Daily Reality, Islamic Doctrine & 1400 Years of History Tell Us There is ONE Version of Islam

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, October 3, 2018:

Headlines from around the world demonstrate Islamic leaders and sharia-adherent muslims want to live under sharia, want everyone else to live under sharia, believe those who leave Islam must be killed, believe raping non-muslims is lawful, believe warfare against non-muslims is mandatory until the world is under Islamic rule, believe mosques are centers of the Islamic government where sharia is adjudicated and weapons are stored, and believe Islam must dominate, subjugate, and eradicate.

Here are a few stories from around the world in the LAST 3 days:

  • Grandson of 1972 Munich Massacre architect (terrorist) who is running for U.S. Congress in California called a “Security Risk”
  • Man who applied for refugee status in Poland numerous times expelled for ties to terrorist organizations
  • Canada Revenue Agency fines Islamic Society of North America over concerns it aided armed jihadis
  • Sharia Law, Islamic Jihadis Rule Greece’s Notorious Migrant Camp
  • Jihadi on trial in Australia says muslims must wage jihad, martyrdom is the goal, and sharia is the law
  • French police raid a Shi’ite Muslim mosque and arrest three of its leaders for illegal weapons possession
  • France accuses Iranian Intelligence of working inside France to support jihadi attacks
  • 3 muslims from the West Bank indicted for plotting terrorism (jihad) against Israel
  • Brandeis University in Massachusetts to fund projects countering “Islamophobia”
  • Muslims slaughter 17 Christians in Nigeria
  • Muslims in Greek Refugee Camp openly state “If you are not Muslim I can rape you”
  • Spanish Police take down jihadi recruiting operation in 17 prisons
  • 70 muslims in rape gang in Telford, England raped a 13 year old girl 6 years ago – only one was recently convicted
  • Islamic scholar says Female Genital Mutilation is recommended for muslim girls/females
  • Several muslim “refugees” caught/arrested at the Oktoberfest in Munich for sexually assaulting women
  • 13 dead, over 30 injured in martyrdom operation (bombing) by muslim in Afghanistan

Strange how so many muslims are getting their “version” of Islam “wrong” in the exact same way.  Maybe they aren’t getting it wrong.

Just like the most prominent Islamic scholars from Al Azhar who believe in the same “version” of Islam as Al Qaeda and the Islamic State scholars.

Strange how Abdullah Azzam, who created Al Qaeda with Osama bin Laden, and Al Qaeda’s Blind Sheikh (Omar Abdel Rahman) believed in the same “version” of Islam too.  Yet, they were revered Islamic scholars.

Strange how today we can find the books and DVD’s of Al Qaeda leader Anwar al Awlaqi in nearly every mosque book store in America teaching the same “version” of Islam, yet the United States killed him in a drone strike in 2011.

There is 1 Islam and 1 sharia

The following is lawful under sharia:

  • Killing those who leave Islam
  • Killing those who commit adultery
  • Killing homosexuals
  • Waging war against/Killing non-muslims who do not convert or submit to sharia
  • Lying to non-muslims
  • Raping women who do not cover themselves
  • Female Genital Mutilation
  • A 60 year old man marrying a 7 year old girl
  • Parents killing their children or grand-children

Creating a domestic counter-terrorism strategy in the United States, a military war-plan to be victorious over the Islamic threat, and a foreign policy to support that war-plan, must begin with knowing and understanding that Islam is at war with the United States and, therefore, we are at war.

Islam is the threat.  Sharia is the doctrine.

The first war America fought after the American Revolution was against muslims from the Islamic States (Barbary States) waging war against the United States by seizing U.S. ships and capturing our citizens.

President Thomas Jefferson went to war against the Islamic States because he understood they were the enemy of liberty and an enemy of the United States.  Twenty years earlier he and John Adams heard it from the Ambassador to Britain from Tripoli who told them muslims had the right to wage war against non-muslims because the Koran says so.

When the United States decides to read the enemy’s war doctrine (sharia), commit to a plan for victory based on a professional analysis of the enemy’s doctrine (sharia), and stop taking advice from muslims, we will win this war.

Racism, Xenophobia, Intolerance and Discrimination – Oh Dear! (ODIHR)

OSCE Debra Anderson is interrupted for “islamophobia” while asking to protect secular law in the USA

The Center for Security Policy and it’s allies have been giving some serious push back to threats against free speech at the this year’s Organization for Security & Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) Human Dimension Implementation Meeting (HDIM) in Warsaw, Poland. Participants are 56 countries, which includes Europe, Central Asia and North America, as well as large and small NGO’s from the area. Why should you care? Because statements and recommendations from these conferences heavily influence political decision-making and so it is quite an influential organisation.

The following are some of the highlights starting with an OSCE official laying out their agenda. Please also see my recent post on the conference:

Center Highlights Speech Restrictions At International Conference



See text pdf: Free Speech Under Fire Parts 1-3, Clare Lopez Interventions at OSCE













Killing Free Speech

Gatestone Institute, by Judith Bergman, September 21, 2018:

  • The OIC’s media strategy encourages “accurate and factual portrayal of Islam. Emphasis should be directed at avoidance of any link or association of Islam with terrorism or the use of Islamophobic rhetoric… such as labeling criminal terrorists as ‘Islamic’ fascists, ‘Islamic’ extremists.”
  • That part of the strategy has already had much success across the Western world, where authorities and media do not want to label Muslim terrorists as Islamic, but routinely describe them as “mentally ill.”
  • The OICs highly ambitious plans to do away with freedom of speech go severely underreported in the West. Mainstream journalists do not appear to find it dangerous that their freedom of speech should be supervised by the OIC, while Western governments, far from offering any resistance, appear, perhaps for votes, to be cozily going along with everything.

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is trying to curb your freedom of speech — yet again[1].

In June, the first “I 1st Islamic-European Forum for examining ways of cooperation to curb hate speech in the media,” initiated by the OIC, ironically but sadly took place at the Press Club Brussels Europe.

The director of the information department of the OIC, Maha Mustafa Aqeel, explained that the forum is part of the OIC’s media strategy[2] to counter “Islamophobia”:

“Our strategy focuses on interacting with the media, academics, and experts on various relevant topics, in addition to engaging with Western governments to raise awareness, support the efforts of Muslim civil society bodies in the West, and engage the latter in developing plans and programs to counter Islamophobia.”

Unlike almost all other intergovernmental organizations, the OIC wields both religious and political power. It describes itself as:

“…the second largest inter-governmental organization after the United Nations with a membership of 57 states spread over four continents. The Organization is the collective voice of the Muslim world… espousing all causes close to the hearts of over 1.5 billion Muslims of the world.”

According to the OIC’s Charter, one of the objectives of the organization is “To disseminate, promote and preserve the Islamic teachings and values based on moderation and tolerance, promote Islamic culture and safeguard Islamic heritage,”[3] as well as “To protect and defend the true image of Islam, to combat defamation of Islam and encourage dialogue among civilisations and religions.”[4]

At the 11th Session of The Islamic Summit Conference (Session of The Muslim Ummah in The 21St Century) in Dakar, Senegal (13-14 March 2008), the member states of the OIC decided to “renew our pledge to work harder to make sure that Islam’s true image is better projected the world over…”[5] and to “seek to combat an Islamophobia with designs to distort our religion”[6].

In 2008, the OIC published its 1st OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia. This document listed a number of interactions that OIC representatives had with Western audiences — including the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), and academics and others at universities such as Georgetown and Oxford — and stated:

“The point that was underscored in all these interactions was that Islamophobia was gradually gaining inroads into the mind-set of the common people in Western societies, a fact that has created a negative and distorted perception of Islam. It was emphasized that Muslims and Western societies would have to address the issue with a sense of commitment to ending Islamophobia… Islamophobia poses a threat not only to Muslims but to the world at large.”[7]

Since that 1st OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia, the OIC opened its Permanent Observer Mission to the EU (in 2013) and also cooperates with the OSCE and the Council of Europe “to combat stereotypes and misunderstandings and foster tolerance.”[8] In December 2017, the OIC and the EU agreed on strengthening bilateral cooperation, when they held their second Senior Officials’ Meeting (SOM) at the OIC headquarters, during which both sides agreed on “strengthening bilateral cooperation through concrete actions”.

The OIC was concrete in its demands to the West. In a statement delivered at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the OIC Secretary General called for Europe to “Prosecute and punish for racial discrimination… through the framework of appropriate legislation” and also to “Strengthen existing legislation on discrimination and discriminatory and ‘unequal treatment’ adopted by EU council directives”[9].

Today, many Western European governments are prosecuting their own citizens for criticizing Islam or Muslims in, for example, SwedenGermany and the UK, although it is unclear, whether or how much of this development can be directly attributed to the OIC.

In Sweden, for instance, pensioners especially have been prosecuted for making critical comments about Islam on Facebook. A 71-year-old woman referred to so-called unaccompanied minors as “bearded children” and said — not inaccurately (here and here and here) — that some seem to be “engaged in rape and demolishing their [asylum] homes”. In February 2018, a Swedish court sentenced her to a fine for “incitement of hatred against an ethnic group”.

In Germany, a journalist, Michael Stürzenberger, was handed a six-month suspended jail sentence for posting on his Facebook page a historical photo of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, shaking the hand of a senior Nazi official in Berlin in 1941. The prosecution accused Stürzenberger of “inciting hatred towards Islam” and “denigrating Islam” by publishing the photograph.

In addition to cultivating high-level contacts with Western actors, the OIC also is pursuing a comprehensive media strategy, agreed upon in Saudi Arabia in December 2016 and focused on the West.

This OIC media strategy claims as one of its goals:

“To increase the interaction with media outlets and professionals, while encouraging accurate and factual/portrayal of Islam. Emphasis should be directed at avoidance of any link or association of Islam with terrorism or the use of Islamophobic rhetoric in the war on terror, such as labeling criminal terrorists as ‘Islamic’ fascists, ‘Islamic’ extremists.”[10]

Part of that strategy has already had much success across the Western world, where authorities and media do not want to label Muslim terrorists as Islamic, but routinely describe them as “mentally ill.”

The OIC also notes that it would like media professionals and journalists “to develop, articulate and implement voluntary codes of conduct to counter Islamophobia”[11], while at the same time engaging Western governments “in creating awareness against the dangers of Islamophobia by addressing the responsibility of media on the issue”[12]. The OIC additionally states that it would like to train foreign journalists to “deal with the phenomenon of hatred and defamation of the Islamic religion”[13]— as exemplified by the recent European-Islamic Forum, where attendees were introduced to the OIC’s “Program for Training Media Professionals on Redressing Stereotypes about Islam”.

As maintained earlier here, European journalists — helped along by the EU — are already very adept at censoring themselves, which means that the OIC’s work is probably already more than half-done when it comes to Europe.

Finally, the OIC media strategy calls for fostering a “network of high profile western public figures supporting efforts to combat Islamophobia in politics, journalism and civil society” as well as teams of scholars academics, and celebrities, who will be the faces of the campaign.[14]

The IOC mentions the following, among others, as examples of mass media campaigns it aims to launch as part of its media strategy[15]:

  • Television and advertising campaigns “targeting public transport (bus and metro) famous newspapers and magazines for each country two times in one year”.
  • Arranging three talk shows per year in key TV channels in US and Europe about Islam with the participation of selected members from Muslim countries.
  • 10 lectures per year in each country (universities, unions and suggested important centers) “about Islamic role in building cultures and connect between religions”.
  • Visits to schools and universities by OIC “specialist teams”.
  • Hosting 100 “Western activists” from various fields in selected Muslim countries where they “can interact with intellectuals, politicians, media figures, and religious scholars”.
  • Produce one-hour documentary “examining the growth of Islamophobia in the West and its impact on Muslims around the world and interfaith relations” for broadcasting “on mainstream networks such as Britain’s BBC and Channel 4 or America’s PBS”.

The OIC is being assisted in all these efforts by “prestigious public relations companies such as UNITAS Communications which is based in London, UK and Golden Cap based in Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia”[16].

The OIC promises that it will also create a fund to support local anti-Islamophobia initiatives, and monitor media and place commentary and news stories in key Western publications.

It is important to note that in the years 1998-2011, the OIC sought to advance an agenda in the UN, banning “the defamation of religions”, but the OIC gave up on the ban after realizing that there was not sufficient support there for the proposal. “We could not convince them,” said Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Turkish head of the IOC at the time. “The European countries don’t vote with us, the United States doesn’t vote with us.”

Instead of pursuing the ban on defamation of religions, the OIC shifted its focus to UN Resolution 16/18 [17] which calls upon states to take concrete steps to prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion, “foster religious freedom and pluralism,” and “counter religious profiling which is understood to be the invidious use of religion as a criterion in conducting questionings, searches and other law enforcement investigative procedures.”

Andrew C. McCarthy, a critic of Resolution 16/18, maintains that:

“Sharia forbids any speech — whether true or not — that casts Islam in an unfavorable light, dissents from settled Muslim doctrine, has the potential to sow discord within the ummah, or entices Muslims to renounce Islam or convert to other faiths. The idea is not merely to ban gratuitous ridicule — which, by the way, sensible people realize government should not do (and, under our Constitution, may not do) even if they themselves are repulsed by gratuitous ridicule. The objective is to ban all critical examination of Islam, period…” [Emphasis in original]

The OICs highly ambitious plans to do away with freedom of speech go severely underreported in the West. Mainstream Western journalists do not appear to find it dangerous that their freedom of speech should be supervised by the OIC, while Western governments, far from offering any resistance, appear, perhaps for votes, to be cozily going along with everything.

Judith Bergman is a columnist, lawyer and political analyst.

[1] See also “Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s ‘Islamophobia’ Campaign against Freedom” and “The OIC vs. Freedom of Expression”

[2] See also “The OIC/NGOs cooperation in combating Islamophobia” from the International Conference on Islamophobia, Istanbul 2007.

[3] OIC Charter Article 1(11)

[4] Ibid., Article 1 (12)

[5] 11th Session of the Islamic Summit Conference, Dakar Declaration, p 4

[6]Ibid., p 4

[7] 1st OIC observatory report on Islamophobia (May 2007 to May 2008) p 24 (section 4.5.)

[8] 1st OIC observatory report on Islamophobia (May 2007 to May 2008) p 30. (sections 4.5.7 and 4.5.8)

[9] Ibid., p 30 (Section 4.5.8)

[10] OIC Media Strategy in Countering Islamophobia and Its Implementation Mechanisms, p 2, (section I (2))

[11] Ibid., p 4, Section III (1)

[12] Ibid., p 4, Section III (3)

[13] Ibid., p 5, Section III (7)

[14] Ibid., pp 3-4, Section II(2) and (7)

[15] Ibid., pp 8-9, Section 7

[16] Ibid., p 6

[17] Resolution 16/18 on Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief. The resolution was passed in the UN Human Rights Council in 2011 with support from both OIC member countries and Western countries, including the United States.

‘Muslim UN’ Highlights San Diego Lawsuit Against Islamophobia Curriculum

IPT News, by John Rossomando, September 18, 2018:

A recent report on Islamophobia published by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) appears to affirm its common cause with a Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) effort to change public school curricula and staff training in the name of stopping Islamophobia. The OIC also is known at the “Muslim U.N.” Its 11th Annual Report on Islamophobia report released in July discussed the still pending lawsuit challenging the San Diego Unified School District’s (SDUSD) cooperation with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). Almost all of the OIC’s Islamophobia reports cite CAIR data.

The OIC’s annual report mentions the lawsuit against the SDUSD, saying it was brought “by several parents who believed the district was unfairly favoring Muslim students.” It claims the school district has seen a dramatic increase in bullying and discrimination.

It also referenced a CAIR Islamophobia report that claimed over half of California’s Muslim students had been bullied. This paper influenced the SDUSD’s April 2017 decision to enter into a formal partnership with CAIR. Yet the SDUSD’s internal statistics showed only two reported incidents of anti-Muslim bullying in 2015-16 among the entire 130,000 student school district.

The OIC’s interest is unsurprising. The 57-nation organization that touts itself as “the collective voice of the Muslim world” has urged Western educational curriculum be rewritten for the past decade. It also hoped to use “trade and cultural relations” between Muslim and Western countries to influence curriculum changes.

CAIR entered into a formal partnership in 2010 with the OIC’s Islamic Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (ISESCO) to “redress the image of Islam and Muslims in textbooks.”

OIC officials regard Islamophobia as the “worst form of terrorism.” Like CAIR, they consider terms like “Islamic extremists” and connections between Islam and terrorism to be bigoted. However, an OIC wing devoted to Islamic law ruled in 2003 that Palestinian suicide bombings against Israelis were not terrorism. OIC representatives decided in 2002 that Hamas and similar groups weren’t terrorists.

CAIR representatives attended ISESCO’s 2015 conference and met with its director general, who briefed them on ISESCO’s activities in the field of education, among other issues.

ISESCO’s General Conference called for partnering with civil-society organizations in 2015 to alter the portrayal of Islam and Muslims in Western curricula.

That’s part of what CAIR is trying to do in San Diego. It suggested the school district implement an anti-Islamophobia curriculum in the name of fighting bullying that included textbooks including:

· Rashad’s Ramadan and Eid Al Fitr, which includes a chapter called “Thinking About Allah“;

· Does my Head Look Big in This?, which tells the story of a Muslim teenager who decides to wear a headscarf;

· Golden Domes and Silver Lanterns: A Muslim Book of Colors, about Ramadan.

CAIR provided the SDUSD board with training materials entitled Teaching against Islamophobia. Among other things, it taught that 9/11 reflected the “the rage toward the U.S. pulsing through the veins of many Muslims.”

The federal lawsuit filed by the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund (FCDF) on behalf of local parents argued that, by creating a program specifically for Muslim students, the school district is discriminating against all other students. The school board formally withdrew three months later, after the lawsuit claimed that CAIR co-founder and Executive Director Nihad Awad acknowledged CAIR is a religious organization fulfilling a religious mission. That admission made formal partnership with CAIR a potential violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause dividing church and state.

School district emails, however, show that work to implement a CAIR-sponsored anti-Islamophobia curriculum continued. An FCDF motion for an injunction blocking the school district from working with CAIR remains pending.

CAIR Shops Its School Program Nationwide

CAIR’s effort to influence public schools now extends beyond California. It also includes schools in Washington state, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Illinois. In a July letter, FCDF warned Seattle schools that collaborating with CAIR to “address Islamophobia” could violate the Constitution.

“After facing a huge setback for its pilot program in San Diego, CAIR is doubling down on its ‘anti-Islamophobia’ school agenda nationwide,” FCDF Executive Director Dan Piedra said. “Any school district that opens its doors to CAIR is empowering a radical sectarian syndicate that seeks elevate Muslim students as a protected class.”

CAIR Washington representatives delivered a workshop at a Seattle high school in May, where they spoke about accommodating fasting Muslim students and their families during Ramadan and confronting bullying.

Teachers in multiple Minneapolis-St. Paul area school districts participated in a CAIR seminar last month called “Positive Interactions Training for Teachers.”

One participant said that CAIR misidentified Christian Syrians living in Mankato, Minn. as Muslims.

A separate PowerPoint used in a similar program last January included slides that called for making restrooms available for Muslims to do ritual washing before prayer; making potlucks halal by providing pork- and alcohol-free options for adult staff; and providing rooms within schools where Muslims can pray.

Muslims can pack halal lunches and wait until afterschool to pray, Piedra said, adding that the courts have not established an absolute right to religious accommodation. Schools can deny religious accommodations if they decide they “materially disrupt normal operations.”

CAIR’s Minnesota chapter also partnered last year with the Minneapolis Public Schools (MPS) to offer advice about “immigrant and refugee families.” MPS also lists CAIR Minnesota on a separate page as a resource on immigrants. Minneapolis is home to a large Muslim Somali-American community.

Minnesota’s state Department of Education recommends CAIR under the category of “More Resources to Help Families and Others Address Bullying.” Its website provides links to CAIR-written guides such as “An Educator’s Guide to Understanding Islamic Religious Practices” and “Know Your Rights.”

“CAIR-MN’s mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding,” the Minnesota Department of Education said.

In Pennsylvania, CAIR performed sensitivity training in November 2016 in the School District of Philadelphia in the wake of President Trump’s election. The Chicago Public Schools (CPS) recommends CAIR Chicago’s Volunteer Activist (VA) Program and Internship & Externship Program for high school students.

“Understanding that CPS requires service-learning to meet graduation standards, our office host opportunities available throughout the year for high school students to earn service-learning hours, or simply enrich their experience and insight to advocacy and civil rights efforts,” the Chicago Public Schools wrote on a page on its website.

Parents should be concerned about letting CAIR “dictate what should or shouldn’t be taught about Islam,” Piedra said.

CAIR’s Long Relationship With the OIC

CAIR’s cooperation with the OIC goes back decades. Awad spoke at a 1996 invitation-only OIC-sponsored conference in Toronto. He called on Muslims to engage in an all-out public relations campaign to educate the media, the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs reported. “CAIR and the OIC are already in lockstep on virtually all issues,” IPT Executive Director Steven Emerson noted in 2007.

A 2007 CAIR press release stated that Awad met with then OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia to discuss “cooperation on future projects.”

“I’m pleased to meet with Ihsanoglu to discuss the situation of Muslims in the United States and to work on future projects,” the press release said Awad told the Arab News.

Awad attended OIC sponsored conferences in 2008 and 2009.

He gave a presentation on Islamophobia in Western societies at a 2010 OIC conference in Sao Paulo, Brazil and represented CAIR at an OIC conference in 2013.

“Education and engagement are key to challenging the growing phenomenon of Islamophobia,” Awad said at the 2010 conference.

He praised Ihsanoglu in 2013 when Ihsanoglu visited CAIR’s Washington, D.C. headquarters. This was after Ihsanoglu led the unsuccessful charge to get the United Nations to criminalize blasphemy against Islam.

“We appreciate Secretary General Ihsanoglu’s vision, leadership and hard work to increase the effectiveness and profile of OIC’s efforts internationally, and we appreciate his support of our work at CAIR,” Awad said.

CAIR serves as the “OIC’s foot soldiers,” said Zuhdi Jasser, founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD). “There doesn’t have to be any proven evidence of coordination between the two groups,” Jasser said. “They are exactly on the same ideological page.”

Islamophobia hoaxes and their cynical defenders.

The American Spectator, by Benjamin Baird, September 14, 2018:

“You can’t believe everything you read, especially if it’s scrawled across a restaurant receipt.”

That was the conclusion of at least one major media outlet after a Texas steakhouse waiter posted an image of a fake handwritten note on Facebook to convince Americans that racism “still exists.” But if you can’t trust everything you read on social media, how should readers respond when the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy group nurtures the same unsubstantiated fiction?

With chapters in more than a dozen states, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) works to “promote a positive image of Islam” while defending Muslims “who have experienced religious discrimination, defamation or hate crimes.” Therefore, when 20-year-old Khalil Cavil claimed to receive a “No tip for terrorist” message from a customer in lieu of gratuity, CAIR’s activists and paid attorneys didn’t hesitate to publicize the encounter, promoting Cavil’s specious verdict that “this racism, and this hatred still exists.”

Although the United Arab Emirates designated CAIR as a terrorist entity in 2014, and the FBI has banned outreach with the group because of its suspected ties to terrorism, newspaper editors and broadcast journalists continue to seek out CAIR officials for public comment in the aftermath of both real and perceived anti-Muslim incidents.

Oldest Trick in the Book

CAIR had every reason to approach Cavil’s allegations with skepticism and restraint, especially given the historical susceptibility these complaints are to forgery.

Consider the case of a Tennessee Red Lobster employee who posted a receipt online in 2013 showing that she was tipped “none” followed by a written racial slur; or the gay server working at a New Jersey restaurant who accused a couple of refusing to tip him and writing, “I’m sorry but I cannot tip because I do not agree with your lifestyle” on a receipt. Cavill’s spoof was remarkably similar to a 2017 case where a Virginia waitress presented a receipt which stated, “don’t tip Black people.” In each instance, follow-on investigations proved that the so-called victims were, in fact, defrauding the public.

While dozens of media outlets across the country were faithfully publishing virtual carbon copies of CAIR’s story of racial and religious intolerance in Texas, the Saltgrass Steak House was busy conducting an internal investigation of their own. Terry Turney, chief operating officer of Saltgrass, eventually concluded that “our employee fabricated the entire story.” Turney remarked that while “Racism of any form is intolerable… Falsely accusing someone of racism is equaling [sic] disturbing.”

Turney is right to so forcefully denounce these deceptive acts. When the media grants column inches to these fantasists, they only succeed in distracting from and diminishing efforts to combat genuine instances of bigotry.

Letting Go

Once CAIR becomes invested in a hate crime hoax, its representatives have trouble disengaging from the false narrative they so fervently defended.

After Cavil’s delusional story began unraveling around him and his lies were exposed as a sham, CAIR refused to take down their supporting story. The article still appears under its original, condemnatory title, although a tiny disclaimer reads: “Waiter admits making up story about customer who called him a terrorist and didn’t tip.”

Refusing to adequately correct the record regarding falsified hate crimes has become an ugly tradition at CAIR. In December 2017, long after the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office ruled out religious animus and determined that a Muslim teen was beaten by three of her classmates in a fight “over a boy,” CAIR-Florida Communications Director Wilfredo Ruiz said that he was “worried how in-depth the investigation was made.”

In the same manner, CAIR’s New York chapter refused to correct or unpublish an article supporting the discredited story of an 18-year-old Muslim woman who, in December 2016, alleged that three Donald Trump supporters tried to remove her hijab and called her a terrorist. The falsified report remains on CAIR’s webpages and social media accounts, even after the offender pleaded guilty and was sentenced for falsely reporting an incident and disorderly conduct.

Stressed Out

Ibrahim Hooper, the CAIR communications director responsible for posting Cavil’s canard, has counterintuitively suggested that the Muslim community “is under great psychological stress and tension right now, and that that in itself can cause mental health issues that lead to these types of incidents.”

CAIR-DFW reinforced this narrative when, just days after reporting a hoax in their own backyard, they shared an article on Facebook detailing a University of California-San Francisco study which defined Islamophobia as a public health crisis causing “psychological distress,” a poor diet, and other detrimental symptoms. Unfortunately for the Dallas branch, they inadvertently linked to an article that was highly critical of the study and disputed its conclusions.

As a member of the “Islamophobia lobby,” CAIR’s net function is to aggressively search for and punctuate any discernible act of discrimination against Muslims. Despite their controversial past, CAIR’s representatives can preserve a modicum of legitimacy by orchestrating a comprehensively overblown Islamophobia crisis and convincing lawmakers that CAIR is uniquely empowered to expose and respond to this anti-Muslim bigotry.

Though CAIR’s Islamists may have a complicated relationship with the truth, journalists should be held to a higher standard. By injudiciously promoting CAIR’s worldview and accepting their Islamophobia narrative at face value, the establishment press does real and lasting damage to national unity and social cohesion in America.

Benjamin Baird is a writer with Islamist Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.


CJR: I received a comment from someone who said CAIR had not been on their radar prior to reading this article. I will therefore link to a good brief on what they are all about at Discover the Networks.

CAIR in the Classroom

Reprinted from Algemeiner.com.

In 1993, Ibrahim Hooper, director of strategic communications for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said that, “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future. But I’m not going to do anything violent to promote that. I’m going to do it through education.” Twenty-five years later, CAIR could be making headway on that goal, through its relationships with US public school districts in at least three states.

CAIR — an Islamist group and United Arab Emirates-designated terrorist organizationthat bills itself as a defender of civil rights — has achieved special concessions for Muslim students and launched the inappropriate insertion of religion into publicly-funded education. Meanwhile, pushback from parents and outside organizations is building.

Seattle Public Schools’ partnership with CAIR’s Washington chapter is the latest incident to cause controversy, but the relationship dates back to at least 2011, when CAIR-WA sent the district a letter proposing accommodations for Muslim students and classroom lessons on Islam. Then as now, CAIR-WA claimed to be fighting “anti-Muslim bullying.” To that end, in 2012 and 2013 the organization contacted the school district to complain about “Islamophobia” among teachers.

That approach eventually paid off. In a Ramadan crowd-funding campaign in May of this year, the CAIR-WA chapter outlined its plan “to provide educational training for teachers and staff on things like Ramadan, Eid, and how educators can support Muslim students in the classroom.” Accordingly, that same month, CAIR-WA ran a “professional development session” in a Seattle high school that “addressed providing identity-safe spaces in schools for Muslim families” and “how to support students during Ramadan.”

In July, the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund (FCDF), a legal advocacy group, sent a letter to the Seattle school district warning that partnering with CAIR and “discriminating in favor of students based on their religion” was a violation of the First Amendment that, if continued, would lead to legal action. (This was no empty threat: CAIR’s National Executive Director, Nihad Awadadmittedin 2016 that distributing the group’s publications to schools is “both a religious and educational exercise.”) FCDF then filed a public records request asking for emails between school officials and CAIR staff.

In a similar situation, the FCDF sued the San Diego Unified School District in 2017 on behalf of several local parents, alleging that its relationship with CAIR set up a “subtle, discriminatory scheme that establishes Muslim students as the privileged religious group.” That partnership began with an all-too-familiar “anti-Islamophobia bullying initiative” developed by CAIR’s San Diego chapter, focusing on Muslim holidays, “safe spaces” for Muslim students, and staff training about Muslim culture.

On the advice of its lawyers, the San Diego school board voted in 2017 to sever its ties with CAIR, but the FCDF filed an injunction in February alleging that the relationship was ongoing and calling for the release of all related correspondence. (Meanwhile, another California school district, Cajon Valley Union, is currently under pressure from CAIR to adopt its anti-bullying programs.)

Although no formal agreement yet exists, CAIR is following this same pattern with school districts in Minnesota, particularly Minneapolis, due to its large Somali refugee population. The organization’s local chapter, CAIR-MN, filed a complaint in 2010 with the US Department of Education alleging harassment of Muslim students, although it had begun conducting independent “mediation sessions and diversity trainings for district staff” the previous year.

In 2013, a member of the Columbia Heights School Board resigned at CAIR-MN’s urging, due to a Facebook comment (that he claimed was not his own) rejecting the idea of installing foot-washing stations and bidets in high school bathrooms to accommodate Muslim students.

CAIR-MN continued its efforts in 2016, complaining that various school officials were not responding quickly enough to alleged hate crimes against Muslim students, while calling for increased protection for such students statewide.

Earlier this month, CAIR-MN offered an in-house training session for educators, “Positive Interactions Training for Teachers,” that included a talk on “Understanding Islamophobia and Bullying.” Meanwhile, the Minnesota Department of Education website recommends — alone among religious organizations — CAIR-MN and its publication, “An Educator’s Guide to Understanding Islamic Religious Practices,” under “community resources” to “address bullying.”

Spotting a now familiar pattern, the FCDF sent a data records request to the Minneapolis public school district on August 17, calling for emails that show whether collaboration exists between the district and CAIR-MN. Minnesota would do well to learn from the mistakes of Washington and California, and avoid another ill-advised partnership with CAIR.

Given CAIR’s Islamist heritage, mission, and actions, no public school district should fall for its duplicitous claims of fighting bullying and “Islamophobia.” Its classroom activities endanger America’s future by opening students to indoctrination into a virulently anti-American, anti-Western, and antisemitic ideology.

Jihadis Work to Disarm Free People and Arm Themselves

The right to keep and bear arms is a right that “existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution.”

[U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, US v Heller]

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, July 3, 2018:

The right to keep and bear arms exists with or without a U.S. Constitution and with or without a United States of America.  The right exists in nature and is, therefore, a right that exists for all humans.  If the right to defend and protect oneself exists, then we have the right to bear the tools to do so.

The Second Amendment does not GIVE us the right to bear arms, it PROTECTS it.

Marxists and Jihadis know the inalienable rights to self-defense and free expression are bedrocks of free Western societies, and that is why they attack it with such fervor.

Using the Islamic Law of Slander under the mask of “Islamophobia” jihadis have persuaded many Western leaders to shut down all expression which offends muslims.

This is, as the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood calls it, Civilization Jihad by OUR hands.

Now, Islamic leaders (aka “Jihadis”) are working with the help of their Marxist friends to disarm free people while arming themselves.

Case in point:  the jihadi Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, is forcing Britons to surrender  even kitchen knives using the lie that he seeks to “protect” the community.  Meanwhile, stabbings in London continue to skyrocket because they are being perpetrated by muslims who are not surrendering their weapons, not even their kitchen knives.

Here in the United States, sources inside the muslim community tell UTT Muslim Brotherhood mosques and organizations are encouraging muslims to purchase firearms and join the NRA, while at the same time the jihadis’ Marxist collaborators are pushing to disarm Americans.

Using their seditious Marxists allies in the media, every domestic left-wing and jihadi attack – including those in Alexandria (VA), Las Vegas (NV) or Orlando (FL) – is used to demonize weapons and create momentum for anti-gun legislation, instead of highlighting the Marxists and jihadis actually doing the killing.

In short, our enemies, be they Marxists or jihadis, work diligently to destroy the inalienable liberties of Patriotic Americans, with no intention of doing so within their own communities.


  1. Understand the threat & understand America’s Founding Principles.
  2. Never surrender any liberty, in any amount, for any reason.
  3. Identify Marxist & jihadi operatives and organizations at the local level and use all legal means to remove them from your community.