Anne Marie unveils the Easy Guide to Debating the Useful Infidel. Part I: “Not All”, exposing the cowardice and malice behind the Left’s Jihad Denial.
If progressives perceive Muslims as the greater victim group now, then Muslim victimization trumps gay victimization.
By Dr. Michael Hurd, March 30, 2017:
Sigh. Here we go again.
Here’s the story:
ISIS have thrown a young man to his death from a rooftop and pelted him with rocks after discovering he was gay.
The barbaric mob released pictures of the public execution in Mosul which was carried out in the name of Allah and Islam through Sharia Law.
A crowd of people had gathered to watch the youth take his final breath and throw stones at him, all because of his sexuality.
The victim was blindfolded and hurled off the roof, according to Iraqi News, before he was stoned to death in the street.
Twisted ISIS militants had even lined the streets with rocks ready for locals to pelt the man with them when he hit the ground as seen in a graphic set of pictures.
…The same sort of punishment was handed to another man in May last year in Syria and in 2015 the UN estimated 30 men had been thrown to their deaths by ISIS for being gay.
I’m posting the picture, not because I believe in gratuitous exploitation of violence, but because it’s reality. And Americans, particularly left-wingers and progressives, desperately need a dose of reality.
If I were naïve, I’d wonder at the contradiction between what used to be called “liberalism” (now it’s “progressivism” or leftism) and the complete silence over events like this.
If “gay rights” include the expression of outrage when the individual rights of gay men or women are violated in the name of a fanatical religion, not once but over and over again, then you would think events like this would stir at least something.
But it doesn’t. Crimes committed by Muslims against gays are largely (if not totally) ignored by the political left and the gay rights movement. Neither Madonna nor Meryl Streep will stand before mass audiences and sob over the brutal execution of gays by Muslims in Mosul, because this assaults their ideological narrative of political correctness. And that ideological narrative is what matters most to them, not the gays or others they claim to love. In fact, you’re labeled a hater and extremist if you even call attention to these events, much less state what ought to be the obvious: that these are the hate crimes to end all hate crimes.
I have come to understand something about the mentality of leftists and progressives. They love victims far more than they love rights. Gays and lesbians have come a long way in American and Western society; nobody can dispute this fact. But Muslims, in the progressive mindset, are now the greater potential victims. If Muslims are killing gays, while even “moderate” Muslims have nothing to say about it, then it does not matter. Because rights are not what matter; victimization does. If progressives perceive Muslims as the greater victim group now, then Muslim victimization trumps gay victimization. As sad and as sick as it sounds, this is, unfortunately, how progressive “logic” seems to work.
We can scream “fake news” every time something happens that doesn’t fit with our narrative. But events like these have been going on for decades or centuries. It doesn’t matter to me if Christians have done it too, or Jews, or anyone else, for that matter. I only know of one religion doing it in the early twenty-first century, particularly on the scale and brutality we now see it. If we’re to call out white supremacists and other hate groups for their irrationality, we have to call out Islam for the same.
Even the predictably leftist Washington Post finds the Islamic war against gays too much to handle, at times, which prompted it to run a story last summer entitled, “The Islamic State’s shocking war on gays.” Progressives usually support and like the Washington Post, but nevertheless greet such stories with nothing but killer silence. The same people who say it’s the equivalent of murder to vote for Donald Trump, or to fail at defending gay marriage, cannot even muster a peep about brutal execution of gays in places like Iran and Iraq, where Islam predominates.
I can only assume that “gay rights,” as perpetuated by Democrats and progressives, have little to do with either gays or rights. The only thing that seems to matter to these leftist movements any longer is political correctness. Political correctness, aside from a blind adherence to socialism, also means a complete unwillingness to criticize or even call attention to anything at all negative about the political and religious ideology of Islam.
As many of these same progressives will claim in other contexts, silence kills. And their silence is literally killing gay people not fortunate enough to live in the United States or what remains of Western civilization.
Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1
WND, by Greg Corombos, Feb. 17, 2017:
Liberal feminists and Islamists don’t have a lot in common but they are now strong partners in the fight against President Trump.
A leading terrorism analyst, however, warns that feminists are nothing but “useful idiots” in a movement that would truly oppress them if the Islamists achieve their goals.
“What’s happening in the West is we think if we just show them how much we love them and how much we respect their way of life, they’re going to respect our way of life. This way, I do what I want, you do what we want and we live happily ever after,” said Brigitte Gabriel, president of Act for America and author of “They Must Be Stopped.”
The teamwork was on full display at the women’s march in Washington on Jan. 21. Most of the headlines focused on women proclaiming their right to abortions, but Linda Sarsour, the woman leading the protest, has a very different history of activism.
“She’s an Islamist through and through. She wears the hijab. She comes from a Palestinian background. Half her family members are in Israeli jails involved in terrorism,” said Gabriel.
Gabriel says it’s mind-boggling to watch liberal American women march under the banner of a woman who has no problem with how Muslim society treats women.
“She praises Saudi Arabia and their Shariah law. This is a nation state where women cannot drive. They are beaten. They are stoned. They are flogged for having relations with another man or even seen with another man who is even a distant relative,” said Gabriel.
And it’s not just in Saudi Arabia. Gabriel says even the most moderate Islamic nations do not come anywhere close to the freedoms women enjoy in the West. She says her home nation of Lebanon, which has shifted dramatically from Christian to Muslim in recent decades, is suffering from the demographic shift.
“I know a 29-year-old Christian businesswoman from my hometown. The social police showed up at her door, took her for investigation and arrested her simply because she had a meeting with another man who is not related to her outside of her home without the supervision of her parents. They are enforcing these rules on Christian families, not only Muslim families,” said Gabriel.
“I’m not talking about Indonesia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh. You assume things like this happen in these types of countries. But to think that even in a country like Lebanon, that something like this can happen to a Christian woman, that goes to show you the oppression of women in Islamic-controlled countries,” said Gabriel.
So how did Islamic activists win over the feminists as allies? Gabriel says Sarsour was very clever.
“Somehow, she found a way to appeal to the feminist movement inside the United States saying, ‘We’re all women together here. We all are oppressed.’ She is basically using the emotions to try to lure them into coming with her and standing [against] President Trump. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and that’s where they are right now,” said Gabriel.
And despite the glaring differences in the goals of the two movements, Gabriel says this alliance will likely continue for some time.
“I think it’s going to be a very long-term working relationship between the both of them because they have a common enemy that they hate much more and that is President Trump. They hate that much more than they hate their differences,” said Gabriel.
Sarsour is already cashing in on the alliance by getting groups like Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America and the Human Right Campaign to write big checks in support of the march.
“We are already seeing how leftist organizations are not only standing with her and the Islamist movement in the United States to oppose Trump, but they are actually funding her movement. So now we are seeing the left and the Islamists coming together, not only working together but exchanging money,” said Gabriel.
According to Gabriel, the feminist groups know very little about the long-term goals of Sarsour and her Islamist allies.
“We shouldn’t be surprised. What people like Linda Sarsour are doing are basically following to the letter the instructions of the Muslim Brotherhood and their plan, which later became known as ‘The Project,’ on how to work within Western nations in order to recruit like-minded people who share similar goals,” said Gabriel.
And it’s not just liberal women’s groups aligning with Islamists. Gabriel says it’s happening more and more with the liberals seemingly oblivious to what their lives would be like if people like Sarsour get their way. One example is the ACLU working hand-in-hand with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR.
“You scratch your head and you think to yourself, ‘How can these two people have anything in common?’ But the ACLU, just like the feminists in this country are being used as useful idiots at the hands of Islamists like Linda Sarsour who have an end goal. They are using them simply to get to that goal,” said Gabriel.
In recent weeks, female politicians in Sweden made headlines in two very different ways. First, they mocked President Trump’s signing of a pro-life executive order while surrounded by mostly men with a picture of an all-female signing ceremony. Yet, just days later, female Swedish politicians wore hijabs without protest while visiting Iran.
Gabriel says Swedish leaders, of all people, ought to know the price of Islamic appeasement.
“Because of the immigration of majorities from Islamic nations, how they are treating feminists. In Germany, for example, look at the rapes on New Year’s Eve. Look at the rapes in Sweden. Sweden has become the rape capital of the world,” said Gabriel.
Gabriel says Western nations are also eroding their own interests by allowing Muslim Shariah law to hold sway in formal court proceedings. Her organization is doing something about it.
“We at Act for America have introduced bills across the country called ‘American Laws for American Courts,’ which says no foreign law, which includes Shariah law, will be allowed to be used in any American courtroom. Only the Constitution should be the highest authority in the land,” said Gabriel.
She says it’s happening in the United States a lot more often than many people realize.
“People wonder sometimes why we have to pass such a law. We have documented over 140 cases in America where Shariah law was used instead of the Constitution of the United States in 22 states in American courtrooms,” said Gabriel.
More information on the “American Laws for American Courts” effort can be found at actforamerica.org.
Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, October 27, 2016:
The objective of this libelous new report from the hard-Left money-making and incitement machine the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is made plain within it: “Before you book a spokesperson from an anti-Muslim extremist group or quote them in a story, research their background — detailed in this in-depth guide to 15 of the most visible anti-Muslim activists— and consider the consequences of giving them a platform.” They wish to silence those who speak honestly about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, blaming us for a supposed rise in “Islamophobia.” If they really want to stamp out suspicion of Islam, of course, they will move against not us, but the likes of Omar Mateen, Syed Rizwan Farook, Tashfeen Malik, Nidal Malik Hasan, Mohammed Abdulazeez, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and the myriad other Muslims who commit violence in the name of Islam and justify it by reference to Islamic teachings.
The SPLC doesn’t do that because its objective is not really to stop “Islamophobia” at all, but to create the illusion of a powerful and moneyed network of “Islamophobes,” who can only be stopped if you write a check to the SPLC. That’s what this is really all about. In constructing this illusory edifice, the SPLC labels me and fourteen others “anti-Muslim extremists.” We are, of course, no more “anti-Muslim” than foes of the Nazis were anti-German, but note the word “extremists.” That’s the mainstream media and Obama administration’s term of choice for jihad terrorists. In what way are we “extremists”? Has anyone on the SPLC’s hit list (and given the SPLC’s track record of inciting violence against its targets, that is exactly what it is) ever blown anything or anyone up? Beheaded anyone? Boasted of our imminent conquest of any territory and the massacre of or enslavement of its people? No, all we have done is speak critically about jihad terror and Sharia oppression. The SPLC is trying to further the libel that we are the other side of the coin, the non-Muslim bin Ladens and Awlakis. Until we commit any terror attacks or conspire with others to do so, however, the SPLC’s libel is only that: a libel.
It’s also passingly ironic that the SPLC list includes several people who are doubtless horrified to be in this company, as they have endeavored for years to distinguish their message from that of those whom they themselves would smear as “Islamophobes.” But their temporizing and pandering didn’t work: they ended up on the Index of Prohibited Thinkers anyway, as will, ultimately, anyone who dares to note that Islam just might have something to do with the acts of murder committed in its name and in accord with its teachings.
The entry on me is accompanied by a nifty watercolor, but otherwise has little to recommend it, other than as an example of the Left’s strange tendency to present true statements as if they were self-evidently false, without bothering to explain why. Apparently the SPLC knows its supporters and is aware that it doesn’t need to bother with troublesome things like, you know, facts.
Nonetheless, I have replied in detail here so that the record, for anyone who is fair-minded, is clear. Much more below.
“Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists,” SPLC, October 25, 2016:
Robert Spencer — Jihad Watch* // American Freedom Defense Initiative* // Stop Islamization of America*
Robert Spencer is commonly referred to as one of the few real intellectuals in the anti-Muslim movement, and it is true that he is the author of more than a dozen books, two of which made the New York Times Best Seller List. But Spencer is entirely self-taught in the study of Islam,
An odd objection. One cannot be both “self-taught” and a “real intellectual”? In any case, it’s false: I am indeed mostly self-taught in the study of Islam, and make no secret of or apologies for it; every day’s headlines proves me correct. Nonetheless, the fact is that I did first read the Qur’an and began studying Islam in earnest while at the University of North Carolina, in courses taught by Professor Gordon Newby, author of A Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, who was coming over from Duke to teach courses about Islam, and Professor David Halperin of UNC.
he has partnered with a woman known as one of the least reasoned enemies of Islam in the country, and he is given to the same kinds of extravagant, and often provably false, claims that characterize most Muslim-bashers.
“Provably false”? Really? Where? When? By whom? Certainly not by the SPLC, either in this hit piece or any other.
Spencer has complained of “Shariah enclaves” and predicted that they will grow across America;
Some news articles from just the past few weeks:
There are plenty more where those came from.
referred to Barack Obama as “the first Muslim president”;
This one epitomizes the dishonesty of the SPLC. The quote comes from an article I wrote in 2007 discussing how Obama was not a Muslim, stating that his obvious affinity for Islam and the Muslim world could make him into “our first Muslim president” the way Bill Clinton was called “our first black president.” After eight years of Obama, I’d say I was proven correct in rather spectacular fashion.
By Jamie Glazov, October 25, 2016:
This new special edition of the Glazov Gang was joined by Trevor Loudon, the writer and director of the new documentary, The Enemies Within – an expose on the growing communist and Muslim Brotherhood influence on our government.
Mr. Loudon came on the show to discuss his new film and to issue a dire warning to America.
This tactic of accusing those concerned about threats to freedom of being themselves threats to freedom ought to sound alarm bells whenever it is tried.
CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, October 14 2016:
One can see some similarities between the Cold War accusations of McCarthyism and false claims of Islamophobia today. Then as now, it is possible to stifle the voices of those concerned about real threats to Western freedoms by claiming that those voices are themselves enemies of Western freedoms. This is not wholly a partisan issue: A Dutch woman with a leftist background, Machteld Zee, is among those sounding the alarm. Zee has witnessed first-hand Sharia courts in the UK, the UK’s Independent states:
Machteld Zee, a legal scholar at Leiden University in the Netherlands, secured extraordinary access to the secretive courts, attending 15 hours of hearings at the Islamic Sharia Council in Leyton, east London, and the Birmingham Central Mosque Sharia. She was able to scrutinise more than a dozen cases, and interview an array of sharia experts including nine qadis – Islamic judges.
Some of the disturbing observations against women Zee noticed include:
A case where a woman who claimed to be married to a physically and verbally abusive man is told by a “laughing” judge: “Why did you marry such a person?”
A woman “ready to burst into tears” is sent away without an answer after saying that her husband took out a loan in her name on the day they married and is denying her a divorce until she gives him £10,000.
A married couple asking for advice on whether the woman had been religiously divorced from her former husband were told “the secular divorce counts as nothing”.
Is that the kind of justice those in the UK want for their women? Islamic law and Western law are incompatible at the core – for instance, how women are routinely treated as inferior to men (Sahih Bukhari 1.6.301). Zee exposes how some individuals are letting this Islamization to take place, Breitbart reports:
Interviewing the political scientist, Dutch journalist Wierd Duk noted that in Holy Identities Zee argues Islamic fundamentalists who share the Saudi regime’s goal of Islamisation are being helped by “useful infidels” — non-Muslim intellectuals, politicians, and opinion-shapers who don’t want to cause offence.
Zee replied: “Yes, leading multiculturalists actually believe that Muslims should be shielded from criticism because it would inflict psychological harm. Although there are many Muslims who find this view idiotic, others use it to call those who criticise Islam ‘Islamophobes’ and ‘racists’.”
We have been seeing that tactic in play throughout Europe, and as a result Muslim immigrant communities have overwhelmingly embraced leftist political parties. For example, an article from The Economist reveals how “One study in France found that 93% of Muslims voted for the Socialist, François Hollande, in the 2012 presidential election.” However, since many Muslims feel leftist parties aren’t satisfying their Muslim constituents enough, Muslim political parties are starting to emerge. We are seeing this phenomenon occur in the Netherlands with the Denk party breaking off from the Dutch Labour party. The two former Labour party members to start Denk are Tunahan Kuzu and Selcuk Ozturk – both with Turkish origins and accused of having connections with Turkish President Erdogan’s Islamist AKP party. Denk is so radical that it advocates for “Racism Police” to essentially censor speech that is against the Muslim immigrant community. Legal Insurrection reports on this blatantly anti-Western plan:
The party [Denk] wants stricter sentences for “racist and discriminatory behaviour”, and treat so-called offenders much like child molesters by listing them on a nationwide “Racism Register”. The Muslim-dominated party promises to create a 1,000-men strong force to go after “Dutch racists”.
Imagine being arrested for pointing out the Sharia values of some Muslim immigrants and how they’re incompatible with Dutch values. Truthful speech thus becomes racist. Legal Insurrection confirms the troubling trend we are seeing throughout the West,saying:
Denk Party stands in the tradition of George Galloway’s Respect Party in UK, a new mutant ideology taking root in Europe that fuses leftist “social justice” issues with political Islam, dipped in fierce hatred for Israel and Western heritage. Last month, the Denk Party attracted media attention when party’s leader and Dutch MP Tunahan Kuzu refused to shake hands with the visiting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu.
We are also seeing this same pattern happening in the U.S. with Islamist groups such as CAIR and ISNA exhorting their constituents to support Hillary Clinton for president. For Islamists in the U.S. they don’t necessarily need a separate political party when leftist Democrats further their agenda for them, such as: hindering counterterrorism measures, stifling Israel’s ability to effectively defend itself, and seeking to punish those who insult Islam (for a pertinent example, see Clinton’s support of UN Resolution 16/18). Furthermore, the Islamists have a sympathizer in Huma Abedin, one of Clinton’s top aides, to help advance the cause.
This tactic of accusing those concerned about threats to freedom of being themselves threats to freedom ought to sound alarm bells whenever it is tried.
Machteld Zee: “Islamization is Planned” by Vlad Tepes
A young Dutch political scientist is causing consternation among the bien-pensants of the multicultural Left in the Netherlands with her analyses of Islamization. Her impeccable liberal background and credentials make it more difficult for the establishment to discredit her.
Dr. Van Helsing has translated an interview with this iconoclastic young woman. He includes this introductory note:
Machteld Zee Ph.D. is a Dutch scholar who investigated sharia courts in the UK for her Ph.D. thesis. This interview was published in the Algemeen Dagblad, a nationwide Dutch newspaper, on October 4, 2016.
The interview is relevant for several reasons:
- Very few non-Muslims ever have gained access to the world of sharia courts in the UK. She has.
- The University of Leiden is fairly highbrow in the Netherlands, because it is not only one of the oldest universities. but also because the heir to the Dutch throne traditionally studies at this university (for example, our former Queens Juliana and Beatrix did, just like our current head of state King Willem-Alexander). The reputation of this university gives authority to her voice.
- She has become a target of attacks by leftist apologists for radical Islam since she published her thesis. She could do with some positive publicity. Similarly, Islam-sceptics could benefit from her work.
The translated interview:
“Islamization is Planned”
The Islamization of Europe follows a strategy, according to Machteld Zee in her book Holy Identities, which was published today. ‘Once you have knowledge of it, you understand what is going on.’
‘I discovered a comprehensive system of law that contradicts our secular laws.’
Investigating sharia courts
Machteld Zee (32), a Dutch political scientist from the University of Leiden, studied sharia courts in the UK and wrote her Ph.D. thesis on it in 2015.
She was one of the few outsiders who gained access to the sessions of these Islamic courts. 95% of the cases before these courts are divorce cases. Her investigations resulted in a pamphlet, Holy Identities.
‘If you compare the Netherlands in the 1980s with today,’ says the political scientist and law school graduate Machteld Zee, ‘you will see an increased influence of Islam everywhere. Saudi Arabia and other countries flooded the world with thousands of imams, Islamic text books, mosques and tons of money.’
Machteld Zee needed barely 150 pages to describe the background of Islamic fundamentalism, which is gaining ground in Western countries. Her book Holy Identities: On the Road to a Sharia State is an analysis of the problems of the multicultural society.
You say that conservative Muslims want to convince their fellow Muslims to embrace sharia, the religious law of Islam. These fundamentalists are being helped by ‘useful non-believers’, non-Islamic intellectuals, politicians and opinion leaders who don’t want to offend Muslims.
‘Yes, leading multiculturalists actually believe that Muslims should be shielded from criticism because it would inflict psychological damage on them. Although many Muslims consider this an idiotic point of view, others use it to call those who criticize Islam ‘Islamophobes’ and ‘racists’.
You described yourself as left-leaning liberal when you started your investigation on sharia courts in the UK. Now you warn against a lack of knowledge of and a lack of resistance against the advancing radical Islam.
‘I discovered a comprehensive system of law — far more systematic then I had expected — that contradicts our secular laws. Many Muslim women are locked into a religious marriage because their community thinks a divorce according secular law is insufficient. In these communities — Muslim communities — sharia law trumps secular law when it comes to marriage. Women have to ask a sharia judge or an imam to dissolve their marriage, for example when the husband physically abuses her. Even Dutch Muslim women travel to the UK to appear before sharia courts. It is a parallel society. I object to it because these practices go against women’s rights.’
You have analyzed the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is a political and religious movement that aims for world domination, and is supported by lots of money from fundamentalist circles. The sharia courts are part of this project, you wrote.
‘That is why it is so important that we know what is going on. Authors that I studied for my investigation were generally benevolent towards sharia courts. It turned out, however, that none of them ever attended a session of such a court. They don’t know what is going on in these courts. Now they ask me to tell all about it. Women are advised by these courts to accept polygamy and to not file criminal complaints in case of domestic violence. Physically abusive fathers are given custody of their children. I have the impression that the tide of the public debate is turning now that these facts are becoming public. I hardly hear anyone pleading in favour of sharia courts anymore.’
In your book you call out the politically correct elites, who tries to cover up abuse within Islam and tries to downplay the threat of Islamic fundamentalism.
‘In the first place, I think I am reporting facts. Where I notice that influential Western intellectuals tend to discourage critics of Islam and help fundamentalists to isolate and ‘Islamize’ Muslim communities, that is a matter of fact. My book is a compact discourse that aims to bring its readers up to date on fundamentalist Islam.’
How do you see the future?
‘We will have to act more defensively and resist Islamization. We should not yield to demands that images of scantily dressed women in public have to be covered up, for example. Just say no. Citizens should not leave everything to the government. They can defend our beliefs and values themselves, too. Why does a college in The Hague decides to abandon the Christmas tree pre-emptively? Why is alcohol banned in places where Muslims show up? There is no need for that. We are doing it to ourselves.’
Do you fear criticism? Undoubtedly, you will be labeled as a right-winger.
‘I don’t experience that when I speak in public. Even a ‘leftist’ audience responds positively to my story. Right-wing? Come on, equal rights for women and resistance against representatives of a religion who make threats of violence — let’s call that common sense.’
Breitbart, by Aaron Klein, Sept, 28, 2016:
NEW YORK – In the wake of Islamic terrorist attacks in the U.S. and abroad, grantees of George Soros’s Open Society Foundations mobilized to counter anti-refugee and anti-Muslim immigration sentiment while using the attacks to push gun control and advocate against the surveillance of Muslims in major U.S. cities such as New York.
Hacked Foundations memos reviewed by Breitbart Jerusalem betray the symbiotic relationship between Soros’ grantees and prominent politicians, including Attorney General Loretta Lynch, in working to push these agendas.
One December 3, 2015 document, titled “Aftermath of ISIS attacks,” outlined a network of grantees that immediately sprung to action pushing specific policy agendas immediately after the December 2, 2015 terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California.
“Anticipating a backlash against Muslims, advocates swung into high gear,” the memo relates.
The grantee actions included attacks on those who spoke against immigration from Islamic countries, a push for gun control, and a speech by Attorney General Lynch at the annual dinner of a grantee, Muslim Advocates.
Here are some actions, as cited in the document:
*ReThink Media, funded in part through NSHR grantee the Security and Rights Collaborative, distributed a set of talking points to organizations working to combat Islamophobia and arranging a series of conference calls to discuss messaging and crisis communications tactics.
*Muslim Advocates was set to host a conversation with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on efforts to battle hate speech and anti-Muslim discrimination at its annual dinner in Washington DC.
* Advocates of greater gun control took to Twitter, chiding the parade of politicians who sent “thoughts and prayers” without taking concrete steps to improve public safety. The Center for American Progress convened calls on mass gun violence—one of a number of efforts to follow through on President Obama’s exhortation to revive efforts to enact new controls, such as universal background checks or a ban on assault rifles.
* The National Security Network released a new policy report entitled Mainstreaming Hate: The Far-Right Fringe Origins of Islamophobic and Anti-Refugee Politics in their handling of the Syrian refugee resettlement.
* The Refugee Council USA and some of its members issued calls to action to safeguard the Syrian refugee resettlement program.
After the Lynch event, a second Foundations’ memo boasted, “Appearing at the annual dinner hosted by grantee Muslim Advocates, Attorney General Loretta Lynch vowed that her department would vigorously investigate claims of hate speech that could lead to anti-Muslim violence.”
The first document relates a specific rapid response deployment of Foundations grantees to combat calls for restrictions on the visa waiver program after it was made public that Tashfeen Malik, one of the San Bernardino attackers, passed three background checks by U.S. immigration officials and was granted a K-1 visa to immigrate from Pakistan as the fiance of attacker Syed Rizwan Farook.
The document reveals:
Following the San Bernardino shootings in December by a U.S. citizen and his Pakistani spouse, there were additional proposals to limit the immigration of foreign nationals from specific Muslim countries, including restrictions on the visa waiver program.
US Programs’ Reserve Fund request, already in pipeline since the Syrian refugee crisis erupted last summer, received tentative approval. This request, which includes both c3 and c4 components, will provide communications capacity and advocacy support to refugee groups. It will also bolster immigrant rights groups’ ability to respond to anti-Muslim and anti-refugee rhetoric, which has been prominent in the race for the Republican 2016 presidential nomination.
The issue of refugee resettlement is central to the Open Society Foundations’ domestic aims. As recently reported by Breitbart News, hacked Soros documents state that the billionaire and his foundation helped to successfully press the Obama administration into increasing to 100,000 the total number of refugees taken in by the U.S. annually. The documents reveal that the billionaire personally sent President Obama a letter on the issue of accepting refugees.
Meanwhile, another document, titled, “ISIS Attacks Aftermath” and dated November 17, 2015, lamented that “Tuesday brought a more concerted effort to push back against efforts, fueled by key leaders in Congress and governors in over half the states, to bar Syrian refugees from resettlement in whole swaths of the U.S.”
According to that memo, among the prescriptions from grantees was:
Cities United for Immigration Action, a coalition of nearly 100 mayors, municipalities and counties organized by New York City’s Bill de Blasio, sought to counter the wave of governors opposed to allowing in Syrian refugees with a message of welcome and inclusion. “We should not close our borders to any group of people fleeing the atrocities and horrors of terrorism,” said Mayor de Blasio.
Yet another document listing grantee response to Islamic State attacks, dated January 7, 2016, addressed grantee opposition activism to the domestic surveillance of Muslims. The actions, the document states, included a lawsuit “contesting the NYPD’s surveillance of Muslims in New Jersey, brought by grantees Muslim Advocates and the Center for Constitutional Rights.”
Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.
With research by Joshua Klein.