Frank Gaffney: President Trump May Be ‘Undermined by His Own Subordinates’ After Strong UN Speech

Breitbart, by John Hayward, Sept. 20, 2017:

Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney joined SiriusXM host Raheem Kassam on Wednesday’s Breitbart News Daily to review President Trump’s address to the UN General Assembly.

Kassam asked if Trump’s strong words against Iran during the speech presaged the end of the Iran nuclear deal.

“This is the question,” Gaffney replied. “Action is not so much what one needs to wonder about. I think there will be action. The question is, is it action consistent with what the president said yesterday?”

“This has been what’s so frustrating, I know, to all of us listening to this program and part of the Make America Great Again movement, is the president is being repeatedly and in fact serially undermined by his own subordinates,” he explained.

“He makes these speeches, or he makes these pronouncements, or he tweets the sorts of things that are redolent of the campaign, and what he stood for, and what he promised – only to have H.R. McMaster, or Jim Mattis, or particularly Rex Tillerson, the Secretary of State, almost immediately sallying forth and saying, ‘Well, what the president really meant to say was exactly the opposite,’” Gaffney lamented.

“In this case, of course, we have Rex Tillerson sitting down with the so-called ‘Perm 5 Plus One,’ which is U.N.-speak for the gang that put together this Iran deal – I call it the ‘Obama bomb deal’ – plus the Iranian foreign minister. Obviously, the pressure is going to be intense, not just from the Iranians but from the Europeans, to walk back from what the president said,” he warned.

“I pray that Rex Tillerson won’t do it because I think the president got it exactly right. This is a defective deal. It is an embarrassment to the United States that Barack Obama perpetrated it – and, by the way, that Republicans in Congress enabled him to get away with imposing it upon the rest of us. We need to get out from that thing right away. I think John Bolton had that exactly right, and I commend everyone his alternative approach. I hope that’s what Rex Tillerson will be promoting, but I don’t hold my breath on it,” said Gaffney.

Kassam mentioned the argument advanced by French President Emmanuel Macron that the North Korean crisis makes the case for keeping the Iran deal alive because Iran’s nuclear ambitions are now held in check by the kind of oversight North Korea has never received.

“Rubbish,” Gaffney snorted. “This is forgetting the actual lessons of all of this, of course, which are that indeed we made a deal with the North Koreans that was supposed to prevent them from getting the bomb, not unlike we’ve done with the Iranians, and it did not work out.”

“To the contrary, we’ve now got them with not only atomic weapons and missiles with which to deliver them, but now it appears a hydrogen bomb,” he argued. “The so-called ‘strategic patience’ of the Obama administration, unfortunately, followed on the heels of incompetence and malfeasance under both the Clinton administration that made that deal with the North Koreans, and the George W. Bush administration, so there’s a bipartisan fault here. This is not a model to be extolled or held up as the way to deal with Iran.”

Kassam found President Trump’s strong condemnation of socialism to be the most remarkable and encouraging moment of his speech, especially given that a majority of the nations in the UN General Assembly consider themselves socialist to some degree.

“It was tough love, without probably the love,” Gaffney quipped. “The president was laying out the hard truth, and it was incredibly important that he did so – and that he did so to the socialists in that place.”

“Not only are there large numbers of socialists, or communists for that matter, in the UN I mean, it basically is a socialist enterprise. It’s all about redistribution of wealth and power under the auspices of successive socialists, including the guy who is currently running it – the Secretary-General is an old socialist from Portugal. These are people who, I believe, actually think this is the way of the future, so it was very important,” he said.

“But again, it has to be backed up. Let me just say, I think in addition to not having his subordinates undermine him – which they do again, and again, and again, without any consequences – we also have to take actions, Raheem,” he told Kassam.

“I mean, it’s one thing to be telling the North Koreans and ‘Rocket Man’ that you’re toast if you think about pursuing with those hydrogen bombs threats to us. It’s another to actually put into place the capabilities to assure that everybody understands that that’s not an empty threat,” he stressed.

“The rhetoric has been more or less good,” Gaffney judged. “I think you’re absolutely right that the MAGA movement was heard, and brought back ‘radical Islamic terrorism.’ That’s a twofer. One, it’s important in its own right to be calling the enemy what it is, and also that it demonstrates how important the base is. We need to make sure the president is hearing us all the time. I know that he does through your channel, but we need it more elsewhere. In this case in particular, we have got to make sure that we are backing up with credible military capabilities the rhetoric that the president is using.”

Kassam turned to Gaffney’s recent blog post, “Freedom’s Friends Must Denounce, Not Dignify, the SPLC and CAIR.”

“We’ve been talking a lot, and rightly so, about what’s being done to freedom of speech – arguably sort of the foundational freedom in our Constitution and for our republic,” Gaffney said.

“The Southern Poverty Law Center and Islamist Muslim Brotherhood sharia supremacist groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations, or CAIR, have been making – I’m sorry to say even under this administration, under a Republican-controlled Congress – great strides to try to impose the kind of restrictions you’re very familiar with, of course, on your side of the pond,” he said, referring to speech codes in the United Kingdom, where Kassam resides.

Gaffney said these speech restrictions “are designed to basically promote sharia blasphemy restrictions: you must not give offense, particularly to Muslims.”

“The Southern Poverty Law Center has been central to that agenda. They have been working assiduously to defame people who speak the truth about these sorts of issues,” he charged.

“Rod Rosenstein, amazingly, went to what was billed as a civil rights conference in Birmingham last week and gave a speech,” Gaffney said, referring to the Deputy Attorney General. “It was mostly about civil rights, but by his presence, he dignified an event that was holding up both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Council on American Islamic Relations. They had speakers, they were participants in this program, they were considered to be just great champions of civil rights – when, in fact, they are trying to take away that key civil right of freedom of expression. It’s scandalous.”

Of the recent revelations that President Trump appears to have been correct about the Obama Justice Department wiretapping Trump Tower during the 2016 presidential campaign, Gaffney said, “I think what we’re seeing dribbling out slowly, inexorably, is evidence that the Obama administration was engaged in political warfare.”

“I mean, ‘dirty tricks’ doesn’t begin to describe it,” he said, describing the Obama administration’s conduct as “political warfare that makes Nixon’s plumbers in Watergate look like pikers.”

“These were people that were using the instruments of the State, the Deep State if you will – the intelligence community, the law-enforcement community, and of course the National Security Council, Ben Rhodes and his whole disinformation operation and political warfare capabilities – to destroy those like Donald Trump and his campaign that they feared might actually prevent them from having a third term,” Gaffney charged.

“This is why it’s so important to get to the bottom of this, and not be distracted by these deflections, and misinformation, and special prosecutors who are off on a red tear to get us away from the reality that Barack Obama and his minions are Watergate on steroids,” he said. “We need to know the full truth of it.”

Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. Eastern

LISTEN:

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:

Should Anti-trust Laws Be Used to Break Up the Social Media Giants?

Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, Sept. 1, 2017:

The secular Left and the proponents of Islamic blasphemy laws have a new issue on which they are making common cause: the quest to destroy the freedom of speech, the cornerstone of our democracy. After Charlottesville, the Left sees its chance to crush all dissent, and given its alliance with Islamic supremacists, this means the implementation in the West of prohibitions on criticism of Islam, including counterterror analysis of the motivating ideology of jihad terrorists. This anti-free speech initiative, if it succeeds, will destroy free society, which cannot exist if one is unable to speak out against the tyrant.

The Left is trying to use Charlottesville as its Reichstag Fire moment to try to crush all dissent. CNN gave the Southern Poverty Law Center’s spurious “hate group” list wide play, and an effort has begun to deny all platforms to those “hate groups,” without any regard for the fact that the SPLC includes legitimate organizations that dissent from the Leftist agenda (including the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Jihad Watch) on the list along with the KKK and neo-Nazis, in an attempt to defame and destroy the legitimate groups.

Spearheading anti-free speech efforts on the Islamic side is a little-known organization that comprises most of the Muslim governments around the world today: the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which is made up of fifty-six member nations plus the Palestinian Authority and constitutes the largest voting bloc at the United Nations. The OIC has been working for years to try to compel the West to restrict the freedom of speech, and particularly the freedom to criticize Islam.

Essentially, they want to impose a key principle of Sharia — which forbids blasphemy against Allah, Muhammad, and Islam — on the entire non-Muslim world. They are advancing this initiative by trying to compel the West to criminalize “incitement to religious hatred,” which essentially means criticism of Islam; no international body has ever objected to criticism of Judaism, Christianity, or any other religion.

Aiding this OIC initiative has been the popularization of the term “Islamophobia.” Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a former imam, writes that “this loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.” Islamic groups tied to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, most notably the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), have for years been wielding this term like a club to smear anyone who speaks honestly about the jihad threat; by doing so, they have intimidated many into silence.

The SPLC has eagerly taken up this term as a key element of its censorship strategy, publishing lists of key “Islamophobes” (including David Horowitz and me) that have grown so absurd that they even include a reformist Muslim, Maajid Nawaz. Nawaz and his associates are themselves not above using similar tactics, but his presence on the SPLC’s list does highlight its absurdity.

The anti-free speech initiative is also proceeding even aside from the SPLC’s hate group list. Canadian psychologist and social critic Jordan Peterson recently had his Google account revoked, without explanation, and then restored without explanation. “Maybe it was just an error,” Peterson told Tucker Carlson, “but the fact that things have been happening in such a strange way politically brings up the specter of censorship.”

And Google has been engaging in censorship. The establishment media in the West completely ignored the story, but Turkey’s Anadolu Agency reported several weeks ago that “Google’s first page results for searches of terms such as ‘jihad’, ‘shariah’ and ‘taqiyya’ now return mostly reputable explanations of the Islamic concepts. Taqiyya, which describes the circumstances under which a Muslim can conceal their belief in the face of persecution, is the sole term to feature a questionable website on the first page of results.”

“Reputable” according to whom? “Questionable” according to whom? Google is bowing to pressure from Muslims such as Texas imam Omar Suleiman, who is mentioned in the Anadolu story as the driving force behind this initiative, without considering whether those who are demanding that the search results be skewed in a particular direction might have an ulterior motive. Could it be that those who are pressuring Google want to conceal certain truths about Islam that they would prefer that non-Muslims not know?

This is a real possibility, but of course Google executives would have to study Islam themselves in order to determine whether or not these Muslims who are pressuring them are misleading them, and that’s not going to happen. Still, they could have done a bit more due diligence, and made some efforts to determine whether those being tarred as “hate groups” really deserved the label, whether the Southern Poverty Law Center was really a reliable and objective arbiter of which groups were and weren’t “hate groups,” and whether the information that Google was suppressing was really inaccurate. Instead, Google seems to have swallowed uncritically everything Omar Suleiman and the others said, and applied it as policy.

Meanwhile, Facebook’s Vice President Joel Kaplan traveled to Pakistan in July to assure the Pakistani government that it would remove “anti-Islam” material. That endeavor had already started before Kaplan’s trip. In mid-February, traffic to Jihad Watch from Facebook dropped suddenly by 90% and has never recovered. We do not post any hateful or provocative material and neither incite nor approve of violence, but Facebook is acting as judge, jury and executioner in all this. There is no appeal and no recourse.

A high-placed source in the tech industry told me: “Countries like Pakistan basically tell Facebook and Google that they either comply or the government will arrest all their employees in the country and make it illegal to use their produce. So, FB and Google are faced with either leaving the country or complying. Google famously refused to comply with the Chinese government’s censorship policies and withdrew from China at great cost to Google. Facebook is obviously less principled. By the way, this is a growing phenomenon with more and more countries moving to censor US tech companies (plus there’s been a recent vigorous campaign from the left demanding censorship in the US). They won’t cave to domestic pressures, because it makes no business sense. They will cave to foreign pressure in foreign countries, because it makes business sense.”

In his interview of Jordan Peterson, Carlson asked what governments should do with companies such as Google that are more powerful than the government itself. Peterson answered: “I’m not sure the government knows what to do.” Susan Benesch, director of the Dangerous Speech Project, said in July: “Facebook is regulating more human speech than any government does now or ever has.”

So what is to be done? In other industries the government has used anti-trust laws when free markets are threatened. Here the free marketplace of ideas is threatened. Should the anti-trust laws be invoked to break up Google and Facebook?

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies). Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.

***

Video: Robert Spencer on the social media giants’ war on the freedom of speech

Also see:

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?