Facebook Exec to Headline Muslim Advocates “Countering Hate on the Internet” Dinner

Facebook-AFPBreitbart, by Pamela Geller:

Increasingly, the war in the information battlespace is being waged outside the hallowed halls of the enemedia. The Islamic supremacist group Muslim Advocates has announced that its Annual Gala 2014 on May 3 will host an “onstage conversation” about “countering hate on the internet” featuring Monika Bickert, the Head of Global Policy Management for Facebook, along with Muslim Advocates’ Executive Director Farhana Khera and Hilary Shelton of the NAACP.

The key to winning this war for freedom is in the war of ideas. So the apparatuses that truth-tellers and voices of freedom including my colleagues and me use, tools such as Facebook, Twitter, and Linkedin, are of cardinal importance. When news from my website AtlasShrugs.com goes viral, invariably it is Facebook that drives it.

This makes sense. Facebook is the personal bulletin board for millions of Americans, on which they share family photos, personal victories or defeats, and news that they believe to be of critical importance. So of course Atlas Shrugs news items would be trafficked there frequently. And that’s why this particular news story about Monika Bickert’s appearance at the Muslim Advocates Annual Gala, although innocuous on its face, is of grave significance.

Islamic supremacists and stealth jihadists are very aware of the ways in which voices of freedom get the word out after having been blacklisted from conventional means of communication and information dissemination. And so these well-funded savages host expensive, silly dinners, galas, and conferences full of empty praise and flattery for clueless tools like Bickert. While Bickert’s name is clearly not on the lips and minds of most Americans, she has the keys to the proverbial kingdom. She is the gatekeeper.

Who exactly is Monika Bickert? As Head of Global Policy Management for Facebook, she is Facebook’s speech police. So is it any wonder that groups like Muslim Advocates would be feting her? Muslim Advocates is an organization of Sharia enforcers, enforcers of the blasphemy laws under Sharia. According to the Investigative Project on Terrorism, in 2011 Khera wrote a letter, also signed by 57 Muslim and allied organizations, to then-Homeland Security Adviser John Brennan, demanding that he create “an interagency task force, led by the White House” to “review all counterterror trainers, so as to purge those that the Muslim organizations, which included many with Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood ties, found unacceptable.” FBI trainers such as Islamic scholar Robert Spencer were summarily dropped.

Khera also demanded that the Obama Administration:

“[P]urge all federal government training materials of biased materials”; “implement a mandatory re-training program for FBI agents, U.S. Army officers, and all federal, state and local law enforcement who have been subjected to biased training”; and more to ensure that only the message about Islam and jihad preferred by the signatories would get through to intelligence and law enforcement agents.

Counter-terror training materials were subsequently scrubbed of all mention of Islam and jihad in connection with terrorism, leaving our law enforcement agents completely unequipped to understand the foremost terror threat of our time.

Groups like these have millions of dollars and an obviously subversive mission, and for them someone like Bickert is a key player. How many of you who are reading this know exactly what I’m talking about? How many of you have been banned from Facebook for twenty-four hours for posting a jihad story or saying something that might offend Muslims? I myself have been banned numerous times for merely posting a link to a jihad article. The well-oiled machine of Islamic supremacists descends daily on Facebook and flags or reports stories that they deem unacceptable for the eyes of the Facebook user and American news consumer.

We cannot abandon Facebook or the other enormously popular social media outlets. We cannot cede the field. The freedom of speech doesn’t mean the freedom to speak in the wilderness, where no one is there to hear us. That’s not what freedom of speech is. Freedom of speech is the protection of all ideas, not just those that global jihadists deem to be Sharia-compliant.

Despite this fictional narrative about a “lucrative Islamophobia industry,” counter-jihad freedom fighters don’t have the funds to fete a tool like Bickert. Only groups like Muslim Advocates do.

These “galas” such as the one that Muslim Advocates is holding should chill you and compel you to action. Many of my colleagues, such as Anders Gravers of Stop Islamisation of Europe (SIOE) have been silenced. His personal Facebook page and organization page have been disabled, shut down, and silenced by these same supremacist cretins.

Most Americans assume that we all share a value system based on freedom and individual rights. But such an assumption can no longer be made. You can’t expect that such freedoms will be automatically protected. We have to fight every single battle. Every attack. We have to counter every hostile attack on our freedoms with an equal or more powerful response. Otherwise, make no mistake: we will lose our freedom of speech. Its continued existence is not guaranteed. Its survival depends on us.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of PamelaGeller.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the ResistanceFollow her on Twitter here.

American Muslims for Palestine Anti-Israel Ads Run on DC Buses

jew-hate-revised-Geller Breitbart, Apr 9,2014,  by PAMELA GELLER:

They are at it again. But so are we.

A new and viciously anti-Israel ad is running on Washington, DC buses, reading “We’re Sweating April 15 So Israelis Don’t Have To! Stop US Aid to Israel’s Occupation” and featuring a grim-looking Uncle Sam waving an Israeli flag. American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) is the sponsor of this Jew-hating ad, which evokes the ugly anti-Semitic stereotypes in which Jew-haters have long trafficked.

This is part of a systematic campaign by many different Islamic and leftist groups to dehumanize and demonize the Jewish state. This vicious propaganda is running in various forms across the country, unchallenged even by pro-Israel groups that ought to be at the forefront of this battle.

The AMP is run by Dr. Hatem Bazian, a University of California-Berkeley professor who equated the Boston jihad bombings with “Islamophobia.”

How bad has leftist academia become? Bazian teaches a course entitled “De-Constructing Islamophobia and History of Otherness.” One requirement of this class is for students to collect reactions from “people of color” to my ads criticizing jihad terrorism and Islamic supremacism.

Bazian also required his students to tweet weekly on Islamophobia. And he is not the only Islamic supremacist associated with the AMP. Others include Columbia UniversityProfessor Rashid Khalidi, who has called Israel a “racist” state that is “basically an apartheid system in creation”; Imam Ziad Shakir, who has praised the jihad terror group Hamas; Rafeeq Jaber, a strong supporter of the jihad terror group Hizballah; Norman Finkelstein, who has called Zionists “basically Nazis with beards and black hats”; and Max Blumenthal, who has recently published a book-length screed defaming Israel and retailing Palestinian jihad propaganda.

For years, AMP’s ads have run unchallenged. But this time, we were there. Their lies did not stand as the only word. We are fighting back. My organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), has submitted a truth-telling ad to run on the same bus line, on the same city streets, and in the same venues as the Islamic Jew-hatred ad.

Our ad features of photo of Adolf Hitler and his staunch ally, the leader of the Muslim world, Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, who lived in Berlin during World War II and raised up a division of Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen SS. The ad reads: “Islamic Jew-Hatred: It’s In the Quran. Two-Thirds of All US Aid Goes to Islamic Countries. Stop Racism. End All Aid to Islamic Countries.”

Our organization receives enormous abuse and defamation for responding to these disgusting lies. Who can forget the media sympathizing with CNN “journalist” Mona Eltahawy when she physically destroyed one of our ads and attacked an innocent bystander for trying to protect it?

Increasingly, we see that the more you speak the truth, the uglier the enemy’s response becomes–which of course makes us smile. And Washington Metro demanded that I provide substantiation for every claim in this ad. And this is nothing new. Every time I submit an ad, I have to provide evidence of everything I am asserting. I’d like to know if the AMP is held to the same standard. How would they possibly provide evidence for their ad–show photos of Americans sweating while Israelis luxuriated in ease? Their ad is an outrageous libel–well-distributed and well-worn.

Now more than ever, we have to educate the American people. And we are getting it done. AFDI fights the propaganda putsch of the AMP and other leftist and Islamic supremacist groups by going on the offense and taking the message to the people. We’re bringing the truth about Israel, the global jihad against free people, and Islamic supremacism directly to the people. We force a media discussion of the grim realities of jihad and Sharia that they usually sweep under the rug.

Now more than ever, when voices and work like ours are increasingly silenced, we have to be bolder and go on the offense.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of PamelaGeller.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the ResistanceFollow her on Twitter here.

VIRGINIA STATE LEGISLATURE COMMENDS MOSQUE WITH TERROR LINKS

Anwar-al-Awlakis-mosque-AP

Breitbart, March 17 2014, by :

The Virginia State Legislature this month passed a joint resolution Commending the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center on the 30th anniversary of its founding. This is the mosque that the Treasury Department’s Enforcement Communications System (TECS) says is “operating as a front for Hamas operatives in U.S.” and “is associated with Islamic extremists.”

It adds that Dar Al-Hijrah has been investigated numerous times for “financing and proving aid and comfort” to jihad organizations and has been “linked to numerous individuals linked to terrorism financing.” Has the Virginia State Legislature gone mad?

The resolution praises Dar Al-Hijrah for “30 years of serving and uplifting members of the Northern Virginia Muslim community and conducting outreach to the region in 2013.” It says that the mosque “works to strengthen the Muslim faith in the region through seminars, sermons, lectures, social activities, and clear operational hours for the observance of daily prayer.” The reoslution also states that it is “encouraging the members of the Muslim community to become productive members of society.”

As if all that weren’t enough, the resolution says that “the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center promotes cooperation, tolerance, and mutual understanding among different faiths,” and “conducts outreach in the community, offering educational classes and making charitable donations to those in need.” It expresses the legislators’ “admiration for the center’s commitment to serving the Northern Virginia Muslim community and peoples of all faiths.”

Amid all this boilerplate bloviating, the resolution also notes that “the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center is affiliated with the Muslim American Society,” which it describes as “a national religious, educational, cultural, and charitable organization.”

These legislators no doubt have no idea of what the Chicago Tribune reported in 2004: that the Muslim American Society is the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S.

In recent years, the U.S. Brotherhood operated under the name Muslim American Society, according to documents and interviews. One of the nation’s major Islamic groups, it was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious debate among Brotherhood members.

Confirming this is Ikhwanweb, the Muslim Brotherhood’s English website, which now carries that article. Shaker Elsayed, the mosque’s imam from 2005 to the present, was Secretary General of the Muslim American Society.

Why does it matter that the MAS is the Brotherhood? Because according to a captured internal Brotherhood document, the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. is engaged in a “grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

There is much more that should make the Virginia state legislators ashamed of their commendation. The late jihad leader Anwar al-Awlaki was the imam at Dar al-Hijrah. He is said to have been a “spiritual adviser” to three of the hijackers who attacked America on September 11, 2001. Al-Awlaki was also in regular contact with Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab, the Christmas underwear bomber who tried to blow up a passenger jet over Detroit on Christmas Day 2009.

The former Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who murdered thirteen Americans in a jihad massacre at Fort Hood in Texas, worshiped at Dar al-Hijrah when he lived in the area and was in touch with al-Awlaki shortly before he carried out his attack.

The Saudi-backed North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, bought the mosque’s grounds in 1983. Mohammed al-Hanooti, the mosque’s imam from 1995 to 1999, was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Ahmed Omar Abu Ali taught Islamic studies and was a camp counselor at the mosque; he is now in prison for plotting to assassinate President George W. Bush. Abdelhaleem Hasan Abdelraziq Ashqar, a member of the mosque’s Executive Committee, was convicted in November 2007 of contempt and obstruction of justice for refusing to testify regarding Hamas and received an eleven-year prison sentence.

Yet despite all this, this is not the first time the Virginia legislature has behaved as if this mosque were just another house of worship. In 2010, the Virginia General Assembly had Dar al-Hijrah’s Johari Abdul-Malik open the legislative session with a devout Islamic prayer. Abdul-Malik once defended Abdulrahman Alamoudi, who is in prison for financing al-Qaeda.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of PamelaGeller.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the ResistanceFollow her on Twitter here.

Dar al-Hijra Islamic Center Imam promotes armed Jihad during a lecture at T.C. Williams High School in Alexandria, Va.

Also see Clarion Projects profile on the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center and send it to the delegates:

HJ 484 Commending the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center.

Appeal to Ninth Circuit Filed after Federal Court in Seattle Upholds Censorship of Anti-Terrorism Advertisement

censoredThe American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) filed its opening brief on Friday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, appealing a lower federal court ruling that denied AFLC’s motion for a preliminary injunction.  AFLC’s motion requested that the court order the King County, Washington, transit authority to display an anti-terrorism bus advertisement that it had refused to display.

The proposed advertisement, which was submitted by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and its executive directors, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, included pictures, names, and a similar message from an earlier anti-terrorism advertisement sponsored by the U.S. State Department, which was accepted for display on King County buses.  The State Department advertisement depicted the “Faces of Global Terrorism” in an effort to “stop a terrorist” and “save lives.”  In addition, the advertisement offered an “up to $25 million reward” for helping to capture one of the FBI’s most wanted terrorists.

Moreover, in the State Department advertisement, thirty out of the thirty-two listed terrorists had Muslim names or are wanted for terrorism related to organizations conducting terrorist acts in the name of Islam.  After complaints from a Washington State politician and two Muslim-American advocacy groups that claimed the list of wanted global terrorists appeared to include only Muslim terrorists, the federal government terminated its “Faces of Global Terrorism” advertisement campaign.

In response to the government’s decision to remove its advertisement, AFDI created its own, similar advertisement to replace it.  Despite originally accepting the government’s advertisement, King County rejected AFDI’s ad, claiming that it was offensive to Muslims.

On January 27, 2014, David Yerushalmi, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, presented oral argument before Federal Judge Richard A. Jones, sitting in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. [See video of oral argument here.]  Yerushalmi argued that King County’s refusal to run the advertisement was an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech and therefore the court should order the agency to display the advertisement immediately.

Nevertheless, Judge Jones ruled that King County’s decision to reject the advertisement was “reasonable,” specifically noting that displaying pictures of Muslim and Arab terrorists and labeling them jihadis is offensive to Muslims.

David Yerushalmi, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, commented: “We are confident that the Ninth Circuit will reverse this decision.  The trial court sacrificed Free Speech for political correctness.”

AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise commented: “Simply put, the government’s position is inconsistent with reality – namely, sharia-adherent jihadists pose a significant threat to our national security.  This case is a classic articulation of political correctness as a form of tyranny, which violates our fundamental right to freedom speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.

 

Also see:

GOVERNMENT BANS CALLING TERRORISTS ‘JIHADIS’ (wnd.com)

NATIONAL DISGRACE: 9/11 MUSEUM TO CHARGE $24 ADMISSION

Sept-11-memorial-APby PAMELA GELLER:

Joe Daniels, President and CEO of the 9/11 Memorial and Museum, has announced a $24 mandatory admission fee for the 9/11 Memorial.

It’s a museum, not a movie. It’s a memorial, not a theme park.

What do they charge at Gettysburg? Pearl Harbor?

Salaries at the “non-profit” 9/11 Memorial and Museum are obscene. This allegedly non-profit organization is supposed to be a tribute to 9/11 victims. “It was built to tell the story of 9/11 to future generations about the worst day in American history. It was never intended to be a revenue-generating tourist attraction with a prohibitive budget and entrance fee.”

Daniels’s salary was last reported to be $371,307. He received huge raises for three years running. As far back as 2009, there were no fewer than eleven staffers at the National September 11 Memorial & Museum who each made more than $170,000. Four had salaries higher than $320,000.

What did they do with the billion dollars it took to build this underground museum morgue? There is nothing in the Memorial and Museum that addresses the ideology behind the attack. A billion-dollar memorial to the September 11th attacks on the homeland, and it censors the motive. There is nothing in the Memorial and Museum that addresses the ideology behind the attack. The museum does not properly explain to the visitors that the attacks were committed in the name of Jihad, or Islamic “holy war” against the West.

No jihad or Islam. Devastating.

The worst thing is that once you are inside the museum, you will see that the pictures of the attackers are more prominently displayed than the pictures of some of the victims.

This leads one to think: do the organizers of the museum want to pay tribute to the attackers, or what?

My organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), held a press conference on September 11, 2013 to protest this outrage. (You can see details here and video and photos here.) Among the speakers was 9/11 family member Nelly Braginsky, who lost her only son Alec on 9/11. She told me recently: “The museum must be free. Families cannot afford $24. They should be able to see what happened to their country.” Travel and parking tolls are exorbitant. Who can spend that kind of money? Braginsky asked: “Why do they need 64 people to run the museum? At what salary? How many people are working? What are they doing all day? Where is the money? Five people would be enough. The salaries are enormous. Why not have students intern at the museum?”

Then there is all this talk about 9/11 being a “day of service” instead of a day of grieving. That, too, was contemptuous of our pain and loss. Why not make the museum a “service” institution, and students from across the country can volunteer their time and energy to man it? Instead, the leftist executives running the museum pays themselves enormous salaries, remove any mention of the motive behind this attack on our country, and demand that September 11 be about “service.”

Valentina Lygina, whose son Alexander was at work on the 74th floor of the second tower on the 74th floor when he was murdered by Islamic jihadists on September 11, 2001, was just as outraged as Braginsky was. And Sally Regenhard, who lost her only son, firefighter Christian, said that the $24 charge was a disgrace, “designed to maintain bloated salaries for stuffed suits and fat cats at Ground Zero.”

Regenhard’s organization, 9/11 Parents & Families of Firefighters and WTC Victims, issued a statement saying that it “strongly disagrees with charging a large admission fee, and also disagrees with expecting federal, state and local governments to pay the tab with no fiscal restraints, while 9/11 Memorial Museum executives give themselves plush raises every year, along with large expense accounts.”

Regenhard said:

The current executives at the 9/11MM have outrageous six-figure salaries, some over $400 thousand dollars per year, They have also announced a $63 million dollar bloated annual budget. This is totally out of control! A mandatory $24 dollar admission fee will just serve the purpose of helping to pay these huge salaries and ensure that the ‘tale of two cities’ will continue, as the rich will visit the museum, but the poor and middle class families won’t be able to afford it. Unfortunately, there is no fiscal responsibility or accountability at this site.

In the park, you can walk around and see only one American flag. That’s as if the architects of the park are ashamed of being American. Then the museum: if you want to properly pay tribute to the victims, you have to visit the museum as well, for the remains of unidentified victims have all been located here. So to mourn for these innocents, you have to pay!

Read more at Breitbart

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of PamelaGeller.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the ResistanceFollow her on Twitter here.

Litigation Jihad: Hamas-CAIR Canada (NCCM) Sues Harper Government for Libel

By Pamela Geller:

Litigation jihad. The Hamas-tied group CAIR has filed a libel suit against the Harper government.

Before the Canadian Prime Minister’s official visit to Israel earlier this month, the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), the Canadian branch of the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), wrote to PM Steven Harper demanding that Rabbi Daniel Korobkin be removed from the PM’s delegation to Israel because the Rabbi attended and spoke briefly at my September talk in Canada.

Their letter charged that both Robert Spencer, who also spoke at that September event, and I “have a lengthy and clear record of promoting anti-Muslim sentiments and demonization.” Video of the event here and here.

Rabbi Korbkin and Pamela Geller at Canada event

Rabbi Korbkin and Pamela Geller at Canada event

In response, the great Prime Minister of Canada set the standard that leaders should follow, most notably Barack Hussein Obama, and ignore these sinister supremacist thugs. Jason MacDonald, Harper’s director of communications, blistered the NCCM: “We will not take seriously criticism from an organization with documented ties to a terrorist organization such as Hamas.”

Absurdly, CAIR-Canada filed a lawsuit today against the good Prime Minister’s government. Sharia enforcement. Of course, this publicity stunt will garner these thugs sympathy from the sniveling lapdog media, but I, for one, would love to see the full force of a leading Western government exposing the terror ties of terror-tied groups like CAIR. The United States government successfully prosecuted the previously well-regarded Islamic charity, the Holy Land Foundation, in the largest terrorist funding trial in our nation’s history. CAIR, ISNA, MSA, MSU and over 300 other Muslim groups were named, many designated unindicted co-conspirators. Those prosecutions were scuttled by the treacherous Obama administration under Attorney General Eric Holder.

We know that there is a “mountain of evidence.” Let’s hope that the Obama administration will share it will the Harper administration. Don’t hold your breath. But there are numerous sources.

Discovery in the case will bite these Islamic supremacists. You have to wonder what these jihad enablers are thinking. Does CAIR-Canada think that just because they changed their name last July to the National Council of Muslim that they are fooling anyone?

CAIR has done this before. And lost. The suit was dismissed. CAIR filed a $1.35 million libel suit filed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) against Andrew Whitehead of Anti-CAIR (ACAIR), who called CAIR a “terrorist front organization,” that was “founded by Hamas supporters,” and was working to “make radical Islam the dominant religion in the United States.” The case was dismissed with prejudice.

Given the current craven climate, my bet is that they think that the media will aid and abet their propaganda and advance their lies, this time in their jihad against the Harper government.

At a recent CAIR conference,  the CAIR/ISNA Spokeswoman said,  “Media in the US is very gullible…If you have something to say, especially as a Muslim, they’ll come running to you. Take advantage of that!”

CCTV: The National Council of Canadian Muslims is serving the Prime Minister’s Office with a libel notice, claiming that Stephen Harper’s communications director defamed the group in an interview earlier this month.

The NCCM is demanding “an unequivocal apology and retraction of the defamatory words” that Jason MacDonald, Harper’s communications director, used in an interview with Sun News Network on Jan. 16.

The notice quotes the offending statement as: “We will not take seriously criticism from an organization with documented ties to terrorist organization such as Hamas.”

The notice says MacDonald made the statement when asked about the NCCM’s objection to the inclusion of a particular rabbi on Harper’s official delegation to the Middle East.

The council had criticized the inclusion of Rabbi Daniel Korobkin because he introduced American activists Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, who founded the group Stop Islamization of America, at a Toronto event last fall.

In its libel notice, the NCCM says MacDonald’s words “were meant or were understood to mean that NCCM is, gives material support to, and/or is affiliated with a criminal terrorist organization. These words are defamatory per se.”

The document notes that the federal government has designated Hamas as a terrorist organization.

“The defamatory words were stated maliciously in order to discredit and insult an organization that did nothing other than exercise its constitutional right to freedom of expression to criticize a decision made by the Prime Minister,” the notice states.

The notice is a first step toward what could become a formal libel lawsuit, in which the council “will seek damages, interest and costs against you,” referring to Harper and MacDonald.

Stephen Lecce, a spokesperson for the prime minister, told CTV News Tuesday that because “this matter may be the subject of litigation, we have no further comment.”

In the notice, the council says it is an “independent, non-partisan, non-profit organization” that has spent 14 years working on human rights and civil liberties issues and public advocacy on behalf of Canadian Muslims.

The group says MacDonald’s comments “were stated to discredit the NCCM’s reputation and undermine its ability to do its work.”

Read more at PamelaGeller.com - including great backgrounder on CAIR

The Hypocrisy of Ibrahim Hooper and CAIR’s ‘Islamophobic List’

36459-193808-1By Robert Spencer:

Editor’s Note: This is Part VI of an ongoing series by Robert Spencer highlighting human rights hypocrisy and fraudulent peace activists. For Part I see “The Hypocrisy of the ‘Islamophobia’ Scam,” for Part II see “The Hypocrisy of the Fatwa Against Terrorism,”  for Part III see “The Hypocrisy of the Feminist Response to Islam’s Oppression of Women,” for Part IV see “The Hypocrisy of the Western Christian Response to Muslim Persecution of Christians,” and for Part V see last week’s “The Hypocrisy of the Leftist Response to Ariel Sharon’s Death.”

Ibrahim “Honest Ibe” Hooper of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) last week sent out a crafty and deceptive op-ed as a “service,” and of course our lazy, clueless and compromised mainstream media was happy to oblige him by publishing it. The op-ed, “Islamophobic ‘List’ Used to Justify Suspicion of Muslims,” seems to have been a response to Pamela Geller’s recent exhaustive summary at Breitbart of Islamic jihad and supremacist activity in America in 2013. In response, Hooper offered not honesty and reform, but disingenuousness and deception.

Hooper claimed that,

one of the bigoted themes often promoted by the growing cottage industry of Muslim-bashers is that the increasing level of Islamophobia online and in the public arena is merely a legitimate response to the violent actions of Muslims worldwide.

He thus reveals the dishonesty at the heart of the entire “Islamophobia” initiative: Islamic supremacists and leftists use the term to refer both to analyses of how Islamic jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism (e.g., what my colleagues and I do) and also to attacks on innocent Muslims (which neither I nor my colleague nor any decent person favors).

The objective is to make Americans think that any criticism of Islamic texts that jihadis use to incite violence worldwide threatens and endangers Muslims at home who don’t approve of that violence in the first place. Then by saying that “Muslim-bashers” claim that “Islamophobia” is a “legitimate response to the violent actions of Muslims worldwide,” Hooper is implying that those who decry violence and terror committed by Muslims in the name of Islam approve of violence against innocent, peaceful Muslims, as if to say, they had it coming.

Hooper cannily designs all this to obscure the real point: that people are suspicious of Islam because of jihad terror attacks — but not just because of them, but also because of the endless mau-mauing, intimidating, opposition to counter-terror efforts, claiming of victim status, faked hate crimes, smear campaigns against foes of jihad terror, and all the other things that make people suspicious of Hamas-linked CAIR and other Muslim organizations in the U.S.

No genuine attack on any innocent person, Muslim or otherwise, is ever justified. If Hamas-linked CAIR really wants to stop such attacks, it could do so by working sincerely to end the suspicions people have of Islam and Muslims — not with disingenuous “outreach” sessions designed to dispel “misconceptions” about Islam (i.e., spread more misconceptions about Islam, fool people into thinking it is a “Religion of Peace,” etc.), but by honestly working within Muslim communities and with law enforcement to root out jihadis and teach against the understanding of Islam that creates jihadis. Instead, Hamas-linked CAIR has opposed virtually every counter-terror measure that has ever been proposed, and one of its California chapters distributed a poster reading “Don’t talk to the FBI.”

You might wonder why Hamas-linked CAIR would do this if it wants to end “Islamophobia” (in the sense of suspicion of Islam) — surely Hooper, Awad and co. must know that those things increase such suspicion? Yes, I am sure they do — but in fact they want “Islamophobia” (both suspicion of Islam and attacks on peaceful Muslims) because they can use such attacks to claim victim status and the privileges that come with it, thus intimidating officials into thinking that surveillance of Islamic organizations is unjustified and endangers innocent people.

“These Islamophobes,” Hooper also asserted, “scour the Internet to highlight every act of violence or political instability that can be tied to Islam and Muslims.” At my website Jihad Watch, I chronicle Islamic jihad activity in the U.S. and around the world, and I never in ten years have had to “scour the Internet” to do so. On the contrary, there is so much jihad violence that rarely am I able to post all the news items I’d like to post; time and resources limit the ones I can get to. Whatever I have on Jihad Watch, there is always more jihad. But Hooper, of course, would prefer you didn’t know that.

Read more at PJ Media

THE EFFECTS OF MASS MUSLIM IMMIGRATION

UK-Muslim-Prayer-ReutersBy Pamela Geller:

It was reported Monday that “almost 10 per cent of children under five years old in England and Wales come from a Muslim family, according to 2011 UK Government census information.”

The report continued, “Of the 3.5 million children aged less than five, 320,000 were listed as Muslim. By comparison, Christians make up 43 per cent of those aged under five.”

What is the problem with that? The enemedia would tell you that anyone who thinks this is something to be concerned about is a racist. But this is not really a question of race at all; it’s a question of assimilation. Hindus, Buddhists, South Asians, Africans–all kinds of people have come to the U.K. and the U.S. and had little trouble adapting to their new country. But Muslims are the first group to come as immigrants to the West determined to replace Western government and social structures with Islamic ones. Millions of Muslims come to Western countries with a ready-made model of society and government (sharia) which they believe to be superior to what we have here, and they work to institute it.

What happens to a country when its imports a colonizer force or hostile invader? In Dr. Peter Hammond’s book, Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat, he explains that as Muslim populations grow, so do demands for special accommodation to Sharia. When Muslims number less than two percent of the population, as they do in the U.S. now, they’re generally peaceful and tolerant. As the Muslim population grows, however, so do the demands (as we’re seeing now): for halal meat, Sharia courts, and more.

As the Muslim population grows, so does violent intimidation and lawlessness–an example being the Sharia-ruled areas all over Europe, where the governing authorities have essentially lost control. After Muslim populations reach 20%, we see rioting, jihad militias, church burnings, and worse–and once it reaches 40%, there are massacres and frequent jihad terror attacks, as we have seen in recent years in Bosnia, Chad, and Lebanon.

Read more at Breitbart

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of Atlas Shrugs and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the ResistanceFollow her on Twitter here.

Pamela Geller On The Islamization of America in 2013

islam-america-afpBy Pamela Geller:

Since I wrote my book Stop the Islamization of America and established the Stop Islamization of America initiative of my organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), we have seen increasing accommodation and submission to Islam in the United States. This past year was a particularly good year for Islamic supremacists, who are working furiously in this country to impose Sharia (Islamic law) — and in particular, the blasphemy laws under the Sharia.

The Islamic supremacist approach is stealthier here in the States than it is in Europe, where we see no-go zones, mass car burnings, etc., because Europe currently has a much bigger Muslim population than the U.S. does. More on Muslim immigration here.

That kind of aggression is in our future, for nothing is being done to prevent its coming here. The few of us who dare to speak against Sharia and jihad are blacklisted from the mainstream media’s major newspaper and broadcast outlets. Trimmers (those who soften the message about Islam or speak of “Islamism,” an artificial word making a distinction without a difference) and Islamic apologists are dusted off and trotted out to make some inane comment whenever the mainstream media cannot avoid covering a jihad news story (such as the Boston Marathon jihad bombing). But the effective true voices against Islamization, such as myself, Robert Spencer, Wafa Sultan, and Ibn Warraq are rarely seen these days.

It’s never been as bad as it is now, and we have never been proven so right as we were in 2013. In the U.S., in a survey released at the end of 2012, almost half of the Muslims in America said that they thought parodies of Muhammad should be subject to criminal prosecution. One in eight thought that insulting Islam should be a death penalty offense. Forty percent said that they shouldn’t have to obey U.S. laws, but should be subject only to Islamic law.

These findings should have come as no surprise; they weren’t much different from those of a May 2013 survey of Muslims worldwide. The survey showed that the harshest Sharia punishments enjoy broad support among Muslims the world over: “72% of Indonesian Muslims, 84% of Pakistani Muslims, 82% of Bengladeshi Muslims, 74% of Egyptian Muslims, and 71% of Nigerian Muslims supported making Sharia the official state law of their respective societies.” 85% of Muslims in Pakistan, 81% in Afghanistan, and 70% in Egypt supported the most brutal aspects of Sharia, such as amputating the hands of thieves. 86% of Muslims in Pakistan, 84% in Afghanistan, and 80% in Egypt supported stoning for adultery. 75% in Pakistan, 79% in Afghanistan, and 88% in Egypt favored executing those who leave Islam. “91% of Iraqi Muslims and 99% of Afghan Muslims supported making Sharia the official state law of their respective societies.”

And in America, wherever Islamic law and American law conflict, it is increasingly American law that gives way.

Read more at Breitbart

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of AtlasShrugs.com [new website at pamelageller.com] and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the ResistanceFollow her on Twitter here.

 

Where’s outrage against this type of gay oppression?

download (46)WND, By Pamela Geller:

All this ballyhoo and hullabaloo about the “Duck Commander” and his biblical reference – why?

The blowback and national firestorm raging in the wake of the remarks by the patriarch of “Duck Dynasty” is a stunning indictment of left-wing hypocrisy. The visceral response and resultant leftist temper tantrum gives us a revealing look behind the left’s mask of intolerant tolerance and the true objective of its “pro-gay” agenda.

People are free to think what they want. It’s when you torture, beat, hang or burn gay people alive – that’s the line in the sand, that’s real “homophobia.” Where’s the A&E special on the Muslim oppression of gays under the Shariah? Where is the outrage about that oppression from CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, etc.? Where is the worldwide outrage of the vicious anti-gay Shariah?

Tell A&E to apologize to Duck Commander. Sign the petition here and WND will deliver it to A&E!

Just as the Matthew Shepard case had nothing to do with homophobia, the controversy over plucky duck patriarch Phil Robertson has nothing to do with gay rights. Had a left-wing comic or actor made such remarks (and they have), it would have been water off a duck’s back. But the ducky patriarch cited the Bible, and that thar’s fighting words.

These vicious attacks using false narratives are very effective. Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered in Wyoming. His killing became the icon of gay hate and the impetus behind the anti-constitutional “hate-crime” legislation. The fallacious tale of Mathew Shepard resulted in the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, which, according to the Justice Department, “provides funding and technical assistance to state, local, and tribal jurisdictions to help them to more effectively investigate and prosecute hate crimes.”

Pamela Geller’s commitment to freedom from jihad and Shariah shines forth in her books — featured at the WND Superstore

All crime is hate – criminalizing the thought behind it was a fatal line to cross. Hate-speech laws would inevitably follow hate-crime legislation. The fact is, Matthew Shepard was murdered by his gay lover in a meth deal gone bad. Shepard’s sexual preference “certainly wasn’t the motive in the homicide,” investigative journalist Stephen Jimenez quotes police investigator Ben Fritzen in his blockbuster book, “The Book of Matt.” “What it came down to really is drugs and money,” said Jimenez, who is also gay.

Passing thought crime laws based on a lie is instrumental to the left’s totalitarian war on freedom of conscience and freedom of speech, and consistent with the laws of the Shariah.

The feathers were flying in the wake of the “Duck Dynasty” patriarch’s obvious embrace of Christianity and the show’s popularity. “Duck Dynasty” is the highest rated show on cable. This flew in the face of the left’s successful war on Christianity. They see this as an all-out assault – hence the vicious blowback against Phil Robertson after his remarks.

This is an attack on Christianity, not on “homophobia.”

If the left really cared about “homophobia,” there would be leftist marches in the streets against the brutal oppression of gays under the Shariah. There would be outcries and condemnation of the torture, hanging and murder of gays in Muslim societies. Muslim anti-gay crime would be vigorously prosecuted in the United States, but that is hardly the case. Just the opposite, in fact. In 2010, Muslim gangs were targeting gays in San Francisco and shooting them in the face with BB guns, while filming the attacks. The response from law enforcement in the gay mecca of America was to cover it up.

Where was the pushback? Where was the outcry from the LGBT community about the Shariah mobs and the subsequent cover-up by the media and law enforcement? What if a non-Muslim had shot a Muslim in the face with a BB gun just because he was Muslim? Do you think that the story would have sunk as quickly as this Muslim targeting of gays in San Francisco did? We would still be hearing about it from Eric Holder and Obama more than three years later.

Just last week, a Muslim cleric in India issued a fatwa against gays, saying that “a person may be burnt alive, pushed from a high wall or be beaten publicly with stones if he indulges” in homosexual activity.

Also last week, Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) was named to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Yet Yusuf Islam has said that material that’s favorable to homosexuality in school curricula is designed by people who want to “feast off the innocence of our children for their own abominable sexual appetites.” That’s far stronger than what Phil Robertson said – yet A&E drops him from the show while Yusuf goes into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Gay organizations in America have said nothing about Yusuf Islam, but they loudly condemned my ad campaign highlighting Muslim oppression of gays under the Shariah. The visceral response of the San Francisco City Council, the Human Rights CommissionSFHRC head Theresa Sparks and the enemedia to our “Gays under the Shariah” ad campaign was obscene proof of leftist hypocrisy. They called my ads hate when I merely quoted Muslim political leaders, spiritual leaders and cultural voices in the Muslim community who incited hatred and violence in their vicious anti-gay diatribes, and called for their torture and their execution.

That’s hypocrisy – as is their persecution of Phil Robertson.

Spencer and Geller Banned from Britain for Supporting Israel

ty1

The Conservative government of David Cameron has failed the British people as thoroughly and resoundingly as the Republican Party has failed the American people. Both could have and should have constituted themselves as a loyal opposition, departing from the Leftist line. Instead, they have parroted it in innumerable ways, and disenfranchised millions of their constituents by offering no alternative to the dominant paradigm.

by :

New revelations about why I was banned from entering Great Britain reveal how deeply compromised the British government is to hard-Leftists and Islamic supremacists – including the most virulent haters of Israel.

As faithful FrontPage readers may recall, last June I was banned from Britain because, as a letter from the U.K. Home Office told me, “your presence here is not conducive to the public good.” Why not? Because I said (quite factually) that Islam “is a religion and is a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose for establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with Western society.” And also because, the letter said, “you are the founder of the blog Jihad Watch (a site widely criticized for being Islamophobic),” and “you co-founded the Freedom Defense Initiative and Stop Islamization of America, both of which have been described as anti-Muslim hate groups.”

Note the passive voice: the Freedom Defense Initiative (actually the American Freedom Defense Initiative, AFDI) and Stop Islamization of America “have been described as anti-Muslim hate groups” by whom? The letter didn’t say. And Jihad Watch has been “widely criticized for being Islamophobic” by whom? The letter gives no hint, instead attempting to establish these charges as the judicious assessment of neutral observers.

Now, however, newly released documents relating to our case, as Pamela Geller discussed in a recent Daily Caller article, reveal that the Home Office’s decision was guided by far-Left agitation groups with a deep animus against Israel.

Of course, this was already obvious from the Home Office’s repetition of the charge that Jihad Watch is “Islamophobic” in its letter to me. “Islamophobia” is a manipulative and propagandistic neologism designed to intimidate non-Muslims into thinking that there is something “bigoted” and “racist” about resisting jihad terror and opposing Sharia oppression of women, non-Muslims, gays and others. The only people who use it at all are Islamic supremacists who want to clear away all obstacles to the advance of jihad, their Leftist allies, and those whom they have bamboozled into thinking it is a legitimate term of discourse – such as the British Home Office.

So it was obvious already who was whispering into the Home Office’s ear, but now it is confirmed. As Pamela Geller noted, in the newly revealed documents “all reference to the identities of those who asked that we be banned have been blacked out.” However, “their black marker missed one reference, revealing that one of the groups complaining about us was Faith Matters. Faith Matters was founded by a Muslim named Fiyaz Mughal, who also heads up Tell Mama, a group dedicated to tracking ‘Islamophobia.’ Tell Mama lost government funding in June after making false claims of waves of attacks ‘Islamophobic incidents.’”

So around the same time that Tell Mama was being stripped of its government funding for lying about the prevalence of “anti-Muslim hate crimes,” that same government was accepting its advice and counsel in favor of banning Pamela Geller and me from the country. Was the Home Office unaware that Tell Mama was wildly exaggerating “Islamophobia” in Britain, and was thus an untrustworthy source for any information related to it, or did it simply not care?

Read more at Front Page

The Unbearable Lightness of Baroness Sayeeda Warsi

copyright-parsons-media-15th-febJuicy Ecumenism, By  (@AEHarrod)

“You are a sushi,” Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, the United Kingdom’s Minister for Faith and Communities, recounted friends describing her mixed Sunni-Shia Pakistani-Muslim ancestry during a November 15, 2013, Washington, DC, address.  Warsi’s delectable presentation of her Muslim heritage, however, was part of a junk food understanding of different belief systems having no irreconcilable differences hindering harmony, all past and present evidence notwithstanding.

“Conflict has taken many forms” throughout history, Warsi began her remarks at Georgetown University’s Alumni House.  Today, though, a “dangerous and rising phenomenon” of “religion turning on religion…is forming the fault lines.”  Among the “people…singled out and hounded out simply for…faith” globally were “Baha’is, Shias, Sunnis, and Alawites, Hindus, Sikhs, atheists—I could go on.”

Warsi, though, placed a “focus on a religion which is suffering particularly in the wake of changes to the Middle East.”  Christian “minority populations have co-existed with the [Muslim] majority for generations,” she claimed, but now they are “increasingly treated as outsiders.”  Religious oppressors “range from states to militant groups, and even to a person’s own family.”  The “countless causes” include “[t]urf wars, social unrest and corruption…[p]olitical transition, authoritarianism and terrorism.”  Thereby “faith is used as a proxy for other divisions.”  Somewhat contradicting her modern focus, Warsi noted that, “of course, this isn’t to say the persecution of religious minorities is new” but “is woven into the history of most of our faiths.”

In the United Kingdom, Warsi presented a counterexample of coexistence between vibrant faiths.  She “grew up practicing a minority religion, Islam, in a majority-Christian country” with a sense, to cite Hillary Clinton, that “one’s faith is unshakeable” irrespective of hostility.  Enrollment of her daughter, meanwhile, in a “Christian convent school didn’t make her less of a Muslim.”  Here she “adapted the Lord’s prayer and made it her own by ending it ameen, instead of amen.”  Warsi thus expressed opposition to a “worrying phenomenon” of “societies being told they needed to dilute their faith in order to accommodate others.”  In fact, Warsi had “called on Europe to become stronger and more confident in its Christianity” during a February 14, 2012, Vatican visit.

Internationally as well, Warsi called “freedom of religion and belief a key priority for the British government.”  Here Warsi called the Saudi Arabia-headquartered Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a grouping of 57-Muslim-majority states (including “Palestine”) with some of the world’s worst religious freedom abusers, a “key partner in our quest to promote religious freedom.”  The OIC-supported United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Resolution 16/18 also “lays the foundations for combating discrimination against people based on their religion.”

Lurking at home for Warsi, though, is the danger of “Islamophobia,” something that “had passed the dinner table test…it could be found in the most civilized of settings.”  Warsi likewise condemned in the United States “individuals like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer denying the place of Muslims in society.”  Such “so-called patriots ignore the founding tenets of their nation, of freedom and equality.”

Warsi demanded to “expose those who seek to twist history, who are neither true to the roots of their faiths or the founding principles of their nations” such as Spencer and Geller. Warsi therefore reiterated President Barack Obama’s twisted politically correct history that “America’s founding father, Thomas Jefferson, over 200 years ago hosted an iftar at the White House and had a Quran on his bookshelf.”  Unmentioned by Obama or Warsi,President Jefferson merely shifted the usual afternoon dinner hour on December 9, 1805, to after sunset in order to accommodate a fasting Tunisian envoy, Sidi Soliman Mellimelli. Mellimelli was negotiating restitution for Tunisian vessels seized by the USS Constitution while running a blockade to the Barbary Pirates of Tripoli.  Their depredations against American merchantmen had caused Jefferson to acquire a Quran in order to better understand his Muslim enemies.

“Spain’s Islamic Golden Age was a period of harmony and progress,” Warsi similarly superficially asserted, invoking an oft-critiqued cliché in order to demonstrate that “history shows that it is possible for these religions to live together.”  “The fundamental tenets of the major faiths…are not intrinsically on some collision course.”  Reiterating a quotation in her Vatican address from Islam’s fourth caliph, Ali ibn Abu Talib, Warsi drew inspiration from “the teachings of Islam, which tell us your fellow man is your brother—either your brother in faith, or your brother in humanity.”

Yet all of Warsi’s examples of religious repression involve various Muslim oppressors, with the exception of Burma’s Muslim Rohingha population and “attacks against Christians” in “in some parts of India.”  The mass exodus of Jews from Arab countries following Israel’s establishment in 1948 also belies Warsi’s assertion of past coexistence between religious minorities and Muslim majorities.  Hardly any objective observer would share Warsi’s view that the “Arab Spring” manifested no Muslim “sectarian tension” but merely a “mutual desire for democracy, freedom, and equality.”  Warsi’s controversial claim of a “moderate Syrian opposition” with a “strong commitments to protecting minorities” has additionally failed to win public support around the world for intervention in Syria’s civil war.

Seemingly some examination of aggressive and authoritarian teachings of Islam such as sharia and militant jihad would be in order.  Appropriate as well would be explanation by Warsi concerning how her Shiite and Sunni relatives avoided conflict while these two branches of Islam have battled each other up to the present day.  Warsi would not lack for material on these issues; whole books have appeared on dhimmitude, for example, such as Mark Durie’s The Third Choice:  Islam, Dhimmitude, and Freedom and Bat Ye’or’s Islam and Dhimmitude:  Where Civilizations Collide.  Yet Warsi apparently denies any actual Islamic motive in the numerous international security issues that have vexed the world since Al Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks.  Islam merely serves as a “proxy” in the persecution of Christians in places like Nigeria, Pakistan, the Middle East, Muslim terrorist attacks, or the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Warsi’s behavior following her return to the United Kingdom suggests that her superficiality has not improved.  Her fellow peer, Lord Pearson, expressed on November 19 in the House of Lords his “fear that the dark side is moving strongly within Islam” and considered “part of Islam’s problem” that the Quran “commands the faithful to kill the unbelievers.”  Warsi responded with a West Wing segment criticizing various archaic Old Testament passages to argue that “[t]hese texts from the Old Testament could so easily be manipulated to cause mischief and indeed have been manipulated in the past.”

As Warsi’s bête noir Spencer noted at his website Jihadwatch, Warsi’s “argument is “extremely common and extremely disingenuous.”  While there are “armed jihad groups justifying violence by referring to the Qur’an and Sunnah all over the world,” both Judaism and Christianity distinguish between various forms of law in the Old Testament.  Judaism sees the religious laws of the Old Testament, in contrast to moral laws, as applicable only to Jews and has interpretations defining various brutal practices in the Old Testament as no longer applicable (see here and here).  Christianity, meanwhile, sees Old Testament religious law’s completion in Jesus Christ’s life (see here and here).

Warsi’s approval of UNHRC Resolution 16/18 indicates that she is not terribly interested in rebuttal.  The resolution references “derogatory stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of persons based on their religion” and “denigration.”  Hidden behind such words is the OIC’s long term goal of criminalizing Islamic blasphemy, something even more evident in earlier OIC resolution drafts abandoned in the face of Western resistance.

Speaking on February 7 to the 2013 OIC summit in Cairo, Warsi evinced no opposition to this agenda.  Using the OIC’s favored propagandistic terminology, Warsi argued that the “OIC has for many years been concerned about the scourge of Islamophobia, or anti-Muslim hatred, and other hate speech.”  Warsi noted that “incitement to religious hatred remains an offence in Britain” under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act, such that speech like Quran burning is illegal.  Opposition to “Islamophobia” has similarly barred Geller and Spencer from entering the United Kingdom.

A Muslim version of Obama, Warsi believes that belief systems like religions are equivalent to ice cream flavors, tasting different but having the same basic ingredients.  Yet Islam’s core canonical teachings do indeed claim in various ways the propriety of using force in the name of faith.  Like the communist regimes discussed by Warsi, orthodox Muslims want “to remove all ideological opposition.”  Warsi’s assertion following her address that religious fanaticism comes from “not too much religion, but from too little” is thus hardly accurate.  Warsi’s support of “Gay rights,” meanwhile, risks infringing a religious “freedom to manifest…beliefs” as shown in the United States and the United Kingdom.

Bold Christian witness simply does not always bring forth a benign response from ideological competitors like Muslims and homosexuals.  Warsi apparently has forgotten what Christian confidence entailed in the Roman Empire.  Christians and others seeking to advocate conflicting ideas peacefully should remember this, Warsi’s well-meant but shallow appeals for interfaith harmony notwithstanding.

American Freedom Defense Initiative’s Platform for Defending Freedom

6a00d8341c60bf53ef01901b884bfa970b-150wi (1)American Freedom Defense Initiative Announces Platform for Defending Freedom In Wake of Boston Jihad Reuters

NEW YORK, April 24, 2013 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ — The human rights organization American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) has unveiled an 18-point platform for preserving and defending free societies. The Platform for Defending Freedom is the fruit of the International Freedom Defense Congress of the international group Stop Islamization of Nations (SION), which was held in New York City at the UN Millennium Plaza Hotel on September 11, 2012, and is rendered urgent in the wake of the Boston Marathon jihad bombings.

AFDI Executive Director Pamela Geller said in a statement: “After deliberation and consultation with our international SION President’s Council and our colleagues, we have developed these eighteen points to help freedom fighters focus on solution to the threat at hand. At the International Freedom Defense Congress, which was held across the street from the United Nations in New York City, representatives of European nations, as well as India, Israel, Malaysia, and Egypt’s Coptic community were present. World-renowned authorities in legal strategy and political action addressed the attendees.”

Geller continued: “Now we have formulated this Platform for Defending Freedom as a tool for counter-jihad activists and a set of principles to unite the counter-jihad movement in the wake of the Boston jihad bombings. We need to press our politicians and parties to accept these goals and pursue political action to make them reality, and we will rate politicians on the basis of these points. We plan now to form an international group of politicians and activists committed to these principles in countries across the globe.”

AFDI calls for the U.S. and other non-Muslim governments to recognize officially that Islam is a political movement and so not solely religious in the strict sense of the U.S. Constitution. AFDI recognizes that Islam in it mainstream theological formulations and its dominant form throughout its history, not “extremist Islam” or “hijacked Islam” or “Islamism,” but Islam in the Qur’an and Sunnah as understood by Islamic jurists and theologians, can and should be regarded as an authoritarian and supremacist political system as well as a religion, and thus that Muslim groups should be subject to all the scrutiny and legal requirements of political organizations, without being able to shield their political activities behind the protection of religious freedom.

– AFDI denounces the crippling rules of engagement under which our soldiers are forced to labor. They should be given the freedom to defend themselves and protect their comrades.

6a00d8341c60bf53ef01901b8b4126970b-300wi– AFDI calls for profiling of Muslims at airports and in hiring in professions in which national security and public safety could be compromised.

– AFDI calls for immediate investigation into foreign mosque funding in the West and for new legislation making foreign funding of mosques in non-Muslim nations illegal.

– AFDI calls for surveillance of mosques and regular inspections of mosques in the U.S. and other non-Muslim nations to look for pro-violence materials. Any mosque advocating jihad or any aspects of Sharia that conflict with Constitutional freedoms and protections should be closed.

– AFDI calls for curriculum and Islam-related materials in textbooks and museums to describe the Islamic doctrine and history accurately, including its violent doctrines and 1,400-year war against unbelievers.

– AFDI calls for a halt of foreign aid to Islamic nations with Sharia-based constitutions and/or governments.

– AFDI denounces the use of Sharia law in any Western court or nation.

– AFDI advocates deportation hearings against non-citizens who promote jihad in our nations.

– AFDI calls for an immediate halt of immigration by Muslims into nations that do not currently have a Muslim majority population.

– AFDI calls for laws providing that anyone seeking citizenship in the United States should be asked if he or she supports Sharia law, and investigated for ties to pro-Sharia groups. If so, citizenship should not be granted.

– AFDI calls for the cancellation of citizenship or permanent residency status for anyone who leaves the country of his residence to travel for the purpose of engaging in jihad activity, and for the refusal of reentry into his country of residence after that jihad activity.

– AFDI calls careful investigation of Muslims resident in non-Muslim country who have obtained naturalized citizenship or permanent residency status, to ensure that that status was not obtained under false pretenses.

– AFDI calls for the designation of the following as grounds for immediate deportation: fomenting, plotting, financing, attempting or carrying out jihad attacks; encouraging or threatening or attempting to carry out the punishments Islamic law mandates for apostasy, adultery, blasphemy, fornication or theft; threatening or attempting or carrying out honor murders, forced marriage, underage marriage, female genital mutilation, or polygamy.

– AFDI calls for the U.S. and other free nations to have jihad, as it is traditionally understood in Islamic jurisprudence to involve warfare against and subjugation of non-Muslims, declared a crime against humanity at the U.N., or to withdraw from the U.N. and have its headquarters moved to a Muslim nation.

– AFDI calls for legislating making illegal the foreign funding of Islamic Studies departments and faculty positions in our universities.

– AFDI demands the repeal of U.N. resolution 16/18 and any other resolutions that might limit the freedom of speech.

– AFDI calls for all Muslim chaplains in prisons and the military to be thoroughly vetted, and dismissed if they have ties to any Islamic supremacist group, or if they advocate jihad.

– AFDI calls for the development of energy policies that will free us from dependence upon oil from Muslim countries.

Through SION, AFDI establishes a common American/European coalition of free people determined to stand for freedom and oppose the advance of Islamic law, Sharia. Islamic law is not simply a religious system, but a political system that encompasses every aspect of life; is authoritarian, discriminatory, and repressive; and contradicts Western laws and principles in numerous particulars. SION respects Muslims as fellow human beings and rejects Islamization as a comprehensive political, religious, cultural and social system of behavior and ideology.

AFDI and SION stand 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 SION Facebook group here

 

 

Is this the proper American Muslim response to jihad in America?

imagescapqspav (1)

By Pamela Geller:

AFDI has issued an 18-point platform for defeating jihad in America.  If Muslim groups in the U.S. were genuinely “moderate,” they’d endorse every point.  Instead, they smear us as “Islamophobes.”  It’s telling.

On Friday, October 11, a Muslim convert who calls himself Hasan Abu Omar Ghannoum was taken off a terror-bound bus in California and arrested for aiding and abetting the jihadi group al-Qaeda.  Another Muslim busted for jihad in America.

This is hardly new or unique.  We see these reports daily.  Muslims and converts to Islam wage jihad in the cause of Islam.  They cite the Quran, chapter and verse.  Muslims worldwide continue the 1,400-year-old war to impose Islam across the world — all citing the same Islamic texts and teachings.

There is a problem in Islam.

So what is the response of the Muslim community?

On the same day that Hassan Abu Omar Ghannoum was arrested, the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California issued a statement: “We share the collective concern for the safety of our communities and security of our nation.”  However, it went on to say: “We ask that law enforcement officials and members of the media refrain from assuming that the alleged criminal’s wrongful conduct, if any, was a product of his self-proclaimed faith or associations with members of the southern California Muslim community.”

Obfuscation, cover-up, and deceit.  The bottom line is that they know exactly what Ghannoum is doing and why.  Ghannoum’s brother said that after converting to Islam, Ghannoum had gone to Lebanon to learn more about the religion: “He wanted to view more of the religious things. Firsthand experience.”  His sister said that he went to Syria to study the Quran.  While there, he began posting on Facebook about how he was fighting alongside the jihad forces there, bragging about his “first confirmed kill” and writing: “So pumped to get more!!”

The Islamic Shura Council of Southern California never mentioned the possibility that Ghannoum’s study of the Quran inspired him to wage jihad.  They just warned everyone else not to consider that possibility.  Did the Shura Council call for the expunging in the Quran of the violent texts that call for jihad?  No.

We never see that from Muslim groups.  What we do see is this Islamic pattern of stealth jihad.  Muslim Brotherhood groups issue pro-forma, fill-in-the-blank condemnations after jihadi attacks or arrests (e.g., the Boston bombing), but they never address the Islamic texts that inspire jihad — nor do they attempt to organize programs that intervene in the recruitment of young Muslims or Muslim converts to jihad.  What are the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, CAIR, ICNA, ISNA, et al. doing to stop the mosques preaching and teaching jihad?  Nothing.  Instead, these Muslim groups urge Muslims not to talk to law enforcement (as with the notorious CAIR poster telling Muslims not to talk to the FBI), and they seek to dismantle counter-terror programs in the USA.

Read more at American Thinker

Glenn Beck Takes on Grover Norquist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Grover Norquist’s Ongoing Influence Operation:

 

Much more here: