HOLTON: Why Is Louisiana’s Media Attacking Efforts To Aid Law Enforcement In Keeping Us Safe Against Terrorism?

The Hayride, by Christopher Holton, March 6, 2017:

In case you haven’t noticed, the global jihadist insurgency has entered a new, more dangerous phase in the past two years.

The number of jihadis and the number of attacks that they have carried out–as well as the number of casualties they have inflicted and the number of countries they operate in–has grown drastically.

The excellent, private IntelCenter organization estimates that the Islamic State has killed 18,000 people in 28 countries since they declared their Caliphate on 29 June 2014.

This includes individual acts of jihad carried out in this country in places like Orlando, Chattanooga, Boston, Garland, San Bernardino, Queens and Philadelphia.

There is no reason to believe that this trend won’t continue. The effort to take down the caliphate was half-hearted at best because it simply wasn’t something President Obama was interested in. He apparently felt that the killing of Osama Bin Laden should have been enough. Never mind that the world has become awash in jihad since then.

Because of the complete lack of leadership on this vital issue, our federal bureaucratized counterterrorism apparatus has not even allowed to study Islamic threat doctrine–the very doctrine that the Islamic State cites repeatedly.

Time and time again we find that the warning signs of the jihadi attackers were missed. We were warned about the Tsarnaev brothers (the Boston bombers) repeatedly by the Russians and the FBI knew that their mosque was founded by a convicted Al Qaeda member, yet they were still able to carry out their attack.

There were warning signs about the San Bernardino jihadis as well. The female, Tafsheen Malik, used a fake address to obtain a visa to enter the U.S. She also gained entry into the U.S. under the horribly flawed federal “Visa Express” program that allowed applicants to bypass the interview in the screening process.

Moreover, DHS whistleblower Phillip Haney has testified before Congress and written in his new book, See Something, Say Nothing, that he had been ordered to cease investigations into Tablighi Jamaat, the notorious Islamist organization that had ties to the San Bernardino mosque.

Then there is the case of Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen, who was twice interviewed by the FBI because he was on the contact list for an American Islamikaze bomber in Syria and because he made “incendiary” remarks to co-workers about jihad. Oh, and his Dad posted pro-Taliban online videos too. He was given the “all-clear,” only to end up massacring 49 innocent Americans.

What all this points to is the vital need for state and local law enforcement to take the lead against jihad inside this country. I promise you, the NYPD does not wait for the FBI to vet suspected terrorists. Other state and local agencies around the country need to take the same approach, albeit with resources that can’t match the NYPD, which is probably the most effective counterterrorism law enforcement organization anywhere in the world.

The fact is, the Feds are unaccountable. They can’t follow up all the leads they have now and very often have a lack of knowledge as to what or who they are dealing with. I have a hunch that the FBI agents who interviewed Omar Mateen probably thought he was creepy at best, but they had nothing to charge him with and they had to go about their business. Complicating matters even more is the fact that both the FBI and DHS have been forbidden from tying Islam to terrorism. That restriction right there makes them ineffective at conducting counterintelligence operations.

State and local cops are not unaccountable. They have deep roots in their communities. If an Omar Mateen is in someone’s precinct and they know he is a known associate of an Islamikaze bomber and made threatening statements about terrorism, they will keep an eye on him way past the initial interview. There won’t be much more important in that precinct once an Omar Mateen comes to the local cops’ attention.

Furthermore, state and local police are not under any restriction to refrain from studying the enemy threat doctrine. If the local sheriff or police chief is bold enough, he will mandate that his intelligence and investigative people get educated about the threat in an objective, unbiased manner–allowing the subject matter to take them where it leads them, rather than starting from the position that there is no connection between Islam and terrorism.

State and local police are now at the tip of the spear in this war. 15 years ago America sent soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines overseas to protect us all from jihad. Today, local law enforcement is being tasked with protecting soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines from Jihad inside our own country. This is a profound shift in this war that has been lost on the overwhelming majority of the American people.

In Garland, Texas, it was a 62-year old motorcycle cop who gunned down the two jihadi attackers who were wielding AK47s.

In Chattanooga, Tennessee, it was the local police who gunned down Mohammad Abdulazeez.

In Boston, it was Boston PD who ran down the Tsarnaev brothers.

In Queens, New York, it was rookie patrolmen who were targeted by and gunned down Zale Thompson.

The San Bernardino shooters were killed by members of the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department.

In Philadelphia, it was a police officer sitting in his patrol car that was targeted by Edward Archer in the name of ISIS.

And, of course, we know that it was the Orlando Police Department who responded to Omar Mateen’s massacre.

By the time DHS and FBI show up, they have to ask permission to cross the crime scene tape. In Marine Corps parlance, by the time the Feds get involved, it’s “right of bang.”

State and local police need to prepare to operate against jihadis “left of bang,” and that means taking their own initiative and not depending solely on our bureaucratized, federal counterterrorism apparatus for training or intelligence about potential bad guys in their jurisdictions.

Fortunately, increasingly, local sheriffs departments around the country have recognized the threat from jihad and have taken the initiative in training their personnel in the strategy and tactics needed to prepare, including studying the enemy threat doctrine as our jihadist enemies themselves teach it.

One such curriculum of training is from an organization called Understanding the Threat (UTT). The leader of this organization is former FBI agent and Force Recon Marine officer John Guandolo. There is no one in America more qualified to conduct training on the threat from jihad than this organization. Mr. Guandolo was decorated by the FBI for establishing the original training program for the Bureau on the Global Islamic Movement, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood. Guandolo’s colleague, Chris Gaubatz, is the only known operative to have conducted counterintelligence of HAMAS, when he interned for the Council on American Islamic Relations. That operation is detailed in Paul Sperry’s book, Muslim Mafia.

Recently, UTT has conducted training for several departments and agencies in Louisiana. Their program has come under fire from two out of state organizations with questionable ties and a record of nefarious activity. Louisiana’s media, including the Times-Picayune’s J.R. Ball at the link just above, have repeated the attacks of those organizations.

The first organization is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SLPC). At one time the SPLC may have served a useful purpose, but those times have long since passed. Today, the SPLC uses the term “hate” to silence and intimidate those with whom it disagrees politically.  The SPLC’s abuses of the term “hate” became so bad that in 2014, during the Obama administration, the FBI quit using the SPLC as a hate crimes resource.

The SPLC’s fast and loose use of the term and its blacklisting of those whom it disagrees with has even contributed indirectly to violence when Floyd Lee Corkins attacked the Family Research Council’s headquarters after viewing the SPLC’s irresponsible list of “hate groups.” Corkins shot and wounded a security guard during his attack.

The fact that the media regurgitates SPLC statements and data without question demonstrates the degree to which our free press has become corrupted by ideologues who no longer act as responsible journalists to report the news, but work as advocates for certain viewpoints.

The other organization that has raised objections to UTT’s training program in Louisiana is the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a wing of the notorious Muslim Brotherhood here in the United States.

Michael Kunzelman of the Associated Press actually referred to CAIR as a “civil rights group,” again demonstrating the degree to which the media have been infected with corruption.

CAIR’s statement on the training actually included chilling code language used internationally by Islamist organizations to silence free speech. CAIR referred to John Guanadolo as an “Islamophobe.”

The term Islamophobe was made up by the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), a Muslim Brotherhood organizationwhose founding board included Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual guide for the Muslim Brotherhood for decades.  Qaradawi is also infamous for having been banned from travel to the US, the UK and France for his ties to terror. Moreover, he is particularly notorious for having, as a renowned Shariah scholar, instructed Muslim men on how they are to properly beat their wives and endorsed the barbaric, Shariah practice of female circumcision (known as Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).

IIIT coined the term Islamophobe with the express purpose of silencing critics of the Global Islamic Movement and to label enemies.

For CAIR to label someone as an Islamophobe is not to be dismissed or taken likely, especially given CAIR’s nefarious activities and those of its members, employees and directors:

  • The FBI suspended all formal contacts with CAIR due to evidence demonstrating a relationship between CAIR and HAMAS, a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.
  • In the U.S. v the Holy Land Foundation, the largest successful terrorism financing prosecution in U.S. history, CAIR was identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front group and was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial.
  • CAIR opened its first office in Washington, D.C. with the help of a grant from the Holy Land Foundation., a charitable organization that was shut down by the US Treasury Department for funding Jihadist terrorist organizations.
  • In 2014, US ally the United Arab Emirates officially designated CAIR as a terrorist organization.
  • In March 2011, Muthanna al-Hanooti, one of CAIR’s directors, was sentenced to a year in federal prison for violating U.S. sanctions against Saddam’s Iraq.
  • In 2006, the co-founder of CAIR’s parent organization, IAP (Islamic Association for Palestine), Sami Al-Arian, was sentenced to 57 months in prison on terrorism charges for financing Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a designated terrorist organization according to the US State Department.
  • In 2004, CAIR-Northern Virginia director Abdurahman Alamoudi pled guilty to terrorism-related financial and conspiracy charges, which resulted in a 23-year federal prison sentence. Alamoudi was a major financier for Al Qaeda. It’s was John Guandolo’s team that took down Alamoudi.
  • In 2009, Ghassan Elashi, who served as a founding board member for CAIR’s regional chapter in Texas, was sentenced to a total of 65 years in prison after being convicted of 10 counts of conspiracy to provide, and the provision of, material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization; 11 counts of conspiracy to provide, and the provision of, funds, goods and services to a Specially Designated Terrorist; 10 counts of conspiracy to commit, and the commission of, money laundering; one count of conspiracy to impede and impair the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); and two counts of filing a false tax return.
  • Randall Todd (Ismail) Royer, who served as a communications specialist and civil rights coordinator for CAIR, trained with and set up an internet-based newsletter for Lashkar-I-Taiba, an al Qaeda-tied Kashmir organization that is listed on the State Department’s international terror list and was also indicted on charges of conspiring to help al Qaeda and the Taliban battle American troops in Afghanistan and was sentenced to twenty years in prison on April 9, 2004.
  • In September 2003, CAIR’s former Community Affairs Director, Bassem Khafagi, pled guilty to three federal counts of bank and visa fraud and agreed to be deported to Egypt after he had funneled money to activities supporting terrorism and had published material advocating suicide attacks against the United States, illegal activities which took place while he was employed by CAIR.
  • Ann Arbor, Michigan CAIR fundraiser Rabih Haddad was arrested on terrorism-related charges and was deported from the United States due to his work as Executive Director of the Global Relief Foundation, which in October 2002 was designated by the U.S. Treasury Department for financing al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

For most citizens of Louisiana, we can be thankful that Understanding the Threat is training our law enforcement heroes about this threat.

The People’s Cube: Southern Poverty Law Center is a Hate Group

splc_hate_groupTruth Revolt, Feb. 22, 2017:

From our friend Oleg Atbashian, creative force behind the brilliant satirical site The People’s Cube comes this brilliant non-satirical commentary on one of the left’s favorite attack dogs, the Southern Poverty Law Center. Don’t miss this.

The word “haters” is a very loaded term, and a nonsensical one to boot. The left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), for example, claims to be the ultimate arbiter of “hate,” “haters,” “hate groups,” and “hate crimes.” This 501(c)(3) nonprofit collects handsome sums of money under the pretext of keeping what they call a hatewatch. At the end of 2016 their endowment stood at $302.8 million. That means they have a direct financial interest in painting a picture of a widespread organized hatred in the United States, which “proves” their importance and scares the donors into parting with even more of their money.

As of this writing, the official SPLC list contains 917 “hate groups” – a strikingly high number that makes one wonder just how arbitrary their criteria of “hate” are. A closer look at the numbers and at the SPLC interactive Hate Map shows a bizarre mix of patriot, Christian, and conservative groups, including ACT for America and Center for Security Policy, lumped together with KKK, neo-Nazis, and black separatists.

A “chilling” SPLC chart shows a 197 percent increase in “anti-Muslim hate groups,” with top three featured “extremists” being – wait for it – David Yerushalmi, Robert Spencer, and Frank Gaffney Jr.

This author, who happens to be friends with Robert Spencer and has had the pleasure of shaking hands with David Yerushalmi and Frank Gaffney, can testify that these three gentlemen are highly intelligent, rational, accomplished, and good-natured people without any signs of “extremism” one would expect from such a characterization.

Just what exactly makes one a “hater” in the eyes of the SPLC?

They would argue that a “hater” is a member of a “hate group” who commits “hate crimes” and/or engages in “hate speech.” The key word here is “hate.” Apparently, to make it easier for the SPLC donors to part with their tax-deductible dollars, they are led to believe that America is so full of hateful, one-dimensional psychopaths that if it weren’t for the SPLC’s courageous efforts, the above donors would be hanging from trees, their families raped, and their estates pillaged and burned.

No doubt, the donors only want to protect their families and their communities out of great love. It’s a natural human trait: if you love something, you hate those who endanger the things you love. But here’s the thing: doesn’t the irrational fear and hatred of conservative groups make these SPLC donors “haters” and “conservaphobes”? And doesn’t this make the SPLC itself a “hate group” that engages in “hate speech” against some of America’s most upstanding citizens with whom they disagree ideologically? In fact, doesn’t their effort to mislead people into hating their fellow citizens qualify as a “hate crime”? Why not? By what objective criteria can this be determined?

Is it acceptable for an American citizen, who loves his family and his country, to hate those who mean them harm? Not according to the SPLC, whose “hate watchers” document all such patriotic utterances as “hate speech.” How far does this principle go? Do American soldiers and intelligence operatives who capture and kill Islamic extremists commit “hate crimes” and does that make the U.S. Department of Defense an “anti-Muslim hate group”? Why not?

Curiously enough, the SPLC list of “hate groups” excludes any existing jihadist groups or associations. Neither does it include the anti-Semitic SJP groups with over 126 chapters at American universities. Is the SPLC losing money by not expanding its “hate group” list? Or is it rather saving money by appeasing certain deep-pocketed donors with an anti-Israel agenda?

Even more telling is the absence of violent left-wing groups on that list – especially those responsible for the recent riots in Washington, D.C., Berkeley, and elsewhere. If these don’t qualify as “hate groups” that engage in “hate speech” and commit “hate crimes” then none of these terms has any meaning at all.

One suspects that in the SPLC book of virtues, violent leftist and Islamic extremists are probably listed as “love groups” that engage in “love speech” and commit “love crimes.” It is quite obvious that the SPLC considers itself a “love group.”

That, in the SPLC mind, gives it the moral license to dehumanize conservatives by implying that they have nothing but hatred in their dark, shriveled hearts, and that they have no other motivation than a burning, all-consuming hatred towards women and minorities. How else can we interpret the SPLC’s effort to reduce the entire life’s work and intellectual accomplishments of their fellow citizens to a single disparaging word, “hate”?

This can go both ways, though. Looking at the motivation of leftist groups and their icons, one could say that the SPLC’s portrayal of conservatives is a mere projection of their own condition.
Until now conservatives didn’t call the left “haters” because this was not their game. The best they could do was to quote Matthew 7:5: “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” But that cumbersome phrase doesn’t fit into a 140-character Tweet, unlike the pithy and effective “hate speech.”

But that is changing. Encouraged by President Trump’s example, conservatives have begun to talk back, causing the SPLC “hate counter” to go through the roof.

In SPLC’s own words, all “hate groups” are characterized by “beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.” That perfectly describes the left’s own beliefs and practices, starting with the original attacking and maligning of all business owners, bankers, traders, and their top-level employees (the so-called “bourgeois class”) as parasites and vicious oppressors.

Hasn’t Barack Obama attacked and maligned white blue collar workers in the flyover country as “bitter clingers”? The SPLC definition makes him a hater. Hasn’t Hillary Clinton attacked and maligned a significant portion of Americans as “deplorables”? She must be a hater. Hasn’t the “mainstream” media attacked and maligned Trump supporters as racist, sexist, uneducated bigots? That makes the “mainstream” media a “hate group.”

A wide array of leftist groups is currently busy spreading hatred among Americans by attacking, maligning, dividing, and pitting classes of people against each other: the poor against the rich, women against men, blacks against whites, gays against straights, transgendered against cisgendered, minorities against majorities, blue states against red states, the north against the south, nature against humans… Entire classes of people are being attacked and maligned for their immutable characteristics. The entire human race is being demonized for being a carbon-based life form.

The left has become the largest and most powerful “movement of hate” the world has ever known.

They’ll tell you that “in order to qualify as a ‘hater’ one must be in a position of power,” but such excuses no longer work. The left is the power. Having taken over the media, education, publishing, entertainment, most corporations and charities, all government bureaucracies, and even some churches, let alone what is now called the “deep state,” the left is unabashedly flexing its muscles, trying to show Donald Trump who the real boss is, unwittingly abandoning the old game of pretense and making it known that the left is no longer the underdog and hasn’t been one in a long time.

Though the leftists still cling to their masks of valiant rebels, Americans increasingly see them for who they really are – deposed despots who’ll stop at nothing to get their power back. The true rebels of today are fighting the leftist establishment. The left loves being in control and hates the American people who threaten to take it away.

Here are some quotes from a revered leftist icon, Ernesto “Che” Guevara, whose image is emblazoned on countless T-shirts around American campuses.

To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. We must create the pedagogy of the paredón [execution wall].

Hatred as an element of the struggle; a relentless hatred of the enemy, impelling us over and beyond the natural limitations that man is heir to and transforming him into an effective, violent, selective and cold killing machine.

Granted, Che was a revolutionary who loved big ideas and hated those who stood in their way. The same applies to some of the leftist leaders in America today. Some other leaders hate the “deplorables” for their refusal to submit to their dictate. But what explains the unprecedented hatred coming from those at the bottom of the leftist food chain, who have neither the big ideas not the power?

The latter include most Democrats, government workers, welfare recipients, establishment media, certain unions, career politicians, crony capitalists, and other beneficiaries of the corrupt redistributive hierarchy that is now endangered by Trump’s presidency. They love their unearned material and emotional comfort; while that great passion stays under the radar, their hatred of anyone who wants to disrupt it is rather conspicuous. You haven’t seen a hater until you’ve tried to take drugs away from a drug addict.

Thus the left has become the reactionary force of today. Paradoxically enough, in an abstract semantic way, the leftists are now the true “conservatives” as they try to “conserve” the existing system that ensures their comforts. At the same time, the traditional “American conservatives” who have been “conserving” the ideas of America’s founding, have now become the true revolutionary vanguard.

Until recently, many conservatives dismissed the left as bumbling incompetent fools, who weren’t smart enough to experience cognitive dissonance.

How is it possible to hold so many mutually exclusive beliefs?

  • To preach tolerance and be so intolerant?
  • To grieve for terror victims and justify terrorism?
  • To stand up for workers and destroy their jobs?
  • To march for peace and defend the militants?
  • To denounce corruption and vote for the corrupt?
  • To espouse non-violence and commit violent acts?
  • To speak of liberties and promote government dictate?
  • To bolster feminism and deride successful women?
  • To cheer gays and aid the gay-bashers in the Middle East?
  • To champion minorities as a group and hold them down as individuals?
  • To care about the children and mutilate their minds?
  • To denounce guns and hire armed bodyguards?
  • To support the troops and side with their murderers?
  • To demand love and be full of hate?

As it turns out, those are not contradictions; they contain a very consistent logic. The key to cracking this logic is a statement attributed to Karl Marx, which, regardless of whether he wrote it or not, is perfectly aligned with the moral philosophy of progressivism:

“The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.”

This also clarifies the Orwellian leftist slogan, “no justice, no peace.” In other words, true love awaits those who join the march towards socialism over the bodies of fallen enemies. With all the talk of love and unity coming from the left, we have yet to hear a call to start loving and stop hating the enemies of socialism. “Love trumps hate” is for suckers. “Trample or be trampled” is more like it. There can be no peace and there can be no love between the left and their opponents.

For more insight into the real meaning of love and hate coming from the left, watch this 5-minute animated video.

LOVE and HATE

Written by Oleg Atbashian. Narrated, animated, and produced by James Lorenz.

Fake news and MSM deception example 247698-b9E AP News

Clockwise from top left: Brittany Covington, Tanishia Covington, Tesfaye Cooper and Jordan Hill. (Chicago Police)

Clockwise from top left: Brittany Covington, Tanishia Covington, Tesfaye Cooper and Jordan Hill. (Chicago Police)

Vlad Tepes blog, January 5, 2017 by Eeyore

According to this site, there are four kinds of lies.

Falsification, exaggeration, omission, equivocation.

Today, AP News provided us with a magnificent example of lie by omission.

First, for those that missed it, you may want to look at a story Nash Montana posted last night here at Vlad. Our title for it was:

Four Chicago Thugs Arrested for Kidnapping Torturing White Special Needs Kid

It is incomplete. But not deceptive. Incomplete because all the perps were black and it was clearly a race hate crime against white people as much as any crime can be a “hate crime.” The title could have said, “In hate crime” at the end and been more complete. But it was not deceptive as all the facts including the video are included in the post.

Now lets look at AP News tweet on the same story:

And now their coverage:

safariscreensnapz002

Once again, the MSM shows it is operating on a narrative at the expense of truth, likely to create an outcome, as opposed to informing the public as to real world events.

Is this a product of Obama’s office of the CVE?

Very possibly. Or is it a function of Bill Whittle’s observation that the Frankfurt School narrative is just how people think now and not a deep conspiracy?

Not in this case. This, and thousands of other examples of MSM deception are too well crafted to be a product of how a person thinks. This was a most deliberate attempt to sanitize salient facts out of the reporting of the event to create a predetermined impression in the reader.

As people get more and more aware of this kind of highly Marxist approach to information management, agencies that actually give demonstrably true information and analysis which has predictive value, like Gates of Vienna for example, are being labeled as “fake news” and software and legal measures are being created to make sure the public no longer has easy access to it.

This of course is the guaranteed path of Marxism or any system that seeks to supplant what is true, with what is conforming to an ideology. At some point, you have to use increasing levels of force to keep people talking and thinking in a conformist, non-diverse manner in accordance with the official doctrine. It starts with labeling non-compliant analysis and reporting as fake, and then applies software filters like Facebook and Twitter and Youtube do to varying degrees and with varying means. (Youtube no longer allows non-leftist independent journalists or analysis to monetize their videos) and inevitably will criminalize non compliance beginning with selectively enforced “hate-crimes” laws and reeducation camps and sooner or later boils down to just killing us.

Because it always does.

Just ask ‘Uncle Joe’.

[UPDATE: HEAVY.COM has this additional information about the event, the people, and the charges. The event was worse than reported by pretty much anyone]

For an understanding of the CVE, please see the following videos:

Another Hate Crimes Report Contradicts Islamist Claims

The Ongoing Erasure of Europe

20130721_IslamInEurope_LARGEby EDWARD CLINE:

In “The Regulator’s Cucumber Syndrome” I discussed how the EU is obsessed with controlling the European’s material existence. In this column the subject is how the EU is planning to control his spiritual existence.

The Gates of Vienna published a startling, translated column by German attorney Michael Schneider about an Organization of Islamic Conferences-approved (OIC) “framework” sponsored by the European Parliament, “which seems likely to be implemented across the EU. The proposed law would devise a draconian new form of politically correct ‘tolerance’ and impose it on European citizens and institutions by establishing bureaucratic bodies with the authority to enforce it.”

The irony in the title of the proposed legislation was obviously lost on its authors, “A European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance,” for it is nothing but a blueprint for imposing across-the-board “intolerance.”

Schneider opens his essay with:

Anyone who speaks and writes about the abrogation of freedom in Europe is accused of being a pathological conspiracy theorist. So it is advisable to be a little more specific, and name names.

The abrogation of freedom in Europe is not occurring naturally, but according to the planning of educated elites, who have been trained to replace civic freedoms – especially those of expression, of the press and of the airwaves – with ideological coercion, and thus smash civil society into microscopic shards, like valuable, defenseless porcelain.

Schneider writes that one of the chief culprits behind this legislation is a Professor Rüdiger Wolfrum, professor emeritus and one of the directors of the Max Planck Institute on foreign public law and international law in Heidelberg.

This honorable person is also in a dubious think tank, “The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation” about which one may find relevant information on the homepage of the president of “The European Jewish Congress” (EJC), Viacheslav Moshe Kantor. Among other things are those documents which describe the political intentions of the think tank.

The subject document closes with a reference to that think tank:

This text was prepared – under the aegis of the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation – by a Group of Experts composed of Yoram Dinstein (Chair), Ugo Genesio, Rein Mȕllerson, Daniel Thȕrer and Rȕdiger Wolfrum.

The Three Expert Horsemen of the European Apocalypse? Surely. Throughout his essay, Schneider repeatedly refers to Wolfrum as “Wolfrum in Sheep’s Clothing.” And when you read the European Framework (in English) yourself, you will see that his sardonic contempt for the man is fully justified.

Of particular interest are paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) under Section 1: Definitions:

(a) “Group” means: a number of people joined by racial or cultural roots, ethnic origin or descent, religious affiliation or linquisitc links, gender identity or sexual orientation, or any other characteristics of a similar nature.

(c) “Hate crimes” means: any criminal act however defined, whether committed against persons or property, where the victims or targets are selected because of their real or perceived connection with – or support or membership of – a group as defined in paragraph (a).

(d) “Tolerance” means: respect for and acceptance of the expression, preservation and development of the distinct identity of a group as defined in paragraph (a). The definition is without prejudice to the principle of coexistence of diverse groups within a single society.

Muslims, of course, would not be expected to abide by these rules. They can behead a British soldier in broad daylight in London and cite chapter and verse from the Koran, attack Jews in Malmo, rape as many Norwegian women as they like, and invade an auditorium and shout down any speaker who criticizes Islam, yet one may not take umbrage at their “religious affiliation” or ethnicity  without risking the charge of having committed a “hate crime” and being “intolerant.”

Muslims, however, can froth at the mouth in hatred and commit atrocious crimes, yet not be charged with “hate crimes.” They can publicly demonstrate carrying signs that read “Freedom of Speech Go to Hell,” “Islam Will Dominate,” and “Behead Those Who Insult Islam” with impunity, yet anyone who appeared in public carrying a sign that read “Sharia Go to Hell” or “Islam is Barbarism” would soon be handcuffed by the police and led away to be charged with a “hate crime” and with “inciting violence.”

Muslims are permitted to hate and express their intolerance. You, the non-Muslim, are not. “Respect, tolerate, and accept” the conundrum.

Schneider parses prominent sections of the European Framework law and explicates their meanings vis-à-vis EU-Speak. For example:

The basic consideration[s] of the document as read are attractive and allow no suspicion to arise – that is if you do not know what EU political-speak means – for instance, “human diversity” standing for the systematic destruction of the autochthonic population and its traditional canon of values. Whereas respect for human dignity is based on recognition of human diversity and the inherent right of every person to be different, etc. [Emphasis in bold is Schneider’s]

All possible groups are supposed to be protected by this concept of tolerance – just not the majority population. With this policy, minorities are purposefully advanced at the cost of majority cohesion. This splits the society, thereby controlling it better and leading to the final goal. This becomes visible in the typical, EU-wide concept of the protected minority, which is inherently aimed at splitting the society – divide et impera:

In short – and because the chief beneficiary of this legislation will be Muslims – this means that the Muslim minority will be raised in status to that of the dominant Western culture. By effectively divorcing Muslims from secular Western society, and giving them a special, protected status, all the Dark Age practices inherent in Islam, including Sharia law, will be bestowed the same legal and moral status as the culture of the majority of non-Muslim Westerners.

However, the secular majority, in the name of “diversity,” may not impose its values and ethics on the Muslim “minority”  (that would be viewed as “oppression”), but the Muslim “minority” may chip away at the values and ethics of the majority in the name of “tolerance,” until they disappear like the Titanic and slip beneath the waves of history.

The goals of Islamic “cultural” jihad have been iterated repeatedly, among which are the dissolution of Western civilization. The Muslim Brotherhood‘s strategy is clearly stated in an American court document that outlines how Islam will conquer the U.S. (and presumably Canada). That strategy can be seen at work in Europe, as well.

“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…”

Read more: Family Security Matters 

FREE SPEECH SHOWDOWN IN SMALL-TOWN AMERICA

6a00d8341c60bf53ef01901d008e49970b-600wiby Pamela Geller:

All eyes are on Tennessee tonight, as the fight for the very soul of America comes to a very small town: Manchester, Tennessee, a town no bigger than 60,000 people. (Almost 2,000 people were there — that’s three percent of the local population.) This was the perhaps unlikely venue for a seminar led by a U.S. attorney and an FBI special agent on how “inflammatory” speech against Muslims violated civil rights laws. Nowhere was it ever explained how there could be honest examination of Islam’s teachings of jihad that wouldn’t be “inflammatory” — and that was just the point.

There were close to 800 people filling the small room to way beyond capacity. The lines were three deep along the wall, with folks spilling out into the hallways — plus many hundreds more outside. Those outside weren’t missing much — unless they were in the mood to be admonished and hectored as xenophobes, bigots and racists by an Islamic supremacist spokesman and two Obama officials who steadfastly refused to address the elephant in the room: the reality of jihad terror and Islamic supremacism, no matter how many times the boisterous crowd called them on their nonsense.

U.S. Attorney Bill Killian gave a power point presentation on hate crimes and hate speech. From beginning to end it was full of condescension, smears, charges that the crowd was racist, and thinly-veiled threats that truthful speech about Islam could be prosecuted. Never once did he address the fact that people aren’t concerned about Muslims because of racism and xenophobia, but because of the reality of jihad terror and the uniform denial and obfuscation, and victimhood posturing, that follows from Muslim communities after every jihad attack. Killian even stooped so low as to claim a sharp rise in “religiously-motivated hate crimes,” without ever informing the crowd that he was lumping in anti-Semitic hate crimes (which are at worldwide record levels, largely due to Islamic antisemitism) with anti-Muslim hate crimes. FBI special agent Kenneth Moore was little better. Both echoed the Islamic supremacist speaker’s opening remarks, all about how the people of Tennessee had to learn to be welcoming of people who were different.

Read more at Atlas Shrugs with more photos

 

Hate Crime Stats Deflate ‘Islamophobia’ Myth

Police investigate anti-Semitic graffiti in Edison, New Jersey, in 2009.

Police investigate anti-Semitic graffiti in Edison, New Jersey, in 2009.

by David J. Rusin
National Review Online
January 11, 2013

A detailed analysis of FBI statistics covering ten full calendar years since the 9/11 terrorist attacks reveals that, on a per capita basis, American Muslims, contrary to spin, have been subjected to hate crimes less often than other prominent minorities. From 2002 to 2011, Muslims are estimated to have suffered hate crimes at a frequency of 6.0 incidents per 100,000 per year — 10 percent lower than blacks (6.7), 48 percent lower than homosexuals and bisexuals (11.5), and 59 percent lower than Jews (14.8). Americans should keep these numbers in mind whenever Islamists attempt to silence critics by invoking Muslim victimhood.

The federal government defines a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation.” Though statutes mandating harsher punishments for hatred-inspired acts raise the specter of thought crimes, emphasize group identity over the individual, and seemingly favor certain victims over others, the FBI’s tracking of such deeds shines important light on the state of the nation. Annual reports assembled from local law enforcement data are accessible on the website of the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Especially useful is Table 1 of each compilation, which summarizes the number of incidents, offenses, victims, and known offenders for hate crimes committed against members of different groups.

No class of hate crimes has seen more fluctuation than anti-Muslim ones. The norm was a few dozen incidents per year in the late 1990s, but the number jumped from 28 in 2000 to 481 in 2001, a spike attributed to post-9/11 backlash. However, it dropped to 155 in 2002 and held remarkably steady through 2006, before falling again to 115 in 2007, 105 in 2008, and 107 in 2009.

Anti-Muslim incidents rose to 160 in 2010, an increase that Islamists and their mouthpieces eagerly blamed on rampant “Islamophobia,” particularly opposition to a proposed giant mosque near Ground Zero. Based on freshly released FBI data, there was little change in 2011, with 157 incidents, 175 offenses, 185 victims, and 138 known offenders. Mark Potok of the reliably leftist Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which puts foes of radical Islam in the same category as Klansmen and neo-Nazis, has declared that “hate crimes against perceived Muslims … remained at relatively high levels” as a result of “Islam-bashing propaganda,” anti-Shari’a legislation, and ongoing resistance to new mosques, relaying that “several were attacked by apparent Islamophobes.” Note the key word: “several” in a country with at least 2,106 mosques, a few million Muslims, and 300 million–plus non-Muslims.

As hinted above, the dark portrait of America as a nation of violent bigots uniquely hostile to Muslims does not withstand quantitative scrutiny. To smooth out year-to-year variations, consider the past decade (2002–11) of FBI-recorded hate crimes. There were 1,388 incidents against Muslims during this span, compared with 25,130 against blacks; 12,030 against homosexuals and bisexuals; 9,198 against Jews; and 5,057 against Hispanics. Even majority whites endured 7,185 incidents, while Christians (Protestants and Catholics combined) were targeted in 1,126 incidents. Adherents of “other religions” faced 1,335, very close to the anti-Muslim tally.

Due to the different sizes of minority groups, however, raw numbers cannot tell the complete tale. More insightful are per capita rates. Some back-of-the-envelope calculations follow.

The U.S. Census Bureau derived the total, Hispanic, and black populations for 2000 and 2010 from direct counts. Approximating their evolution with linear models, one can obtain estimates for any non-census year and, most important, the 2002–11 averages: total (299.2 million), Hispanic (45.2 million), and black (37.4 million). Surveys indicate that around 3.5 percent of American adults identify as homosexual or bisexual; applying this percentage to the total population gives a 2002–11 average of 10.5 million. Two studies have pegged the number of American Jews at about 6.5 million in 2010. Figures for 2000 vary (5.3–6.2 million), so for simplicity we set the average Jewish population between 2002 and 2011 at 6.2 million to account for moderate growth. As for Muslims, whose population estimates have a convoluted history, reputable recent numbers have been provided by the Pew Research Center (2.75 million in 2011) and the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies (2.6 million in 2010; full data extractable here), which agree on the current size and growth rate (around 100,000 per year). The 2002–11 average is roughly 2.3 million Muslims.

Adding the FBI data yields per capita frequencies of hate crimes for the past decade. Of the five main minority groups discussed above, Jews were most likely to experience hate crimes, with 14.8 incidents per 100,000 Jews annually. Homosexuals and bisexuals (combined) came next (11.5), followed by blacks (6.7), Muslims (6.0), and Hispanics (1.1). Rates for majority whites and Christians were much smaller.

With hate crimes befalling Muslims far less often than they do Jews or homosexuals and bisexuals and slightly less often than they befall blacks, it is clear that anti-Muslim incidents are disproportionate to those targeting other minorities only in terms of the hype generated on their behalf. A closer look reinforces this conclusion.

First, despite claims about a surge of prejudice, anti-Muslim hate crimes in 2010 and 2011 merely returned to the typical post-9/11 (2002–06) pace of 150–160 incidents per year. Further, a similar number of hate crimes in 2002 and 2011 implies a lower per capita rate in 2011 because of strong population growth.

Second, what of the Muslim population estimate? In hopes of inflating their presumed clout, Islamist groups routinely assert the existence of around 7 million American Muslims, three times as many as the more objective measurements. Note, however, that this Islamist-promoted figure actually would weaken their narrative of anti-Muslim hate crimes, because a higher population reduces the per capita frequency, thus painting them as even less significant in a statistical sense.

Third, though 2001, whose rash of hate crimes against Muslims was an outlier tied to a unique event, has been excluded from the above analysis, the 2001–11 rate for Muslims was just 7.4 incidents per 100,000 per year, still far short of that applying to Jews or homosexuals and bisexuals. Self-pitying Islamists also want us to forget that in spite of 9/11-related anger, anti-Jewish hate crimes outnumbered anti-Muslim hate crimes that year by more than two to one.

Fourth, could incomplete data affect the finding that Muslims are victimized less often than many non-Muslim minorities? Theoretically, yes, but evidence for this is scant. SPLC talking heads regularly cite a 2005 Justice Department study, using surveys of victims’ perceptions of whether prejudice had motivated crimes against them, to argue that the FBI underestimates overall hate crimes by an order of magnitude. Yet even if those claims are valid, nothing suggests that anti-Muslim crimes are more or less likely to be ignored than others, which would be necessary to alter the relative frequencies of hate crimes against different groups. Another source of incompleteness is that not all local law enforcement agencies take part in the FBI’s tabulation, but once again there is no obvious bias here that would preferentially diminish hate crimes against Muslims. Also note that the percentage of participating agencies (see the FBI’s Table 12) is large and slowly climbing, covering 86 percent of the U.S. population in 2002 and 92 percent in 2011, meaning that improved reporting could have helped elevate the number of FBI-recorded hate crimes in later years. Although this impact is probably small, it further chips away at the meme of rising hate.

Fifth, consider hate crimes with the worst possible outcome: death. The subject has been in the headlines after a deranged woman suspected of murdering a Hindu man, Sunando Sen, by pushing him from a New York subway platform on December 27 told police that she “hate[s] Hindus and Muslims,” whom she collectively blames for 9/11, and that she believed Sen to be Muslim. Following the initial rush to label Sen’s murder a hate crime, journalists have learned that the alleged murderer had a long history of severe mental illness, had received only intermittent treatment despite numerous pleas for help and warnings from the family, and had repeatedly gone off her medication.

As the usual voices fault “our oversaturated Islamophobic environment” and “growing anti-Muslim hate,” they neglect to mention how rare it is for an actual or perceived Muslim to die in a hate crime. By the FBI’s count, 74 people were killed in hate crimes (“murder and nonnegligent manslaughter” in Table 4) from 2002 to 2011, but not a single one in an anti-Muslim incident. Indeed, the FBI lists no anti-Muslim fatalities since 1995, corresponding to the earliest report available.

Why do Islamists obfuscate? The false picture of an epidemic of physical assaults on Muslims distracts Americans from Islamist hatred and enshrines Muslims as the country’s leading victim class, a strategy intended to intimidate citizens into remaining quiet about Islamic supremacism and lay the groundwork for granting Muslims special privileges and protections at the expense of others. In short, anti-Muslim hate crimes are a powerful Islamist weapon.

At its extreme, the desire to achieve victim status in this manner has fueled the phenomenon of fake hate crimes, through staging, blatant misrepresentation, or both. An illustrative example is the March 2012 murder of Shaima Alawadi, a hijab-wearing California woman found beaten to death at home with a note calling her a terrorist beside her body. Islamists and their credulous media allies pounced at the opportunity to condemn the supposed tidal wave of “Islamophobia,” even as marital problems emerged as a potential motive. In November, police arrested Alawadi’s husband.

Genuine hate crimes committed against any group are deplorable, but they must be placed in the proper context. First, hate crimes are uncommon across the board. Second, despite hyperbole about “anti-Muslim violence spiralling out of control in America” and producing “one of the most hostile moments that the Muslim American community has ever experienced,” the real story is the amazing tolerance and restraint of the American people. Imported Muslim fanatics murdered thousands on 9/11, the threat of homegrown jihad has crystallized, and Islamists abroad continue to slaughter innocents daily. Though Americans could find no lack of excuses to strike out at their Muslim neighbors, almost nobody does — and thankfully so. As such, the annual victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes average between three and four per U.S. state and would have trouble filling a decent-sized jetliner.

Many Americans take a critical view of Islam, but virtually all restrict their negative sentiments to the domain of words and ideas, as civilized human beings should. People are free to have opinions, including anti-Islamic ones, regardless of how Islamists long to muzzle them. Islamists, in turn, are entitled to their own opinions about life in America. But they are not entitled to their own facts.

David J. Rusin is a research fellow at Islamist Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.