Geert Wilders: Close All Mosques In The Netherlands

467191621Breitbart, by Chris Tomlinson, Aug. 27, 2016:

Leader of Netherlands’ most popular party Geert Wilders has proposed a closure of all Mosques in the country and a total ban on the Koran ahead of the 2017 general election.

Leader of the populist Party for Freedom (PVV) Geert Wilders has proposed the most radical anti-Islamisation platform for any party in European politics. Wilders, whose PVV are currently top of all major polls in the Netherlands, has declared that the new platform for the party ahead of the general elections in 2017 will include the plan to close all Mosques in the country and place a ban on the Islamic holy book, the Koran. Wilders claims that the move is to counter the Islamisation he sees ongoing in the country reports Belgian paper Demorgen.

The PVV platform for the 2017 election was released by Wilders first via his Twitter account and carried the theme of “de-Islamisation.”  The PVV states that it would like to see not only a closure of all the mosques in the country and a ban on the Koran but also a ban on the Islamic headscarf for women in any public setting. Asylum seekers were also mentioned by the document which wants to repeal all temporary residency permits for all asylum seekers and close all asylum centres in the country.

Like many countries in Europe the Netherlands has had an issue with it’s citizens who have gone off to fight for the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq returning home. The PVV is clear on its position regarding these current or former Islamic State fighters saying that any ISIS members will not be allowed to return to the Netherlands.

The new platform makes a sharp increase in pressure from the party against Islamisation. During the last parliamentary campaign the PVV proposed to allow up to a thousand asylum seekers into the country per year. The ongoing migrant crisis and multiple acts of terror in European cities over the past few months has influenced the opinion of Wilders and the party who are known as one of the toughest on Islamism in Europe.

Wilders himself says he is, “incredibly proud of the draft,” of the party platform and reaffirmed his commitment to follow the United Kingdom out of the European Union. Wilders has long been an advocate of getting the Netherlands out of the political bloc who he claims stifle any meaningful asylum of immigration policy passed by the Dutch parliament.

Earlier this year writing exclusively for Breitbart London Wilders called for a “Patriot Spring” across Europe and North America. As Austrian Freedom Party presidential candidate Norbert Hofer leads in polls ahead of the October 2nd Austrian Presidential election, the German Alternative for Germany have become the 3rd largest party in Germany and Wilders PVV  are projected to win at least ten seats more than the current ruling party, the patriot spring may have begun.

Follow-Up: Geert Wilders Demands Explanation from US on FBI “Egging On” Jihad

160805_atm_nc_man_isis_arrest_16x9_1600As reported last week, affidavits suggest the FBI may have ‘egged on’ the jihadist attack in Garland, Texas. The Dutch government has become interested in the case, while the suspect’s mother claims he is “patriotic” and unfairly targeted because he is a Muslim.

CounterJihad, Aug. 10, 2016:

Last week, CounterJihad reported on suggestions that the FBI may have “egged on” jihadist killers who attacked a free speech protest in Garland, Texas.  The attackers were shot dead at the scene by a heroic off-duty traffic policeman.  The reports of FBI interaction with them were made public during a related trial of an alleged Islamic State (ISIS) recruiter, one Erick Hendricks.

Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch “Party for Freedom” political party, has demanded that his government pursue answers from the United States on this case.  The Dutch are interested because of similar killings by jihadists opposed to Western norms of free speech both in their country and in neighboring France.

Geert Wilders is demanding clarification from Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte on this matter. He wants to know whether it is true that an FBI agent contacted one of the terrorists and possibly egged him on. He also wants to know whether the American authorities passed FBI information on to the Dutch authorities. “If so when, and what was done with this information? If not, why not?”

“Are you prepared to ask the US immediately for clarification on these reports? If not, why not?” Wilders writes on his website. “Are you prepared to answer these questions this week?”

So far the Dutch Prime Minister has not responded to the inquiry.  Nevertheless, the matter is likely to be of great interest internationally.  The Netherlands has seen explosive growth in jihadist elements.  Research by the Motivaction group reveals that 80% of Turks in the Netherlands support the practice of jihad in order to spread Islam.  The horrifying Paris attacks of last year provoked emergency meetings of Dutch ministers, and a German-Netherlands football game was canceled due to “concrete” threats of a similar attack targeting it.

European governments depend on the United States to handle a substantial piece of the counter-jihad effort as the European Union lacks genuine intelligence-sharing programs.  In the United States, the Federal government can readily share information with state and local agencies, as well as with partner governments worldwide with whom it has proper agreements.  In Europe, it is often the case that even police agencies cannot talk to each other across national borders.  Even police forces within a nation may not be allowed to talk to each other.

Meanwhile, at the trial of accused ISIS recruiter Erick Hendricks, his attorney and his mother are alike trying to claim that the charges against him are incredible due to the FBI’s use of paid informants to gather evidence.  His mother described him as “patriotic,” and said that the government was trumping up charges against him because of he was a Muslim.

During his detention hearing in Charlotte, Erick Jamal Hendricks sobbed as his attorney attempted to poke holes in the federal government’s allegations that the 35-year-old Arkansas native recruited for the Islamic State, also known as IS, ISIS or ISIL…. Culler argued for 35 minutes that the government lacked probable cause for the case, and that an FBI affidavit cited by prosecutors as grounds for Hendricks’ continued confinement lacked facts and was based on statements from paid informants, some of them with criminal records.

If Hendricks posed such danger to the public, why did the government wait so long to arrest him, Culler asked the judge. “They looked in on him for more than a year, and he’s a threat?”

Cayer, without explanation, ordered that Hendricks remain in custody….

[Hendricks’ mother Lisa] Woods, 62, said he has been singled out because of his religion. “He is a successful African-American Muslim. I feel that’s why it happened, and the rest of them better be ready for it.”

The judge may be motivated by the recent Pulse nightclub shooting, in which the FBI had twice investigated and cleared Omar Mateen, the gunman who went on to murder dozens while pledging allegiance to ISIS.  The FBI also looked into Mateen for a very long time, were unable to prove anything, and yet he still turned out to be a serious danger to the American public.

VIDEO — Geert Wilders: Stand for Freedom!

stop-global-islamization (1)Gatestone Institute, June 30, 2016:

Dutch opposition leader Geert Wilders discusses the dangers of the Islamization of the West and the growing influence of Sharia law. He outlines his plans to defend the identity and civilization of the West from indoctrination.

WATCH: Geert Wilders speaks in Brussels: Threats to his life, resisting Islam and the establishment

Geert_Wilders_image

The Rebel, by Victor Laszlow, March 06, 2016:

On Friday March 4, 2016 Geert Wilders spoke at an event in Brussels at the invitation of Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest, i.e. the Flemish separatist party)

Geert Wilders is one of the few politicians brave enough to speak clear and obvious truths about what is happening to Europe and lead a fight-back against it. This is one of the best speeches he has given to date in which he discusses the current round of criminal prosecutions against him, and compare the charges against him to what other politicians say about him, for which they never seem to be arrested, despite the implicit death threats they sometimes contain.

EXCLUSIVE – Geert Wilders: Stopping Islamic Immigration Is a Matter of Survival

Getty Images

Getty Images

Breitbart, by Geert Wilders, Feb. 9, 2016:

In April last year, the renowned nonpartisan Pew Research Center released a report on the future growth of world religions. The content was shocking. The report states that, if current trends continue, Islam will almost equal Christianity by 2050. While the world’s population is expected to rise by 35 per cent until the middle of this century, Islam will grow with a staggering 73 per cent.

The consequences of future Islamic growth are frightening. Islam is not a religion like Christianity, but rather a totalitarian political ideology. Its goal is primarily political. Islam wants to make the whole world submit. It aims to establish a worldwide Islamic state and bring everyone, including “infidels,” such as Christians, Jews, atheists, and others, under Sharia law. This is the barbaric Islamic law which deprives non-Muslims of all rights, treats women as inferior beings, condemns apostates and critics of Islam to death, and condones terror. More Islam equals more violence, more intolerance, more terrorism.

With the growth of Islam, the world will become a less safe place. And so will America. According to Pew, the United States will see its number of Christians decline from more than three-quarters of the population today to two-thirds in 2050, while Islam will more than double in size and replace Judaism as America’s largest non-Christian faith. The consequences of the Islamic presence in America have already been visible in several murderous attacks, such last December’s San Bernardino shooting, but also the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, the 2009 Fort Hood shooting, the 9/11 terror attacks in 2001, and several other acts of terrorism. If Islam doubles in size, the threat of terrorism will only grow.

In the past, the totalitarian ideologies of Nazism and Communism have both been defeated by the common efforts of America and Europe. Without America, Europe would have been lost. But without Europe, America would have been isolated. If Europe had fallen to either Nazism or Communism, there is no doubt that America would have become the next victim. The Transatlantic alliance between Americans and Europeans has been the key to the survival of our common Western civilization. This alliance is in danger today, because the more Islamic Europe becomes, the less reliable it will be as an ally of America.

Though the predicted future rise of Islam in the US is worrying, the situation in Europe is far worse. The Pew figures show that Islam has already gained a significant foothold on the European continent and is growing rapidly. Europe’s Islamic population, boosted by higher birth rates and immigration, will nearly double, from 43 million people in 2010 to 71 million people in 2050. In the Netherlands, Muhammad is currently already the second most popular name among newborn boys nationwide and even the most popular name in our three largest cities, Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague. This is also the case in the Belgian capital Brussels, the Norwegian capital Oslo, and the British capital London. As a matter of fact even in the whole of Great-Britain, Muhammad has become the most popular name for newborn boys.

The Islamization of Europe will profoundly influence European politics. Winning the Islamic vote will become the goal of ever more European politicians. As a result, Europe’s policies will become even less friendly towards Israel and the United States than they already are. The Atlantic alliance is in danger.

The Islamic vote has already decided at least one major European election: the 2012 French presidential elections. These were won by the Socialist Francois Hollande over the incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy by only 1.1 million votes. Since an estimated 2 million Islamic votes participated, of which 93 per cent – 1.7 million votes – went to Hollande and only 7 per cent to Sarkozy, it was the Islamic vote which gained Francois Hollande the Elysée Palace.

According to Pew, the growth of Islam in Europe is caused by several factors, including the young age of the Islamic population. However, more than half the growth can be attributed to immigration. In other words, stopping all immigration from Islamic countries would reduce the growth of Islam in Europe, but also in America, by more than half. The easiest way to limit the growth of Islam in the West is to stop Islamic immigration.

Islam is an existential threat to our Western freedoms and our Judeo-Christian civilization. It also threatens the Atlantic partnership between America and Western Europe. It is our duty to limit this threat. It is our mission as patriots to protect our nations. The first measure we must take to stop Islam, reduce the risk of terrorism and save our civilization, is to stop all immigration from Islamic countries. It is a matter of survival.

Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch Parliament, is the leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) and the author of “Marked for Death: Islam’s War Against the West and Me,” published by Regnery.

Geert Wilders on New Year’s Eve Sexual Assaults in Cologne Germany by Arab and North African men

Protest Sign in Cologne Germany  APProtest Signs in Cologne Germany on New Year’s Eve Sexual Assaults

Source: AP

New English Review, by Jerry Gordon, Jan. 6, 2016:

Reports of sexual assaults and robberies of women gathered for celebrations in Cologne, Germany on New Year’s Eve have created a firestorm of concern in Germany, but also in neighboring Holland.  Geert Wilders, leader of the Freedom Party (PVV) raised questions in the Hague Parliament of the ruling coalition cabinet members on January 5th.  Today, Wilders sent a letter to Prime Minister Rutte leader of the VVD party ruling coalition requesting preventive actions to foil such possible attacks by migrants and refugees in Dutch reception centers and communities.

Reports of 90 incidents by women victims in Cologne of such sexual attacks and robberies indicated that the perpetrators were “Arabic or North Africa looking” males.  It heightened concerns in this most culturally and ethnically diverse German city and among opposition political leaders who have questioned the wisdom of allowing in more than 1 million predominately Muslim  migrants and refugees from  the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia. That prompted  Chancellor Merkel ,who has welcomed the mass immigration wave of Muslims, as a means of dealing with Germany’s acute labor shortage to have the ruling CD government Justice Minister  investigate these  charges and determine if any arrests can be made by local law enforcement. However, reports of riots at reception centers by migrants and refugees have aroused protests in a number of German communities.

CNN updated these developments  arising from the Cologne New Year’s  Eve sexual attacks , “Reports of New Year’s Eve sex assaults in Cologne fuel German migrant debate:”

A spate of alleged sexual assaults and robberies at New Year’s Eve festivities in the German city of Cologne has fueled a political firestorm over immigration in Germany.

Ninety criminal incidents, a quarter of which were sexual assaults, were reported following New Year’s Eve celebrations in the city, Cologne police told CNN.

Police said victims described the perpetrators as gangs of Arab or North African men. Many of the assaults were likely intended to distract, allowing attackers to steal mobile phones and other devices, police said.

Authorities said the crimes, including a rape, occurred around the train station, next to the western German city’s landmark cathedral.

Video footage of the celebrations in the area show riotous scenes, with revelers shooting fireworks into crowds.

In a phone call with Cologne Mayor Henriette Reker Tuesday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed outrage over the attacks, labeling them “disgusting” and calling for the culprits to be identified and punished as soon as possible, CNN affiliate ARD reported.

Cologne police Chief Wolfgang Albers said at a press conference Monday that the incidents were “intolerable,” describing them as “crimes of a totally new dimension.”

The episode raised questions about the viability of Cologne’s famous Carnival next month when hundreds of thousands are expected to join celebrations on city streets, he said.

A smaller number of similar assaults also were reported in the German city of Hamburg on New Year’s Eve, Hamburg police told CNN.

The women involved in the Cologne sexual attacks gave evidence of what occurred:

One of the Cologne victims said she was too scared to go out alone following the ordeal.

“The men surrounded us and started to grab our behinds and touch our crotches,” she said.

“They touched us everywhere. I wanted to take my friend and leave. I turned around and in that moment someone grabbed my bag.”

She said she feared she could be killed or raped by the attackers.

“Nobody noticed and nobody helped us. I just wanted to get out.”

Another victim said she had unsuccessfully tried to fight off her assailant.

“But there were so many people around me that there was no control. There was no way out. There was no way to protect yourself,” she said.

“We ran to the police. But we saw the police were so understaffed. They couldn’t take care of us and we as women suffered the price.”

Victims speak out after nightmare New Year in Cologne: 

download (14)Geert Wilders in Hague Parliament

In view of these attacks by  Arab attackers in several German cities lead by Cologne,  Geert Wilders and fellow PVV MP Sietse Fritsma,  presented the  Dutch Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Security and Justice in the Hague parliament on January 5, 2016 the following questions:

1.) Are you aware of reports that on New Year’s Eve groups of mostly Arab men assaulted, robbed and raped dozens of young women in several German cities?

2.) Are you also aware also of the statements by female victims who said “They surrounded us and began to grope us? Their hands were everywhere. I had fingers in every bodily orifice”?

3.) Do you agree with Wolfgang Albers, the Cologne Police Chief that we are dealing here with “a whole new dimension of violence”? If not, why not?

4.)Do you agree with us that this new dimension of violence is the result of the import of migrants with a violent, Islamic culture that often regards women and young girls as inferior? If not, why not?

5.)Are you still of the opinion that the word testosterone bomb is a terrible word, as you told the first signatory of these questions during the parliamentary debate on September 17th last year, or do you now finally realize that allowing tens of thousands of Arab men in Netherlands jeopardizes the safety of our citizens?

6.)Do you remember the parliamentary debate on asylum seekers of October 14th, 2015, during which the first signatory of these questions read several reports of women who had been harassed by asylum seekers in the Netherlands? If so, why do you continue to endanger Dutch women by allowing the massive admission of asylum seekers?

7.) Do you realize that, if you continue to leave our borders wide open, it is only a matter of time before mass robberies and assaults such as those in Germany, will also happen on the same large scale in the Netherlands? Do you want to have this on your conscience or are you finally ready to close the Dutch borders to Islamic testosterone bombs?

In a Dutch newspaper, The Post, on-line article by Wilders, “Cologne Assaults May Soon Happen on Large Scale in Netherlands Too,” he wrote:

If we continue to allow asylum-seekers and immigrants from Islamic countries to settle in our country en masse, then what has happened on New Year’s Eve in Germany will soon happen on the same large scale in the Netherlands, too. The first signs are already there.

During the parliamentary debate on October 14, 2015, I quoted from emails of ordinary Dutch citizens suffering from the behavior of asylum seekers and immigrants. These mails referred to young girls being “immorally touched”, daughters being “harassed,” women who are told “I want to f___k you.”

The events in Cologne are the signs of a future which lies before us if the government and the majority of the parliamentarians refuse to face the truth.

Cologne is nearby. Our wives and daughters must be protected. The government needs to wake up. Mark Rutte must do his duty. Our borders must be closed. We must de-Islamize the Netherlands.

Today, Wilders issued a follow up letter to Dutch PM Rutte saying:

Dear Mr. Prime Minister,

Yesterday and today, I received hundreds of emails. Hundreds of emails full of fear and indignation. About the horrific events on New Year’s Eve in Cologne.

I have not heard you about those events. I find that very strange. After Paris last November, we now have Cologne. After the Islamic terror, the sexual jihad. But we do not hear you. Hello, Mr. Prime Minister? Are you still there?

What happened in Cologne is repulsive. Fear reigns in Germany, but also in the Netherlands. Don’t you notice it? Thousands of Dutch women worry about their safety. Thousands of Dutch men fear for the safety of their wives. And thousands of Dutch parents are afraid of what might happen to their daughters.

All these people realize that it will not be long before large group attacks on women will also take place in the Netherlands. Testosterone bombs I have called them, but it is far worse. This is sexual terrorism, this is sexual jihad.

On a smaller scale, it is already happening in the Netherlands today. Ever more women are being harassed. Yesterday, the media reported about a girl in the province of Zeeland which had been assaulted by an Arab man. For years already, there is a plague of assault rapes by non-Western men in Sweden and Norway. It is coming our way.

You do not like to hear this, Mr. Rutte. And that is undoubtedly the reason why you are so quiet now. But you are responsible for this situation. Because, despite all the warnings, you have opened our country’s borders to tens of thousands of people – mostly young men – from an Islamic culture.

I hope that your eyes will finally open and that you will close our borders at once and start to de-Islamize the Netherlands. So that our country may once again be the safe country the Dutch people are entitled to.

Geert Wilders

Geert Wilders MP is leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV) in the Netherlands

The plague of sexual assaults, robberies  and rapes  of young women by  Muslim migrant young men in Sweden has made it what some allege has become  the rape capital of Europe. Then we have the sexual grooming practices of young British girls by South Asia Muslim émigrés in the UK. With a million Muslim refugees and migrants who broke the borderless Schengen system, they are seeking more than sanctuary and possible economic employment, opportunities.  Rather it may result in establishing virtual no go areas emboldened by sexual terrorism ruled under Sharia Islamic law condoned by EU countries under the guise of myopic politically correct multi-culturalism policies. What they do not comprehend to their undoing is that the great wave of Muslim immigration is a furtherance of the Dar al Hijrah immigration strategy to spread Islamization to Europe and the West.  That is what concerns Wilders and others in the broken borders of the EU with thousands of refugees arriving daily from conflicts in the Muslim Ummah exemplified by the Jihad of the self-declared Caliphate, the Islamic State.

***

Ezra Levant Show: Muslim migrant rape and riot spree in Germany

Also see:

Wilders: Lion Among the Jackals

Far-right-Dutch-pol-Geert-Wilders-Mike-Stone-Reuters-640x480Diana West, Sep. 22, 2015:

With thanks to H. Numan, Vlad Tepes and Gates of Vienna.

Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders delivers a bravura performance, debating the Islamic invasion of the Netherlands with fellow parliamentarians who seem keen to turn the Netherlands into one big refugee center. Three thousand refugees, who are mainly not refugees and are mainly Muslim, are flooding the Netherlands each week. Wilders is calling for a halt and for closing the Dutch border.

No wonder Wilders’ PVV is the most popular party in the Netherlands polls. His is the only party fighting to save the nation from Islamization and financial ruin.

TRANSCRIPT at Gates of Vienna

***

WILDERS TELLS DUTCH PARLIAMENT REFUGEE CRISIS IS ‘ISLAMIC INVASION’ (breitbart.com)

Dutch far-right leader Geert Wilders called the wave of refugees pushing into Europe an “Islamic invasion”, during a parliamentary debate on Thursday that exposed deep divisions over how the Netherlands should respond to the crisis.

European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker on Wednesday appealed to EU members to share out refugees arriving on the bloc’s fringes. Several EU countries oppose the idea of mandatory quotas, as supported by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and the conservative Dutch government says it is only willing to take in more if all EU states agree.

At the start of the debate, Wilders called the wave of refugees passing through Hungary and other countries “an Islamic invasion of Europe, of the Netherlands.”

“Masses of young men in their twenties with beards singing Allahu Akbar across Europe. It’s an invasion that threatens our prosperity, our security, our culture and identity,” he said.

Tens of thousands of people, many fleeing war and Islamic State in Syria, are trying to get to Germany where Merkel has said they will be allowed to stay. Wilders said the fact that they were pushing northwards through the EU from the Mediterranean indicated many were economic migrants, not refugees.

“Turkey, Greece, Macedonia, Serbia are safe countries. If you flee them then you are doing it for benefits and a house,” said Wilders, whose Party for Freedom leads Dutch opinion polls.

Roughly 54 percent of Dutch voters are opposed to accepting more than roughly 2,000 refugees previously agreed, a poll from last week showed. Under the latest proposals that figure is seen rising to more than 9,000.

Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s government said on Friday it was willing in principle to accept a larger share of asylum seekers, but only as a “temporary solution”.

In the long term, the Dutch want better shelters for refugees near conflict zones and will donate 110 million euros ($123 million) this year to improve capacity in and near Syria.

Jesse Klaver of the opposition GreenLeft said: “We should agree with the request of the European Commission unconditionally and without differentiating between the short and long term.”

Rutte’s fragile coalition government nearly split in April over asylum policy. The government plans to toughen its stance by cutting off food and shelter after a few weeks for those whose claims for refugee status are turned down.

It was not clear whether lawmakers would vote on the issue after their debate.

From Reuters

Why Sharia Should Have No Place in America

20150301_shariawilldominatetheworldsign (1)Family Security Matters, by Eileen F. Topansky, June 22, 2015:

There are still far too many Americans who do not perceive the terrifying Nazi-like intentions of Islamic jihadists either through their outright destruction of the infidel and/or the implementation of sharia law as Allah has ordained it to be.

The alphabet-soup-named groups’ ultimate goal of extermination of Jews, Christians and any others deemed infidels has still not penetrated the consciousness of the media or academia.  And no matter how many ardent efforts are made to educate and raise awareness of the Islamists’ goals, people either ignore or minimize the dangers.

And, yet, like Churchill, there are those of us who feel a moral obligation to continue the clarion call and not bend, dhimmi-like, to the whims and wishes of those who deliberately abuse the freedoms of this country in order to abolish those very freedoms for the rest of us.

Which is why, freedom loving Americans need to support Pamela Geller, Ayanna Hirsi Ali, Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders, Nonie Darwish and other courageous souls who refuse to cower before the appalling attacks on freedom of speech.  Given the opportunity, Islam swallows the whole body politic. Thus it has been in the past and thus it will be going forward.  After all, “Hijab Day was imposed on citizens in Minneapolis” in 2014.

Author/neuroscientist Sam Harris in his article entitled “Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks” asserts that “[t]he position of the Muslim community in the face of all provocations seems to be: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn’t, we will kill you.”  Furthermore,” [o]nly Muslims hound and hunt and murder their apostates, infidels, and critics in the 21st century.”

Contrary to Muslims’ oft-repeated assertions of victimization, it is interesting to note that the latest FBI statistics indicate that Muslims are the least discriminated among groups in the United States.  In fact, “[t]here were 1,031 incidents inspired by religion last year, 625 (60.6 percent) of which were anti-Jewish” as compared to “anti-Islamic ones [which] constituted just 13.1 percent.”  Yet Muslims play the victim game with the result that “Muslim immigrants are systematically exempted from western standards of moral order in the name of paying ‘respect’ to the glaring pathologies in their culture.”

How many Americans understand the true import of the word “dhimmitude?”  Victor Sharpe describes it as the “parlous state of those who refused to convert to Islam and became the subjugated non-Muslims who were forced to accept a restrictive and humiliating subordination to a superior Islamic power and live as second-class citizens in order to avoid death.”

Secularists from India to Indiana must understand that “by being silent about the horrendous practices in Islam, they only help toward further subjugation of women.” The veil is but one of the many symbols of “a totalitarian political system and an ideology which declares war on the non-Muslims.”  It is as clear and potent as the Nazi swastika was in its declaration of war against civilization.  Yet, when Muslim women activists speak out against sharia and Islamic gender apartheid, they are ignored by the majority of so-called Western feminists.

One need only read the March 2015 report by Baroness Cox entitled “A Parallel World: Confronting the abuse of many Muslim women in Britain today” to see what jihadist ideology is doing to the land of Churchill who, in 1897, wrote “western civilization is face to face with militant Mohammedanism.”  Baroness Cox has written that the “suffering of women oppressed by religiously-sanctioned gender discrimination; and a rapidly developing alternative quasi-legal system which undermines the fundamental principle of one law for all” would “make the suffragettes turn in their graves.”

In 2014 in their publication entitled Sharia Law: Britain’s Blind Spot, Sharia Watch warned about the encroaching sharia law that was affecting “the treatment of women, freedom of speech, finance, and the marketplace.”

Yet the West continues to contort itself to ban Islamophobia, that completely false narrative that disguises and whitewashes the true intentions of the jihadists.  What every freedom-loving individual should be doing is demanding an “Islamist Apartheid Week” to show the “genocidal, totalitarian and racist states that operate under Islamic rule.”  In fact, it isChristianophobia and Judenphobia which are endemic across the Muslim world.

Is sharia law America’s blind spot as Joanne Moudy asserts? In her June 2014 article, Moudy explains that “. . . many states have already passed laws prohibiting the use of foreign religious law in their courts. Yet despite strong voter support for these measures, the ACLU is fighting to get them all overturned. Oklahoma was one such state and – sure enough – in 2013 a federal court struck down their efforts, ignoring 70% of the population’s wishes that the U.S. Constitution take precedence.”  Moreover, “[t]he ACLU claims it is necessary to consider religious law (Shari’a) when negotiating adoptions, custody of children, executing a will and/or settling disputes over private property rights, to name a few. What the ACLU fails to mention is that within Shari’a law, women are considered property and thus have no rights, which means they have no say in court.”

In addition, Bethany Blankley in her article entitled “What America Would Look Like Under Sharia Law” notes the disingenuousness and double standards that define Islamic organizations as they stealthily infiltrate American organizations.

Blankley’s most cogent point is that since Islamists say there is no conflict between sharia law and constitutional law, “why then [do these same Islamic groups] vigilantly advertise, lobby, award ‘educational grants,’ and fund political campaigns, to implement sharia compliant American law?”

In fact, one need only look at Saudi Arabia and other sharia-ordered countries to see that Jews and gays have no civil rights in Islam.  Thus, “like everyone else, they must either submit to Islam or die.  But they are especially forbidden and targeted for death — because the Qur’an instructs it.”  According to Uzay Bulut, born and raised a Muslim, “[t]he Muslim regimes, which do not know even the definition of liberty–and their systematic criminalization of free speech; their suppression of inquiry and creativity; and their unending intertribal fights–are the reason their people have remained in the seventh century.”

Amendment VIII in the Constitution states that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”  Yet, in sharp contrast, “every day, arrests, trials, floggings, torture and the murder of journalists, poets, students and human rights activists are a routine practice” in the world of sharia law.

In fact, “[i]n Islamic Sharia law, a free mind is the most inexcusable crime in the Muslim world.”

Under “sharia, no free exercise of religion exists, especially for Muslims who choose to leave Islam.”  Additionally, “blasphemy laws exist worldwide to criminalize offensive speech or actions related to the Qur’an, Allah, and Muhammad.” Thus, anything that is deemed “offensive” is illegal.  And finally, “inequality, slavery and murder are enforced through the Islamic construct of dhimmitude.”

To further understand what life would actually be like for women under an Islamic state, it behooves readers to study the manifesto on women by the Al-Khanssaa Brigade in the February 2015 piece entitled Women of the Islamic State. A propaganda piece to recruit young girls to ISIS, some highlights include a “lengthy rebuttal of the ills of Western civilisation [.]”  ISIS has proposed a curriculum that would ‘begin when [girls] are seven years old and end when they are fifteen, or sometimes a little earlier.'” In essence, “the role of women is inherently ‘sedentary’, and her responsibilities lie first and foremost in the house [.] This role begins at the point of marriage which, . . . can be as young as nine years old. From this point on, it is women’s ‘appointed role [to] remain hidden and veiled and maintain society from behind.'” In actuality, “the ideal Islamic community should refrain from becoming caught up in exploring [science], the depths of matter, trying to uncover the secrets of nature and reaching the peaks of architectural sophistication.”  Consequently, “the implementation of sharia,” and doing “jihad” is paramount.

In Wisconsin and Ohio public school female students are now being asked to pretend to be Muslims.  This subtle propaganda is a first step to indoctrinating American youth.  In fact, much of American life is now being tainted with militant and violent Islamic ideology, be it in public schools, hospitals, and mosques.

Concerning actual sharia incursions into American life, on the one hand, Elizabeth K. Dorminey in her March 2012 article entitled “Sharia Law in American Courts” asserts that “[s]o long as U.S. courts and the federal and state legislatures adhere to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, Sharia’s proscriptions and prohibitions cannot displace constitutionally-guaranteed rights in the United States.”  Likewise Eugene Volokh believes American jurists will halt sharia-like incursions.

But in reality, American courts are already using sharia to adjudicate cases; this is highlighted in the December 2014 booklet entitled Shariah in American Courts, which pdf is available here and whose blurb states that “[t]his monograph also suggests that the effort to invoke shariah in U.S. courts is expanding. Worse yet, the total number of such cases is surely far larger in light of the fact that the proceedings of the vast majority of them are not published.”

In fact, Frank Gaffney emphatically asserts the “need for state legislators to clearly define public policy related to foreign law and Shariah.”  Consequently, . . .  in every case where foreign law and Shariah emerge in the court of a state that has yet to define clearly this policy, it creates one more advance in the Islamists’ determined campaign to have us destroy ‘our house’ by ‘our own hands.'”

Moreover, Gaffney underscores that “Shariah is distinctly different from other religious laws, like Jewish law and Catholic Canon, and distinctly different from other secular foreign laws” because of the “fundamental Shariah doctrine that Islamic law must rule supreme in any jurisdiction where Muslims reside.”  This three minute you-tube is a short version of the article entitled “Shariah vs. Jewish Law and encapsulates the stark differences.

Most alarming is that in “146 cases found, the court upheld the use of Shariah in 27 cases. This means that, statistically, one out of five American judges fail[ed] to reject foreign law that violates U.S. and state public policy.”  Consequently, there is an “increasing effort to insinuate Shariah into American civilization.”  Multi-cultural tolerance is being turned on us. Being paralyzed by political correctness eliminates what self-preservation demands.

In the June 2014 booklet entitled “Siding with the Oppressor: The Pro-Islamist Left” published by One Law for All, the authors explain that “[f]undamentalist terror is predicated on “. . . controlling all aspects of society in the name of religion, including education, the legal system, youth services, etc. When fundamentalists come to power, they silence the people — they physically eliminate dissidents, writers, journalists, poets, musicians, painters – like fascists do. Like fascists, they physically eliminate the ‘untermensch’ – the subhumans -, among them ‘inferior races’, gays, mentally or physically disabled people. And they lock women ‘in their place [.]'”he Campaign La All

Why would we want to import any part of this to our shores?

Eileen has been a medical librarian, an Emergency Medical Technician and a Hebrew School teacher.  She is currently an adjunct college instructor of English composition and literature.  Active in the 1970’s Soviet Jewry Refusenik movement, she continues to speak out against tyranny.  Eileen is also a regular contributor to American Thinker. She can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com

A Former Muslim’s Grave Warning to America

hirsi_ali-492x486American Thinker, By Matthew Vadum, June 11, 2015:

Islam “has begotten a bloodthirsty ideology that is determined to destroy the principles of liberty and humanity and basic decency,” ex-Muslim and activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali said June 3 at the John F. Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C.

Hirsi Ali knows what she’s talking about.  Born in Mogadishu, Somalia, she was raised Muslim.  She spent her childhood and young adulthood in Africa and Saudi Arabia.  She fled as a refugee to the Netherlands in 1992, where she earned a political science degree and was elected to the Dutch House of Representatives.  After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Hirsi Ali renounced Islam.

Last week she accepted an award from the Milwaukee-based Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, which prides itself on “strengthening American democratic capitalism and the institutions, principles and values that sustain and nurture it.”

Some in the conservative movement refer to the annual Bradley Prizes event, which was emceed this year by commentator George Will, as the “conservative Oscars.”  The other recipients this year were James W. Ceaser, a political science professor at the University of Virginia; Larry P. Arnn, president of Hillsdale College; and retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, chairman of the Institute for the Study of War.

The late Christopher Hitchens called Hirsi Ali, whose former religion forced female circumcision on her, someone “of arresting and hypnotizing beauty,” and “a charismatic figure” who writes “with quite astonishing humor and restraint.”  In 2005, Time magazine named her one of the 100 most influential people in the world.

She famously said, “Islam is not a religion of peace.  It’s a political theory of conquest that seeks domination by any means it can.”

Her latest book, Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now, was published in March by Harper.  (It was reviewed by Katherine Ernst in City Journal.)

“My argument is that it is foolish to insist, as our leaders habitually do, that the violent acts of radical Islamists can be divorced from the religious ideals that inspire them,” she writes in Heretic.  She continues:

Instead we must acknowledge that they are driven by a political ideology, an ideology embedded in Islam itself, in the holy book of the Qur’an as well as the life and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad contained in the hadith.

Let me make my point in the simplest possible terms: Islam is not a religion of peace.

For expressing the idea that Islamic violence is rooted not in social, economic, or political conditions – or even in theological error – but rather in the foundational texts of Islam itself, I have been denounced as a bigot and an “Islamophobe.”  I have been silenced, shunned, and shamed.  In effect, I have been deemed to be a heretic, not just by Muslims – for whom I am already an apostate – but by some Western liberals as well, whose multicultural sensibilities are offended by such “insensitive” pronouncements … today, it seems, speaking the truth about Islam is a crime.  “Hate speech” is the modern term for heresy.  And in the present atmosphere, anything that makes Muslims feel uncomfortable is branded as “hate.”

In the book, Hirsi Ali writes that it is her goal “to make many people – not only Muslims but also Western apologists for Islam – uncomfortable” by “challenging centuries of religious orthodoxy with ideas and arguments that I am certain will be denounced as heretical.”

“My argument is for nothing less than a Muslim Reformation,” she writes.  “Without fundamental alterations to some of Islam’s core concepts, I believe, we shall not solve the burning and increasingly global problem of political violence carried out in the name of religion.”

In her remarks at the Kennedy Center, Hirsi Ali summarized what brought her to this point and what needs to be done.  With the exception of the opening pleasantries, here follows a transcript of this brave woman’s speech:

Ladies and gentlemen, the Bradley Foundation is committed to strengthening American democratic capitalism and the institutions, principles, and values that sustain and nurture it.  It supports limited, competent government, a dynamic marketplace for economic, intellectual, and cultural activity and a vigorous defense at home and abroad of American ideas and institutions.

It may same strange to you that I, an immigrant black woman from a Muslim family, should identify so strongly with those goals.  Let me explain to you why I do.  There are three reasons.

First, it’s because my life’s journey which has taken me from Somalia to Saudi Arabia to Ethiopia to Kenya to the Netherlands and finally here, could not have been better designed to make me appreciate American principles and American institutions.

Second, I think I can justly say that I was among the first in my age group of millions of Muslims to admit that our faith, no longer mine, has begotten a bloodthirsty ideology that is determined to destroy the principles of liberty and humanity and basic decency.

Even after 9/11 there are still those who naively believe that it’s a threat only in countries like Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan.  The reality as our general [i.e. Jack Keane] just laid out, is that it is now a global threat.  A recent report by the United Nations Security Council confirmed that more than 100 countries are now supplying recruits to the Islamic State and al-Qaeda, and the United States is one of them.

This year alone the number of U.S.-based individuals in Islamic terror-related cases has risen to 40.  What concerns me is not jihad, or it’s not only jihad.  It’s also the nonviolent activities from preaching to fundraising that are its essential seedbed.  Often those who engage in these activities are very skillful at representing themselves as moderates.

Let me quote you the words of Abdurahman Alamoudi, a founder of the American Muslim Council, who at one time was an Islamic advisor to President Clinton and a goodwill ambassador to the State Department, as well as being consulted by some eminent Republicans.

“We have a chance,” he declared to a Muslim audience, “to be the moral leadership of America.  It will happen, it will happen praise Allah the Exalted.  I have no doubt in my mind.  It depends on me and you, either we do it now or we do it after a hundred years, but this country will become a Muslim country.”

That is the authentic voice of a plot against America today.  I am glad to report that Alamoudi is currently serving a 23-year prison sentence for financial and conspiracy offenses involving the Libyan government and the al-Qaeda plot to assassinate the then-crown prince of Saudi Arabia.

Third, and finally, I have come to see that there is a creative threat close to American institutions, the ones opposed by those within the West who appease the Islamic extremists.

Last September our president insisted the Islamic State is not Islamic.  Later that month he told the U.N. General Assembly that Islam teaches peace.  Phrases like “radical Islam” and “Islamic extremism” are no longer heard in the White House press conferences.

The approved term is “violent extremism.”  Ladies and gentlemen, if we don’t define the problem, if we can’t bring ourselves to define the problem, then how on earth can we ever hope to solve it?  [audience applauds]

The decision not to call violence committed in the name of Islam by its true name is a very strange one.  Imagine if Western leaders during the Cold War had gone around calling Communism an ideology of peace or condemning the Baader-Meinhof Gang for not being true Marxists.

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe it is time to drop the euphemisms and verbal contortions.  As I argue in my most recent book, Heretic, a battle for the future of Islam is taking place between reformers and reactionaries, between dissidents and jihadists, with the majority of Muslims caught in the middle unsure which side to take.  The outcome matters, matters to Muslims but it matters to us and to global peace, and the United States needs to start helping the right side to win.

Sometimes people who want to smear me use the sham term, “Islamophobe,” which is designed to imply that those who scrutinize Islamic extremism are bigots.  Well, I may have a phobia, but it’s not directed against Muslims.  After all I used to be one.  My phobia is towards any ideology, whether it is Communism, Fascism, or Islamism, that threatens individual freedom and the institutions that protect those freedoms.

That is why I am so grateful and so proud to accept this honor from you tonight.

Thank you, very, very much.

Hirsi Ali’s personal story bears some resemblance to that of Dutch politician Geert Wilders.  Wilders is a member of the Dutch House of Representatives and leader of his country’s Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV), or in English, the Party for Freedom.

Read more

Critics of Islam Continue to Face Threats

"All is forgiven. I am Charlie." Cover of the Jan. 14 edition of Charlie Hebdo featuring the Prophet Mohammed. Photo: Twitter.

“All is forgiven. I am Charlie.” Cover of the Jan. 14 edition of Charlie Hebdo featuring the Prophet Mohammed. Photo: Twitter.

by IPT News  •  May 19, 2015

French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo suspended a journalist who received death threats for writing articles critical of Islamist radicalism, according to Le Monde and reported by Daily Mail. In a move that many view as hypocritical, the magazine called columnist Zineb El Rhazoui to a preliminary dismissal hearing.

According to the French-Moroccan writer, Charlie Hebdo‘s management is seeking to punish her for being outspoken about the direction the magazine has taken since the Islamist terrorist attack at the magazine’s office which killed 12 people.

“I am shocked and appalled that a management that has received so much support after the January attacks could show so little support for one of its employees, who is under pressure like everyone in the team and has faced threats,” Rhazoui told Le Monde.

Rhazoui and her husband, Moroccan writer Jaouad Benaïssi, were subjected to death threats from Twitter accounts claiming affiliation with the Islamic State. Photos of Benaïssi and his workplace were published along with suggestions on how to kill the couple.

Thousands of people on social media expressed their disapproval of the magazine’s action on social media, including other Charlie Hebdo writers, accusing the magazine of blatant hypocrisy.

“…It is nasty and unfair to call a disciplinary meeting for a member of staff who is still suffering incredibly…It is paradoxical that the magazine receives prizes for freedom of expression while disciplining a journalist whose life is under threat,” writer Patrick Pelloux said.

Furthermore, senior Charlie Hebdo cartoonist Renaud Luzier – who drew the front-page cartoon of the prophet Mohammed for the magazine after the terrorist attack – has resigned citing personal reasons. He asserts that his resignation was mainly a result of personal difficulties ensuing after the terrorist attack and the trauma of losing his friends and co-workers. Luzier claims the decision has nothing to do with internal divisions at the magazine following Rhazoui’s suspension.

Meanwhile, a suspected jihadist standing a criminal trial for planning a robbery and possession of firearms is accused of discussing plans to attack Dutch politician Geert Wilders. According to Dutch intelligence, the suspect returned from fighting in Syria’s civil war.

These developments show that people, from writers to politicians, critical of Islamism and radical extremism continue to be threatened with their lives.

Also see:

VIDEO: Geert Wilders on Hannity

P1040295

By Pamela Geller, May 13, 2015:

Watch. this. now.

Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch Parliament, was the keynote speaker at our Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest. He discussed with Sean Hannity his desire to plan to follow up on our event with a “Draw Muhammad” contest in the Dutch Parliament at The Hague.

Sean Hannity said last night that champions of free speech are refusing to back down after being accused of provoking radical Islamists to attack the Muhammad cartoon contest in Texas.

One of the speakers at that event, Dutch politician Geert Wilders, is planning to stage a Muhammad cartoon expo in the Dutch Parliament.

Hannity asked Wilders if he is anti-Islam

“Well, I’m certainly not anti-Muslim, but indeed I believe Islam is a threat to our civilization,” Wilders replied. “I believe that our country is based on values that are based on Christianity and Judaism, and that Islam is really a threat to our freedom.”

Wilders explained why people are offended by a Muhammad cartoon.

“For more than 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, Muhammad is a kind of role model, he’s an example,” he stated. “That’s why every time somebody depicts or mocks Muhammad, Muslims get angry.”

In responding to a question Hannity asked about Muhammad’s life, Wilders said that Muhammad was a “terrorist.”

“He’s certainly not a role model to so many Muslims,” Wilders said. “Muhammad, as a matter of fact, was a terrorist. He was a warmonger. He beheaded Jewish tribes … I believe that if Muhammad would be alive today, he would be tried and convicted of terrorism.”

Wilders remarked that people shouldn’t be intimidated by Muslims who are offended by the Muhammad cartoons.

“If our reaction is that we should not make more cartoons or not accept them, the terrorists will win,” Wilders said. “So we have to give them a signal that terrorism does not win. We will not be intimidated.”

He added that is the reason why he presented the idea of a Muhammad cartoon expo in the Dutch Parliament.

“I want the Dutch Parliament to expose exactly the same exhibit—not to provoke, but to show the terrorists that if you make an attack, we will give you 10 times more cartoons of Muhammad,” Wilders stated.

Watch more in the video above.

***

Also see Pamela Geller’s archives: http://pamelageller.com/category/afdi/afdi-muhammad-art-exhibit-and-contest/

The lengths we will go to for free speech

20150504001128911016-original
CSP, by Clare Lopez, May 11, 2015:

Beyond the sheer act of defiance in the face of tyranny that was the recent “Draw Muhammad” contest in Garland, TX, a deeper benefit is emerging: the swirl of controversy that erupted after two Muslim terrorists drove all the way to Texas from the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamic Cultural Center of Phoenix, intending to commit mass murder, is forcing us to consider what exactly it means to ‘defend free speech.’ And what we want it to mean…or are ready to accept that it should mean. Most Americans have no trouble defending the First Amendment – in the abstract, anyway. But now that defending the right to defy Islamic blasphemy laws comes with specifics like an art contest, with actual drawings of Muhammad, and prize money offered by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), and event organizers like AFDI co-founders Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, and death threats—now some aren’t quite so sure anymore that this is the kind of free speech or these exactly are the free speech champions they had in mind.

So, there are the artists and cartoonists who draw images of Muhammad: the Albanian-born ex-Muslim Bosch Fawstin (who won the AFDI contest), the Swedish artist, Lars Vilks, and the Danish cartoonist, Kurt Westergaard. And there is the Dutch political leader, Geert Wilders, who made a film that criticized shariah-sanctioned abuse of women. Danish journalist Lars Hedegaard is a free speech advocate who has been critical of Islam, too. These (and many more, including Americans who increasingly are labeled ‘Islamophobes’) are the champions of free speech who actually create the material shariah would label ‘blasphemous’ (essentially for daring simply to depict Muhammad in an image or criticize anything about Islam at all). Many have been targeted for death by the enforcers of shariah.

Then there is the Jyllands-Posten Danish newspaper that published Westergaard’s drawings and the satirical Parisian magazine, Charlie Hebdo, that generally takes swipes at everyone and everything, including Islam. These and a host of online sites (including this one) posted the articles and cartoons and images, thereby incurring the murderous wrath of shariah-adherent Muslims, whose doctrine and law explicitly enjoin them to attack such media and their staffs with intent to kill.

And finally, there are those like Pamela Geller who display and encourage and feature such material, whether in city bus ads, transit stations, or at the recent contest in Garland, TX.

The question that so many of the wobbly set now seem to be stumbling over is, At which point in the free speech process – creation, publication, or public promotion – does it become ‘provocation’ that ‘goes too far’? Does it ever? Is it even possible for speech to be ‘too free’—in America? Why is the abstract defense of free speech and the First Amendment so laudable, but when the abstract takes form in ways that boldly challenge Islam’s attempts to silence those who criticize, when the abstract is personified in a Fawstin, a Geller, Hedegaard, Vilks, Westergaard, or Wilders, then it’s called ‘incitement’ that ought to be toned down? If not their statements, then what would be an acceptable demonstration of defiance against Islam’s blasphemy codes? That is, if defiance itself isn’t just a bit too much these days…

The point is that unless we champion and defend the actual people who are the physical embodiment of those abstract principles we all claim to cherish, the principles won’t stand a chance.

My Winning Mohammad Contest DrawingBosch Fawstin’s winning drawing of Muhammad was neither crude, nor grotesque, nor tasteless. It was, in fact, the perfect depiction of the principle at the center of contention: the right to freedom of artistic expression. If the conquered civilizations of the Afghan Buddhists, Byzantium, Middle East Christianity and Judaism, Hindus, and Persians teach us anything, it must be that even the most determined defense over a span of centuries may not suffice to save a people targeted by Islam; anything less, never mind actual passivity in the face of jihad aggression, will lead inevitably to subjugation.

Some would say that Pamela Geller pushes the edges of the envelope. To the extent that this is true, it is because it is always out at the edges, at the frontiers, that the ghazi – the warriors of Islam – have probed and tested the defenses of their targets for any weakness. If no one confronts them at the frontier, they push onward, inward, to the soft centers of society. Those hardy defenders who hold firm out there on the frontiers stand between civilization and barbarism.

By all means, we need to have this discussion. Long overdue, actually. But let us understand that the debate is not about the principle of free speech, per se: we agree on that pretty unanimously. Rather, it’s about how far we are willing to go to support those who put that principle into action against an enemy that would shut it down completely if not stopped.

Also see:

In the wake of Garland terror attack, fear cancels Geert Wilders FL event

e9340468b4a105b6c9fbac35ad503aa0Cultural Jihad, May 8, 2015:

From:  Palm Beach Post
By: George Bennett, May 7, 2015

The Palm Beach County Republican Party will have to find another venue for a fundraiser featuring the Dutch politician and Islam critic who spoke at Sunday’s “Draw Muhammad” cartoon contest in Texas.

The local GOP booked Boca West Country Club for the $125-a-plate “Lobsterfest” dinner on Aug. 15 featuring Geert Wilders, leader of a right-wing party in the Dutch parliament. But the country club announced Thursday it has canceled the event because of safety concerns.

Full article: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/safety-concerns-lead-boca-club-to-cancel-gop-event/nmBx4/

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

COMMENT/ANALYSIS:    This was to be a private event and whether you agree with Geert Wilders or not, he and the event sponsors have a Constitutional right to present their views.    This decision works as a “win” for Islamists  in using fear and intimidation to silence those that oppose them. From the Sun Sentinal:

But representatives of the Council on American-Islamic Relations expressed outrage at the Republicans’ decision to have Wilders as a speaker.

“On the international level he is probably the most notorious, anti-Muslim bigot in the world,” said Ibrahim Hooper, the Washington-based national communications director for CAIR.

“He is the worst of the worst. This is the Islam-is-evil-and-must-be-destroyed school of thinking,” Hooper said. “And for the Republican Party to host him, I can’t imagine that any Muslim voter in the state … would not hear about it and judge accordingly.”

Michael Barnett, chairman of the Palm Beach County Republican Party,  told the Sun Sentinal that to back out in hosting an event with Wilders would “go against everything we stand for”  pertaining to our freedoms of speech and religion. The Sun Sentinal continued with:

CAIR representatives said the free speech argument sounds good but is disingenuous. “Will they be hosting neo-Nazis and anti-Semites and other race-baiters and bigots? Or is it just anti-Muslim bigots that they host?” Hooper said. “It’s absolutely ridiculous.”

Nezar Hamze, CAIR-Florida regional operations director, said he’s heard the freedom of speech argument before. “It’s not about freedom of speech, it’s about spreading hate.”

It will be interesting to see if the local GOP actuall does find another venue or simply cancel Wilders’ planned appearance.

Side thought:  Is the Boca West Country Club being “Islamaphobic” in fearing a Muslim attack?

Islam’s Anti-Prophet: Geert Wilders Confronts a Political Faith

wildersAustria-300x225Religious Freedom Coalition, By Andrew Harrod, PhD, May 6th, 2015:

“I founded my party only to fight Islam,” stated Dutch parliamentarian and Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid or PVV) founder Geert Wilders during an April 29 Capitol Hill interview. Wilders’ interview comments and subsequent presentation before about 40 at the Rayburn House Office Building (as well as a press conference the next day) showed once again this legislator’s forthrightness concerning Islam’s dangers to freedom.

“Islam looks like a religion, but in reality it is a dangerous totalitarian ideology,” stated Wilders, the author of Marked for Death: Islam’s War against the West and Me; the “less Islam, the better. It is as simple as that.” In the past he has publicly called for banning in Holland the Quran alongside Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf that Dutch law allows only for academic use, an appeal made to reveal “double standards,” he said in his interview. “If you are consistent,” he said to leftwing parliamentarians, “then here we have another book which is even worse, it has more anti-Semitism, there is more violence, there is more everything.” His well-known arguments met with strong applause from many similarly minded audience members, including Andrew Bostom, Frank Gaffney, Matthew Vadum, Deborah Weiss, Diana West, and Representatives Louie Gohmert and Steve King.

Wilders’ presentation listed several negative impacts of Islamic influence upon Holland. While the “police goes everywhere” in Holland, people face harassment for not following Islamic law or sharia norms in “Little Morocco” or “Little Saudi Arabia” Dutch neighborhoods. Individuals in Holland and elsewhere in Europe committed to jihad or Islamic holy war presented “walking time bombs.” For Wilders, who now lives with constant death threats and police protection, getting lost without his security detail that day on Capitol Hill gave him the “first 20 minutes of freedom in the last ten years.”

marked for deathWarning that the “whole free Western world is under attack,” Wilders earlier in the day had described the “Islamization process” in his home country to congressmen from the Conservative Opportunity Society (COS). Holland has gone in 50 years from one thousand to one million Islamic immigrants, or 6% of the Dutch population, despite the “vast majority” of Europeans disapproving of current immigration policies. Holland “failed to demand that immigrants adopt our Judeo-Christian values and assimilate.” These immigrants have “little loyalty to our home countries” as one poll showed that 73% of Holland’s Muslims consider Dutch Muslims who fight in Syria heroes. Islamic State sympathizers also paraded recently with swastikas and black jihad flags while shouting “Death to the Jews” in Wilders native city of The Hague.

“I repeat it wherever I go,” Wilders assured COS, “I have nothing against…many moderate Muslims who do not live according to the violent commands of the Koran….But there is no moderate Islam.” The Dutch, he said in his interview, “have nothing against” Muslim individuals but “feel that something wrong is happening” in their country. Even if a reformed Islam were possible as suggested by his colleague Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wilders argued that “we cannot afford to wait for it” in a process that “will take centuries.”

Wilders’ answer was “stop the immigration from Islamic countries…full, stop,” a policy opposed particularly by leftist parties. These “parties invented the mass immigration from Islamic countries” as well as the “big fat welfare state.” Such policies give Muslim immigrants, disproportionately dependent upon social services, politically “their oxygen.”

Wilders applied his beliefs to not just domestic, but foreign policy as well. “It’s not too popular” in Europe, he stated in his interview, “to be a friend of Israel, but I don’t care.” “Israel is fighting our fight…If Jerusalem falls, Rome and New York and Amsterdam will be next.” Anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) measures are therefore “total crazy,” a “travesty.” The recent nonproliferation “deal with this criminal country called Iran” is similarly the “most stupid thing you can do.”

Wilders’ presentation denounced that “liberal-leftist elites adhere to the stupid political correct view that all cultures are equal. That’s why we are such a big mess today.” This “disease called cultural relativism” notwithstanding, Western “Judeo-Christian culture is far superior to Islam” and forms the “best civilization on Earth.” He elaborated in his interview that “I am not for monoculture,” but he also does not support a position of “hold hands and sing kumbaya and dance around the table all day long.” “There is nothing wrong with that….You are not talking about people, you are talking about the culture.” Judeo-Christians roots underlie Western identity, such that “even if you are not a Christian, you often subscribe to the values that are peaceful and belong to Christianity and Judaism.”

Wilders’ presentation noted from personal experience that not just Muslim death threats, but also legal speech restrictions made it “really risky to tell the truth about Islam” in Holland. He expressed to his American listeners being “envious of your wonderful country” where free speech under “your First Amendment really is the cornerstone of all your liberties.” Post-World War II European hate speech laws sought to prevent another Holocaust, but now, “used in a totally different way by totally other groups,” target “people who want to prevent anti-Semitism because of the growing Islamization.” If various political forces “cannot win the hearts of the people, they try to do it by law.”

Wilders’ speech itself received condemnation from an April 23 letter from Congress’ two Muslim members, André Carson and Keith Ellison. The pair called upon the State Department to deny Wilders entry into America due to his “Islamaphobia” [sic] and “hate speech.” “Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are sweeping through Europe,” the congressmen wrote, apparently not considering Wilders’ Islam-Jew-hatred link. He dismissed the letter as “a lot of nonsense…really crazy stuff.”

“Most Western leaders are very weak,” assessed Wilders’ before his audience, but the “people are not stupid….More people than ever say ‘enough is enough.’” “We must repeat the truth about Islam over and over again” and make politicians listen; “no death threats, no court cases will stop us.” The “optimist” Wilders concluded, “we are the future; we are the forces of liberation.”

Also see:

Islam and Free Speech: Missing the Point in Garland

pic_giant_050415_SM_Garland-SWAT-Mohammed2

The purpose of the free-speech event was to highlight the threat posed by Islamic supremacists.

National Review, by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY May 4, 2015:

‘Even free-speech enthusiasts are repulsed by obnoxious expression.” That acknowledgment prefaces the main argument I’ve made in Islam and Free Speech, a just-released pamphlet in the Broadside series from Encounter Books. Alas, in view of last night’s deadly events at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas, the argument is more timely than I’d hoped.

In Garland, two jihadists opened fire on a free-speech event that was certain to be offensive to many Muslims. The gunmen wounded a security guard before being killed when police returned fire. The jihadists are reported to be roommates who resided in Phoenix. As this is written, only one of them has been identified: Elton Simpson. The wounded security guard, Bruce Joiner, was treated and released. Joiner works for the Garland Independent School District, which owns the Culwell Center.

Simpson was apparently what my friend, terrorism analyst Patrick Poole, describes as a “known wolf.” That’s a radical Muslim whom the Obama administration and the media are wont to dismiss as an anonymous, unconnected loner but who, in fact, has previously drawn the attention of national-security agents over suspected jihadist ties.

Simpson previously attempted to travel to Africa, apparently to join al-Shabaab, the al-Qaeda franchise. He was reportedly convicted of lying to FBI agents, though a judge found the evidence insufficient to prove he was trying to join the terror group. The al-Shabaab connection seems salient now: Police are investigating tweets about the Garland event prior to the violence, allegedly posted by a young al-Shabaab jihadist who is said to be an American citizen.

The Garland free-speech event was a contest, sponsored by Pamela Geller’s New York–based American Freedom Defense Initiative. Participants were invited to draw cartoons of Islam’s prophet, in homage to the Charlie Hebdo artists killed by jihadists in France. Besides Ms. Geller, the featured speaker at the event was Geert Wilders, the Dutch parliamentarian whose life has been threatened for years for speaking openly about the scriptural moorings of Islamic terrorism. Al-Qaeda has publicly called for Wilders to be killed, and a notorious Australian imam called on Muslims to behead him because anyone who “mocks, laughs [at], or degrades Islam” must be killed by “chopping off his head.”

In Garland, activists opposed to the violence endorsed by Islamic doctrine and to the repression inherent in sharia law were invited to draw caricatures of Mohammed, with a $10,000 prize awarded to the “best” one. The contest was sure to yield images offensive to Muslims just as transgressive artist Andres Serrano had to know the public exhibition of his Piss Christ photograph would offend Christians.

Yet, as I argue in Islam and Free Speech, it will not do to blame the messenger for the violence. The shooting last night was not caused by the free-speech event any more than the Charlie Hebdo murders were caused by derogatory caricatures, or the rioting after a Danish newspaper’s publication of anti-Islam cartoons was caused by the newspaper. The violence is caused by Islamic supremacist ideology and its law that incites Muslims to kill those they judge to have disparaged Islam.

It will not do to blame the messenger for the violence. The shooting last night was not caused by the free-speech event any more than the Charlie Hebdo murders were caused by derogatory caricatures.

Christians were offended by Piss Christ, but they did not respond by killing the “artist” or blowing up the exhibiting museum. If any had, they would have been universally condemned for both violating society’s laws and betraying Christian tenets. In such a case, we would have blamed the killers, not the provocative art. There can be no right against being provoked in a free society; we rely on the vigorous exchange of ideas to arrive at sensible policy. And the greater the threat to liberty, the more necessary it is to provoke. 

The threat to liberty in this instance is sharia blasphemy law. A bloc of Muslim-majority countries, with the assistance of the Obama administration (led by the U.S. State Department, particularly under Hillary Clinton), is trying to use international law to impose Islam’s repressive law to make it illegal to subject Islam to negative criticism. No sensible person favors obnoxious expression or gratuitous insult. But as I contend in the pamphlet, there is a big difference between saying “I object to this illustration of insensitivity and bad taste” and saying “I believe that what repulses me should be against the law.”

Ms. Geller’s detractors are predictably out in droves today, prattling about how the violence would not have happened were it not for the offensive display. No one would feel deprived by the lack of sheer insult, they say, so wouldn’t it be better to compromise free-expression principles in exchange for achieving peaceful social harmony? But that line of thinking puts violent extortionists in charge of what we get to speak about — an arrangement no free society can tolerate.

It is very unfortunate that this debate is so often triggered by forms of expression that non-jihadists will find insulting and therefore that even anti-jihadists will find uncomfortable to defend. This grossly understates the stakes involved. This is about much more than cartoons. As I outline in Islam and Free Speech, classical sharia forbids most artistic representations of animate life, not just expressions that are obviously sacrilegious. More significantly, it deems as blasphemous not just expressions that insult the prophet and Islam itself but also

critical examinations of Islam . . . especially if they reach negative conclusions or encourage unbelief[;] proselytism of religions other than Islam, particularly if it involves encouraging Muslims to abandon Islam[; and any] speech or expression [that] could sow discord among Muslims or within an Islamic community. And truth is not a defense.

It is not the purpose of Pam Geller, Geert Wilders, the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, and other activists to insult Muslims. Their mission is to awaken us to the challenge of Islamic supremacists — not just the violent jihadists but also the powerful Islamist forces behind the jihad. Islamists are attempting to coerce us into abandoning our commitment to free expression. They are pressuring us to accommodate their totalitarian system rather than accepting assimilation into our liberty culture.

You may not like the provocateurs’ methods. Personally, I am not a fan of gratuitous insult, which can antagonize pro-Western Muslims we want on our side. But let’s not make too much of that. Muslims who really are pro-Western already know, as Americans overwhelmingly know, that being offended is a small price to pay to live in a free society. We can bristle at an offense and still grasp that we do not want the offense criminalized.

It would be easy, in our preening gentility, to look down our noses at a Mohammed cartoon contest. But we’d better understand the scope of the threat the contest was meant to raise our attention to — a threat triggered by ideology, not cartoons. There is in our midst an Islamist movement that wants to suppress not only insults to Islam but all critical examination of Islam. That movement is delighted to leverage the atmosphere of intimidation created by violent jihadists, and it counts the current United States government among its allies.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.