What is the OSCE?

CJR: Even as the OSCE proceedings were going on, Donald Trump was coerced into signing an anti-hate Resolution aimed at right wing groups and not left wing such as Antifa. And now there is a report that Hillary Clinton funded Antifa!

Gates of Vienna, Sept. 17, 2017:

In the interventions by Bashy Quraishy and Henrik Clausen, you’ve just seen the Yin and Yang of the OSCE Human Dimension conference in Warsaw. Yet interventions like Mr. Clausen’s consistently earned the rebuke of the moderators, while those like Mr. Quraishy’s did not.

What’s going on? What has happened to the OSCE?

In the video below, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and Clare Lopez explain the way in which the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has been subverted by the Red-Green Alliance and turned into an Inquisitor designed to hunt down and stamp out “hate speech” wherever it may be found.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for editing and uploading this video:

For links to previous articles about the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, see the OSCE Archives.

***

Clare Lopez on Civil Liberties and Natural Rights

The following video shows the intervention read by Clare Lopez, representing the Center for Security Policy, at OSCE Warsaw today, September 14, 2017, during Session 6, “Fundamental Freedoms, Including Freedom of Thought, Conscience, Religion, or Belief”.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

Below is the prepared text for Ms. Lopez’ intervention:

America’s Founding Fathers understood that tyranny takes hold when men allow governments or religious systems to usurp the rights of the individual unto themselves

For this reason, they enshrined freedoms of belief, conscience & speech in 1st Amendment of our Constitution

These principles & these freedoms are Judeo-Christian-based, first articulated among the brilliant thinkers of the Enlightenment in Europe — although their roots trace back to Athens, Rome & Jerusalem

They derive from the revolutionary idea that the individual is the key pillar of society — not the clan, or tribe, or a religious belief system

The individual human being is entitled to these rights & freedoms because the laws of nature — which are knowable thru human reason — endow each & every person – men women equally — w/human dignity & the right to live free

Freedom of speech is among the most essential of our human liberties & one that gives voice & meaning to all the others – especially freedom of conscience & belief

Islam doesn’t have such beliefs or freedoms — there’s no such thing as ‘freedom of speech’ or belief articulated in Islamic Law (shariah)

Instead there is the “Law of Slander” — which defines ‘slander’ as anything that a Muslim would dislike — including the truth

Slander under shariah can carry the death penalty – indeed the Sira & hadiths tell us that some of the first assassinations ordered by Muhammad were precisely against poets for writing verses that he found insulting – apostasy from Islam likewise is a capital crime

I refer to the Council of Europe report from October 2016 on the ‘Compatibility of Sharia law with the European Convention on Human Rights: can States Parties to the Convention be signatories of the ‘Cairo Declaration’?

And I suggest the answer is ‘No.’ A government or system that defines itself as liberal, Western & democratic does not impose restrictions on free speech to shield itself from criticism – much less impose a death penalty for belief or lack of belief

We of Western Civilization dignify the individual by permitting all speech, no matter how we dislike it, if it is not explicitly inciting to immediate violence – and all beliefs or lack of belief

And so I recommend for the ODIHR 2017: Let us leave here today, renewed & inspired to reject liberty-crushing concepts like ‘hate speech’ & death penalties for religious beliefs or rejection of belief & instead committed to defend freedoms of belief, conscience & speech & all the principles of liberty we hold so dear.

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) 2017

Center for Security Policy, by Frank Gaffney, Sept. 12, 2017:

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is the world’s largest security-oriented intergovernmental organization. Its mandate includes issues such as arms control, promotion of human rights, freedom of the press, and fair elections.

The OSCE is concerned with early warning, conflict prevention, crisis management, and post-conflict rehabilitation. Created during the Cold War era as an East–West forum, Its 57 participating states are located in Europe, northern and central Asia, and North America.

Over the past decade, the OSCE has become an important battlespace in the war of ideas regarding freedom of speech, civilization jihad and the spread of sharia law into large swaths of Europe. Governmental and nongovernmental bodies from member nations may send representatives to take part in working sessions and side events where matters of international security are discussed.

This year, Executive Vice President Christopher Hull and Vice President for Research and Analysis Clare Lopez will represent the Center for Security Policy at the 2017 Human Dimension Implementation Meeting in Warsaw, Poland.

Canada: Antifa threatens to “smash” conference opposing “anti-Islamophobia” motion

Jihad Watch, by Christine Douglass-Williams, Sept 7, 2017:

A conference entitled “M-103: Islamophobia Cure or Shariah Trap?” will take place in Toronto this Sunday. The event is organized by a group called Canadian Citizens for Charter Rights and Freedoms (C3RF). Speakers include Dr. Bill Warner, Leo Adler, Deborah Weiss, Anthony Furey, Raheel Raza, Yusif Celik, Anni Cyrus and others. But “organizers are not publicly revealing its location. Anti-fascist activists, known as Antifa, have already threatened to disrupt the event and intimidate participants.”

Canada is in a crisis over “anti-Islamophobia” motion M-103. Last March, Liberal MP Iqra Khalid’s “anti-Islamophobia” motion M-103 passed the House of Commons, even though a poll indicatedthat this was not what most Canadians wanted. Canadians were duped by this motion, which had questionable origins, intimating an agenda which has no place in a democracy. The majority vote for the motion was along party lines, with only two Conservative MPs voting for it: Bruce Stanton and Michael Chong.

Although M-103 is not binding legislation, it was followed up with a Heritage Committee study “to look at the issue and then report back with a recommendations that could be used to create legislation within 240 days…The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is made up of 10 people, six of whom are Liberals. There is a Liberal chair, Hedy Fry, and then there is one Conservative and one NDP deputy chair.” Public hearings were part of this study.

One of the groups that applied to be included in that hearing was Canadian Citizens for Charter Rights & Freedoms (C3RF), a non-partisan group formed by a sizeable number of concerned citizens following the passage of M-103. C3RF’s request to serve as a witness and share its views in the hearings was rejected. Now, this C3RF conference is intended to raise awareness and educate people about the implications of M-103, and “prepare the groundwork for a political push against what they believe is legislation that will at some point restrict Canadians’ freedoms and perhaps lay the groundwork for the introduction of Islamic Shariah law in Canada.” But event organizers are reporting threats of violence, a further indication of how divisive Motion M-103 is in Canada. According to David Nitkin, a spokesman for and cosponsor of the conference:

Antifa has used voice mail messages and emails to threaten to go to locations where the conference is being held and “smash” the venues, in order to prevent the conference from proceeding.

Valerie Price, Director of ACT! for Canada, is also a cosponsor of the event. When I asked her if she would consider either cancelling or postponing the event  because of threats from Antifa, she replied:

No way is this going to happen if I have anything to say about it. What are we supposed to do – lie down and roll over and surrender every  time we are threatened by Antifa? This conference is about free speech and freedom of association. How is this hateful? What is truly hateful is their threatening behaviour and what they should understand is that we don’t preach hate – we expose it. Maybe that’s what they don’t like. This event WILL go on.

Price continued:

When the Heritage Committee refuses to allow C3RF to make a presentation before them, we will still be there. When they try to impose restrictions on free speech with their blasphemy laws, we will be there. We are not going anywhere. We will become their conscience. We must defeat Motion M- 103.

Canada also has anti-Islamophobia Charters in six Canadian cities, which the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), the former CAIR-CAN, worked for. “Islamophobia” is an Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) term used to describe anti-Muslim bigotry, which should be countered, but also criticism of Islam that is deemed offensive to Muslims, whether or not it is true or accurate. The OIC seeks to play “an active role in presenting a bright and positive image of Islam and member countries of the organization, while realizing the goals of Islamic unity.” This endeavor to present a positive image of Islam involves shutting down anything remotely critical of human rights abuses resulting from Sharia norms.

Turkish despot Recep Tayyip Erdogan has declared that “Islamophobia” is the same as anti-Semitism, and so in his view, Islamophobia should be declared a crime against humanity. Anti-Semitism is based on pure hatred of the Jewish people simply because they are Jewish; the Holocaust was an attempt to “exorcise the Jewish spirit from the world,” according to Professor Dan Michman of the International Institute for Holocaust Research. By contrast, “Islamophobia” is a trumped-up word with no clear definition. A former Imam and member of the International institute for Islamic Thought, Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, referenced the Islamophobia “canard” as a “loathsome term” which is “nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics,” and that is precisely what is happening already in Canada:

  • A peaceful free-speech rally against M-103 was shut down in Grand Prairie and deemed a hate rally.
  • A gay Iranian Muslim was banned from entering his anti-Sharia float in the Vancouver Pride Parade.
  • My federal appointment with the Canadian Race Relations Foundation (CRRF) is under scrutiny by the Heritage Department because I write for Jihad Watch and report on Islamic supremacist and jihad activity. Spokesperson Amira Elghawaby of the NCCM calls Jihad Watch a “hateful website.” The CRRF is in the Department of Heritage — the same Department that Motion M103 emerges from.

As Robert Spencer noted about the shutting down of the event in Grand Prairie: “Violent Leftists have been brutalizing people who stand for the freedom of speech, and they have friends in the highest places, and so your free speech rally is forbidden.”

True words indeed. Fortunately, there are Canadians who value freedom and so do not believe that the divisive “anti-Islamophobia” motion M-103 has any place in Canada. The same publication—The Canadian Jewish News — that discusses the backlash against the C3RF conference also features a debate about Motion M-103 entitled Should Jews Support M-103. In it, the former CEO of Canadian Jewish Congress, Benjamin Shinewald, unfortunately expresses his support for M-103. Shinewald thinks that the Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) — Canada’s largest Jewish advocacy group — is “twisting itself into a pretzel to oppose this motion.’”

Another former CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, Bernie Farber, is on the NCCM website promoting its “Charter for Inclusive Communities,” which includes its aggressive “anti-Islamophobia” drives because of what it claims is an “epidemic of Islamophobia” across the country.  Shinewald and Farber would do well to read OIC documents that define clearly what “Islamophobia” is about.

Shinewald also stated:

Canadian Jews should support M-103, plain and simple. And there is one more thing we should do. We should all chill out. After all, nothing of any consequence hangs on this non-binding private member’s motion – that is, with the exception of our collective dignity.

The OIC and Muslim Brotherhood-connected groups and individuals have been energetically pushing “anti-Islamophobia” drives in Canada and globally, but Shinewald thinks we should “chill out.” In the Canadian Jewish News debate, the prominent Canadian businessman, investor and philanthropist Michael Diamond noted rightly of M-103:

If parliament wishes to study the application of our existing hate laws…it should do that. but we should not elevate one group above all others….this effort to cater to Muslims alone has already had a negative and polarizing effect. It will be critical that Canadians focus carefully on what transpires next. A motion is not law, but it begins an important process. And what comes of that process could weaken the fabric of our society and divide us, instead of pulling us together.

Canada is doomed to a future of strife because of Islamic supremacist forces and Antifa if these anti-democratic forces are not opposed now. Unfortunately, the current Canadian government is enabling such divisions. We hope the C3RF’s freedom conference will be a great success, and will attract more attendees in the midst of the hatred and intimidation that are being directed against it. Police and security personnel will be present. More information here.

Read more

Blacklist

The Left’s latest war on free speech.

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, Sept. 5, 2017:

Blacklists are ugly things. They’re how you terrorize and intimidate people. They’re a weapon of hate. And Color of Change, an extremist group, is using blacklists to smear all conservatives as racists.

Color of Change, the organization founded by Van Jones, a 9/11 Truther and former Communist, has circulated a blacklist to PayPal, Discover, Visa, Master Card and American Express that falsely and libelously groups together a black Harlem church, the David Horowitz Freedom Center, an ex-Muslim organization, Jihad Watch and others as “white supremacists” alongside actual Neo-Nazis.

But Color of Change’s definition of “white supremacist” is Republican.

“We must hold every enabler of #Trump accountable,” Color of Change boss Rashad Robinson had tweeted. “#Enablers of white supremacist & nazi sympathizers are not neutral, they are complicit.”

In another Tweet, he laid out his real agenda for bringing down Trump. “Continuing to ensure there are consequences for #enablers – corporate, political and cultural – is critical to forcing him out. Isolate him!”

The Color of Change blacklists aimed at President Trump’s corporate council members and his grass roots supporters are part of the same partisan plot to use false accusations of white supremacy to intimidate corporations into silencing his supporters and forcing him out of office.

“There are no sidelines,” Color of Change declared before Trump’s inauguration. Any politicians or executives who worked with him were traitors. “For those in power—whether in government or in corporations—who choose to enable Trump’s plot against our country, we must be just as uncompromising.”

The blacklist is Color of Change’s weapon in its “uncompromising” war against democracy.

Color of Change has a long history of targeting corporations with pressure campaigns based around false accusations of racism in order to silence supporters of the Republican Party and punish critics of the Democrat Party.

When Glenn Beck expressed his disapproval of Obama, Color of Change warned his advertisers that if they didn’t pull their ads, they would be “publicly associated with his racism”. A more recent campaign targeting Bill O’Reilly also accused him of racism. Neither Beck nor O’Reilly are racists, but Color of Change uses false accusations of racism to intimidate corporations into silencing its political opponents.

When McCain campaigned for the White House, Color of Change accused him of allowing his supporters to shout, “Kill him” at Obama. When Romney ran against Obama, Rashad Robinson accused him of “appealing to the basest racisim [sic].” Rashad and COC’s smears have remained dishonestly consistent.

Color of Change used the same tactic when going after ALEC, a pro-business group targeted by leftist activists over its opposition to government regulation. Corporate members of ALEC were warned, “either stop funding ALEC, or become widely known as a company dismantling the gains of the civil rights movement. “

Behind Color of Change’s racism smears are rich white leftists. Its money comes from George Soros, Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, the Ford Foundation and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Behind its posturing about “white supremacy” are the usual targets, FOX News, ALEC, the Republican Party and conservative activist groups, which the left has always plotted to destroy in its quest for total power.

Hitting corporations with racism smears is just how the left’s racism-smearing subdivision goes about it.

What is ugly about Color of Change and the leftist billionaires and billion dollar groups behind it is that they aren’t arguing, instead they’re blacklisting. Their blacklist seeks to enlist corporations to police and monitor speech, to punish political opposition and to even force out the President of the United States.

Instead of recognizing that Color of Change’s blacklist is demonstrably flawed, that it contains numerous inaccuracies ranging from the inclusion of blacks, Jews and ex-Muslims on a list of “white supremacist” organizations to basic factual and even grammatical errors, corporations instead enforce the blacklist.

PayPal banned Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch before reinstating it. It also targeted Pamela Geller’s AFDI. Of all the credit card companies hit with the blacklist petition, Discover offered the broadest statement in support of blacklisting. But any serious survey of the Color of Change blacklist and the ProPublica blacklist, both of which are based on the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center blacklist, would have found that the blacklists were filled with false claims.

The American College of Pediatricians is not an “anti-LGBTQ hate group”, it’s a professional association of traditional doctors. Color of Change’s claim that Breivik quoted “AFDI and its leaders” in his manifesto is an old discredited smear. The manifesto quoted everyone. It quoted Obama 19 times.

Faith Freedom International is not “anti-Islamic”: it’s an organization of ex-Muslims. The David Horowitz Freedom Center is not a “premier financier of anti-Muslim voices”. It defends civil rights. Former FBI agent John Guandolo does not “train law enforcement and security officers to support violence and hatred toward all Muslims.” That sentence is defamatory gibberish. The United West does not make “false claims that civil rights groups like CAIR are working with terrorist organizations.”

The Department of Justice found that CAIR was an unindicted co-conspirator in a terror finance case.

After Hillary’s defeat, the undemocratic left embraced crowdsourced corporate censorship. From #GrabYourWallet, which threatened companies that did business with Trump or were in any way supportive of him, to the #FakeNews panic which drove Facebook, Twitter and Google to purge conservative sites, corporations have become tools in the left’s war on the Constitution.

Facebook’s latest announcement that it will ban advertising from sites that left-wing fact checkers deem “fake News” and Guidestar’s effort to embed the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate map into its listings of non-profit organizations are ominous developments for the marketplace of ideas.

The left is slowly assembling the machinery of a national corporate blacklist. Tech companies obeying the blacklist will first degrade access and then ban conservative sites from their services. Conservative sites will vanish from Google, Twitter and Facebook. Credit cards companies will refuse to do business with conservatives.

Companies that refuse to obey the blacklist will be faced with a secondary blacklist. Other companies will be pressured to stop doing business with them until they comply with the blacklist. If advertisers don’t stop running ads on targeted sites, credit card companies will be told to stop doing business with them. If a hotel hosts a conservative convention, companies holding a retreat there will be pressured to pull out.

Crowdsourced corporate blacklists will usher in a totalitarian state in which only the left will be allowed to speak. And the right will be forcibly censored by a network of corporations bound by the blacklist.

The blacklist is a bigger threat than the IRS attacks under Obama. And it’s a bigger threat to democracy.

That’s why the Freedom Center is launching a Campaign Against Blacklists (details to be announced shortly). We’re not going to allow ourselves to be intimidated. We are going to stand up to the lies. And we will rise for the truth.

Color of Change, and the billionaire leftists behind it, have gotten away with false accusations of racism for too long. When corporations comply with the blacklist, we will hold them accountable. And we will make it clear that they are not just making a business decision, but silencing millions of patriots.

Democracy means that everyone gets to participate. Freedom of Speech means that everyone gets to speak. When corporations comply with the blacklist, they are undermining what makes America great.

***

STOP THE BLACKLIST – Blocking the Left’s kill-shot in its war on free speech.

Editors’ note: To join us in our Stop the Blacklist Now campaignCLICK HERE.

In Berkeley and Boston, in Portland and San Francisco, leftwing vigilantes organized under banners like Antifa, By Any Means Necessary, and Refuse Fascism, have violently shut down peaceful protests, beating anyone in their path with clubs and truncheons with the express purpose of “denying platforms” to ideas they don’t like. These violent attacks on free speech have been augmented by an equally similar trend pioneered by the Southern Poverty Law Center – a notorious leftwing smear site – and by groups such as the radical BloodMoney.org, which has appropriated the SPLC “hate group” list, re-categorized them as “White Supremacist” groups and targeted the funding sources of dozens of respected conservative organizations in an effort to suppress them

Collectively, these attacks pose the greatest threat to American freedoms in our lifetime.

Confronting and stopping the violent assaults on free speech in the streets or on university quads is a matter for law enforcement. The threat posed by blacklists is different. It requires a vigorous and determined public response. We at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, who are one of the targets of these efforts to suppress conservative viewpoints by stigmatizing them as “hate”, are today launching a campaign to Stop the Blacklist Now designed to rally public opinion and persuade the corporate business interests, the credit card companies who have been targeted by the blacklist organizations, the CEOs of Apple, Google, and JP Morgan who have donated millions of dollars to finance them, to have second thoughts about what they are supporting and to stop doing it.

In a saner time, the effort to equate mainstream conservative organizations with hate led by the Southern Poverty Law Center would be dismissed as the slanders of a nasty fringe operation. But in today’s inflamed political atmosphere where fake news has replaced the real thing, the SPLC blacklist of “hateful” conservative groups has been accepted by credulous liberal media outlets like CNN, by social media sites such as Facebook, and even by Google, all of which have posted the SPLC’s “hate maps” as though they came from a respectable non-partisan authority.

Allegations of “hate” have been used to try to convince PayPal to stop taking donations for conservative organizations such as the Freedom Center and to sway Guidestar, a premier rating site for non profits, into designating us as a “hate group” to scare off donors. Just last week a leftist site called bloodmoney.organnounced a campaign to force Visa and Mastercard to stop processing funds for 100 “hateful” conservative groups, us included.

This is serious. The Left is using the “hate” libel to remove the Freedom Center and other conservative groups from the national political conversation and to smother free speech in America. This new and sinister tactic will succeed if we don’t act now.

That’s why the Freedom Center is launching the campaign to Stop the Blacklist Now.

• This campaign will work with other conservative organizations smeared as hate groups and threatened with financial extinction to form a national coalition to fight back against this threat to the survival of conservatism and of free speech in America.

• It will take the fight to the legal arena. Already our attorneys have gotten Guidestar and PayPal to rethink their participation in this Blacklist and have put CNN, Google and Facebook on notice of our intention to fight this smear campaign.

• It will demand that the federal government designate Antifa, and other violent masked brownshirts who function as the paramilitary arm for the effort to snuff out the free speech rights of conservatives and conservative organizations, as a criminal gang and apply all the law enforcement sanctions that go with this designation.

• It will publish a series of “Common Sense” tracts revealing exactly how this hate libel against conservative organizations has been deployed by the Southern Poverty Law Center to strangle conservatism. As one of SPLC’s own executives, Mark Potock, admitted in an unguarded moment, “Our criteria for a ‘hate group’ has nothing to do with criminality or violence… It’s strictly ideological.”

And in fact no organization in America has spewed more hate than the SPLC itself. In  2012, after reading about the Family Research Council on the SPLC website, a man named Floyd Lee Corkins walked into the FRC headquarters with an automatic pistol to “kill  as many of them as possible.” And just a few weeks ago, a man named James Hodgkinson stalked and shot Congressman Steve Scalise a Congressional baseball practice because he had read that Scalise was a racist on the SPLC Facebook page.

SPLC’s slanders have real consequences.

The Freedom Center’s campaign to Stop the Blacklist Now must succeed in rousing a ferocious opposition to this leftist threat. If it doesn’t then there will be only one voice in America, that of the radicals. Free speech, already on life support in our university “safe spaces,” will pass away.  The Antifa and other leftwing storm troopers will control our streets. We will find ourselves living in a country we no longer recognize as home.

This cannot be allowed to happen. We must fight back against this effort to silence conservatism and strangle free speech.  Please join us in this crucial campaign to Stop the Blacklist Now.

First Look: Pamela Geller Bus Ads for ‘Can’t We Talk About This? The Islamic Jihad Against Free Speech’ (Exclusive)

Pamela Geller/AFDI

Breitbart, by Pamela Geller, Sept. 5, 2017:

Thanks to a Muslim hate group, my organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), can run our pro-freedom ads again in New York City.

AFDI has tangled with New York City’s Metropolitan Transit Authority on more than one occasion. They refused to run our ads, we sued multiple times, and we won multiple times. So for the first time in NYC transit history, the MTA banned political and issue related ads: the Geller ban.

But then a Muslim hate group wanted to run ads for their political film despite the ban, so they, too, sued the city, claiming that their political movie, The Muslims Are Coming, was not a political or issue related ad. They sued and they won, and all I can say is thank you.

Because of this Muslim lawsuit, we can run our ads again. And so we have. And they are brilliant.

My new ads announce the imminent release of Can’t We Talk About This? The Islamic Jihad Against Free Speech, a shocking new film and follow-up video series detailing the concerted effort by international organizations to compel the U.S. and other Western countries to curtail the freedom of speech and criminalize criticism of Islam.

Featuring exclusive new interviews with me, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders, Mark Steyn, Douglas Murray, Ezra Levant, Lars Vilks, Garland Muhammad cartoon contest winner Bosch Fawstin, and many other heroes of freedom, this web series will be the first ever to expose the war on free speech. It is certain to shock the American public and awaken many. These interviews reveal events at Garland and its aftermath that have never before been made public, and demonstrate how far advanced the war on free speech really is.

In this film, we’re setting the record straight about our Garland free speech event, at which we were not only targeted by Islamic jihadis but apparently by the FBI as well. But we’re doing much more as well: we’re telling the whole, as-yet-untold truth about the war on free speech.

Hollywood will never tell this story. The media will never tell this story. Our public schools and universities will never teach our children what happened. The truth must be told.

Can’t We Talk About This? is a follow-up to AFDI’s acclaimed 2011 documentary, The Ground Zero Mosque: The Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks. This much-needed new web series gives viewers the inside story of what happened in Garland and why, and lays out the full and appalling details of the all-out assault on the freedom of speech that is taking place today – and why this may be the most crucial battleground today in the war for the survival of the United States of America as a free republic.

The web series also features seldom-seen news footage and revealing details not only of the Garland event and the jihad killers who wanted to wage jihad there, but also of the many other battlegrounds in the war for free speech that led up to the Garland attack, including the death fatwa issued in 1989 by the Islamic Republic of Iran against Salman Rushdie for his supposed blasphemy in The Satanic Verses; the assassination of Theo Van Gogh by a Muslim on an Amsterdam street in November 2004 for his alleged blasphemy; the Dutch newspaper Jyllands Posten’s cartoons of Muhammad, published in September 2005, which touched off international riots and killings by Muslims – and most disturbing of all, calls in the West for restrictions on the freedom of speech; the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s years-long struggle at the UN to compel the West to criminalize “incitement to religious hatred” (a euphemism for criticism of Islam); and the U.S. under Obama signing on to UNCHR Resolution 16/18, which calls on member states to work to restrict incitement to religious hatred.

Can’t We Talk About This? also covers lesser-known skirmishes in the war against free speech as well, such as Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris’ “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” in 2010, after which Norris was forced to go into hiding and change her identity after threats. And it traces what immediately led up to the Garland event – most notably, the January 2015 massacre of Muhammad cartoonists at the offices of the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine in Paris and the subsequent “Stand with the Prophet” event in Garland, at which Muslim groups gathered in the wake of that massacre not to defend free speech, but to complain about “Islamophobia,” while AFDI members and supporters protested outside.

We set out the media firestorm that followed the Garland event, as well as the attempts to kill me, and explain why the event’s detractors were all missing the point: the freedom of speech doesn’t apply only if you like the message; it applies to everyone. And if it is gone, so is a free society.

Can’t We Talk About This? tells the whole horrifying story of how advanced the Islamic war on free speech is, and how close leftist and Islamic authoritarians are to final victory and the death of the freedom of speech and free society.

Don’t miss the exclusive advance screening of Can’t We Talk About This? on September 5 on VIMEO. And if you’re in New York City, watch for our truth-telling ads. And please help us meet the massive expenses of our truth campaigns: contribute here.

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 Resistance. Follow her on Twitter here. Like her on Facebook here.

Also see:

Two New Totalitarian Movements: Radical Islam and Political Correctness

Gatestone Institute, by A. Z. Mohamed, August 23, 2017:

  • The attempt in the West to impose a strict set of rules about what one is allowed to think and express in academia and in the media — to the point that anyone who disobeys is discredited, demonized, intimidated and in danger of losing his or her livelihood — is just as toxic and just as reminiscent of Orwell’s diseased society.
  • The main facet of this PC tyranny, so perfectly predicted by George Orwell, is the inversion of good and evil — of victim and victimizer. In such a universe, radical Muslims are victimized by the West, and not the other way around. This has led to a slanted teaching of the history of Islam and its conquests, both as a justification of the distortion and as a reflection of it.
  • Thought-control is necessary for the repression of populations ruled by despotic regimes. That it is proudly and openly being used by self-described liberals and human-rights advocates in free societies is not only hypocritical and shocking; it is a form of aiding and abetting regimes whose ultimate goal is to eradicate Western ideals.

Political correctness (PC) has been bolstering radical Islamism. This influence was most recently shown again in an extensive exposé by the Clarion Project in July 2017, which demonstrates the practice of telling “deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them in order to forget any fact that has become inconvenient” — or, as George Orwell called it in his novel, 1984, “Doublespeak.”

This courtship and marriage between the Western chattering classes and radical Muslim fanatics was elaborated by Andrew C. McCarthy in his crucial 2010 book, The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.

Since then, this union has strengthened. Both the United States and the rest of the West are engaged in a romance with forces that are, bluntly, antagonistic to the values of liberty and human rights.

To understand this seeming paradox, one needs to understand what radical Islamism and PC have in common. Although Islamism represents all that PC ostensibly opposes — such as the curbing of free speech, the repression of women, gays and “apostates” — both have become totalitarian ideologies.

The totalitarian nature of radical Islamism is more obvious than that of Western political correctness — and certainly more deadly. Sunni terrorists, such as ISIS and Hamas — and Shiites, such as Hezbollah and its state sponsor, Iran — use mass murder to accomplish their ultimate goal of an Islamic Caliphate that dominates the world and subjugates non-Muslims.

The attempt in the West, however, to impose a strict set of rules about what one is allowed to think and express in academia and in the media — to the point that anyone who disobeys is discredited, demonized, intimidated and in danger of losing his or her livelihood — is just as toxic and just as reminiscent of Orwell’s view of a diseased society.

These rules are not merely unspoken ones. Quoting a Fox News interview with American columnist Rachel Alexander, the Clarion Project points out that the Associated Press — whose stylebook is used as a key reference by a majority of English-language newspapers worldwide for uniformity of grammar, punctuation and spelling — is now directing writers to avoid certain words and terms that are now deemed unacceptable to putative liberals.

Alexander recently wrote:

“Even when individual authors do not adhere to the bias of AP Style, it often doesn’t matter. If they submit an article to a mainstream media outlet, they will likely see their words edited to conform. A pro-life author who submits a piece taking a position against abortion will see the words ‘pro-life’ changed to ‘anti-abortion,’ because the AP Stylebook instructs, ‘Use anti-abortion instead of pro-life and pro-abortion rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice.’ It goes on, ‘Avoid abortionist,’ saying the term ‘connotes a person who performs clandestine abortions.’

“Words related to terrorism are sanitized in the AP Stylebook. Militant, lone wolves or attackers are to be used instead of terrorist or Islamist. ‘People struggling to enter Europe’ is favored over ‘migrant’ or ‘refugee.’ While it’s true that many struggle to enter Europe, it is accurate to point out that they are, in fact, immigrants or refugees.”

To be sure, the AP Stylebook does not carry the same weight or authority as the Quranic texts on which radical Islamists base their jihadist actions and totalitarian aims. It does constitute, however, a cultural decree that has turned religious in its fervor. It gives a glimpse, as well, into the intellectual tyranny that has pervaded liberal Western thought and institutions.

The main facet of this PC tyranny, so perfectly predicted by Orwell, is the inversion of good and evil — of victim and victimizer. In such a universe, radical Muslims are victimized by the West, and not the other way around. This has led to a slanted teaching of the history of Islam and its conquests, both as a justification of the distortion and as a reflection of it.

As far back as 2003, the Middle East Forum reported on the findings of a study conducted by the American Textbook Council, an independent New York-based research organization, which stated:

“[Over the last decade], the coverage of Islam in world history textbooks has expanded and in some respects improved…. But on significant Islam-related subjects, textbooks omit, flatter, embellish, and resort to happy talk, suspending criticism or harsh judgments that would raise provocative or even alarming questions.”

Thought-control is necessary for the repression of populations ruled by despotic regimes. That it is proudly and openly being used by self-described liberals and human-rights advocates in free societies is not only hypocritical and shocking; it is a form of aiding and abetting regimes whose ultimate goal is to eradicate Western ideals. The relationship between the two must be recognized for what it is: a marriage made in hell.

A. Z. Mohamed is a Muslim born and raised in the Middle East.

Tech Blacklisting of Counterjihadists Is What Muslim Brotherhood Seeks: Sabotage by Our Hands

Ein Fachbesucher testen am 22.08.2017 in Köln (Nordrhein- Photo by: Oliver Berg/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images

PJ Media, by Ben Weingarten, Aug. 22, 2017:

When one thinks of the embodiment of “hate,” modern-day jihadists are perhaps without equal.

They murder those who refuse to submit to their totalitarian theopolitical belief system in the most vile and horrific ways, from stabbings and shootings to beheadings, bombings, and vehicle crashings.

They revile non-believer “infidels,” from Jews and Christians to atheists and gays, and mercilessly persecute all who fall under their clutches.

They engage in sex slaverymass rape and pillaging.

But when today’s sophist Left thinks of “hate,” it focuses its sights not on jihadists, but on those who forthrightly discuss the jihadist threat, among other advocates of non-leftist views.

That is the sad reality in light of the emerging story of the blacklisting of such individuals and organizations by major technology platforms.

The most notable early casualty is Robert Spencer, who headlines a list of other opponents of the global jihad.

Spencer has dedicated his life to exposing Islamic supremacist ideology and the goals, tactics, and strategies of its peaceful and violent foot soldiers. He has published several bestselling books, and through his Jihad Watch website catalogues daily the global jihad’s advance and the tragic aiding, abetting, and enabling of the movement by Islamophiliac dupes, useful idiots, and fellow travelers.

For his long rap sheet of thought crimes, he’s paid a physical price. In May of 2017, Spencer was poisoned by a leftist while in Iceland to deliver an anti-jihad speech.

Now he is paying an economic one.

The online payment system service PayPal has booted Jihad Watch from its serviceunder the guise of a user agreement violation, meaning that its financial supporters can no longer easily contribute to the site online. These contributions support Spencer’s public appearances and website operations.

This comes on the heels of a campaign in which the purported “independent, non-profit,” but heavily leftist-funded investigative journalism website ProPublica blasted out an email to various groups and individuals – including Spencer — fingered by the Leftist Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and American Defamation League (ADL) as “hate” or “extremist,” asking them to in essence prove their innocence while simultaneously chilling their efforts.

It bears noting that the SPLC has previously lumped in conservative nonprofits of all stripes with neo-Nazis, effectively smearing its ideological adversaries.

The questions posed by ProPublica’s Lauren Kirchner included:

1) Do you disagree with the designation of your website as hate or extremist? Why?

2) We identified several tech companies on your website: PayPal, Amazon, Newsmax, and Revcontent. Can you confirm that you receive funds from your relationship with those tech companies? How would the loss of those funds affect your operations, and how would you be able to replace them?

3) Have you been shut down by other tech companies for being an alleged hate or extremist web site? Which companies?

4) Many people opposed to sites like yours are currently pressuring tech companies to cease their relationships with them – what is your view of this campaign? Why?