to submit a draft law to the UN, outlawing defamation of religions. The union said the UN should then issue a “law criminalizing contempt of religions and the prophets and all the holy sites.”

Though Gomaa has said he believes such an international law should criminalize contempt of religion universally, “without any discrimination,” skeptics are already wondering whether a statute of this sort would not invite selective enforcement based on personal beliefs.

The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information, a legal organization, warned that under such a law, “anyone could be presented to court” for publishing an article, images or any material on any religion if the opinion expressed is different from that of the ruling faction.

The warning is not an exercise in hyperbole. Complaints of selective enforcement of Mohamed Mokhtar Gomaa are a regular occurrence in countries that still have them, such as Indonesia, Pakistan, and even Egypt itself.

According to Paul Marshall of the Center for Religious Freedom at the Hudson Institute, while Islam is zealously guarded, people publicly insult Judaism and its adherents “everyday and every way in Egypt,” without anyone being called to task under the contempt of religion law.

Thus, while the Egyptian law is, in theory, meant to discourage people from offending people’s religious sensitivities, it is, instead, used to stifle free speech and intimidate those who do not subscribe to the standard.

More importantly, the principles of freedom of speech and of the press are meant not only to protect the speech of individuals with whom we agree, but above all, to protect those with whom we do not agree.

A healthy criticism of religion, like criticism of politics and culture, is a hallmark of a free society. All freedoms can be abused, but their abuse does not negate their value or the wisdom of defending them.

Also see:

UK’s Pat Condell Warns America Is Losing Free Speech

truth_is_the_new_hate_speechTruth Revolt, by Trey Sanchez, June 8, 2015:

British atheist writer and comedian Pat Condell’s latest YouTube video targets American progressives who seek to sabotage the First Amendment in a desire to criminalize speech they deem offensive.

With his tongue planted firmly in cheek, Condell delivers a scathing, though humorous, rebuke of Americans who are sitting on the sidelines watching their fundamental birthright being purged before their very eyes in the name of progress. His British perspective is unique as he admits his home country has long since bullied the right to free speech out of its citizens.

“The progressive tide is coming in, America, and it’s looking irreversible,” he warns. “Not least because the next generation is being carefully programmed right now by a progressive educational establishment to hold the First Amendment and all it represents in morally superior contempt.”

Though many of his videos are blows against liberal government, a great bulk of Condell’s offerings have targeted Islam and religion in general, including Christianity. Many have been offended by Condell’s words and many have leveled threats. Yet, Condell continues to exercise what little freedom he has left via these mini-episodes of free speech with a perspective perhaps only one from across the pond could truly understand. That is perhaps why his warning to America is so imperative:

You see, what you need to understand, America, is that feelings are the new truth, and truth is the new blasphemy in this brave new progressive world of ours. (I’m sorry, did I say brave? I meant cowardly, of course.)

To this mentality, the First Amendment isn’t simply an inconvenience, or an obstacle to be overcome. It’s a crime against humanity.

So the days of that pesky, troublesome First Amendment are clearly numbered, folks. And when you think of all the trouble it has caused, you can’t say that’s a bad thing. Well, you can now, obviously, but not for long.

Pamela Geller getting the message out: “People need to learn about the Jihadic doctrine, not shut people up that are talking about it”

Screen-Shot-2015-06-04-at-9.12.22-AMVIDEO Round 2: Pamela Geller vs. Chris Cuomo:

FULL VIDEO: Pamela Geller on Jake Tapper’s The Lead Discussing the Beheading Plot:

VIDEO: Pamela Geller on Greta Van Susteren, “Investigate the ISB Mosque and the Imam”

Geller: “People need to learn about the Jihadic doctrine, not shut people up that are talking about it”

CNN Interviews Pamela Geller

CGXKDHVW0AEV_6kCenter for Security Policy, June 4, 2015:

Freedom fighter Pamela Geller was reportedly the target of a second murderous plot at the hands of jihadists incubated in shariah-adherent mosques in America.  Her interview with Erin Burnett of CNN yesterday was must-see TV — both for Ms. Geller’s unwavering and courageous determination to stand up for liberty in the face of Islamic supremacists’ efforts to snuff it here and globally, and for the latest, appalling example of media submission to those efforts provided by Ms. Burnett.

And Robert Spencer was also interviewed:

William Kilpatrick: ‘How to Alienate Moderate Muslims’

Jihad Watch, JUNE 1, 2015, BY RALPH SIDWAY:

“If the moderate Muslim was inclined to resist the radicals, he will be less likely to do so if he looks around and notices that no one else is resisting… Why should he stick his neck out?”

William Kilpatrick makes a compelling case for resisting encroaching Islamization and the creeping advance of sharia culture in America.

How to Alienate Moderate Muslims

by William Kilpatrick, Crisis Magazine — May 26, 2015

GarlandTX-muhammed-sword-winnerThe recent “draw Muhammad” contest in Garland, Texas not only drew fire from two armed jihadists, it also drew fire from Christian leaders and media critics. One of the chief objections was that events of this type will alienate moderate Muslims and possibly drive them into the radical camp.

It can just as easily be argued, however, that caving on the cartoon issue is more likely to result in a defection of moderate Muslims than the drawings themselves. And caving seems to be the order of the day. The Muhammad art exhibit and cartoon contest has been roundly criticized not only by the usual suspects in the liberal media but also by conservative journalists and conservative religious leaders such as Franklin Graham. In general, the critics say that free speech is a wonderful thing, but that it should never be used to insult what is most sacred to others.

When Franklin Graham registers his disapproval, it’s undoubtedly because he genuinely believes that it’s wrong to mock another person’s deeply held faith. On the other hand, when secular opinion-makers voice the same concern, it’s probably because they are genuinely afraid. Any moderately informed moderate Muslim knows that secular pundits have no problem if someone mocks the things held sacred by Catholics or Mormons [or Orthodox!]. He will understand that what’s at issue is not whether religion is insulted, but whether Islam is insulted. And, if the most powerful players in the media are afraid of Islam, why wouldn’t he be?

If the moderate Muslim was inclined to resist the radicals, he will be less likely to do so if he looks around and notices that no one else is resisting, except for a handful of people whom the media has labeled as “haters.” Why should he stick his neck out? If the supposed guardians of free speech who are relatively safe from retaliation nevertheless bow to Islamic law, then prudence suggests that he do the same. The constant kowtowing to Islamic demands has the result of putting increased pressure on the moderate Muslim to do some kowtowing of his own. He won’t necessarily join forces with the jihadists, but neither will he do much to oppose them.

One of the ways that the ever-helpful mainstream media is helping the public come to the “right” conclusion about the Garland event is by neglecting to say much about the context surrounding it. Three months before the cartoon contest, Islamic activist groups staged a “Stand with the Prophet” rally in Garland calling for restrictions on speech that is offensive to Islam. It was held in the same room in the same conference center. So the Muhammad art exhibit didn’t pop up out of nowhere. It was a response to the earlier event.

The cartoon contest is best understood not as a gratuitous provocation of Muslims, but as a wake-up call to non-Muslims. It was meant, in part, to show just how far down the road to capitulation we have gone. If we have to abide by Islam’s rules about drawing Muhammad, we may be further down the road than most realize.

Where’s the line at which Americans will take their stand against encroaching Islamization? Judging by the media reaction to the Garland event, the right to robustly criticize the prophet is a line too far. What then? Will Americans draw the line when Muslims request that the sculpture of Muhammad be removed from the Supreme Court chamber? Probably not. Why make a fuss? How about demands for sharia law courts? I’m guessing that many Americans won’t find it difficult to convince themselves that Muslims should be allowed to settle disputes among themselves in their own courts of law. Burqas on buses? Compulsory courses on Islam? Court imposed fines for critics of Islam? All along the road to complete sharia compliance there will be numerous places where one might draw the line—and numerous reasons why it will be deemed prudent not to.

Islam is a religion that respects strength. As Osama bin Laden famously said, “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.” This is not simply the idiosyncratic view of one extremist. As Lee Smith writes in The Strong Horse, it “represents the political and social norm” of the Middle-East. And of much of the rest of the Muslim world, as well. When Muslims view the controversy surrounding the cartoon event, they look upon it not as a contest between the forces of tolerance against the forces of “hateful” provocateurs, but as a contest of Islam against non-Islam. The Muhammad cartoon exhibit was a battle in a campaign to see whether or not Islam will dominate. The event organizers understand that. And so do most Muslims.

Many Americans think that if the contest organizers lose the opinion wars, then pluralism is the winner. Most Muslims will look at the issue in a different way. A defeat for the organizers makes it more likely that there will, indeed, be no future for those who slander the prophet of Islam. And that means not much of a future for those moderate Muslims who have only a lukewarm regard for the prophet.

The craven reaction to the cartoon incident comes on top of a number of other Western capitulations to sharia culture, if not always to sharia law. In view of these numerous victories, the moderate Muslim will reasonably conclude that militant Islam is the strong horse. When he places his bets for a secure future for himself and his family, he will place them on the side that looks to be the winning side.

If the citizens of the West are interested in keeping moderate Muslims moderate, they had better start showing more backbone when it comes to defending their freedoms. Many American Muslims no doubt hope that they can continue to live in a sharia-free society. But if their fellow Americans continue to kick the can down the road, it will become increasingly dangerous for them to express that hope. The surest way to push moderate Muslims into the arms of the radicals is to signal to them that if they resist sharia, they’re on their own—they can expect little sympathy and even less in the way of government protection. The response to the cartoon controversy suggests that no one will cover your back if you stand up to extremists. After all, it will be argued, people who won’t conform to Islamic norms are just asking for trouble.