Wilders: Lion Among the Jackals

Far-right-Dutch-pol-Geert-Wilders-Mike-Stone-Reuters-640x480Diana West, Sep. 22, 2015:

With thanks to H. Numan, Vlad Tepes and Gates of Vienna.

Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders delivers a bravura performance, debating the Islamic invasion of the Netherlands with fellow parliamentarians who seem keen to turn the Netherlands into one big refugee center. Three thousand refugees, who are mainly not refugees and are mainly Muslim, are flooding the Netherlands each week. Wilders is calling for a halt and for closing the Dutch border.

No wonder Wilders’ PVV is the most popular party in the Netherlands polls. His is the only party fighting to save the nation from Islamization and financial ruin.

TRANSCRIPT at Gates of Vienna



Dutch far-right leader Geert Wilders called the wave of refugees pushing into Europe an “Islamic invasion”, during a parliamentary debate on Thursday that exposed deep divisions over how the Netherlands should respond to the crisis.

European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker on Wednesday appealed to EU members to share out refugees arriving on the bloc’s fringes. Several EU countries oppose the idea of mandatory quotas, as supported by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and the conservative Dutch government says it is only willing to take in more if all EU states agree.

At the start of the debate, Wilders called the wave of refugees passing through Hungary and other countries “an Islamic invasion of Europe, of the Netherlands.”

“Masses of young men in their twenties with beards singing Allahu Akbar across Europe. It’s an invasion that threatens our prosperity, our security, our culture and identity,” he said.

Tens of thousands of people, many fleeing war and Islamic State in Syria, are trying to get to Germany where Merkel has said they will be allowed to stay. Wilders said the fact that they were pushing northwards through the EU from the Mediterranean indicated many were economic migrants, not refugees.

“Turkey, Greece, Macedonia, Serbia are safe countries. If you flee them then you are doing it for benefits and a house,” said Wilders, whose Party for Freedom leads Dutch opinion polls.

Roughly 54 percent of Dutch voters are opposed to accepting more than roughly 2,000 refugees previously agreed, a poll from last week showed. Under the latest proposals that figure is seen rising to more than 9,000.

Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s government said on Friday it was willing in principle to accept a larger share of asylum seekers, but only as a “temporary solution”.

In the long term, the Dutch want better shelters for refugees near conflict zones and will donate 110 million euros ($123 million) this year to improve capacity in and near Syria.

Jesse Klaver of the opposition GreenLeft said: “We should agree with the request of the European Commission unconditionally and without differentiating between the short and long term.”

Rutte’s fragile coalition government nearly split in April over asylum policy. The government plans to toughen its stance by cutting off food and shelter after a few weeks for those whose claims for refugee status are turned down.

It was not clear whether lawmakers would vote on the issue after their debate.

From Reuters

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

A Former Muslim’s Grave Warning to America

hirsi_ali-492x486American Thinker, By Matthew Vadum, June 11, 2015:

Islam “has begotten a bloodthirsty ideology that is determined to destroy the principles of liberty and humanity and basic decency,” ex-Muslim and activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali said June 3 at the John F. Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C.

Hirsi Ali knows what she’s talking about.  Born in Mogadishu, Somalia, she was raised Muslim.  She spent her childhood and young adulthood in Africa and Saudi Arabia.  She fled as a refugee to the Netherlands in 1992, where she earned a political science degree and was elected to the Dutch House of Representatives.  After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Hirsi Ali renounced Islam.

Last week she accepted an award from the Milwaukee-based Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, which prides itself on “strengthening American democratic capitalism and the institutions, principles and values that sustain and nurture it.”

Some in the conservative movement refer to the annual Bradley Prizes event, which was emceed this year by commentator George Will, as the “conservative Oscars.”  The other recipients this year were James W. Ceaser, a political science professor at the University of Virginia; Larry P. Arnn, president of Hillsdale College; and retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, chairman of the Institute for the Study of War.

The late Christopher Hitchens called Hirsi Ali, whose former religion forced female circumcision on her, someone “of arresting and hypnotizing beauty,” and “a charismatic figure” who writes “with quite astonishing humor and restraint.”  In 2005, Time magazine named her one of the 100 most influential people in the world.

She famously said, “Islam is not a religion of peace.  It’s a political theory of conquest that seeks domination by any means it can.”

Her latest book, Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now, was published in March by Harper.  (It was reviewed by Katherine Ernst in City Journal.)

“My argument is that it is foolish to insist, as our leaders habitually do, that the violent acts of radical Islamists can be divorced from the religious ideals that inspire them,” she writes in Heretic.  She continues:

Instead we must acknowledge that they are driven by a political ideology, an ideology embedded in Islam itself, in the holy book of the Qur’an as well as the life and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad contained in the hadith.

Let me make my point in the simplest possible terms: Islam is not a religion of peace.

For expressing the idea that Islamic violence is rooted not in social, economic, or political conditions – or even in theological error – but rather in the foundational texts of Islam itself, I have been denounced as a bigot and an “Islamophobe.”  I have been silenced, shunned, and shamed.  In effect, I have been deemed to be a heretic, not just by Muslims – for whom I am already an apostate – but by some Western liberals as well, whose multicultural sensibilities are offended by such “insensitive” pronouncements … today, it seems, speaking the truth about Islam is a crime.  “Hate speech” is the modern term for heresy.  And in the present atmosphere, anything that makes Muslims feel uncomfortable is branded as “hate.”

In the book, Hirsi Ali writes that it is her goal “to make many people – not only Muslims but also Western apologists for Islam – uncomfortable” by “challenging centuries of religious orthodoxy with ideas and arguments that I am certain will be denounced as heretical.”

“My argument is for nothing less than a Muslim Reformation,” she writes.  “Without fundamental alterations to some of Islam’s core concepts, I believe, we shall not solve the burning and increasingly global problem of political violence carried out in the name of religion.”

In her remarks at the Kennedy Center, Hirsi Ali summarized what brought her to this point and what needs to be done.  With the exception of the opening pleasantries, here follows a transcript of this brave woman’s speech:

Ladies and gentlemen, the Bradley Foundation is committed to strengthening American democratic capitalism and the institutions, principles, and values that sustain and nurture it.  It supports limited, competent government, a dynamic marketplace for economic, intellectual, and cultural activity and a vigorous defense at home and abroad of American ideas and institutions.

It may same strange to you that I, an immigrant black woman from a Muslim family, should identify so strongly with those goals.  Let me explain to you why I do.  There are three reasons.

First, it’s because my life’s journey which has taken me from Somalia to Saudi Arabia to Ethiopia to Kenya to the Netherlands and finally here, could not have been better designed to make me appreciate American principles and American institutions.

Second, I think I can justly say that I was among the first in my age group of millions of Muslims to admit that our faith, no longer mine, has begotten a bloodthirsty ideology that is determined to destroy the principles of liberty and humanity and basic decency.

Even after 9/11 there are still those who naively believe that it’s a threat only in countries like Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan.  The reality as our general [i.e. Jack Keane] just laid out, is that it is now a global threat.  A recent report by the United Nations Security Council confirmed that more than 100 countries are now supplying recruits to the Islamic State and al-Qaeda, and the United States is one of them.

This year alone the number of U.S.-based individuals in Islamic terror-related cases has risen to 40.  What concerns me is not jihad, or it’s not only jihad.  It’s also the nonviolent activities from preaching to fundraising that are its essential seedbed.  Often those who engage in these activities are very skillful at representing themselves as moderates.

Let me quote you the words of Abdurahman Alamoudi, a founder of the American Muslim Council, who at one time was an Islamic advisor to President Clinton and a goodwill ambassador to the State Department, as well as being consulted by some eminent Republicans.

“We have a chance,” he declared to a Muslim audience, “to be the moral leadership of America.  It will happen, it will happen praise Allah the Exalted.  I have no doubt in my mind.  It depends on me and you, either we do it now or we do it after a hundred years, but this country will become a Muslim country.”

That is the authentic voice of a plot against America today.  I am glad to report that Alamoudi is currently serving a 23-year prison sentence for financial and conspiracy offenses involving the Libyan government and the al-Qaeda plot to assassinate the then-crown prince of Saudi Arabia.

Third, and finally, I have come to see that there is a creative threat close to American institutions, the ones opposed by those within the West who appease the Islamic extremists.

Last September our president insisted the Islamic State is not Islamic.  Later that month he told the U.N. General Assembly that Islam teaches peace.  Phrases like “radical Islam” and “Islamic extremism” are no longer heard in the White House press conferences.

The approved term is “violent extremism.”  Ladies and gentlemen, if we don’t define the problem, if we can’t bring ourselves to define the problem, then how on earth can we ever hope to solve it?  [audience applauds]

The decision not to call violence committed in the name of Islam by its true name is a very strange one.  Imagine if Western leaders during the Cold War had gone around calling Communism an ideology of peace or condemning the Baader-Meinhof Gang for not being true Marxists.

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe it is time to drop the euphemisms and verbal contortions.  As I argue in my most recent book, Heretic, a battle for the future of Islam is taking place between reformers and reactionaries, between dissidents and jihadists, with the majority of Muslims caught in the middle unsure which side to take.  The outcome matters, matters to Muslims but it matters to us and to global peace, and the United States needs to start helping the right side to win.

Sometimes people who want to smear me use the sham term, “Islamophobe,” which is designed to imply that those who scrutinize Islamic extremism are bigots.  Well, I may have a phobia, but it’s not directed against Muslims.  After all I used to be one.  My phobia is towards any ideology, whether it is Communism, Fascism, or Islamism, that threatens individual freedom and the institutions that protect those freedoms.

That is why I am so grateful and so proud to accept this honor from you tonight.

Thank you, very, very much.

Hirsi Ali’s personal story bears some resemblance to that of Dutch politician Geert Wilders.  Wilders is a member of the Dutch House of Representatives and leader of his country’s Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV), or in English, the Party for Freedom.

Read more

Critics of Islam Continue to Face Threats

"All is forgiven. I am Charlie." Cover of the Jan. 14 edition of Charlie Hebdo featuring the Prophet Mohammed. Photo: Twitter.

“All is forgiven. I am Charlie.” Cover of the Jan. 14 edition of Charlie Hebdo featuring the Prophet Mohammed. Photo: Twitter.

by IPT News  •  May 19, 2015

French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo suspended a journalist who received death threats for writing articles critical of Islamist radicalism, according to Le Monde and reported by Daily Mail. In a move that many view as hypocritical, the magazine called columnist Zineb El Rhazoui to a preliminary dismissal hearing.

According to the French-Moroccan writer, Charlie Hebdo‘s management is seeking to punish her for being outspoken about the direction the magazine has taken since the Islamist terrorist attack at the magazine’s office which killed 12 people.

“I am shocked and appalled that a management that has received so much support after the January attacks could show so little support for one of its employees, who is under pressure like everyone in the team and has faced threats,” Rhazoui told Le Monde.

Rhazoui and her husband, Moroccan writer Jaouad Benaïssi, were subjected to death threats from Twitter accounts claiming affiliation with the Islamic State. Photos of Benaïssi and his workplace were published along with suggestions on how to kill the couple.

Thousands of people on social media expressed their disapproval of the magazine’s action on social media, including other Charlie Hebdo writers, accusing the magazine of blatant hypocrisy.

“…It is nasty and unfair to call a disciplinary meeting for a member of staff who is still suffering incredibly…It is paradoxical that the magazine receives prizes for freedom of expression while disciplining a journalist whose life is under threat,” writer Patrick Pelloux said.

Furthermore, senior Charlie Hebdo cartoonist Renaud Luzier – who drew the front-page cartoon of the prophet Mohammed for the magazine after the terrorist attack – has resigned citing personal reasons. He asserts that his resignation was mainly a result of personal difficulties ensuing after the terrorist attack and the trauma of losing his friends and co-workers. Luzier claims the decision has nothing to do with internal divisions at the magazine following Rhazoui’s suspension.

Meanwhile, a suspected jihadist standing a criminal trial for planning a robbery and possession of firearms is accused of discussing plans to attack Dutch politician Geert Wilders. According to Dutch intelligence, the suspect returned from fighting in Syria’s civil war.

These developments show that people, from writers to politicians, critical of Islamism and radical extremism continue to be threatened with their lives.

Also see:

VIDEO: Geert Wilders on Hannity


By Pamela Geller, May 13, 2015:

Watch. this. now.

Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch Parliament, was the keynote speaker at our Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest. He discussed with Sean Hannity his desire to plan to follow up on our event with a “Draw Muhammad” contest in the Dutch Parliament at The Hague.

Sean Hannity said last night that champions of free speech are refusing to back down after being accused of provoking radical Islamists to attack the Muhammad cartoon contest in Texas.

One of the speakers at that event, Dutch politician Geert Wilders, is planning to stage a Muhammad cartoon expo in the Dutch Parliament.

Hannity asked Wilders if he is anti-Islam

“Well, I’m certainly not anti-Muslim, but indeed I believe Islam is a threat to our civilization,” Wilders replied. “I believe that our country is based on values that are based on Christianity and Judaism, and that Islam is really a threat to our freedom.”

Wilders explained why people are offended by a Muhammad cartoon.

“For more than 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, Muhammad is a kind of role model, he’s an example,” he stated. “That’s why every time somebody depicts or mocks Muhammad, Muslims get angry.”

In responding to a question Hannity asked about Muhammad’s life, Wilders said that Muhammad was a “terrorist.”

“He’s certainly not a role model to so many Muslims,” Wilders said. “Muhammad, as a matter of fact, was a terrorist. He was a warmonger. He beheaded Jewish tribes … I believe that if Muhammad would be alive today, he would be tried and convicted of terrorism.”

Wilders remarked that people shouldn’t be intimidated by Muslims who are offended by the Muhammad cartoons.

“If our reaction is that we should not make more cartoons or not accept them, the terrorists will win,” Wilders said. “So we have to give them a signal that terrorism does not win. We will not be intimidated.”

He added that is the reason why he presented the idea of a Muhammad cartoon expo in the Dutch Parliament.

“I want the Dutch Parliament to expose exactly the same exhibit—not to provoke, but to show the terrorists that if you make an attack, we will give you 10 times more cartoons of Muhammad,” Wilders stated.

Watch more in the video above.


Also see Pamela Geller’s archives: http://pamelageller.com/category/afdi/afdi-muhammad-art-exhibit-and-contest/

The lengths we will go to for free speech

CSP, by Clare Lopez, May 11, 2015:

Beyond the sheer act of defiance in the face of tyranny that was the recent “Draw Muhammad” contest in Garland, TX, a deeper benefit is emerging: the swirl of controversy that erupted after two Muslim terrorists drove all the way to Texas from the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamic Cultural Center of Phoenix, intending to commit mass murder, is forcing us to consider what exactly it means to ‘defend free speech.’ And what we want it to mean…or are ready to accept that it should mean. Most Americans have no trouble defending the First Amendment – in the abstract, anyway. But now that defending the right to defy Islamic blasphemy laws comes with specifics like an art contest, with actual drawings of Muhammad, and prize money offered by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), and event organizers like AFDI co-founders Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, and death threats—now some aren’t quite so sure anymore that this is the kind of free speech or these exactly are the free speech champions they had in mind.

So, there are the artists and cartoonists who draw images of Muhammad: the Albanian-born ex-Muslim Bosch Fawstin (who won the AFDI contest), the Swedish artist, Lars Vilks, and the Danish cartoonist, Kurt Westergaard. And there is the Dutch political leader, Geert Wilders, who made a film that criticized shariah-sanctioned abuse of women. Danish journalist Lars Hedegaard is a free speech advocate who has been critical of Islam, too. These (and many more, including Americans who increasingly are labeled ‘Islamophobes’) are the champions of free speech who actually create the material shariah would label ‘blasphemous’ (essentially for daring simply to depict Muhammad in an image or criticize anything about Islam at all). Many have been targeted for death by the enforcers of shariah.

Then there is the Jyllands-Posten Danish newspaper that published Westergaard’s drawings and the satirical Parisian magazine, Charlie Hebdo, that generally takes swipes at everyone and everything, including Islam. These and a host of online sites (including this one) posted the articles and cartoons and images, thereby incurring the murderous wrath of shariah-adherent Muslims, whose doctrine and law explicitly enjoin them to attack such media and their staffs with intent to kill.

And finally, there are those like Pamela Geller who display and encourage and feature such material, whether in city bus ads, transit stations, or at the recent contest in Garland, TX.

The question that so many of the wobbly set now seem to be stumbling over is, At which point in the free speech process – creation, publication, or public promotion – does it become ‘provocation’ that ‘goes too far’? Does it ever? Is it even possible for speech to be ‘too free’—in America? Why is the abstract defense of free speech and the First Amendment so laudable, but when the abstract takes form in ways that boldly challenge Islam’s attempts to silence those who criticize, when the abstract is personified in a Fawstin, a Geller, Hedegaard, Vilks, Westergaard, or Wilders, then it’s called ‘incitement’ that ought to be toned down? If not their statements, then what would be an acceptable demonstration of defiance against Islam’s blasphemy codes? That is, if defiance itself isn’t just a bit too much these days…

The point is that unless we champion and defend the actual people who are the physical embodiment of those abstract principles we all claim to cherish, the principles won’t stand a chance.

My Winning Mohammad Contest DrawingBosch Fawstin’s winning drawing of Muhammad was neither crude, nor grotesque, nor tasteless. It was, in fact, the perfect depiction of the principle at the center of contention: the right to freedom of artistic expression. If the conquered civilizations of the Afghan Buddhists, Byzantium, Middle East Christianity and Judaism, Hindus, and Persians teach us anything, it must be that even the most determined defense over a span of centuries may not suffice to save a people targeted by Islam; anything less, never mind actual passivity in the face of jihad aggression, will lead inevitably to subjugation.

Some would say that Pamela Geller pushes the edges of the envelope. To the extent that this is true, it is because it is always out at the edges, at the frontiers, that the ghazi – the warriors of Islam – have probed and tested the defenses of their targets for any weakness. If no one confronts them at the frontier, they push onward, inward, to the soft centers of society. Those hardy defenders who hold firm out there on the frontiers stand between civilization and barbarism.

By all means, we need to have this discussion. Long overdue, actually. But let us understand that the debate is not about the principle of free speech, per se: we agree on that pretty unanimously. Rather, it’s about how far we are willing to go to support those who put that principle into action against an enemy that would shut it down completely if not stopped.

Also see:

In the wake of Garland terror attack, fear cancels Geert Wilders FL event

e9340468b4a105b6c9fbac35ad503aa0Cultural Jihad, May 8, 2015:

From:  Palm Beach Post
By: George Bennett, May 7, 2015

The Palm Beach County Republican Party will have to find another venue for a fundraiser featuring the Dutch politician and Islam critic who spoke at Sunday’s “Draw Muhammad” cartoon contest in Texas.

The local GOP booked Boca West Country Club for the $125-a-plate “Lobsterfest” dinner on Aug. 15 featuring Geert Wilders, leader of a right-wing party in the Dutch parliament. But the country club announced Thursday it has canceled the event because of safety concerns.

Full article: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/safety-concerns-lead-boca-club-to-cancel-gop-event/nmBx4/


COMMENT/ANALYSIS:    This was to be a private event and whether you agree with Geert Wilders or not, he and the event sponsors have a Constitutional right to present their views.    This decision works as a “win” for Islamists  in using fear and intimidation to silence those that oppose them. From the Sun Sentinal:

But representatives of the Council on American-Islamic Relations expressed outrage at the Republicans’ decision to have Wilders as a speaker.

“On the international level he is probably the most notorious, anti-Muslim bigot in the world,” said Ibrahim Hooper, the Washington-based national communications director for CAIR.

“He is the worst of the worst. This is the Islam-is-evil-and-must-be-destroyed school of thinking,” Hooper said. “And for the Republican Party to host him, I can’t imagine that any Muslim voter in the state … would not hear about it and judge accordingly.”

Michael Barnett, chairman of the Palm Beach County Republican Party,  told the Sun Sentinal that to back out in hosting an event with Wilders would “go against everything we stand for”  pertaining to our freedoms of speech and religion. The Sun Sentinal continued with:

CAIR representatives said the free speech argument sounds good but is disingenuous. “Will they be hosting neo-Nazis and anti-Semites and other race-baiters and bigots? Or is it just anti-Muslim bigots that they host?” Hooper said. “It’s absolutely ridiculous.”

Nezar Hamze, CAIR-Florida regional operations director, said he’s heard the freedom of speech argument before. “It’s not about freedom of speech, it’s about spreading hate.”

It will be interesting to see if the local GOP actuall does find another venue or simply cancel Wilders’ planned appearance.

Side thought:  Is the Boca West Country Club being “Islamaphobic” in fearing a Muslim attack?

Islam’s Anti-Prophet: Geert Wilders Confronts a Political Faith

wildersAustria-300x225Religious Freedom Coalition, By Andrew Harrod, PhD, May 6th, 2015:

“I founded my party only to fight Islam,” stated Dutch parliamentarian and Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid or PVV) founder Geert Wilders during an April 29 Capitol Hill interview. Wilders’ interview comments and subsequent presentation before about 40 at the Rayburn House Office Building (as well as a press conference the next day) showed once again this legislator’s forthrightness concerning Islam’s dangers to freedom.

“Islam looks like a religion, but in reality it is a dangerous totalitarian ideology,” stated Wilders, the author of Marked for Death: Islam’s War against the West and Me; the “less Islam, the better. It is as simple as that.” In the past he has publicly called for banning in Holland the Quran alongside Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf that Dutch law allows only for academic use, an appeal made to reveal “double standards,” he said in his interview. “If you are consistent,” he said to leftwing parliamentarians, “then here we have another book which is even worse, it has more anti-Semitism, there is more violence, there is more everything.” His well-known arguments met with strong applause from many similarly minded audience members, including Andrew Bostom, Frank Gaffney, Matthew Vadum, Deborah Weiss, Diana West, and Representatives Louie Gohmert and Steve King.

Wilders’ presentation listed several negative impacts of Islamic influence upon Holland. While the “police goes everywhere” in Holland, people face harassment for not following Islamic law or sharia norms in “Little Morocco” or “Little Saudi Arabia” Dutch neighborhoods. Individuals in Holland and elsewhere in Europe committed to jihad or Islamic holy war presented “walking time bombs.” For Wilders, who now lives with constant death threats and police protection, getting lost without his security detail that day on Capitol Hill gave him the “first 20 minutes of freedom in the last ten years.”

marked for deathWarning that the “whole free Western world is under attack,” Wilders earlier in the day had described the “Islamization process” in his home country to congressmen from the Conservative Opportunity Society (COS). Holland has gone in 50 years from one thousand to one million Islamic immigrants, or 6% of the Dutch population, despite the “vast majority” of Europeans disapproving of current immigration policies. Holland “failed to demand that immigrants adopt our Judeo-Christian values and assimilate.” These immigrants have “little loyalty to our home countries” as one poll showed that 73% of Holland’s Muslims consider Dutch Muslims who fight in Syria heroes. Islamic State sympathizers also paraded recently with swastikas and black jihad flags while shouting “Death to the Jews” in Wilders native city of The Hague.

“I repeat it wherever I go,” Wilders assured COS, “I have nothing against…many moderate Muslims who do not live according to the violent commands of the Koran….But there is no moderate Islam.” The Dutch, he said in his interview, “have nothing against” Muslim individuals but “feel that something wrong is happening” in their country. Even if a reformed Islam were possible as suggested by his colleague Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wilders argued that “we cannot afford to wait for it” in a process that “will take centuries.”

Wilders’ answer was “stop the immigration from Islamic countries…full, stop,” a policy opposed particularly by leftist parties. These “parties invented the mass immigration from Islamic countries” as well as the “big fat welfare state.” Such policies give Muslim immigrants, disproportionately dependent upon social services, politically “their oxygen.”

Wilders applied his beliefs to not just domestic, but foreign policy as well. “It’s not too popular” in Europe, he stated in his interview, “to be a friend of Israel, but I don’t care.” “Israel is fighting our fight…If Jerusalem falls, Rome and New York and Amsterdam will be next.” Anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) measures are therefore “total crazy,” a “travesty.” The recent nonproliferation “deal with this criminal country called Iran” is similarly the “most stupid thing you can do.”

Wilders’ presentation denounced that “liberal-leftist elites adhere to the stupid political correct view that all cultures are equal. That’s why we are such a big mess today.” This “disease called cultural relativism” notwithstanding, Western “Judeo-Christian culture is far superior to Islam” and forms the “best civilization on Earth.” He elaborated in his interview that “I am not for monoculture,” but he also does not support a position of “hold hands and sing kumbaya and dance around the table all day long.” “There is nothing wrong with that….You are not talking about people, you are talking about the culture.” Judeo-Christians roots underlie Western identity, such that “even if you are not a Christian, you often subscribe to the values that are peaceful and belong to Christianity and Judaism.”

Wilders’ presentation noted from personal experience that not just Muslim death threats, but also legal speech restrictions made it “really risky to tell the truth about Islam” in Holland. He expressed to his American listeners being “envious of your wonderful country” where free speech under “your First Amendment really is the cornerstone of all your liberties.” Post-World War II European hate speech laws sought to prevent another Holocaust, but now, “used in a totally different way by totally other groups,” target “people who want to prevent anti-Semitism because of the growing Islamization.” If various political forces “cannot win the hearts of the people, they try to do it by law.”

Wilders’ speech itself received condemnation from an April 23 letter from Congress’ two Muslim members, André Carson and Keith Ellison. The pair called upon the State Department to deny Wilders entry into America due to his “Islamaphobia” [sic] and “hate speech.” “Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are sweeping through Europe,” the congressmen wrote, apparently not considering Wilders’ Islam-Jew-hatred link. He dismissed the letter as “a lot of nonsense…really crazy stuff.”

“Most Western leaders are very weak,” assessed Wilders’ before his audience, but the “people are not stupid….More people than ever say ‘enough is enough.’” “We must repeat the truth about Islam over and over again” and make politicians listen; “no death threats, no court cases will stop us.” The “optimist” Wilders concluded, “we are the future; we are the forces of liberation.”

Also see:

Islam and Free Speech: Missing the Point in Garland


The purpose of the free-speech event was to highlight the threat posed by Islamic supremacists.

National Review, by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY May 4, 2015:

‘Even free-speech enthusiasts are repulsed by obnoxious expression.” That acknowledgment prefaces the main argument I’ve made in Islam and Free Speech, a just-released pamphlet in the Broadside series from Encounter Books. Alas, in view of last night’s deadly events at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas, the argument is more timely than I’d hoped.

In Garland, two jihadists opened fire on a free-speech event that was certain to be offensive to many Muslims. The gunmen wounded a security guard before being killed when police returned fire. The jihadists are reported to be roommates who resided in Phoenix. As this is written, only one of them has been identified: Elton Simpson. The wounded security guard, Bruce Joiner, was treated and released. Joiner works for the Garland Independent School District, which owns the Culwell Center.

Simpson was apparently what my friend, terrorism analyst Patrick Poole, describes as a “known wolf.” That’s a radical Muslim whom the Obama administration and the media are wont to dismiss as an anonymous, unconnected loner but who, in fact, has previously drawn the attention of national-security agents over suspected jihadist ties.

Simpson previously attempted to travel to Africa, apparently to join al-Shabaab, the al-Qaeda franchise. He was reportedly convicted of lying to FBI agents, though a judge found the evidence insufficient to prove he was trying to join the terror group. The al-Shabaab connection seems salient now: Police are investigating tweets about the Garland event prior to the violence, allegedly posted by a young al-Shabaab jihadist who is said to be an American citizen.

The Garland free-speech event was a contest, sponsored by Pamela Geller’s New York–based American Freedom Defense Initiative. Participants were invited to draw cartoons of Islam’s prophet, in homage to the Charlie Hebdo artists killed by jihadists in France. Besides Ms. Geller, the featured speaker at the event was Geert Wilders, the Dutch parliamentarian whose life has been threatened for years for speaking openly about the scriptural moorings of Islamic terrorism. Al-Qaeda has publicly called for Wilders to be killed, and a notorious Australian imam called on Muslims to behead him because anyone who “mocks, laughs [at], or degrades Islam” must be killed by “chopping off his head.”

In Garland, activists opposed to the violence endorsed by Islamic doctrine and to the repression inherent in sharia law were invited to draw caricatures of Mohammed, with a $10,000 prize awarded to the “best” one. The contest was sure to yield images offensive to Muslims just as transgressive artist Andres Serrano had to know the public exhibition of his Piss Christ photograph would offend Christians.

Yet, as I argue in Islam and Free Speech, it will not do to blame the messenger for the violence. The shooting last night was not caused by the free-speech event any more than the Charlie Hebdo murders were caused by derogatory caricatures, or the rioting after a Danish newspaper’s publication of anti-Islam cartoons was caused by the newspaper. The violence is caused by Islamic supremacist ideology and its law that incites Muslims to kill those they judge to have disparaged Islam.

It will not do to blame the messenger for the violence. The shooting last night was not caused by the free-speech event any more than the Charlie Hebdo murders were caused by derogatory caricatures.

Christians were offended by Piss Christ, but they did not respond by killing the “artist” or blowing up the exhibiting museum. If any had, they would have been universally condemned for both violating society’s laws and betraying Christian tenets. In such a case, we would have blamed the killers, not the provocative art. There can be no right against being provoked in a free society; we rely on the vigorous exchange of ideas to arrive at sensible policy. And the greater the threat to liberty, the more necessary it is to provoke. 

The threat to liberty in this instance is sharia blasphemy law. A bloc of Muslim-majority countries, with the assistance of the Obama administration (led by the U.S. State Department, particularly under Hillary Clinton), is trying to use international law to impose Islam’s repressive law to make it illegal to subject Islam to negative criticism. No sensible person favors obnoxious expression or gratuitous insult. But as I contend in the pamphlet, there is a big difference between saying “I object to this illustration of insensitivity and bad taste” and saying “I believe that what repulses me should be against the law.”

Ms. Geller’s detractors are predictably out in droves today, prattling about how the violence would not have happened were it not for the offensive display. No one would feel deprived by the lack of sheer insult, they say, so wouldn’t it be better to compromise free-expression principles in exchange for achieving peaceful social harmony? But that line of thinking puts violent extortionists in charge of what we get to speak about — an arrangement no free society can tolerate.

It is very unfortunate that this debate is so often triggered by forms of expression that non-jihadists will find insulting and therefore that even anti-jihadists will find uncomfortable to defend. This grossly understates the stakes involved. This is about much more than cartoons. As I outline in Islam and Free Speech, classical sharia forbids most artistic representations of animate life, not just expressions that are obviously sacrilegious. More significantly, it deems as blasphemous not just expressions that insult the prophet and Islam itself but also

critical examinations of Islam . . . especially if they reach negative conclusions or encourage unbelief[;] proselytism of religions other than Islam, particularly if it involves encouraging Muslims to abandon Islam[; and any] speech or expression [that] could sow discord among Muslims or within an Islamic community. And truth is not a defense.

It is not the purpose of Pam Geller, Geert Wilders, the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, and other activists to insult Muslims. Their mission is to awaken us to the challenge of Islamic supremacists — not just the violent jihadists but also the powerful Islamist forces behind the jihad. Islamists are attempting to coerce us into abandoning our commitment to free expression. They are pressuring us to accommodate their totalitarian system rather than accepting assimilation into our liberty culture.

You may not like the provocateurs’ methods. Personally, I am not a fan of gratuitous insult, which can antagonize pro-Western Muslims we want on our side. But let’s not make too much of that. Muslims who really are pro-Western already know, as Americans overwhelmingly know, that being offended is a small price to pay to live in a free society. We can bristle at an offense and still grasp that we do not want the offense criminalized.

It would be easy, in our preening gentility, to look down our noses at a Mohammed cartoon contest. But we’d better understand the scope of the threat the contest was meant to raise our attention to — a threat triggered by ideology, not cartoons. There is in our midst an Islamist movement that wants to suppress not only insults to Islam but all critical examination of Islam. That movement is delighted to leverage the atmosphere of intimidation created by violent jihadists, and it counts the current United States government among its allies.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

Dossier on Suspects in Garland, Texas Jihad Attack: Elton Simpson and Nadir Hamid Soofi

Elton Simpson and Nadir Hamid Soofi Perpetrators of Garland, Texas attack May 3, 2015

Elton Simpson and Nadir Hamid Soofi
Perpetrators of Garland, Texas attack
May 3, 2015

NER, by Jerry Gordon, May 4, 2015:

Elton Simpson and Nadir Hamid Soofi, both suspects killed in the Garland, Texas jihad attack have been identified from the Arizona vehicle registrations and driver photo IDs.   Simpson, 30, and Soofi, 34 were roommates in a central Phoenix condominium. The Phoenix condominium was the subject of an FBI and police bomb squad investigation early this morning

Simpson was the author of the tweets sent just before the attack.   He has been the subject of an FBI terrorism investigation since 2006 and was convicted in a Federal Court trial in 2011 for material support for terrorism, an attempt to travel to Somalia to Join Al Shabaab.   One of the two perpetrators is alleged as having connections to CAIR, the self-styled Muslim civil rights group, an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood.

ISIS in a series of tweets,  sent prior to the May 3rd Muhammad Art Contest sponsored by Pam Geller’s American Freedom  Defense Initiative,   inspired brothers  in the US to undertake an attack on the event. ISIS social media claimed responsibility for the attack in which both perpetrators were killed and a security officer slightly injured. The pre-event ISIS tweets doubtless increased the security arrangements at the AFDI event. A purported Muhammad Art contest  that featured a speech by Dutch Freedom Party leader, Geert Wilders and appearances by Rep. Louie Gohmert, Geller and Robert Spencer and others.  200 attendees were in lockdown following the attack and vehicles impounded as evidence in the crime scene. The event was webcast yesterday by the team from The United West led by Tom Trento.

Trento will discuss his experience at the Garland, Texas Muhammad Art Contest event today at 4PM (CST) 5PM (EST) with this writer and Mike Bates, co-host of “Your Turn” on 1330amWEBY, Northwest Florida‘s Talk Radio.  You may listen live here.

Heavy.com has compiled a dossier on the perpetrators of last night jihad attack in Garland, Texas, “Elton Simpson: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know.”  The article reported:

Elton Simpson has been identified as one of the two gunmen who opened fire Sunday night outside the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland, Texas. An unarmed security guard was shot, but survived with a non-life-threatening wound, before Simpson and his accomplice were killed by police.

Simpson, 30, and the other gunman, his roommate, 34-year-old Nadir Hamid Soofi, are from Phoenix, Arizona.

Simpson was “well known” by the FBI and was the subject of a previous terror investigation, ABC News reports. He and Soofi were armed with assault rifles and wearing body protection, police said. They exchanged fire with a Garland police officer armed with handgun.

Simpson’s father, Dunston Simpson, told ABC News, “We are Americans and we believe in America. What my son did reflects very badly on my family,” adding that his son “made a bad choice.”

WFAA reports that FBI agents were searching the gunmen’s Phoenix, Arizona home.

Police also remain at the scene of the shooting, and have been examining the gunmen’s car. They were concerned about explosives being hidden inside it.


The FBI began investigating Simpson in 2006, when they began recording conversations he was having with an informant. He was arrested in 2010.

According to court records, Simpson received a sentence of three years probation in 2011 after he was found guilty of making a false statement to the FBI.

Simpson told FBI agents he had not talked with others about traveling to Somalia, when he in fact had talked to others about traveling to the African country, according to court documents. Judge Mary H. Murguia found there wasn’t enough evidence to support the FBI’s claim that the travel was related to terrorism. He had elected for a trial by the judge, rather than a jury.

The FBI had claimed that Simpson was traveling to Somalia to engage in “violent jihad.” The FBI claimed he was planning to travel to Africa to join the al-Shabaab terror group, which has since been responsible for the deadly Kenyan terror attacks at the Nairobi mall and Garissa University.
Simpson’s probation ended in 2014.

The Volokh Conspiracy blog wrote about the case in 2011, calling it a “partial government victory / partial defeat.”

Read the court order explaining why Simpson was found guilty:

According to court documents, Simpson was born in Illinois and then moved to Phoenix, Arizona, where he “converted to the Muslim religion at a young age.”

His attorney during the 2010 trial, Kristina Sitton, told ABC News that Simpson was on the no-fly list and the FBI had tried to convince him to cooperate with them, including after his conviction. Sitton said she thought Simpson was “harmless,” according to ABC News:

He grew up the most normal guy. Just a normal high school guy… Converting to Islam seemed like a good thing for him. He had been going down a bad path and then he found Islam. He never struck me as someone who would do this sort of thing. I’m not a bleeding heart, I’m a Republican. I’ve seen some pretty bad guys and he seemed pretty normal.

Simpson was working at a dentist’s office in Arizona, but had been on vacation prior to the shooting, his father told ABC News. Dunston Simpson said he last spoke to his son three weeks ago, but they “had not much to talk about, because we had some very serious differences.” Dunston Simpson said Elton was a “good kid.”

Here are some items from the Heavy.com dossier on Nadir Hamid Soofi,   “Nadir Hamid Soofi: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know”:

According to his Facebook page, Soofi spent a considerable amount of time with his little brother. He’s a graduate of the University of Utah and the International School of Islamabad in Pakistan. His page also shows multiple posts featuring Palestinian and anti-police propaganda. Frequently, he posts the phrase “Eid Mubarak” meaning celebration to the blessed. Soofi was the owner of Effinity Solutions, a carpet cleaning business in Phoenix. In July 2013, he called himself a “newbie to the carpet cleaning industry.”


AZ Family reports that the two gunmen lived at an apartment on 19th Avenue and Thunderbird Road (above) in Phoenix. The day after the shooting, FBI agents, some clad in bomb squad gear, searched the apartment. The car they drove to the attack in Garland was registered in Arizona. The car, a 2008 Chevrolet Cobalt, was owned by Soofi. He tried to sell it back in March 2015 for nearly $9,000.

Police said prior Soofi’s name being released that the two had gone to the event with the intention of killing people. Both were armed with assault rifles. Garland cops stopped short of calling the attack a terrorist incident.

Watch the speeches at the AFDI Muhammad Cartoon Contest


Thanks to Tom Trento and his crew at The United West:

Garland Police Stop “Known Wolf” Jihadists but Free Speech Threat Remains

6850320CSP, by Kyle Shideler, May 4, 2015:

Sunday night, May 3rd, outside the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland Texas, two would-be jihadists attempted to launch an attack against a free speech event being held by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI). Thanks to the swift response by local security and GPD, the two suspects were killed, while an officer was wounded, but soon released from the hospital.

One of the suspects was identified as Elton Simpson, an Arizona man convicted in 2011 for lying to federal agents regarding his attempt to travel to Somalia to join a terror group. On a twitter page reportedly connected to Simpson, the author swears an oath of allegiance to Islamic State leader AbuBakr Al-Baghdadi just moments prior to the attack taking place, with the hashtag #Texasattack. An investigation is currently underway to determine who the second suspect was, identified in Simpsons’ twitter page only as “the bro with me.”

There is no doubt that many in the media will attempt to paint the responsibility for this attack on the hosts of the event, for having the temerity to hold an art exhibit featuring a number of drawings (both contemporary and historical) of Islam’s prophet Mohammad. But an examination of Simpsons’ earlier trial documents make clear Simpson was committed jihadist. From the Court quoting transcripts from the audio recordings submitted by the FBI:

In that recording, Mr. Simpson told Mr. Deng that Allah loves an individual who is “out there fighting [non-Muslims]” and making difficult sacrifices such as living in caves, sleeping on rocks rather than sleeping in comfortable beds and with his wife, children and nice cars. Mr. Simpson said that the reward is high because “If you get shot, or you get killed, it’s [heaven] straight away.” Mr. Simpson then said:

“[Heaven] that’s what we here for…so why not take that route?”

Simpson went on to describe the importance of Shariah law, and the willingness to fight to establish it:

They’re trying to make them live by man-made laws, not by Allah’s laws. That’s why they get fought. You try to make us become slaves to man? No we slave to Allah, we going to fight you to the death.”

As we have noted previously, Shariah blasphemy laws call for death for perceived insults to either Allah or Mohammed, and multiple Muslim-majority countries maintain the death penalty for blasphemy, and in many others extrajudicial killings are routine. The attempted attack on the Curtis Culwell Center should likewise be viewed as an attempt to enforce a foreign system of law against the constitution, through violence. It is not an irrational act by those “angered” or offended by a display, but one attack in a campaign targeting America’s system of governance.

Such attacks do not occur in isolation, but are part of a larger political effort to impose Shariah over American law. This is done first by equating the act of speech with the violence directed against the speakers. As we noted at the time of the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris:

The Organization of the Islamic Cooperation has led the charge to see the criminalization of defamation of religion (interpreted by the OIC to mean Islam only) enforced by governments. Unfortunately the U.S. State Department has cooperated with implementing these efforts under the “Istanbul Process” for the past several years. Wickham’s claim that because violence against the speaker will inevitably result, the publication of images of Mohammad are not protected speech is the exact line of thinking represented by the Istanbul Process’s“test of consequences” concept and shows how successful the OIC’s effort to peddle this narrative has been.

This same line was adopted by the Islamist organizers of the “Stand With the Prophet” Rally, also held in Garland, Texas. From a Free Beacon article covering the event:

“Frustrated with Islamophobes defaming the Prophet?” the event materials ask. “Fuming over extremists like ISIS who give a bad name to Islam? Remember the Danish cartoons defaming the Prophet? Or the anti-Islam film, ‘Innocence of Muslims’?”

“When real events warrant, like the Danish Cartoon controversy, Sharia ban, Quran burning, Boko Haram kidnappings. [Islamic State] brutality, etc., we articulate fresh talking points and content quickly, and in a timely manner, working with professionals to disseminate it through community spokespersons and our allies,” organizers state on their website.

The publication of cartoons and other acts of free speech are being directly equated here with kidnapping, brutality and terrorism as part of an intentional effort to permit the banning of free speech that offends Islam. It’s the same logic that led Congressmen Andre Carson and Keith Ellison to demand Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders be barred from the country. Wilders attended and spoke at the Garland event.

Sadly this rhetoric has clearly caught on, and was on hand following the Garland shooting as journalists, bloggers and “Countering Violent Extremism” analysts lumped the AFDI and those who attempted to murder them together as “extremists.”

We should all be thankful that swift action by the Garland police put down a violent threat to free speech and the Constitution on Sunday.  But we should all respond equally swiftly to the political threat to free speech by loudly and unapologetically insisting that the Constitution trumps Sharia law, and free speech trumps  “so-called” blasphemy.

And there’s nothing extremist about that.

Muslim Congressmen Exhibit Outrageous Hypocrisy in Trying To Ban Dutch Politician Geert Wilders from U.S.

PJ Media, by Patrick Poole, May 1, 2015:

It was reported earlier this week that the two Muslim members of Congress, Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Andre Carson (D-IN), had sent a letter to the State Department last week requesting that they deny a visa to Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who was coming to Washington D.C. for a Capitol Hill event sponsored by Reps. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) and Steve King (R-IA).

Unsuccessful in their attempts to have Wilders banned from the U.S. Ellison, Carson and their associates from the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) tried to disrupt a press conference on free speech with Wilders, Gohmert and King in front of the U.S. Capitol yesterday, with Ellison promoting their actions on Twitter:
ellisonKeith Ellison tweet

Leave aside for the moment the spurious legal reasoning they employed to try to deny Wilders a visa, aptly refuted by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, and that their attempts to tie Wilders to Norwegian mass killer Anders Breivik had been thoroughly debunked by none other than Breivik himself.

What makes the pair’s anti-free speech behavior so outrageously hypocritical is that they both have stood silent as the Obama administration has allowed a long line of extremists, and even members of terrorist organizations, to enter the U.S.

Even worse, the two Muslim congressmen have regularly promoted and associated with organizations that have been designated as terrorist organizations, and individuals and groups that have been tagged in federal court by the Justice Department.

For instance, in May 2012 a member of Egyptian Islamic Jihad (still a designated terrorist organization), Hani Nour Eldin, was allowed to enter the U.S. and even escorted into the White House for a private meeting with Obama’s national security staff, Ellison and Carson didn’t apparently utter a single word in protest.

Nor did they express even the slightest bit of concern when members of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood were given VIP treatment typically reserved for visiting dignitaries at JFK airport.

When Sudanese genocide henchman Nafie Ali Nafie (aka “Nafie the Butcher) was given a visa by the State Department in 2013, the Muslim congressmen again were found mute.

And nothing was said when Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano testified before Congress in July 2012 that she would allow more members of terrorist organizations into the U.S.

Their voice has also been absent following the news last year that the Clinton State Department maintained a terrorist “hands-off” list for entry into the U.S., revealed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), or as Homeland Security continued to stonewall congressional requests for information on such terrorist “hands-off” lists.

So Ellison and Carson have deemed Geert Wilders, who has been subject to repeated threats from Islamic terror organizations and has had to live with 24/7 security for more than a decade, a greater threat than members of terrorist groups, genocidal henchmen, and Islamic extremists.

That glaring silence might be telling of where their sympathies really lie, if it weren’t for their open and unashamed support of terrorist fronts and cheerleaders.

As I reported here at PJ Media late last December, Carson was scheduled to appear at the 2014 Muslim American Society (MAS)-Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) annual conference on a Ferguson panel with Mazen Mokhtar, an individual that federal agents had testified in federal court had operated an Al-Qaeda website to raise money for the Taliban.

Carson’s appearance at the MAS-ICNA event was not only promoted on the conference website, but also in the conference program:


A few days later, Carson was quickly trying to walk back his appearance at the conference, claiming he didn’t speak on the panel with Mokhtar. And yet, Carson never addressed the fact that he was speaking at Mohktar’s conference (Mokhtar is currently executive directtor of the primary conference sponsor, MAS).

But both Ellison and Carson appeared just a few months before with Al-Qaeda webmaster Mokhtar at a June 2014 event announcing the formation of a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood political front, the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO). Mokhtar is second from the left:


In this picture published by The Muslim Link newspaper, Mokhtar can be seen immediately over the right shoulder of Ellison as he speaks at the USCMO rollout:


So attempts by either Ellison or Carson to walk back their association to Mazen Mokhtar are laughingly bogus.

But there’s good reason why the pair want to keep their distance from Mohktar and his MAS organization. In November 2014, one month before Carson appeared at the MAS-ICNA conference, the United Arab Emirates designated MAS as a terrorist organization. In 2008, Ellison took a 16-day Hajj trip to Saudi Arabia financed by MAS, and lied about the source of the funding.

Even more troubling for Ellison and Carson, UAE also designated CAIR a terrorist organization. Both congressmen have regularly appeared at the group’s events across the country and spoken in support of their efforts. In 2012, I documented Ellison’s extensive ties to CAIR here at PJ Media as he was publicly attacking then-Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.

It’s not just the UAE terror designation of CAIR that is problematic for the pair. In 2008, FBI agent Lara Burns testified in federal court that CAIR was a front for the terrorist group HAMAS in the Holy Land Foundation case.

During that trial, the Justice Department submitted a brief to the court stating that CAIR was part of an international Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy to provide “media, money and men” to Hamas (p. 13).


The federal judge hearing the case agreed, stating in an opinion that there was “ample evidence” that CAIR and other US Muslim organizations worked to support Hamas.

So before Keith Ellison and Andre Carson start attacking other members of Congress about their support for Geert Wilders, perhaps they should answer some questions about their ties to Mazen Mokhtar and their continued public support to MAS and CAIR despite their designation as terrorist groups by UAE, and tagged as terrorist fronts in federal court by the FBI and the Justice Department.


Also see:

Who Really Ought to be Banned? Geert Wilders or Terror Supporters?

Carson_Ellison-e1400763054875CSP, by Kyle Shideler, April 29, 2015:

Representatives Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Andre Carson (D-IN) have called for Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders to be banned from the country, in a recent letter to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Secretary of State John Kerry. The two Muslim lawmakers allege that Geert Wilder’s strong stance against the immigration influx of primarily Muslim migrants to Holland and his opposition to Islamization equates to a violation of the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act.

On its face the assertion is patently absurd. As Freedom House reports, the Netherlands maintains nearly perfect scores for political and civil liberties. Wilders is a lawmaker in his native Netherlands, and can be expected to weigh in on issues of importance to his constituents, which is exactly what the Dutch court found in 2011 when he was acquitted on charges that his comments regarding Islamic immigration rose to the level of criminal hate speech.

In fact in the Netherlands the violence has been directed almost solely in the opposite direction, with the assassinations of Pim Fortuyn and Theo Van Gogh for their speech deemed critical of Islam. Wilders himself lives under constant threat of death. In 2009, the Dutch security services reported that Wilders personally received two-thirds of the 428 death threats against all Dutch politicians.

In comparison, Carson and Ellison both wrote letters in praise of the Hamas-linked Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) for their 16th annual dinner, which featured attendees from such repressive states as Sudan, Qatar, UAE and Oman, all of whom rank as “Not Free” on Freedom Houses’ reports. Sudan in particular is ruled by an indicted war criminal, Omar Bashir, known for its genocidal campaign against the predominately christian South Sudanese and against ethnic minorities throughout Sudan including Darfur. There’s no indication Carson or Ellison complained to CAIR about these states’ representatives.

Indeed, Reps. Ellison and Carson are more likely to be sharing the stage with the kinds of individuals who really ought to be banned from the United States.

For example, the Department of Homeland Security was ordered to place Canadian Muslim Brotherhood leader and vocal Hamas and Hezbollah supporter Jamal Badawi on a hands off list, despite the urging of DHS officers who called for him to be blocked from entry. Badawi has publically expressed support for Hamas and Hezbollah, and sat on the board of the International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS) that issued a 2004 fatwa permitting the murder of Americans in Iraq. Badawi was listed as an unindicted Co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism finance trial which provided funds to the terrorist group Hamas, whose charter calls for the extermination of the Jewish people.

In 2014, Jamal Badawi and Rep. Andre Carson shared a stage at the 39th joint conventionof the Muslim American Society (MAS) and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA). MAS is recognized by federal prosecutors as the “overt arm” of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States, and ICNA is considered to be a front for the Pakistani Islamistorganization Jamaat-e-Islami. The Muslim American Society has been listed as a terrorist organization in the U.A.E.

Also on the stage was Tariq Ramadan, a key European Muslim Brotherhood leader who was banned from the United States for his financial support for charities tied to Hamas until the Obama Administration reversed the decision. In 2013 Carson’s office also arranged for a room on Capitol Hill for an event by the Egyptian Freedom Foundation, a group close to the Muslim Brotherhood which was attended by convicted Palestinian Islamic Jihad organizer Sami Al-Arian. Al-Arian was deported from the United States two years later.

Rep. Keith Ellison has similar associations. Ellision also shared a stage with Badawi, in 2011 in Minnesota, and the two were both highlight speakers at the 50th Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) convention in 2013. ISNA was also listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF funding trial and in that case Federal Judge Jorge Solis wrote that the government provided “ample evidence” for connecting ISNA to Hamas. Ellison has also shared the stage with Tariq Ramadan which he did during a Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) event in 2010. Ellison also expressed support for Sami Al-Arian, urging listeners of a Tampa Bay radio station to support al-Arian during the PIJ organizer’s terrorism trial.

Ellison and Carson are pretending that open and honest debate by an elected official about the role of Islamic immigration to the Netherlands is on par with incitement to commit violence.

Yet, when it comes to those who actually incite violence, or provide material support for terrorism, they are far more likely to be in the United States at Ellison and Carson’s invitation than against their objections.

Geert Wilders Speech for US Congressmen at Conservative Opportunity Society


Geert Wilders Weblog, April 29, 2015:

Dear Friends,

It is an honor to be here, among so many colleagues. Thank you Steve for inviting me here at the Conservative Opportunity Society.

I am a politician under attack. For over ten years now, I have been living under 24 hour police protection. I am on the death list of Al Qaida. The Pakistani Taliban also want me dead and terrorists from the Islamic State in Syria made similar threats. In order to be safe, my wife and live in a safe house and have stayed in army barracks and even in prison cells, actually the same cells and beds where the Lockerbie suspects were held in the Netherlands. I am driven around in armored cars and even during TV debates in election time in my home country I have to wear a bullet proof vest. Leftist and liberal activists call me a xenophobe and a racist and the extreme right calls me a Zionist and Mossad agent because of my love for Israel.

So what did I do to deserve all this?
The reason for all this is that I speak out against the Islamization of the West. The reason is that I tell the truth about the totalitarian ideology called Islam and that I nonetheless lead one of the major parties in the Netherlands. A national poll yesterday even indicated that my party, the Party for Freedom, is currently the biggest party in the Netherlands.

But enough about me. It is not about me.
I am not the only one under attack. My country is under attack. My continent is under attack. Your country and your continent are under attack. We are all under attack. Our western civilization based on Christianity and Judaism is under attack. The whole free Western world is under attack.

And remember, we have been under attack before.
As it happens, we are gathered here this morning on a symbolic day.
Exactly 70 years ago, on April 29, 1945, two divisions of the US Seventh Army liberated the concentration camp of Dachau, the oldest of the Nazi concentration camps.
One of the American liberators wrote: “Since we saw this camp, we understood that we were not engaged in war against soldiers and officers, but against criminals.”

After the Second World War, our leaders vowed: Never again!
Never again will we tolerate anti-Semitism, political assassinations, mass murders, oppression, slavery. And they vowed that they would never forget and always remember the lessons of history.

Here is one of these lessons:
When confronted with evil, do not put your heads in the sand, but act before it is too late.

In the 1930s, most politicians in Europe had looked away. They tried to appease evil, hoping that it would react to appeasement by growing moderate. What fools they had been! And what a terrible price the world had to pay for this foolishness. Neutrality in the face of evil is evil.
But appeasement is downright suicide.

And here we are today.
Despite all the promises that we would not make the same awful mistake all over again, many Western leaders are doing exactly that. Looking away and appeasing evil.

I often wonder what part of the Koran our leaders find so difficult to understand?
Is it sura 47:4? “When ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks and cause a bloodbath among them”? Or is it sura 4:89, “Seize them and kill them wherever ye find them”? Or sura 8:60, “Strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah”? Or is it another of the over 150 Koranic verses which call for jihad against non-Muslims? Or any of the many verses which call for the subjugation of Christians and Jews, or the murder of apostates?

We have a huge problem with Islam in the West today. First, let us look at the causes, then at the consequences, and finally at ways to solve this problem.

The Islamization process has been caused by immigration, combined with our failure to demand that immigrants adapt our values. Fifty years ago, the Netherlands had one thousand Islamic immigrants. Today, we have one million, or 6% of our population.
In the Netherlands, Muhammad is currently already the second most popular name among newborn boys nationwide and the most popular name in our three largest cities, Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague. This is also the case in the Belgian capital Brussels, the Norwegian capital Oslo, the British capital London and as a matter of fact even in the whole of Great-Britain.

We failed to demand that immigrants adopt our Judeo-Christian values and assimilate into our society. And here are some of the consequences: There is little loyalty to our home countries.
A survey last November among Turkish youths in the Netherlands found that 80% do not consider the violence which groups such like IS use against non-believers to be wrong. An earlier poll showed that 73% of the Muslims in my country say that Dutch Muslims who go and fight in Syria are heroes. You have heard right: Heroes!

Of course – I repeat it wherever I go – I have nothing against Muslims. Before the death threats started I have visited almost every Islamic country and I met many friendly people. I know there are many moderate Muslims who do not live according to the violent commands of the Koran. Muslims can be moderates. But there is no moderate Islam. Islam has changed Europe beyond recognition.

I invite you to come to Europe and visit some of our inner cities. I will show you around. We will drive you around. You can see it with your own eyes. You will not believe your eyes.
Many neighborhoods of European cities no longer look European. We are confronted with headscarves and burkas, polygamy, and huge sympathy for the goals and the practices of terror groups such as Islamic State and al-Qaeda.

The floodgates of immigration are wide open.
Last year, a record 218,000 immigrants reached Europe by boats across the Mediterranean Sea.
Those who made it were the lucky ones. Many of the boats sink and the immigrants drown.
A human catastrophe is unfolding. The Mediterranean is becoming a Sea of Death.
At this very moment, there are up to 1 million immigrants, mostly Islamic, waiting in North Africa to cross the Mediterranean in shabby boats. They take the risk of drowning because they know that Europe is not sending them back once they have made it. That is why ever more people try to cross. This situation must stop.

The European Union has decided to send navy vessels to pick up the immigrants and transport them to Europe. This policy is stupid. It will encourage even more people to attempt crossing the sea. What Europe should do is to follow the example of Australia. The Australian navy pushes boats with immigrants back, out of the Australian waters. If the boats of the immigrants are too shabby, the Australians provide them with new boats with food and water, but they do not allow one single illegal immigrant to enter their country. The Australians results are excellent: fewer people try to reach Australia by boat, fewer people drown and the criminal human traffickers lose their income.

The boats also constitute a huge security risk. ISIS is using them as a gateway to Europe. ISIS recently boasted from Libya: “We will conquer Rome with Allah’s permissions.” The British Quilliam Foundation saw an ISIS document revealing that jihadis are about to sail across the Mediterranean posing as migrants on people trafficking vessels. They want to attack what they call “the Crusader states” in Europe.

The UN plan to resettle 1 million immigrants in Western nations will provide jihadis an opportunity to infiltrate Western countries, including the US. It will give terrorists the opportunity to settle in our countries without the extra scrutiny involved in obtaining a visa or a residence permit.
We should not do this. The vast majority of the European citizens disapprove of the way their governments are handling immigration. Moreover, there are plenty of other safe countries where immigrants bound for the West can go to, including the wealthy Gulf States that have almost zero asylum-seekers today.

Immigration, especially Islamic immigration, had devastating consequences. It has made our countries less safe. What this means, we witnessed last Summer in my home town, The Hague. Sympathizers of the Islamic State paraded in the streets. They carried swastikas, they carried the black flags of IS. They shouted “Death to the Jews.”
It was a truly frightening sight, bringing back memories of the darkest period in our history.
It indicates how much a once so peaceful and tolerant society as the Netherlands has changed as a result of Islamic mass immigration.

In every Western nation, there are homegrown jihadis, prepared to commit violence. ISIS calls them “city wolves.” Our media prefer to speak of “lone wolves,” but they are not alone; there are thousands of them. According to the European police agency Europol, 5,000 homegrown jihadis have left Europe to fight in Syria and Iraq.

The situation is extremely serious.
Last January, an ISIS operative said that his organization had already sent some 4,000 fighters into Europe. 4,000 city wolves are on the loose in Europe. In Germany, the Military Intelligence Service even warns for jihadis having infiltrated the German army.

In my country, the University of Amsterdam found that 11% of the 1 million Muslims in the Netherlands is prepared to use violence for the sake of Islam. That is a staggering 100,000 people in a country of 17 million inhabitants!

Our duty is clear. In order to solve the problem, we have to stop mass immigration to the West from Islamic countries. And we have to get rid of the cultural relativism.

The authorities in both Europe and America try to prevent Jihadis from leaving for Syria and Iraq.
But I say: This is wrong. Let them leave if they want to leave. But let them never return.
Blocking the exodus of those who want to wage Jihad elsewhere and not detain them is sheer stupidity. Perhaps you remember that the Jihadis who last Autumn murdered soldiers in Canada were people whom the authorities had previously prevented to leave for Syria and who were not arrested but allowed to go free on the street.
We must hasten their exit instead of preventing it. But we must never allow them to return. If you leave for jihad you lose the right to our citizenship and we will never let you come back again. This is how it should be.

In my country and the other EU member states, which signed the so-called Schengen Treaty, we have abolished all border controls between the 26 member states of the Schengen zone. This means that Jihadis from one of these states can freely travel to the others and commit their crimes there. And it has already happened. Last year a Jihadi from France, who had just returned from Syria, went to Belgium and murdered four people at the Jewish Museum in Brussels.

Without borders a nation-cannot guarantee the security of its citizens. Neither can it preserve its national identity and culture. I believe that one of the most vital things which we Europeans must do is to leave Schengen and reinstate national border control.

My friends, we are all in the same boat.
And we must do our duty.
We must speak the truth about Islam, so that our electorates be aware of the danger.
We must protect our Judeo-Christian civilization, so that their children can leave in peace and prosperity.
We must defend our borders, so that our families be safe and our nation’s identity preserved.
We must stand with Israel and all the free nations threatened by Islam.
And above all, we must be brave.
As the great Ronald Reagan said: The future does not belong to the fainthearted.

Thank you.