DHS John Kelly: Islamic Terrorists Are Sincere, So Regulate the Internet

Pete Marovich/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Breitbart, by Neil Munro, June 23, 2017:

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly acknowledged Thursday that sincere Islamic beliefs are fuelling deadly jihad attacks during Ramadan — but he quickly hid that key recognition behind vague calls for Internet regulation and suggestions that Christian and Jewish beliefs are also causing terrorism.

“As far as Ramadan goes, you know, first of all, the uptick in violence and activities [during Ramadan is] done by a very, very small percentage of people who have just corrupted the whole concept of Islam as a religion, but it is what it is,” Kelly told the chairman of the House homeland defense committee on June 22. He continued:

We are in the middle of it, so they are out there doing what they think is their religion and think [it is] what they are supposed to be doing. In Flint, Michigan, as an example, a completely off-the-screen individual who attacked this police officer — who will be okay, as I understand it… We’ve seen these terrible things happen in Europe.

Instead of focusing on the jihad doctrine that is part-and-parcel of orthodox Islam, Kelly quickly tried to spread the blame for terror attacks, saying “Whether they are church, synagogues or mosques [we need] an open line of communication so they know if they see this [belligerence] happening in the home or they see it happening — that is to say, the move towards radicalism — or they see it happening in the churches or mosques, they know to call someone before that person typically crosses the line,” he told the chairman, Texas Rep. Michael McCaul.

Kelly added racist and even anti-Semitic groups to the blame gallery, even though Islamic radicals are anti-Semitic, saying: “Whether they are white supremacists, anti-Jewish or neo-Nazi or Islamic radicalism, until they do something [criminal], generally speaking, the best law enforcement can do is watch,” adding “I don’t know how to predict it.”

Kelly also blamed the Internet and urged businesses to block access to “some” websites. “The one constant that I have seen, Mr. Chairman, since I have been in this job, the one constant in all of this has been the Internet … The one constant is the Internet. I’m not blaming the Internet but I’m just saying that we probably need to step back, and say, maybe [have] stricter rules on what is hung on the Internet,” he said.

The secreary also cited existing laws against child pornography, which require companies to disconnect websites offering images of sexualized children, saying “just like in terms of child pornography sites that are taken down like that, we need to have probably a stricter set of rules to look at some of these [jihad] sites and bring them down maybe faster.”

He suggested the United States should follow the example set by Europe’s new policies against free speech, which this week prompted teams of black-clad German secretive police to raid 60 homes of people accused of illegal speech. Kelly said about the Europeans:

I think kind of the [Internet] rules and thinking they are operating under — that frankly that our country has been operating under — is probably five or ten years old … I know the Europeans are, particularly in the last five months, what they have dealt with — whether it is Paris, Manchester, I mean all of it, running people down on London bridge or Westminster bridge, they have really stepped back from their thinking [on free speech], as I think we should.

Kelly’s refusal to focus on jihad as the problem can lead his agency down a blind alley, said Robert Spencer, the best-selling author of books on Islam, and the director of the Jihadwatch website. “Instead of dealing with the threat, he’s threatening the freedom of speech of all Americans to maintain his politically correct veneer,” Spencer said.

“He needs to look at [Koran verses] 47.4 or 9:5, where there is an abundant incitement to violence in a place where he dares not acknowledge where it comes from,” said Spencer. According to those Islamic scriptures:

So when you meet those who disbelieve {Islam} [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah – never will He waste their deeds …

And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the {non-Muslim} polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

Pointing the blame at the Internet also ignores the danger of Islamic teachings in U.S.-based mosques, said Spencer. “We’ve seen again and again that there are jihadis who are very active in their mosques and yet nobody will monitor them, so he has to find some scapegoat … [and] he finds it with the Internet, which is practically a cliche,” Spencer added. “I just hope that his politically correct euphemism don’t lead him to waste time and resources charging down what he knows are blind alleys.”

Chairman McCaul did not push Kelly to justify spreading blame for the Islamic attacks, but Kelly also admitted that the courts are pressuring his agency as it tries to prevent planned attacks:

My guidance to the department is to be very very cautious about getting near where the court tells us we can’t go … I have a real good sense of right and wrong but that doesn’t always work when it comes to courts and lawyers. So I’ve just said [to agency officials] ‘Be very very conservative about where we go on this.’”

The recent court decisions have repeatedly claimed President Donald Trump’s effort to curb Islamic attacks are motivated by unreasoning hatred, threaten the religious freedom of Islamic immigrants, and have not been endorsed by government experts.

But amid Kelly’s court-pressured, blame-everyone rhetoric, he only cited Islamic attacks, saying:

In Paris the other day they dodged a huge bullet because the individual ended up that rammed the police car ended up dying before he could do all of what he had planned to do…

[Parents say] ’My son was on the internet and he did this,’ whatever this was, or San Bernardino, or ‘My daughter was on the Internet and she ran away to Syria to become someone’s bride.’…

I know the Europeans are, particularly in the last five months, what they have dealt with — whether it is Paris, Manchester, I mean all of it, running people down on London bridge or Westminster bridge..

Kelly also recognized that one of the long-term fixes to terrorism is better vetting of immigrants to prevent “hostile attitudes,” including Islamic immigrants, saying:

I think we have a long way to go before we can be comfortable as to identifying who the [immigrant] person is, why they are coming to the United States and whether they can support themselves when they come here. So as [what] defines extreme vetting, that’s what we’re looking at. Those three questions need to be answered [for each would-be immigrant], I think, properly.

That comment echoes Trump’s January Executive Order on immigration, which sought to exclude refugees and immigrants with “hostile attitudes.”

But Kelly’s refusal to focus on the jihad ideology means “more Americans will suffer,” said Spencer. Kelly “is not facing the real root-cause of the threat, and it will continue to proliferate.”

Watch Kelly’s statements here.

U.S. city installs Shariah hotline for ‘hate speech’ snitches

Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges shown here at a meeting with Somali Muslims wearing a hijab in April 2014.

WND, by Leo Hohmann, June 21, 2017:

The city of Minneapolis has set up a hotline for residents to report suspected hate crimes, including “speech and actions,” according to statements on the city’s website.

The city, which will operate the “service” through its 3-1-1 helpline, is targeting any “harassing behaviors motivated by prejudice,” according to a press release. Those wishing to report a hate crime from outside the city may dial 612-673-3000.

According to the local newspaper, the Star-Tribune, “the announcement comes amid signs of a recent surge of such incidents affecting Muslims and Jews across the country, many of which go unreported.”

The city’s Department of Civil Rights clearly states on its website that it only enforces hate crimes against certain “protected classes.”

A city official further indicated the impetus for the hate-crimes hotline was the election of President Trump and that the targets would be his supporters.

“Since the general election, many of us have experienced, witnessed firsthand or heard of actions of: racism, xenophobia, sexism and bigotry directed at people here and in cities across the United States,” Minneapolis Department of Civil Rights Director Velma Korbel wrote in a statement posted on the city’s website. “In no uncertain terms, hate-motivated speech and actions have no place in Minneapolis nor will they be tolerated.”

Korbel said the city’s tough stance on “hate” is reflected in the views of its mayor, Betsy Hodges. Korbel states on the city website:

This department echoes Minneapolis mayor, Betsy Hodges’ resolve and commitment when she stated: “I will not compromise the public safety of the people of Minneapolis to satisfy Trump’s desire to put politics before public safety. Minneapolis is being built and strengthened by people from all over the world and I am grateful for their commitment to our city. I stand with them today and will continue to take that stand as the President-elect prepares to take office.”

Michele Bachmann, former congresswoman from Minnesota, decried the new hotline as a form of fascism in which citizens are encouraged to turn in their neighbors for holding opinions deemed forbidden by the state.

She said such prior restraints are not allowed under the U.S. Constitution and would not hold up in court.

“Hate speech hotlines operate as government enforcement of fascism,” she said in an email to WND. “They are a denial of free speech and the very definition of government censorship.

“Looking for government informants to rat out speech the government forbids goes to the heart of denying American citizens our inalienable rights. Governments CAN NOT do this under our constitution.”

Bachmann said the hate-crime hotline is a stealth move by Hodges and the city council to impose Islamic anti-blasphemy laws on non-Muslims.

“By installing Islamic anti-blasphemy hotlines and advertising for informants, Minneapolis is violating the doctrine of separation of church and state,” she added. “What difference is there between the Minneapolis City Council action and United Nations resolution 16/18 advanced by former Secretary Hillary Clinton?”

U.N Resolution 16/18 encouraged nations to criminalize speech that defames a person’s religious views.

Pushed by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the only speech the resolution sought to criminalized was speech critical of Islam, Bachmann said. After years of failure, the resolution only passed after the language was somewhat watered down.

“Which is interesting, since the OIC continually proclaims death to the Jews, death to Israel,” she said. “The citizens of Minneapolis surely can’t be that easily bamboozled into giving away their First Amendment rights to free of speech.”

The press release announcing the new hotline gives a broad definition of “discrimination,” citing any “action or a decision that treats a person or a group negatively for reasons such as their race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender or gender identity.”

The release also places local police on notice, stating:

If you, your family or someone you know experiences discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, sex, LGBT status or other protected classes, or has been the victim of police misconduct, please call 612-673-3012 or visit http://www.minneapolismn.gov/civilrights.

Shahram Hadian, whose family fled Iran in the run-up to the Islamic revolution in 1978, said he was aghast at the Minneapolis hotline.

“This is ultimately what they got passed up in Canada. But this is the backdoor approach to eventually setting up hate speech laws … hate crimes morph into hate speech,” said Hadian, a former law enforcement officer turned pastor who heads Truth In Love Ministries.

“It’s crazy to think my family left Iran because of the impending Islamic State to come to this nation because of its freedom – and what other freedom is more precious than your freedom of speech? – and now to see this backdoor attempt to try to impose hate speech laws.”

Hadian said there would be no logical need for a special hate hotline because the federal government already has hate-crime laws on the books.

“This is trying to normalize the concept of trying to turn people in, and if that doesn’t send shivers down your spine when you think of 1930s Germany, nothing will,” Hadian said.

The Minneapolis City Council last fall passed a resolution condemning violence and hate speech against Muslims.

Hadian said he has no doubt that the Minneapolis officials will seek to target Christians with the new snitch line.

“Obviously it’s moving toward Shariah compliance. This is what Europe has done,” he said. “You have people arrested there, various examples of it, and charged with crimes for something they said about Islam. So this is a back-door attempt to get hate speech laws on the books and to create the environment of normalcy where you’re going to see Christians turned in to the government because we are either speaking about Christianity or because we’re speaking factually about Islam.

“It’s a violation of our fundamental rights under the First Amendment. That’s chilling, and it’s so disturbing and underhanded what they’re doing, to say, ‘Let’s start turning people in whom we don’t agree with.’”

Hadian said the hotline will have a chilling effect on pastors and lecturers in Minnesota.

“So what, the next time I give a presentation, if someone gets offended, are they going to report me?” he said. “That’s where we’re headed with this.”

Outside of Minneapolis-St. Paul and Duluth, every county in Minnesota voted for Trump in the November general election.

The people of Minnesota are growing tired of the coercive rule of intolerant Democrats like Hodges and Gov. Mark Dayton, said Debra Anderson, who chairs the state’s ACT! For America chapter.

“Communities throughout Minnesota are suffering greatly from the never-ending demands of Muslims and their civilization jihad, and there is growing alarm about the increasing threats of and acts of violence perpetrated by Muslims against non-Muslims (jihad terrorism),” Anderson wrote in an email.

“This resolution and the hate-speech hotline serves to not only invalidate the legitimate concerns of indigenous Minnesotans, but also to silence them,” she said. “I find myself thinking, ‘While our government leaders’ fundamentally transform our communities (destroy America),’ they command, ‘Don’t you dare utter a peep … or else!’

“Unfortunately, this is only one of many examples of how our ‘captured’ government is striving to fundamentally transform the Land of 10,000 Lakes into Marxist/Islamist utopia that does not tolerate dissidents or infidels.”

Bob Enos, another Minnesotan, who recently ran for city council in Willmar, said he believes the hotline is patently unconstitutional if it bans or seeks to chill any type of speech.

“Free speech has never been a crime under the U.S. Constitution, hateful or otherwise,” he said.

A search of the Star-Tribune’s stories printed since Jan. 1, 2017, lists only one alleged hate crime against Muslims.

“This new hotline is nothing but a red herring, designed to ingratiate Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges to the growing Somali voting bloc. Hence, her photos donning the Muslim hijab,” Enos said.

Enos said it was significant that Islamic preachers are exempt from the hate crimes prosecuted by Minneapolis, because they are regarded as a “protected class.”

“After all, the Quran contains at least 109 verses which promote graphic violence against all non-believers; most especially Jews,” he said. “So, is not any cleric who promotes the teachings of the Quran also promoting hate speech?

“This enforcement of standards of speech that Minneapolis’ Democratic leadership finds acceptable is Minneapolis’ version of an intellectual Taliban.”

Also see:

Human Rights, Sharia Wrongs

Political Islam, by Bill Warner, May 25, 2017:

Dr Bill Warner: Islam claims to have the supreme ethical system in the Sharia. Exactly, what is the system of Sharia and how does it compare with the UN Declaration of Human Rights of 1948?
Under the Sharia:
• Humans are not equal
• Critical thought is rejected
• Torture is allowed
• Only Muslims have the right to life
• There is one law for Muslims, another law for Kafirs
• Children can be brides
• A Muslim woman cannot marry a Kafir
• Apostates can be killed
• There is no freedom of speech
• Inbreeding is encouraged
• Wife beating is allowed
Conclusion: Sharia rights are inhuman and inferior to the UN Declarations of Human Rights.

To learn more about Sharia and how it affects the non-Muslim, read SHARIA LAW FOR NON-MUSLIMS: https://www.politicalislam.com/product/sharia-law-for-non-muslims/

To receive my latest updates, sign up for our newsletter: https://www.politicalislam.com/signup/

Follow:
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/politicalislam
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/billwarnerauthor/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/PoliticalIslam
Podcast: https://soundcloud.com/user-460569656
Bookstore: https://www.politicalislam.com/shop/

***

March Against Sharia — March for Human Rights

Free Speech and Islam: Fired for Reporting the Truth

Simply tweeting video of a Muslim student characterizing his religion on an interfaith panel cost me my job.

National Review, By Andy Ngo — May 12, 2017:

Last month, I attended an interfaith panel discussion, “Unpacking Misconceptions,” at Portland State University, where I’m a political-science graduate student. I ended up being fired as the multimedia editor of our student newspaper, the Vanguard, for tweeting about what was said there.

Much of the discussion was uncontroversial. The students on the panel mainly shared complaints of what they perceived as misconceptions about their religions. A Hindu student lampooned author Reza Aslan for his depiction of Hinduism on CNN’s Believer, which showed a minority sect’s practice of eating human flesh. A Jewish student said most Jews don’t have payot, the side curls worn by some Orthodox Jewish men. An atheist student spoke on behalf of a secular-humanist worldview and challenged the audience to think about how we as a society can develop our own moral framework without religion.

At one point, a woman in the audience asked the Muslim student if a specific verse in the Koran actually permitted the killing of non-Muslims. “I can confidently tell you, when the Koran says an innocent life, it means an innocent life, regardless of the faith, the race, like, whatever you can think about as a characteristic,” he began.

At this point, I took out my mobile phone and began recording as he continued:

And some, this, that you’re referring to, killing non-Muslims, that [to be a non-believer] is only considered a crime when the country’s law, the country is based on Koranic law — that means there is no other law than the Koran. In that case, you’re given the liberty to leave the country, you can go in a different country, I’m not gonna sugarcoat it. So you can go in a different country, but in a Muslim country, in a country based on the Koranic laws, disbelieving, or being an infidel, is not allowed so you will be given the choice [to leave].

Although I was not there officially as a reporter to cover the event, I shared a 40-second snippet of the video on my personal Twitter account, with a message that conveyed my understanding of the speaker’s meaning — namely, that non-Muslims would be killed or banished in a state governed by Koranic law:

At @Portland_State interfaith panel today, the Muslim student speaker said that apostates will be killed or banished in an Islamic state. pic.twitter.com/YpsVSB1w9P

— Andy C. Ngo (@MrAndyNgo) April 27, 2017

I later posted a longer version of the video in a follow-up tweet to provide more context:

.@Portland_State Here is full clip that I recorded. An audience member asked about Quran 5:51 & “infidels.” He summarizes Quran 5:32 just before video starts pic.twitter.com/7FMgsPbFR6

— Andy C. Ngo (@MrAndyNgo) April 27, 2017

This longer video includes a response by someone in the audience who disagreed with the speaker, saying it was “perfectly okay for non-Muslims to live in Muslim lands.” The audience member cited the existence of religious-minority communities in the Middle East as an example of Islamic tolerance.

Four days later, the editor-in-chief of my school newspaper called me into a meeting. The paper’s managing editor was also present. They asked me about a Breitbart piece describing the event. It was the first time I’d seen the piece, which included my tweets and a tweet from one of the panelists.

My editor, whom I deeply respected at the time, called me “predatory” and “reckless,” telling me I had put the life and well-being of the Muslim student and his family at risk. She said that my tweets implied the student advocated the killing of atheists. Another person in the meeting said I should have taken into account the plight of victimized groups in the “current political climate.” The editor claimed I had “violated the paper’s ethical standards” by not “minimizing harm” toward the speaker.

As far as I’m concerned, the job of any reporter is to report facts, and that’s what I was doing when I tweeted about the panel.

All these accusations were shocking to me. Moments after publishing the original video, I shared the tweet with the editor and a Vanguard reporter who was at the event. Neither of them expressed any outrage in response back then. The tweets apparently only became “predatory” and “reckless” when conservative sites picked up on them.

In my defense, I told the two editors that I had simply been relating the speaker’s words. While dozens of Muslim states do not consider apostasy or blasphemy a crime, 13 Muslim-majority countries punish these actions with death. The speaker was admitting as much, and as someone who has covered the persecution of atheists and apostates in Muslim countries, I considered that newsworthy.

Nevertheless, my editor turned to me and said, “We have to ask you to step aside.” She said I had “a history” of affiliation with conservative media, and argued that that history was toxic to the “reputation of the Vanguard.”

The Vanguard rejected my original idea for this piece when I pitched it to them, citing concerns that it would cause the unnamed Muslim panelist further distress. For my own part, I remain baffled by my former editors’ reasoning. As far as I’m concerned, the job of any reporter is to report facts, and that’s what I was doing when I tweeted about the panel. I find it distressing that I could be fired for continuing to uphold that mission when the facts in question are liable to make people uncomfortable, as facts often are. Much like the student I spoke to that evening at the panel, I was disinclined to sugarcoat the truth. I just couldn’t have imagined it would cost me so dearly.

— Andy Ngo is a graduate student in political science at Portland State University. He is the former multimedia editor of the Portland State Vanguard.

Indonesia: Jakarta’s Christian governor guilty in “blasphemy” trial, gets two years prison

Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, May 9, 2017:

Ahok committed the cardinal sin of being a Christian in a position of authority. Islamic law forbids non-Muslims to hold authority over Muslims. That Ahok was governor of Jakarta made something like this show trial inevitable. That Islamic supremacists got him on blasphemy, and had to get him in the first place for the crime of being a Christian in authority, is an indication of how far Indonesia has moved from its supposedly “moderate” character.

“Jakarta governor Ahok found guilty in landmark Indonesian blasphemy trial,” by Ben Westcott, CNN, May 9, 2017:

(CNN)Jakarta governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, commonly known as Ahok, has been sentenced to two years in prison, after being found guilty of blasphemy in a trial seen as a test of Indonesia’s religious tolerance.

In April, prosecutors had called for the blasphemy counts to be dropped in exchange for a lesser charge of “spreading hate,” but the judges appear to have ignored that recommendation.

The controversial Chinese Christian politician was put on trial in December over accusations that he insulted Islam while campaigning for re-election. He repeatedly denied the charges.

Ahok was detained immediately after the verdict and taken to the Cipinang detention center in East Jakarta, local media reported. He said he would immediately appeal the court’s decision.

The Jakarta governor sparked controversy in late 2016 after quoting a verse from the Quran to prove to his supporters that there were no restrictions on Muslims voting for a non-Muslim politician.

Almost no one who has been charged under the blasphemy law has ever escaped conviction, associate professor of Indonesian politics at the Australian National University Greg Fealy told CNN.

“The blasphemy law has really been a blight on the rule of law and democracy in Indonesia for decades,” he said, adding that “the fact that Ahok was charged at all was really a product of massive street demonstrations that frightened the government into acting.”

Growing conservatism

…While Indonesia has built a reputation as a tolerant, diverse nation, experts say Ahok’s conviction is the latest example of the country’s growing conservatism.

Recent years have seen large anti-LGBT protests in Jakarta in early 2016, a push to criminalize homosexual sex and passionate reactions to allegations of blasphemy.

An estimated 200,000 people converged on the center of the Indonesian capital to demand the arrest of its minority-Christian governor on November 4.

Since an edited video of Ahok’s remarks was released, hundreds of thousands of Muslim Indonesians have protested against him on the streets of Jakarta, with many calling for his jailing or even execution.
Roads near the Agriculture Ministry where the verdict was due to be delivered were closed from Monday evening in preparation, local media reported….

How to Silence a Feminist Icon

MEF, by Winfield Myers
The Daily Caller
April 27, 2017

The latest speaker to be “disinvited” from an American college is prominent feminist scholar Phyllis Chesler, whose participation in a University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, symposium on honor killing earlier this month was nixed days before the event. Behind the cancellation lies a sordid tale involving faculty machinations, threats from a dean, and at least one shattered window. Together, these events offer a case study on the intellectual and moral corruption of academe.

Chesler is an emerita professor of psychology and women’s studies at the City University of New York whose pioneering scholarship exposed the horrors of honor killing, forced marriages, and other brutalities women suffer in Muslim lands and beyond. She was invited to deliver a lunchtime lecture on “Worldwide Trends in Honor Killings” at a conference on “Violence in the Name of Honor: Confronting and Responding to Honor Killings and Forced Marriage in the West” on April 13-14, cosponsored by the law school and the Saudi-funded King Fahd Center for Middle East Studies.

Emails obtained by Campus Watch (CW) from university personnel who requested anonymity show that early on the morning of April 7, a triad of professors – Joel Gordon, Mohja Kahf, and Ted R. Swedenburg – pressured Center director Thomas Paradise to cancel Chesler’s appearance. They were joined by a dean—the emails point to Arts and Sciences Dean Todd G. Shields as the likely suspect—who threatened to cancel the symposium and freeze funding for the Middle East Studies Program (MEST), a unit of the King Fahd Center, if Chesler spoke.

The professorial trio plotted to isolate and besmirch Chesler, should their efforts to disinvite her fail. The three demanded that a “qualified” speaker—i.e., one who disagreed with her—follow Chesler’s remarks, that MEST “publicly withdraw its sponsorship,” and that it provide copies of “Islamophobia Is Racism,” a flagrantly biased, pro-Islamist bibliography “created by a collective of academics inspired by the Ferguson syllabus, for distribution at the symposium.” To complete their virtue signaling, a statement would be read “condemning Islamophobia and bigotry, and affirming [MEST’s] commitment to gender justice and diversity.”

Chesler was charged with “Islamophobia,” a verbal weapon created to question the emotional stability of its targets and silence all criticism of Islam rather than advance debate. Its use against Chesler, herself a psychologist, is not the last irony of this episode.

Some opponents also resorted to violence to silence an outspoken opponent of violence against women. According to emails dated April 7, a window was “shattered” at the private home of Fahd Center director Paradise to further intimidate him into cancelling Chesler’s lecture. A faculty email that day states “the insurance co will replace it [the broken window] without a formal police report too which makes it all easier.” How much easier is made clear by the fact that despite this first-hand account obtained by CW, the University of Arkansas Police and the Fayetteville Police Department informed CW that there are no records of broken windows either at Paradise’s house or at a university building. No report filed means no investigation, no paper trail, and no publicity—smart moves if the goal is to shield the university from bad news rather than apprehend the perpetrator(s).

The university has a chapter of the Muslim Students Association (MSA), a Saudi-founded organization that promotes Islamist propaganda—including Islamic supremacism, opposition to women’s rights, hostility toward America, and anti-Semitism—on campuses nationwide. That Islamists played a role in cancelling Chesler’s talk is revealed in a professor’s April 7 email stating that he anticipated “campus Muslim organizations would get involved” and “a Muslim RSO [Registered Student Organization] might be involved too.”

Later that day the same professor emailed a colleague that things were “getting heated,” “really getting ugly and complicated,” and that “it is getting ugly and they are rallying.”

That bigotry triumphed in Fayetteville last week. Chesler’s scholarship exposing the horrific crimes of honor killings and forced marriages sank her invitation not because she’s “Islamophobic,” but precisely because her work undermines the Wahhabi-funded cult of victimology. By its tenets, because all Muslims are victims of Western colonialism and prejudice, no exposure of systemic social problems in Muslim societies—including the brutal slaughter of women—can be allowed, much less supported.

An iron triangle of politicized professors, pusillanimous deans, and petrodollars won the day in Arkansas, a triangle that must be broken for freewheeling debate to be restored at American universities.

Winfield Myers is director of academic affairs at the Middle East Forum and director of Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.

Also see:

You can defend Bin Laden at Berkeley, but not conservatism

Hamid Mir | Wikimedia Commons

Conservative Review, by Jordan Shachtel,  April 27, 2017:

With UC Berkeley’s unwillingness to provide actual security measures for conservative speakers, the school has made it crystal clear that there is no room for free expression on its campus.

The academic institution has, however, welcomed prominent radical Islamists with open arms. Speakers who have openly called for violence and bigotry are granted space at Berkeley, so long as they fit within the accepted political framework.

Since the turn of the century, the California school has become a cesspool of radical indoctrination that is rampant with Islamic supremacists. The school has not only turned into America’s chief promulgator of anti-American ideals, it also has become a breeding ground of anti-Semitism.

April 13 marked the 10-year anniversary of an overtly pro-Osama bin Laden speech hosted by the Muslim Students Association (MSA) at Berkeley.

The shocking audio, in which the speaker demands that fellow Muslims not condemn the international terrorist, has been preserved by the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

“Osama bin Laden … I don’t know this guy. I don’t know what he did. I don’t know what he said. I don’t know what happened. But we defend Muslim brothers and we defend our Muslim sisters to the end. Is that clear?” Amir Mertaban, the former MSA West president, said at a MSA conference of the now-dead al Qaeda chief.

“If you sit here and you start saying ‘jihad is only an internal this and that,’ you are compromising on your faith,” he added.

In 2004, a Berkeley MSA conference hosted Amir Abdel Malik Ali, who called for fellowmujahids” (warriors for Islam) to take up arms and form a Muslim theocracy. The left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center has described him as “a charismatic imam who promotes anti-Semitism, violence and conspiracy theories that blame the U.S. government and Jews for attacks by Islamic terrorists.”

Two years later, Mr. Ali spoke at a UC Irvine pro-Hezbollah (which is a U.S.-designated terrorist organization) conference and was received by chants of “Allahu Akbar!”

Later that year, to commemorate Holocaust Remembrance Day, Islamic supremacists at Berkeley held an anti-Semitic hate fest, shouting for the destruction of Israel.

The UC’s Islamic supremacy complex is far from a thing of the past.

In 2015, Berkeley hosted Omar Barghouti, leader of the anti-Semitic BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement against the state of Israel. Today, Berkeley continues to be a cesspool of Islamic supremacist indoctrination.

The California school partners with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) – an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror financing trial in American history, and a suspected Hamas front group – on annual “Islamophobia” reports and conferences.

The annual confab, which took place last week, featured Zahra Billoo. She is the director of CAIR’s San Francisco-Bay Area chapter. Billoo has, in the past, accused U.S. soldiers of engaging in terrorism and has advised her allies to thwart FBI investigations.

The Berkeley-CAIR “Islamophobia Research and Documentation Project” was started by Dr. Hatem Bazian, a professor at the school. Bazian is the founder of the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), an anti-Semitic hate group that seeks to eliminate the Jewish state of Israel. Bazian has, in the past, called for an intifada (violent uprising) in America.

Berkeley’s indoctrination efforts have clearly had an effect on the individuals matriculating there. Check out this shocking video released in 2014 by filmmaker Ami Horowitz. It highlighted how students reacted much more negatively to an Israeli flag than to an Islamic State flag.

Berkeley is no place for conservatism, yet the school seemingly has no issue with radical Islamists who seek to overthrow the country and impose a theocracy on America.

Jordan Schachtel is the national security correspondent for CR. Follow him on Twitter @JordanSchachtel.

Also see: