NYPD’S Surveillance Program: It’s Not About Islam, It’s About Protecting New york

new-york-police-officers-afp


 Breitbart, by Dr.Sebastian Gorka:

National security should serve policy objectives. It should not be a victim of political correctness. Politics should be kept especially far away from the practice of intelligence.

Today’s decision by the NYPD to close the unit that was mapping Muslim communities in New York is very likely a product of political pressure. It is a decision that will make the city targeted in the largest terrorist attack in modern history less safe.

I have gone on record in the past—on Al Jazeera, of all places—to explain why the program was a good idea and crucial to preventing terrorist plots in the future.

In short: this was not a program to blanket surveil ​all Muslims living in and around New York. That would be pointless and impossible even for the NYPD. The fact is terrorists live in and exploit the communities Muslims have built. From Richard Reid the Shoebomber to Anwar al-Awlaki, the American al Qaeda leader in Yemen, terrorists have been recruited and have used mosques and Islamic centers around the world to organize and plan. A cop knows his community and who fits in and who doesn’t. That’s how you prevent all types of crime, not just mass-murdering terrorists.

After 9/11, the political leadership in New York determined that the federal government had failed the people of their city and decided not to rely on Washington to prevent the next attack. Fourteen of the 19 plots hatched by al Qaeda since 9/11 have targeted New York, so this was a very wise decision.

Subsequently, they built a world-class counterterrorism intelligence capability, deployed NYPD “attaches” to key CT-relevant cities around the world, and published the best operational analysis of jihadi radicalization available today.

This decision is likely the product of the successful campaign launched by CAIR and its allies to delink Islam and al Qaeda and otherwise undermine other counterterrorism efforts across America. See Patrick Poole’s excellent report on their assault on national security here. They are doing this despite the fact that CAIR and its compatriots have been designated in federal court as unindicted co-conspirators in the largest terrorist financing trial in history, the Holy Land Foundation Trial. See the original documents here.

NYPD is target No.1 for al Qaeda. On the anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombing, someone decided to make it easier for jihadi terrorist to attack it.

Sebastian Gorka, Ph.D. is the National Security Editor for Breitbart News.

Brandeis, Female Mutilation and the Falsehoods of a Faculty Petition

But this woman is a black, feminist atheist from Somalia. And so what we’re learning here, which is fascinating, in the hierarchy of progressive-politics identity-group victimhood, Islam trumps everything. Islam trumps gender. The fact that she’s a woman doesn’t matter. It trumps race. The fact that she’s black doesn’t matter. It trumps secularism. The fact that she’s an atheist doesn’t matter. They wouldn’t do this if it was a Christian group complaining about her, if it was a Jewish group complaining about her. But when the Islamic lobby group says oh, no, we’re not putting up with this, as I said, these jelly-spined nothings at Brandeis just roll over for them. – Mark Steyn


fgm (2)By 
Jamie Glazov:

Last Tuesday, on April 8, Brandeis University rescinded its invitation to human rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali to receive an honorary degree from the institution. Brandeis caved in the face of intimidation from CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood front groups, as well as a student petition on Change.org and a faculty petition – the contents of which have now become known.

The faculty petition is a textbook case of leftist pathology and of how “progressives” demonize true heroic freedom fighters and push millions of victims of totalitarian regimes and ideologies into invisibility for the sake of their own egotistical and destructive agendas.

A case in point in this ugly leftist narrative is how the signatories of the Brandeis petition have succeeded in banning a woman from their university who is the victim of female genital mutilation (FGM), suffered under an Islamic knife because of Islamic doctrine. She represents millions of Muslim females — mutilated and mutilated-to-be. And yet the signatories of the petition are callously indifferent, because they have their progressive program to attend to and fulfill.

The Brandeis faculty petition, written on April 6 and addressed to President Lawrence, stresses “the horrible message” that inviting Ali to the university “sends to the Muslim and non-Muslim communities at Brandeis and beyond” because of Ali’s “virulently anti-Muslim public statements.” Aside from complaining about Ali’s truth-telling about Islam, the petition also issues a dire warning about the “unnecessary controversy” that the human rights activist’s presence would bring to the campus.

To be sure, who needs nightmarish scenarios like debate and intellectual diversity when the Marxist Left has already lovingly bestowed the peaceful the Party Line?

The petition then references the major issues with which Ali is concerned: female genital mutilation, forced marriages, and honor killings. “These phenomena,” the petition flippantly notes, are not “exclusive to Islam.” This is a standard and perpetual tactic of obfuscation and equivocation employed by the Left whenever a monstrous evil is labelled in a totalitarian enemy. It serves as an excuse for inaction by presupposing that if a crime is committed by someone else, somewhere else, that it somehow justifies doing and saying nothing in the face of a crime being perpetrated on a mass scale right before our eyes – and one that we can do something about.

In other words, the logic implies that if a sin or an injustice exist somewhere else on the planet, that one must never fight for — or defend the victims of — any one ideology or system (unless it is of the western variety, of course).

Thus, if one dares to show concern for the millions of Muslim girls who are victims of female genital mutilation, the leftist will reflexively retort: “Muslims are not the only group that practice FGM.”

But so what? The bottom line is that Muslims are the principle religious group that practices this sexual violence against women. And if a young girl is a victim of FGM, the chances are that she lives in a Muslim household and in a Muslim culture. And this barbarity is kept alive and legitimized by Islamic theology.

The faculty petition to President Lawrence also expresses a deep concern about the fact that Ali has suggested “that violence toward girls and women is particular to Islam or the Two-Thirds World.” This is intolerable (even though completely true) because, according to the petition, it obscures “such violence in our midst among non-Muslims, including on our own campus.”

This is another consistent tactic that the Left engages in to insert its falsehoods into dialogues about oppressed people under monstrous tyrannies. The plain fact staring everyone in the face is that while violence may exist among non-Muslims, their laws and institutions delegitimize and illegalize such conduct. For instance, if a non-Muslim anywhere in the United States, including on a university campus, engages in violence against a woman and the police are called, he will be charged. In Islam, violence against women is inspired and sanctioned by the institutions themselves, precisely because misogyny, including wife beating, is embedded in the Qur’an.

In other words, non-Muslims who are violent toward women operate despite and against the laws of their lands; Muslims, on the other hand, are violent toward women because of their laws, and that is why they are, in turn, protected by those laws.

Thus, in terms of female genital mutilation, millions of Muslim girls are victims of this horrifying crime which is rooted in Islam and is integral to Islam’s misogynist structures. The road to saving millions of Muslim girls from this crime is to do what Ayaan Hirsi Ali is bravely doing, and what the signatories of the Brandeis faculty petition are trying to stop her from doing: to isolate and pinpoint Islam as the main culprit in this context.

The point cannot be stressed enough: female genital mutilation is fundamentally Islamic and it is rooted in Islamic texts such as Umdat al-Salik:

“Circumcision is obligatory (O: for both men and women. For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. Bazr) of the clitoris.” Sacred Islamic Reliance: page 59, Umdat al-Salik  (“Reliance of the Traveler”), a manual of the Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence, endorsed by Egypt’s very own Al-Azhar University of Cairo — the oldest and most prestigious university in the Islamic world.

This explains why one of Sunni Islam’s “Four Great Imams,” Ahmad ibn Hanbal, quotes Muhammed as saying: “Circumcision is a law for men and a preservation of honour for women?” It is no shock, therefore, that Sheikh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi of Egypt’s Al-Azhar University has called circumcision “a laudable practice that did honor to women.”

Read more at Front Page (with video)

From ACT! For America:

According to the World Health Organization, more than 125 million girls and women alive today have been subjected to Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).

The African Women’s Health Center of the Brigham and Women’s Hospital, report that approximately 228,000 women and girls in the U.S. have either suffered the procedure or are at risk of having it done to them. Many of these young girls are subjected to FGM when they vacation in a country that sanctions the practice. In other cases, circumcisers are brought into the U.S. – even though FGM is illegal in this country.

ACT! for America has been working diligently at the state level to see legislation passed so that no girl ever suffers the horrors of FGM – either on U.S. soil or elsewhere.

Also see:

One Year Anniversary of Boston Bombing: A Lesson in FBI Failure

la-afp-getty-us-attacks-russia-chechnya-jpg-20130427-450x337by :

With the first anniversary of the Boston Marathon jihad bombings approaching, the New York Times made yet another attempt to exonerate the Obama Administration of responsibility for one of its manifest failures, claiming that an inspector general’s report on the bombings was an “exoneration of the F.B.I.,” as it showed that “the Russian government declined to provide the F.B.I. with information about one of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects that would most likely have led to more extensive scrutiny of him at least two years before the attack.”

See? The bombing was all the fault of that scoundrel Putin. It had nothing to do with the FBI, because of fecklessness and political correctness, failing to act properly on information the Russians gave them.

Full disclosure: I used to give FBI agents and other law enforcement and military personnel training on the teachings of Islam about jihad warfare against and subjugation of non-Muslims, so that they would understand the motives and goals of those who have vowed to destroy the United States as a free society, and be better equipped to counter them. I provided this training free of charge, out of a sense of patriotic duty, and it was well received: I received certificates of appreciation from the United States Central Command and the Army’s Asymmetric Warfare Group.

But as I explain in detail in my book Arab Winter Comes to America, all that ended on October 19, 2011, when Islamic supremacist advocacy groups, many with ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, demanded that FBI counter-terror trainers (including me) and training materials that referred to Islam and jihad in connection with terrorism be discarded, and agents educated by them be retrained. John Brennan, then the U.S. Homeland Security Advisor and now the director of the CIA, readily agreed in a response that was written on White House stationery – thereby emphasizing how seriously the Obama Administration took this demand.

Subsequently, as I detail in the book, politically correct willful ignorance then took hold in our intelligence and law enforcement agencies – to the extent that after the Boston Marathon bombing, then-FBI director Robert Mueller admitted that the bureau had not investigated the Islamic Society of Boston, where the Tsarnaev brothers attended mosque, and had not even visited it except as part of an “outreach” program – despite the fact that it was founded by Abdurrahman Alamoudi, who is currently in prison for financing al Qaeda, and was attended by convicted jihad terrorists such as Tarek Mehanna and Aafia Siddiqui.

Read more at Front Page

Banned in the British Library

by Daniel Pipes
National Review Online
April 8, 2014

Prominent counter-jihadis like Geert Wilders, Michael Savage, and Robert Spencer have the distinction of being banned from entry into the United Kingdom – and, now, Her Majesty’s Government, in its wisdom, has also banned two websites connected to me. It’s not quite the same, admittedly, and I am working to get this ban removed, but I also wear it as a perverse badge of honor given that government’s shameful record vis-à-vis Islamism.

Say you’re in the British Library, the national depository library and a government institution, roughly equivalent to the Library of Congress in the United States or the Bibliothèque nationale in France. Say you want to read what David Brog writes about declining Evangelical support for Israel in the latest Middle East Quarterly. You type in MEForum.org and get the following result:

Or perhaps you wish to learn why I distinguish between Islam and Islamism, or why I worry about Islamist aggression in Britain, so you type in DanielPipes.org only to find this:

The distinction between the two sites particularly charms me. The British Library categorizes MEForum.org as “Religion, Intolerance” and DanielPipes.org as “Religion, Adult Sites, Intolerance, Blogs.” (It’s probably titles like “Arabian Sex Tourism” that won me the X-rating.) Oddly, both sites are blocked for the same reason: “Intolerance.”

Should you, however, be in the British Library and wish to develop hatred toward Jews, no problem! Here are some antisemitic sites, all accessed in the past few days:

  • Exposing the Holocaust Hoax Archive: the name tells it all
  • Gilad Atzmon: the personal website of a toxically antisemitic Jew
  • Jew Knowledge: contains learned inquiries into Jewish control of Hollywood, Jewish connections to 9/11, and the like
  • Muslim Public Affairs Committee, UK: an antisemitic jihadi group
  • The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion: the “warrant for genocide” is available in multiple versions

Then, if you need firing up to go murder people on jihad, the British Library makes rich pickings available to you:

  • Al Muntada: runs some of the worst hate preachers in Europe and stands accused in Nigeria of funding Boko Haram
  • Anjem Choudary: possibly the most extreme of British Islamists, he praised the perpetrators of the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks
  • FiSyria: promotes the Sunni jihad against the Assad regime in Syria
  • Friends of Al-Aqsa: a pro-Hamas British group
  • Hizb ut-Tahrir: an international movement seeking to replace existing countries with a global caliphate
  • Islamic Education and Research Academy: a Qatari-funded Salafi group that includes a number of openly pro-terror operatives. Its trustees openly incite hatred against Jews, women, et al.
  • Muslimah’s Renaissance: an anti-Semitic, anti-Shia group
  • Al-Qassam: the military wing of Hamas, widely categorized as a terrorist organization
  • Palestinian Forum of Britain: a Hamas front
  • Palestine Return Centre: another Hamas front
  • Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine: deemed a terrorist group by both the European Union and the U.S. government

And then, perhaps the worst of all:

  • Tawhed: al-Qaeda’s Arabic-language ideological website which promotes writings by Osama Bin Laden and Ayman az-Zawahiri

There could be a technical explanation for this bizarre situation. The British Library issued a press release in December 2013, “Web filtering on the British Library’s WiFi service,” explaining that

in our public areas where there are regular visits by school children, we filter certain online content, such as pornography and gambling websites. We have recently introduced a new WiFi service. It’s early days in the implementation of this service and we are aware that the new filter has been blocking certain sites erroneously. We are actively working to resolve this issue.

Might this be the problem? I have written the library and requested that it unblock the sites. Now, let’s see if the censorship was “erroneous” or intentional.

(In contrast, the British Library has not yet excluded me from the UK union catalog of books; so, the same organization that bans my website permits my books. That makes as much sense as the rest of the British government’s policies.)

Apr. 9, 2014 update: For updates, see “No Longer Banned in the British Library!

Islamists Put America On Trial While Shutting Down Free Speech

lawfare projectBreitbart, by :

Human Rights attorney and the director of the Lawfare Project, Brooke Goldstein, asserts that anyone who is brave enough to speak openly about terrorism and its connection to Islam may find themselves on the “receiving end of a frivolous and malicious lawsuit designed to silence and punish them.”

Goldstein claims over the last 15 years, Islamic groups like the Arab league and the OIC attempt to punish any type of speech they consider offensive to Islam. Moreover, she told Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon and the host of Breitbart News Sunday  that such groups pair lawsuits with acts of violence and are becoming more aggressive about invoking fatwas, as they did to the Danish cartoonist. Goldstein, also pointed out that  violence and fatwas ensued across the Muslim world when the state department decided to blame a so called anti-Islam YouTube film for the attack on Benghazi.

The human rights and free speech advocate posits that the lawsuits and violence precipitates an inherent self censorship. Altogether these three free speech denying modalities comprise a phenomenon which Goldstein calls “Islamist Lawfare, which is the use of the law as a weapon of war to silence and punish free speech about these issues of public dissonance.”

Bannon asked Goldstein if she thought there was an over-hyping by the Conservative Right of Islamist overreach in America, or is there a real problem as in the UK, where Sharia Law is now becoming codified into English Common law. Goldstein replied that “I wish it was just hype. But what we can measure now, because this has been a strategy that has been pursued, is the effects of the lawfare.”

Goldstein cited one example where Islamist lawfare was carried out and resulted in a major act of terror on American soil. She referred to a community center and mosque called the Islamic Society of Boston, that in 2005 was being investigated for receiving Saudi funding and was breeding Wasabi Islamic radicalism. The mosque turned around and sued at least 17 media defendants tying up the courts in a two year process stymieing police and discouraging further investigations.

The mosque was able to continue its teachings and sponsorship of radical ideology. Unfortunately, several years later, the mosque  produced the two Tsarnaev brothers, responsible for the bombing of the Boston Marathon in 2013, which killed three people including an eight year old boy and wounded many others.

Goldstein expressed her outrage that we have a policy in the government now where the words Islam and Jihad are being redacted from counter terrorism training manuals. She further points out that we have FBI officials and counter intelligence experts “that have been fired because they are Islamaphobic. We have Fort Hood which is reclassified as work place violence, not Islamist terrorism.”

Goldstein concludes that we have an uber PCness  in America that brands people, even if it’s a Muslim criticizing his own religion, as being an Islamaphobe.

***********

Recommended reading:

UK: Child Sex Slavery, Multiculturalism and Islam

by Soeren Kern:

“[T]he agencies responsible for child-protection have almost entirely failed in their job to protect vulnerable children. From a fear of being called ‘racist,’ police forces across the country have buried the evidence…. Political correctness would be used to make sure that people did not speak about this phenomenon.” — from Easy Meat: Multiculturalism, Islam and Child Sex Slavery

“[A] 2010 document by the Rotherham Safeguarding Children Board stated that, ‘great care will be taken in drafting…this report to ensure that its findings embrace Rotherham’s qualities of diversity. It is imperative that discussions of a wider cultural phenomenon are avoided.’” — from Easy Meat: Multiculturalism, Islam and Child Sex Slavery

British authorities enforcing political correctness have allowed Muslim paedophile gangs to sexually abuse children with impunity for more than two decades, according to a comprehensive new study that examines the harrowing epidemic of child grooming in towns and cities across Britain.

The meticulously documented report, entitled, “Easy Meat: Multiculturalism, Islam and Child Sex Slavery,” shows how officials in England and Wales were aware of rampant child grooming—the process by which sexual predators befriend and build trust with children in order to prepare them for abuse—by Muslim gangs since at least 1988.

Rather than taking steps to protect British children, however, police, social workers, teachers, neighbors, politicians and the media deliberately downplayed the severity of the crimes perpetrated by the grooming gangs in order to avoid being accused of “Islamophobia” or racism.

The conspiracy of silence was not broken until November 2010, when it was leaked that police in Derbyshire had carried out an undercover investigation—dubbed Operation Retriever—and arrested 13 members of a Muslim gang for grooming up to 100 underage girls for sex.

 

Seven members of a child sex grooming gang in Oxford who were found guilty in 2013 (clockwise from top left): Kamar Jamil, Akhtar Dogar, Anjum Dogar, Assad Hussain, Mohammed Karrar, Bassam Karrar, and Zeeshan Ahmed.
They were sentenced to a combined 95 years in prison for raping, torturing and trafficking British girls as young as 11.

Shortly thereafter, the Times of London published the results of a groundbreaking investigation into the sexual exploitation and internal trafficking of girls in the Midlands and the north of England. In January 2011, the newspaper reported that in 17 court cases since 1997 in which groups of men were prosecuted for grooming 11 to 16 year old girls, 53 of the 56 men found guilty were Asian, 50 of them Muslim, and just three were white.

In September 2012, the Times published another exposé that revealed the hidden truth about the sale and extensive use of British children for sex. The article showed that organized groups of Muslim men were able to groom, pimp and traffic girls across the country with virtual impunity. Although offenders were identified to police, they were not prosecuted. A child welfare expert interviewed by the newspaper said the government’s reluctance to tackle such street grooming networks represented “the biggest child protection scandal of our time.”

********

But this is “just the tip of the iceberg,” according to a document published by the House of Commons, which estimates that at least 20,000 British children are at risk of sexual exploitation by grooming gangs.

Meanwhile, prosecutions are few and far between. The report calculates that for every man convicted of such crimes, there are between two to ten other men who were directly implicated, but for whom there was insufficient evidence to secure a conviction. “If this is true,” the authors write, “it means that with this crime there are very many perpetrators getting away with it.”

Finally, the authors of the report examine the links between Islamic culture and doctrine and the crime of child grooming. They note:

“There is not one case where it was non-Muslim men grooming Muslim girls, and that despite the fact that 95% of the men in Britain are not Muslims…There is no evidence at all that non-Muslim men are grooming Muslim children, but ample evidence that Muslim men are directing their grooming at non-Muslim schoolgirls.”

At the same time, “the notion that Islam could be the basis for this criminality is always ruled out of the question, with no investigation of Islamic theology, the history of Islam, or the rulings of Sharia law.”

The authors then provide a thorough examination of Islamic sacred texts (pp. 222-268) and conclude, among other observations:

1) “The laws in various Islamic states show that they think that Aisha [who was married to Mohammad at the age of six] was under 10 when Mohammed had sex with her. And to Muslims, Mohammed is regarded as the perfect man; it is part of their religion that they should emulate his behavior.”

2) “Muslim men are taught in mosques that women are second-class citizens, little more than chattels or possessions over whom they have absolute authority.”

3) “The Koran makes a distinction between legal wives and slaves, and instructs Muslim men that they can have sex with either their wives or their slaves.”

4) “Not only are Muslim men permitted legally and morally to rape their slaves, but they are also forgiven if they turn a slave girl into a prostitute.”

5) “There are also features of Islam which are supremacist and which look with contempt at non-Muslims.”

6) “The Hadiths also permit Muslims to rape women who are captured after a battle (whereupon they become the property of Muslims, that is, they become slaves).”

At the same time, British judges are increasingly using Islamic Sharia law to justify light sentences for Muslims who rape underage girls:

“As late as May 2013, the media were reporting that a Muslim man in Nottingham who had ‘raped’ an underage girl, was spared a prison term after the judge heard that the naïve 18-year-old attended an Islamic faith school where he was taught that women are worthless. Rashid told psychologists he had no idea that having sex with a willing 13-year-old was against the law; besides, his education had taught him to believe that ‘women are no more worthy than a lollipop that has been dropped on the ground.’”

The report is emphatic in blaming the doctrine of multiculturalism for Britain’s lack of resolve in confronting the grooming gangs:

“Multiculturalism is a fundamentally incoherent doctrine, invented to conceal the serious conflicts which have arisen when peoples from vastly different cultures, with different values, are forced to live together.”

“Political correctness and the doctrine of multiculturalism meant that the professionals whose job it was to help the vulnerable were consciously commanding that these diverse cultural values could not be discussed.”

“Multiculturalism came about in order to deny that there is any significance to cultures having different values and to conceal that there will be conflict when these incompatible values come together. Political correctness is the means by which such denial is enforced.”

“Those who propound and defend multiculturalism say that people from different cultural backgrounds have different values, and that we must all accept these values as being of equal validity. But when it comes to examining what those different values are, multiculturalists suddenly lose interest in the details of these differences and lose interest in the consequences that follow from these different values. Yet we have seen, that even those Muslims who are classified as liberal or moderate have views which would be considered extreme if those views were espoused by a non-Muslim in Britain. Are we really surprised that conflicts and problems arise when communities with different values are living side-by-side? These conflicts are just concealed by the advocates of multiculturalism. Proponents of multiculturalism dare not examine the views of Islamic fundamentalists, that (significant) minority of Muslims in Britain who want Sharia law.”

“Multiculturalists think that Muslims will embrace multiculturalism; yet Islam was established 1,300 years ago to destroy multiculturalism.”

“Islamic society is a totalitarian society, all other values are to be subordinated to Islamic values. But if anyone in Britain dares to criticize Islam, they will be denounced and told they live in a multicultural society, and must accept these totalitarian values.”

The report concludes: “Every decade, the Muslim population of Britain almost doubles in size, so there is every reason to believe that without some massive changes in our society, the activities of these gangs will grow and grow.”

Read more at Gatestone Institute

 

 

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)

Obama’s America: Safe Haven for Terrorists

Obamas-Friends2By Rachel Molschky:

Certain countries harbor criminals and are known to provide safety to those the rest of us consider less savory. Argentina became a safe haven to Nazis, and many countries in the Middle East harbor terrorists, which is no surprise being that some of these governments themselves are terrorist organizations. Now Obama has turned American into a safe haven for Muslim terrorists.

So intent on increasing Muslim immigration, the Obama Administration has eased restrictions on asylum seekers with terrorist ties. Apparently, if their terrorism is “minimal” it’s ok, and they will still be welcome in America.

“The change, approved by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Secretary of State John Kerry, was announced Wednesday in the Federal Register. It would allow some individuals who provided ‘limited material support’ to terror groups to be considered for entry into the U.S.”

In the same old, same old victimizing political correctness, those endorsing the change call the previous security measures unfair to deserving people seeking asylum. But if they aided and abetted terrorists, how can they be deserving?

Compare the situation to a regular murder case. In most states, there is a felony murder rule, which allows the police to arrest on murder charges all those involved in a premeditated commission of a felony which resulted in murder. For example, if five people came up with a plan to rob someone, but one of them kills the robbery victim, even if the other four protested this murder, all five can be arrested  on murder charges. This includes everyone involved, even people who played minor roles in the robbery. By law, they are all murderers. And rightly so. Laws like this act as deterrents. Maybe you’ll think twice before partaking in felony crimes if the consequences could ruin the rest of your life.

Take away the punishment and take away the deterrent. The Obama Administration is basically saying, “if you’re kind of a terrorist, no problem.” A “little bit of terror” is not enough to turn you away. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., was disappointed with the changes. “We need to tighten security standards for asylum, not relax them even further,” he said.

This loosening of restrictions means that discretion will be used for each case, but can we trust someone’s opinion? Whether or not the applicant is a threat will be debatable, and while it is better to err on the side of caution, this change will allow for mistakes to be made and is leaving the United States vulnerable.

In the past, as the US government welcomed more and more Muslim refugees, the FBI would be forced to worked doubly hard in order to keep track of those who posed a threat. But our national security is changing in this regard as well. Attorney General Eric Holder, in his quest to make everything equal and eliminate discrimination, has deemed such activity wrongful. The Justice Department is broadening its definition of racial profiling “to prohibit federal agents from considering religion, national origin, gender and sexual orientation in their investigations,”according to a New York Times article.

Civil rights groups say that Muslims are being unfairly targeted. While details of this change are still lacking, it is unclear whether or not this will affect cases of national security. However, it may be open to interpretation, and we may see a future case taken to court based on “discrimination,” because after all, “discriminating” against a terrorist because he is Muslim is more important than protecting our nation and innocent lives which could be lost.

Political correctness. Again. Without question, unjust discrimination is wrong, but when the world is under the constant threat of Islamic terrorism which is based on religion, whether Eric Holder likes it or not, religion is a factor.

Read more at Cherson and Molschky

The Pentagon’s Bow to Islamic Extremism

by :

“Caving to pressure from Muslim groups, the Pentagon has relaxed uniform rules to allow Islamic beards, turbans and hijabs. It’s a major win for political correctness and a big loss for military unit cohesion,” said a recent report.

This new relaxation of rules for Muslims comes at a time when the FBI is tracking more than 100 suspected jihadi-infiltrators of the U.S. military.  Just last month, Craig Benedict Baxam, a former Army soldier and convert to Islam, was sentenced to seven years in prison due to his al-Qaeda/jihadi activities.   Also last month, Mozaffar Khazaee, an Iranian-American working for the Defense Department, was arrested for sending secret documents to America’s enemy, Iran.

According to a Pentagon spokesperson, the new religious accommodations—to allow Islamic beards, turbans, and hijabs—which took effect very recently, would “reduce both the instances and perception of discrimination among those whose religious expressions are less familiar to the command.”

The report concludes that, “Making special accommodations for Islam will only attract more Muslims into the military at a time when two recent terror cases highlight the ongoing danger of Muslims in uniform.”

But it’s worse than that; for not only will it attract “more Muslims,” it will attract precisely the wrong kinds of Muslims, AKA, “Islamists,” “radicals,” etc.

This is easily demonstrated by connecting the dots and understanding that Muslims who adhere to visible, non-problematic aspects of Islam—growing beards and donning hijabs—often indicate their adherence to non-visible, problematic aspects of Islam.

Consider it this way: Why do some Muslim men wear the prescribed beard and why do some Muslim women wear the prescribed hijab? Most Muslims would say they do so because Islam’s prophet Muhammad commanded them to (whether via the Koran or Hadith).

Regarding the Muslim beard, Muhammad wanted his followers to look different from “infidels,” namely Christians and Jews, so he ordered his followers to “trim closely the moustache and grow the beard.” Accordingly, all Sunni schools of law maintain that it is forbidden—a “major sin”—for men to shave their beards (unless, of course, it is part of a stratagem against the infidel, in which case it is permissible).

The question begs itself: If such Muslims meticulously follow the minor, “outer” things of Islam simply because their prophet made some utterances concerning them in the Hadith, logically speaking, does that not indicate that they also follow, or at the very least accept as legitimate, the major, “inner” themes Muhammad constantly emphasized in both the Koran and Hadith—such as enmity for and deceit of the infidel, and, when capable, perpetual jihad?

Even in the Islamic world this connection between visible indicators of Islamic piety and jihadi tendencies are well known.  Back in 2011, when Islamists were dominating Egypt’s politics, secularist talk show host Amr Adib of Cairo Today mocked the then calls for a “million man beard” march with his trademark sarcasm: “This is a great endeavor! After all, a man with a beard can never be a thug, can never rape a woman in the street, can never set a church on fire, can never fight and quarrel, can never steal, and can never be dishonest!”

His sarcasm was not missed on his Egyptian viewership which knew quite well that it is precisely those Muslims who most closely follow the minutia of Muhammad—for example, by growing a beard—that are most prone to violence, deceit, and anti-infidel sentiments, all of which were also advocated by Islam’s prophet.

Speaking more seriously, Adib had added that this issue is not about growing a beard, but rather, “once you grow your beard, you give proof of your commitment and fealty to everything in Islam.”

Read more

Revisiting the Neighborhood

no_mosque_sign_big_1-31-14-1By David Solway:

On February 15, 2013, I posted an article at Front Page Magazine titled “Saving the Neighborhood [1]” that dealt with an invitation the democratic advocacy organization Act! for Canada had extended to British lawyer Gavin Boby, a specialist in town planning law and director of the Law and Freedom Foundation. I referred in that article to Boby’s lecture at the Ottawa Public Library on the consequences of allowing mosques to be built in municipal neighborhoods without adequate public consultation and supervision, an event whose reverberations have not yet died away and are unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future as mosque construction continues unabated. (Of the approximately 1200 mosques operating the U.S., for example, nearly 80 percent [2] were built after 9/11; there are no official data for Canada, but it is estimated [3] that there are at least 1000 mosques in the country, a lowball figure.)

Also known as the “mosque buster” — a designation, be it said, not of his choosing — Boby has devoted his time and expertise pro bono to advising the residents of municipal boroughs on the legal recourse at their disposal to prevent local mosque construction. In cases that Boby researched, the presence of mosques had led to the blighting of the quality of life in such residential areas, usually beginning with what he calls the “parking jihad,” as Muslim congregants occupy parking spots and private driveways on Friday worship and holy days, seriously limiting residents’ mobility, freedom and private property rights. Such disruptions would invariably metastasize. Residents walking their dogs would find themselves molested. Eventually, various forms of vandalism would occur — broken windows, severed TV cables, and the like — to force down the already depressed market value of homes, which were then bought up by Muslim interlopers. Such cases have been meticulously documented by Boby and justify the pursuit of legal impediment against the domestic proliferation of mosques, often camouflaged in civic application forms as “Islamic cultural centers” and “inter-faith community centers” to deceive the unwary and the credulous.

 

 

As Boby explained in a talk delivered to the Q Society of Australia [4] on September 12, 2012, in Melbourne, a mosque is not like a church, synagogue or temple; it is “a center of power used for political and military purposes.” Studies [5] have shown that a large majority of mosques act as recruitment hubs for jihad, foster the imposition of Sharia law, and labor to drive a sanctified wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims. For Islam, which makes no distinction between church and state, between the things which are God’s and the things which are Caesar’s, between synod and politburo, is not a religion like Christianity or Judaism; it is a political movement garbed in the trappings of a religion, or alternately, a religion whose primary agenda is the conquest of the world through political, cultural and military means.

What Boby is attempting to accomplish — to educate and empower beleaguered residents of generally poorer working districts to maintain the preferred character of their neighborhoods — is both legal and ethical, as well as humane and empathetic. There is nothing “racist” or “bigoted” or “fascist” about his endeavors — epithets that dubious Islamic organizations, clueless do-gooders and liberal charlatans readily lob in his direction.

Most towns and communities have zoning bylaws that prescribe what can and cannot be erected in the areas under their jurisdiction. The village I have lived in for many years, for example, is strict in this regard, forbidding the construction of any building, commercial, religious or private, over three stories high, and even halting the construction of a palatial dwelling that reached for a fourth. No one claimed that the town council was biased against the wealthy or the architecturally ambitious. Similarly, if a town or borough wishes to prevent the construction of a mosque — or church or pub or stupa [6] or spud hut or casino or soup kitchen — that would transform the character of a neighborhood in a way it finds undesirable, it is legally permitted to do so under existing zoning regulations. Boby is not advocating, as has reportedly happened in Angola [7], that Islam should be banned and all mosques closed or dismantled to forestall a Sahelian [8] future (the report has been disputed, but, as of this time, does seem to be accurate [9]); he is, rather, arguing for citizens’ rights in preserving the nature, morale and typical features of the places they reside in, should they choose to do so.

The acid irony is that most of those hostile to informed citizens like Boby and his compatriots are affluent ideological accommodationists, socialist poobahs and progressivist conservatives dining on the calipash of slow intellection. They need never worry about mosques stippling their upscale turf, whose driveways would not be blocked, whose dogs would have the romp of the neighborhood and local parks, whose windows would not be broken, and whose telephone lines and satellite dishes would remain intact. Among this privileged cohort we find a clutch of political officials and administrators tainted by political correctness, media lefties, assorted members of the liberal elite, infatuated academics who live in “the glebe,” “moderate” Muslims who rarely attend religious services but approve of neighborhood mosques, and court Jews who pride themselves on their “social justice” credentials (though I am tempted to call these more craven of my co-religionists courtesan Jews) — in effect, pseudo-intellectuals like the emulsified tandem who published an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen, titled “Mistaking Islamism for Islam [10],” protesting Gavin Boby’s presence among us and serving to mobilize a posse of offended Muslims to petition the library to annul the presentation. And, naturally, the journalists were out in force to interview the assembly of aggrieved Muslims, though none saw it as their duty to attend the lecture or to interview Boby.

Apart from the convenient fact that such people are exempt from the trials and outrages that afflict the less advantaged classes, they exhibit no understanding of the political and historical trajectory of Islam, the nature of the Koran and the Hadith, and the contagious influence of the mosque. They have eagerly embraced the propaganda of the Islamic camp and its enablers, namely, that Islam is a “religion of peace.” This is a giant step toward ultimate surrender to an alien dispensation, guaranteed by what Larry Kelley in Lessons from Fallen Civilizations [11] calls the 8th Law of History (Kelley enumerates ten such Laws): “When a civilization accepts the propaganda of the enemy as truth, it has reached the far side of appeasement and capitulation is nigh.” The truth being obscured is that Islam is a religion of perpetual war — “the truth of Islam is in its killing fields,” writes [12] Daniel Greenfield — and anyone who doubts this has not read the history of Islam or delved into the pages of its canonical texts, theological, philosophical, political and jurisprudential. Boby, for his part, is perfectly aware of these larger and deeper issues, but has chosen to fight on a more limited, cadastral front by reducing the number of mosques that conquer territory piecemeal, one neighborhood after another.

Most of those attempting to neutralize Boby and his allies believe with Daniel Pipes that radical Islam can be countered by something called moderate Islam. They are afraid that unsparing criticism of, or principled resistance to, the spread of Islamic doctrine and culture will drive the moderates into the arms of the extremists — as if opposing violence creates even more violence, an inversion of reason so preposterous as to resemble a neurological fugue. They are terrified of being labelled as “Islamophobes.” They wish to be seen as lovers of diversity, as enlightened thinkers, as noble representatives of an advanced civilization. They do not realize that, after they have slept for the next twenty years like Rip Van Winkle, they are heading for a grim awakening. As indeed, unless we come to our senses, we all are. And by then our firearms will be pretty well useless, like Rip’s, “the barrel incrusted with rust, the lock falling off, and the stock worm-eaten.”

Read more at PJ Media

Islam and David Cameron

cameronBy Paul Austin Murphy:

In a sense, David Cameron’s position on Islam is to be expected. As British Prime Minister, he is of course too busy to study Islam in detail. And even before becoming PM (in 2010), my guess is that he would have spent almost zero time studying Islam. Sure, he would have read about Islam, Islamic terrorism, and Islamism in the news. Nonetheless, I doubt that he gave such things much thought when out of power. He would have been far too busy planning his rise to power and, in a auxiliary manner, thinking about tax issues, the NHS, the structure of the Tory Party, competing with the Labour Party and whatnot.

It is of course true that Cameron should have studied Islam independently from the Conservative Muslim Forum, Baroness Sayeeda Warsi (the unelected Minister for Faith and Communities) and his advisers (i.e., the higher civil servants). After all, he was 35 years old when 9/11 occurred and 39 when 7/7 occurred in the city of London. He will now also know about the massive Muslim grooming of young non-Muslim girls in the UK. He knows about the 85 or more sharia courts in his country, the weekly political activism of Islamists on the streets of the UK, the 15 foiled Islamic terrorist attacks between only 2005 and 2008, etc. He also knows about the the Taliban, the Islamic civil wars in Iraq and Syria. He may even know about the Islamist slaughter of over one and a half million Sudanese Christians and black animists in the 1990s and 2000s.

In fact David Cameron is even on record as having criticized what he then called “Islamists”. That was in 2005. The “neoconservative” writer, Douglas Murray, at around about the same time, also suggested that things should be done to slow down the Islamization of Europe. What happened to him? The Conservative Party ostracized him. In addition, a Conservative Party MP by the name of Michael Gove wrote a book, in 2006, called Celsius 7/7. This book is about Islamism and the threat of Islamic terrorism in Europe. Michael Gove has been almost silent on these issues ever since. You may have heard of him: he’s now the Sectary of State for Education; working under David Cameron.

More relevantly, Cameron might have even read the Koran. However, what’s likely to have happened is that he has been fed various nice and innocuous extracts from that book by advisers and Tory Muslims (as well as by non-Tory Muslim individuals and Islamic groups). However, I doubt that he voluntarily picked it and read it before 2010. In mention this because Tony Blair, infamously, once claimed that he reads the Koran every night.

Since David Cameron became Prime Minister, he might have spent a few hours maximum independently studying Islam. But he most certainly won’t have chosen his own works to study. What will have happened, again, is that his civil servants, or perhaps certain Muslims within the party, will have supplied him with some Islam-friendly literature. He would have read all that and taken most of it at face value quite simply because he literally hasn’t got the time to study Islam in detail — let alone be critical. Besides which, Cameron will acquire the information he needs in order to be a successful politician. And being a critic of Islam, he may well think, will never pay him political dividends.

If the “Islam issue” were as pressing for him as debates about tax, the NHS, competition with the Labour Party, sustaining his own rule within the Tory Party, etc.; then he would indeed have studied it in detail. However, although the Islam issue is pressing for the UK and indeed for the world as a whole, it’s not pressing issue for David Cameron himself. Not in the least. In fact, from what he’s said recently, and indeed from what he’s recently done (e.g., making London the “Islamic finance capital of the world”), I would say that ingratiating himself with Islam and the Muslim community-of-votes (large parts of which tend to vote in blocks) has been (fairly) pressing for him.

Also see:

First-Class Islam: Eric Holder Puts Muslims Above Terror Suspicion

Disappearing-CT-language-sm (1)

Above Graphic by Patrick Poole

PJ Media, By Timothy Furnish:

From 2008 to 2011, I was a guest lecturer at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (the primary DHS training facility, located in coastal Georgia) and at Joint Special Operations University (which brings foreign officers to learn of U.S. irregular warfare, located in Tampa). At both venues I was asked to lecture on the history of terrorism.

I did so in an even-handed and comprehensive manner, exploring the issue across place (Europe to East Asia), time (ancient Assyria to al-Qaeda), and ideology (religious: pagan, Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and Muslim; and political: right-wing, left-wing, anarchist, environmentalist, etc.). Only 14 of the 44 PowerPoint screens in my presentation dealt with Islamic terrorism, although several of those actually mitigated against the concept.

Nonetheless, in June 2009 I was told that I could no longer lecture at FLETC, because the edict had come down from the new Obama administration that “no trainer who uses the term ‘jihad’ shall henceforth be used.” (This was over two years before the Obama administration was openly hostile to realistic training about Islam [1].)

JSOU continued to utilize me until late 2011, when I was told by the course instructor that Muslim student officers had complained that “I talked too much about Islamic terrorism.”

I was actually surprised that I had not been yanked the year before, when references to Islam and jihad were stricken [2] from Obama’s kinder, gentler National Security Strategy document. That same year, noted Islamic studies expert Eric Holder told the House Judiciary Committee [3] that foiled Islamic suicide bombers in the U.S. were motivated by “Islam that is not consistent with” that religion’s “true teachings.”

Now, the Obama administration — led by Holder — has decided that Islam is a “race,” [4] and therefore to examine or even to adduce a Muslim’s Islamic beliefs about jihad [5]beheading [6]violence against kuffar [7] (“infidels”), or re-establishing a caliphate [8] is tantamount to racism. This administration behavior is rationalized because “federal authorities have in particular singled out Muslims in counter terrorism investigations and Latinos for immigration investigations.”

It is difficult to express just how willfully ignorant of reality these statements and accompanying policies are.

Per the immigration example: as over 80% of “undocumented aliens” are from Mexico or another Latin American country [9], it would be foolish, indeed delusionary, to ignore that fact. The same logic applies to directing extra scrutiny towards individuals who hold a set of beliefs that may predispose them to violence against others not of that belief system.

And that is the primary point: Islam is a belief system. Not a race.

Muslims can be of any skin, Bosnian or Turkish, Nigerian, Saudi, Chinese. If American, Muslims can perhaps be of several nationalities. This is equally if not more true of Christians, who can be white Finns, black Ethiopians, brown Lebanese, or Koreans, to name but a few examples. It is not possible to look at someone (sans distinctive clothing) and ascertain whether he or she is Muslim or Christian — or secularist, for that matter.

Advocacy groups and willing dupes in the media and Democrat Party — like Senator Dick Durbin — have foolishly yet successfully conflated race and ideology in the case of only one religion, Islam. They have made examining the latter tantamount to discrimination against the former.  No one ever argues that singling out Christians for repression because they hold politically incorrect views about gay marriage or abortion amounts to “racism.”

Beyond the obvious fact that beliefs do not constitute a race, Holder et al. are massively wrong to deny the clear link between certain Islamic beliefs and terrorism.

Currently there are 57 groups on the U.S. State Department Foreign Terrorist Organization list [10]; 38 of these are stridently Islamic in ideology and goals. Ten of these are secular/Leftist, six are nationalist, one is anarchist, and one each is Jewish and Christian. (The latter one — the Japanese, sarin gas-using Aum Shinrikyo — is at best only nominally Christian, and better described as generically apocalyptic.)

So: 67% of the world’s terrorist groups as recognized by the U.S. (more, actually, if State were honest and comprehensive; they should includee Syria’s Jabhat al-Nusra, the Islamic State of Iraq & Syria, etc.) are Muslim.

Since 9/11, 82% of U.S. Department of Justice terrorism convictions have been of Muslims, despite the fact that Muslims comprise less than 1% of the American population. (I accessed this data some time ago; it has since mysteriously disappeared from the DOJ website [11].)

The University of Maryland’s Global Terrorism Database [12] tracks terrorism incidents from 1970 to today: search for “Islam” and you find almost 5,000 entries. Search for “Christianity” and you will find a grand total of 14.

The NSA could probably save a lot of money — as well as abide by the Constitution — if it simply acknowledged the following:

A person with neither a first nor a last Muslim name stood only a 1 in 500,000 chance of being a suspected terrorist. The likelihood for a person with a first or a last Muslim name was 1 in 30,000. For a person with first and last Muslim names, however, the likelihood jumped to 1 in 2,000 (Levitt & Dubner, Super Freakonomics, 2009, p. 93).

Clearly, for those with eyes to see and ears to hear, Islam is the world’s major ideological motivator of terrorism and violence. (I have neither the time, nor the patience, to yet again demonstrate the legitimate Islamic roots of violence. Ray Ibrahim’s brilliant article [13] should be all the proof needed for those able to handle the truth.) Yet Eric Holder and his boss would have the federal authorities most responsible for protecting the public — led by the FBI — pretend that up is down, freedom is slavery, and Islam is peaceful except when “twisted” by a “handful of extremists.”

Instead of ardent Islamic beliefs being treated as a clear marker for potential terrorism, they are now a talisman [14] protecting the holder not just from scrutiny, but suspicion.

Obama and Holder are transforming the U.S. into a dhimmi nation: one that cowers before Islamic law and demands that its non-Muslim citizens — especially its 240 million Christians — meekly accept their second-class status and never broach the glaringly obvious fact of Islamic violence, even if this means making all non-Muslims less safe. The question for those of us in the majority, then: just how long will we put up with such a dangerous policy?

Timothy FurnishTim Furnish has a PhD in Islamic, World and African History and works as an author and consultant. His website is www.mahdiwatch.org and he can be reached at jinnandtonic@yahoo.com

Breivik and the Wicked Leftist Media

breivikmedia (1)Gates of Vienna, by Paul Weston:

A world controlled by the wicked and immoral Left is a very unpleasant place in which to live. At the furthest extremity of Left-wingery we have genocide, totalitarianism, gulags and evil. At the softer end of Left-wingery we have propaganda, lies, MSNBC, smears, the BBC, hatred of tradition and decency, and the concomitant incremental demise of the Western democracy historically defended by millions of our young men who now lie in graves both marked and unmarked across the Western world.

Unfortunately for the decent, intelligent and moral people today, the Left have largely carried out their Long March and now control the institutions which form the thoughts and opinions of the vast majority of Western peoples. He who controls the media and the educational establishment controls the past, the present, and the future, just as Hitler, Stalin and their present-day Socialist comrades-in-arms intended.

To really see what this means in 2014, we need look no further than the case of Anders Behring Breivik, the counter-jihad movement, and the truly obscene behaviour of the Leftist media — particularly so in Scandinavian countries.

In 2011 Breivik carried out his murderous spree, to the shock and horror of all decent people everywhere. The Leftist media, however — which had already made up its mind about certain individuals within the counter-jihad movement — sought to use this act of evil purely to mount an assault upon high-profile individuals whose “crime” was to peacefully and accurately draw attention to the dangers involved in allowing a barbaric ideology by the name of Islam to flourish both demographically and “culturally” within the cohesive, peaceful and Christian West.

I am not going to go into forensic detail about the actions of the Leftist media, which have been covered in depth already by Robert Spencer, Baron Bodissey at Gates of Vienna, and Fjordman, all of whom were viciously attacked by Left-wing journalists who were outraged (rightly so) by the actions of Breivik, but who had all remained smugly mute for years over the numerically far higher number of murders carried out in the name of Islam or Socialism.

Just to give a couple of typical examples, the Guardian newspaper, chock-full of wicked Leftists, remarked that America had been given the bloody nose she so manifestly deserved on 9/11, whilst the BBC bent over backwards to excuse Islam whilst reducing the then U.S. Ambassador to tears in front of a baying mob of specifically imported Muslims and Leftists within a BBC studio.

But why such overt double standards over two acts of similar atrocity? Why the total failure to hold up the Koran and the hadith for 9/11? And why the massive, concerted and hysterical smear campaign against Bodissey, Spencer and Fjordman?

The answer of course is because the Left wish to use Islam as a pawn in the breakdown of Western Nation States, Christianity, and free enterprise, a.k.a. capitalism. An orderly, affluent, peaceful, civilised country contains very few potential voters for the far Left, so even if Islam did not exist, the Left would have to invent it — and then eagerly import it. There can be no better ideological ally if the intention is to manufacture social unrest and potential civil war, which justifies ever-increasing authoritarianism prior to the eventual full-blown Leftist totalitarianism necessary to keep a lid on things.

Hence the smearing of the counter-jihad, and the politically deceitful defence of the so called religion of peace. But in a rational and sane world (ie: a non-Leftist world) there is one overwhelming and striking difference between the gentle, polite, articulate and well informed output of the counter-jihad movement, and the murderous actions of both Breivik and similarly violent Muslim supremacists, which is starkly simple — Bodissey, Spencer and Fjordman have never once called for violence to be inflicted upon Muslims or Leftists, but Muslims and Leftists routinely call for (and practice) violence upon those they disagree with.

Which, over a long and meandering route, brings me to the point of this article, which is the near total refusal of the MSM to publicise the recent Breivik letter to the MSM where he essentially admits he considers the counter-jihad movement to be comprised of a bunch of panty-waisted individuals with no appetite for killing, no admiration for Nazism, no desire for violence and perhaps even worse, a sympathy for Israel. Ho ho ho, he says, I have attempted to discredit the entire movement which I hate with a passion for its passive, intellectual, peaceful approach to the Islamic problem, and I have been greatly assisted by the cretinous Leftist media…

Breivik is positively gloating over the ease with which he pulled the wool over the Leftist media’s eyes, but he should not be so hubristic, because the anti-Western Leftist media actively wanted to be deliberately blinded to truth, reason, decency and fact. And what then, is the outcome of this?

Not good is the answer. Not good for anyone. Mild-mannered, scholarly and peaceful people have been falsely smeared and stigmatised, whilst violent Islam has been falsely defended. And all the while, the anger amongst the peoples of the West continues to build to an eventual future extent where the Bodisseys, Spencers and Fjordmans of this world — who provide an accurate, impartial and peaceful analysis of our problems — will be replaced by people with an altogether different outlook, as we are already beginning to see in the rise of several real fascist movements in Europe.

So please allow me to offer my most sincere congratulations to the Leftist media. You have attacked the peaceful, native defenders of Western civilisation and labelled them as evil, whilst defending the foreign, violent attackers of Western civilisation, who you disingenuously promote as harmless, virtuous and good.

What a thoroughly evil lot you are. No journalistic integrity; no personal morality and no common, basic decency amongst any of you. Will we see a single one of you publish Breivik’s admission? Of course not, and of course not for a pretty simple reason — you are too immersed in your wicked Leftist activism to behave in a way any normal person outside the all-smothering political Leftist world would recognise as brave, responsible, impartial, good or decent. You are more than a disgrace to your profession; you are a treacherous disgrace to humanity.

Paul Weston, Jack Buckby and Enza Ferreri of Liberty GB are standing in the European Union elections in May 2014. If you would like to financially support their campaign, do please DONATE HERE.

Paul’s website may be found here, and his political Facebook page here.

Read more at Gates of Vienna (links to extensive coverage of this subject are given at the bottom of the article)

 

How to Speak to the Politically Correct Bigots

By Ali Sina:

2005/10/21

I’ve been a fan of your work for a while Mr. Sina.  So tell me how can I put forward the mental will to deal with an extremely politically correct class on Islam?  

pcThis extremely and in fact fanatical political correct class on Islam is our main problem. We must defeat them at any cost. Their stupidity could bring the world to destruction. The best way to handle them is to expose their ignorance right from the start. Show them the facts. Facts are:

Muhammad had sex with a 9 year old child. Ask them what they think about it. Are they willing to at least condemn his pedophilia? They will bring all lame excuses and  moral relativistic arguments to dodge the question. Ask them if Muhammad claimed to be a prophet of God why he followed the bad examples of the people of his time? Furthermore, is there any evidence that in those days 50 year old men married 6 year old children? This is not even natural. Normal men do not get sexually attracted to children. Only a pedophile can become sexually aroused by a child. One friend wrote: “even in the animal kingdom where animals respond to their animalistic instincts, pre-puberty animals and birds are spared and not desired by the male animals in heat.  I would think that it is a biological reaction that is ingrained in all of us not to lust after or desire or be turned on by any child immaterial of what kind of perverts we may be.” Having sexual feelings for children is unnatural and it is a sickness of mind. It has nothing to do with morality. Any adult who lusts after a child is not normal. Muhammad was sick in the head.

Tell them about the Bani Quraiza, the Jewish tribe that resided near Medinafor 2000 years. Muhammad massacred all their men and enslaved their women and children. To separate boys from men, he inspected their genitals. If they had grown pubic hair he decided they are men and kill them. Ask these politically correct bigots to justify that. Are they willing to condemn at least his genocides? The only guilt of the Bani Quraiza was their unwillingness to accept Muhammad as their prophet. But suppose they were guilty of something terrible. Was every single person of them including the children guilty?  Is having pubic hair evidence of guilt?

Tell them about Asma Bint Marwan, the mother of five small children and Abu Afak, a 120 year old man, who were assassinated in the middle of the night at the order of Muhammad for composing poems that he found insulting. Isn’t this bigot politically correct class willing to condemn even Muhammad’s assassinations?

They will tell you that there are gory stories in the Bible as well. Tell them the Bible is a book of fables. No one knows which parts of those tales of battles are true and which parts are the boastful bragging of its writers to boost the morale of a defeated people in captivity. But even if these stories were true, would one wrong justify another?

There are hundreds of stories of assassinations, genocide, torture, raids, rapes, lootings, and all sorts of crimes of Muhammad that are recorded in the authentic Islamic annals. Present those evidences to them in their gory details and demand explanation. Be brave! Don’t let them overpower you with their bigoted condescending look. Political correctness is a cult, and the politically correct people can be just as vicious as any cultist. Stand firm and tell them they are ignorant. Don’t let any one bully you. They will back off once they see you know things they don’t. They are the bigots not you. Don’t be afraid to speak out. Tell them that during the 1930s there were idiots who wanted to be nice to the Nazis and were just as politically correct about that ideology of hate as they are about Islam. Ignorance and cowardice go hand in hand. Behind every ignorant bully there is a coward. Expose their ignorance and you’ll see they run for cover like one whose nakedness is exposed. Don’t speak about generalities, hand them one of the episodes of the savagery of Muhammad and demand explanation. Don’t let them tell you “we must respect people beliefs”. Ask them whether they respect the beliefs of the Ku Klux Klan and the skinheads? Who said beliefs have to be respected? This is the most absurd statement that is often pushed by those whose beliefs cannot stand scrutiny. Stunt them with your knowledge of Islam and ask them what they know about Islam. Of course they know nothing! Then tell them shouldn’t they learn something before opening their mouths?  They back off only when they see strength in you, otherwise they take your silence as sign of defeat and start lecturing you the virtues of being idiot and respecting the cults of hate and the beliefs of people who think it is their God given duty to kill you.

The politically correct people are the “useful idiots”. They must be put to shame for siding with evil and defending terrorism. Islam is terrorism. If they don’t know it they better learn it. Ignorance is not an excuse. They know nothing about Islam and speak out of ignorance. Give them the URL of faithfreedom.org. Tell them come and listen to the apostates of Islam. Are we also Islamophobes? Is our aversion to Islam based on ignorance and misconceptions? That charge does not stick to us, does it? I have challenged every Muslim in the world to come and prove us wrong. Where are these soldiers of Allah when it comes to logics? Why these jihadis who are so brave when it comes to blowing up innocent civilians are so chicken when it comes to prove the truth of their creed with logics?

Dr. Ali Sina is a former Muslim from Iran who is atheist and currently residing in Canada. He is the author of Understanding Muhammad, and is the founder of Faith Freedom International. Visit his personal website.

Diane Feinstein says the unsayable

2169852162

Center For Security Policy, By Frank Gaffney:

Yesterday was a red letter day – or perhaps it should be called an Islamic green letter one – for U.S. intelligence.  For the first time I can recall, the top legislator on a congressional oversight committee has actually made clear what motivates our enemies in what used to be called euphemistically the “War on Terror,” and that Team Obama now dubs even more opaquely as the effort to “counter violent extremism.”

This breakthrough came in the course of a joint appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union” by the chairpersons of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), respectively. The media seized on the ostensibly big news out of their remarks: bipartisan agreement that the United States is at greater risk of terrorist attack today than two years ago.

But important, ominous and accurate as that assessment is, it wasn’t the most important point made by these two respected lawmakers. Instead, it was Sen. Feinstein’s observation in response to a question about what causes the “hatred” that makes our situation more perilous:

“There is a real displaced aggression in this very fundamentalist jihadist Islamic community, and that is that the West is responsible for everything that goes wrong and that the only thing that’s going to solve this is Islamic shariah law.”

What makes this incontrovertible statement so noteworthy?  It is the fact that the intelligence community is not allowed to say what Sen. Feinstein did.  Under Obama administration guidelines, for intelligence officers – and for that matter, law enforcement, Homeland Security and military personnel – to talk about Islamic jihadism and shariah as the motivation for terrorism can be a career-ending offense.

For example, on May 10, 2012, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, used a press conference to denounce a highly decorated and up-and-coming Army officer, Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley, for teaching an elective course at the Joint Forces Staff College using an approved curriculum.  According to Gen. Dempsey, what prompted this extraordinary action was that a student – who it turns out had not actually been enrolled in Col. Dooley’s class – “was concerned that the course was objectionable and that it was counter to our values…our appreciation for religious freedom and cultural awareness. And the young man who brought it to my attention was absolutely right. It’s totally objectionable.”

At the core of what was so “totally objectionable” is the fact that students were exposed to information that made plain the gravity of the threat of which Sen. Feinstein warned: the supremacist, totalitarian Islamic doctrine of shariah and the jihad or holy war it obliges adherents to perform.  Col. Dooley’s promising career was cut short and the files of his institution and that of the rest of the national security community have been purged of all such information deemed by unidentified subject matters experts engaged for the purpose to be “counter to our values.”

Sen. Feinstein’s forthright declaration is particularly gratifying as I had an opportunity to discuss the danger posed by shariah with her in the course of testimony I provided the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 24, 2013 at the invitation of her colleague, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).  In the course of making the case for keeping the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay open, I observed:

“We have been obliged to go to war because it was thrust upon us. And, if we are to prevail in this conflict, we must understand the nature of the enemies with whom we are at war. They are shariah-adherent jihadists who believe, in accordance with that doctrine, that it is God’s will that they destroy our way of life and subjugate us to theirs.”

At the time, Sen. Feinstein strongly disagreed with my view that shariah’s dictates make it impossible safely to release its adherents from Gitmo or, alternatively, to incarcerate them instead in this country – where they might exploit rights foolishly conferred upon them to secure their freedom and wage jihad here.  I hope that the clarity she expressed Sunday about the inexorable nature of the shariah doctrine and the supremacist hatred it impels will cause the senior senator from California both to insist that such insights are once again inculcated in those responsible for our security and to reconsider her support for closing Guantanamo Bay.