A Congressional Overture to Censorship

HouseCensor3 001The Rule of Reason, by Edward Cline, December 22, 2015:

Stephen Coughlin alerted me to a House Resolution introduced on December 17th, H.Res.569, “Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.114th Congress (2015-2016).”  As of this writing, the country remains clueless about this development.

The resolution was introduced by Virginia Democrat Donald S. Beyer, and sponsored by Frank Pallone, a New Jersey Democrat, and endorsed by seventy-one other Representatives, most of them Democrats, and possibly a sprinkling of Republicans. The resolution has gone into committee, but one can predict with confidence that it will emerge virtually unscathed and unaltered. After all, the “victims” are Muslims, and the House wishes to put it in the record that certain of its members are against hurting anyone’s feelings.

Many of the usual suspects have endorsed the resolution: Keith Ellison, a Democrat and Muslim from Minnesota; Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Democrat and chairman of the Democratic National Committee; Charles Rangel, New York Democrat; and Alan Grayson, a Democrat from Florida. Most of the other endorsers’ names I do not recognize. They are all termites who have made careers of eating away at the rule of law and “transforming” America from a Western nation into a multicultural, welfare-statist, politically correct stewpot of no particular character.

Resolutions of this nature have a tendency to be reintroduced later as binding legislation to be forwarded to the Senate. The introduction of this resolution is not yet newsworthy, but it will be if it emerges intact from committee to be voted on by the whole House. One suspects that H.Res.569 was inspired by U.S.  Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s promise to an audience of Muslim Advocates on December 3rd that she would spend efforts to combat and prosecute anyone guilty of anti-Muslim speech. I do not think the two-week gap between Lynch’s pronouncements and the introduction of the resolution is coincidental. It probably took two weeks to compose and fine-tune its wording.

Interestingly, the term “Islamophobia” does not occur in the resolution text. That may or may not have been oversight on the part of the resolution’s backers. But Coughlin, in Parts IV through VI in Catastrophic Failure, reveals in detail the Muslim Brotherhood’s and the  Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s (OIC) mutual and complementary obsession with having Islamophobia quashed and prohibited on pain of penalty, worldwide, but especially in the U.S.

Nevertheless, as Coughlin explains in great detail in his book, the language of the House resolution mirrors the OIC’s Islamophobia narrative being implemented domestically. See my reviews of Coughlin’s book here.

Missing from the list of backers of the resolution is one Republican of note:Michael McCaul, who represents the 10th District in Texas. He is now chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. But he is very friendly with envoys and officers of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). A Breitbart article chronicled one encounter, “McCaul Meets With Islamic Leader Who Says U.S. Muslims Are ‘Above Law Of Land,” from February 2015.

House Homeland Security Committee chairman Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) was photographed with—and wrote a personal note in silver sharpie to—an Islamic leader who said practicing Muslims in the United States are “above the law of the land.”

On May 13, 2013, McCaul held an open house at a district office in Katy, Texas. While McCaul’s Facebook posting announcing the open house said an RSVP was required, a spokeswoman for McCaul told Breitbart News that Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Houston branch executive director Mustafa Carroll showed up without notice.

During the open house, McCaul and Carroll were photographed speaking to one another. On top of the photograph, in silver sharpie, McCaul wrote to Carroll: “To Mustafa and the Council on American Islamic Relations, the moderate Muslim is our most effective weapon—Michael McCaul, TX-10.” (Italics mine)

The most effective weapon against what?? America? See Michael McCaul’s denial of reality in Coughlin’s Catastrophic Failure, Section VI, p. 401.

In parsing this resolution, let’s first examine all the Whereas’s first:

Whereas the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes and rhetoric have faced physical, verbal, and emotional abuse because they were Muslim or believed to be Muslim;

I think I can count the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes committed in the U.S. on the fingers of one hand; I don’t immediately recall any Muslim of either gender in the U.S. of being physically assaulted as Europeans are now being attacked and raped by Muslim gangs of immigrants and “refugees.” I do not think the scarcity of reports of anti-Muslim hate crimes is due to the news media’s oversight; there is just a paucity of such crimes, unless one counts publically burning aKoran or hanging a side of bacon on the front door of a mosque. But one can be sure that when one occurs, the news media will be all over it like raspberry jam on a muffin.  As for “verbal abuse,” that’s covered in the criminal code, so a House resolution on the subject is redundant. Does the code really need another superfluous category that pertains only to Muslims? Is  Congress now turning to maintaining the emotional health and welfare of Muslims? It seems so. There is the nanny state, complemented by the nursemaid state.

Whereas the constitutional right to freedom of religious practice is a cherished United States value and violence or hate speech towards any United States community based on faith is in contravention of the Nation’s founding principles;

Note how “violence” and “hate speech” are paired together, as though they were synonymous offenses, which they are not. “Hate speech,” which I have argued for years is an illegitimate concept (prosecute the demonstrable crime, not the contents of a person’s mind), has no metaphysical power to physically harm anyone. For words to be capable of actually harming anyone, they would need to “spoken” by a kind of paintball gun rigged to replicate the sound of an insult as a mass of air that could knock a person flat on his tosh. Words on paper, words transmitted through the air, are not tangible weapons. Further, “hate speech” is not in “contravention” to the nation’s founding principles. It hadn’t been invented yet, and, it being an illegitimate category of crime, it is not to be confused with genuine slander or libel. Those offenses our Founding Fathers knew something about, most of them having been lawyers schooled in British law.

Whereas there are millions of Muslims in the United States, a community made up of many diverse beliefs and cultures, and both immigrants and native-born citizens;

And? So what? Those millions of Muslims and their mosques expect to be deferred to and accommodated because their “faith” requires it. No mention anywhere in the resolution of the practice of female genital mutilations, honor killings, beheadings, arranged marriages that often send a girl or woman to Pakistan or some other Sharia-governed country, and sermons advocating jihadand not cooperating with the authorities when the latter are investigating genuine “hate crimes,” such as the Boston Marathon bombing and the San Bernardino massacre by….Muslims. No mention of Muslims bringing into this country their age-old sectarian animosities between Muslims, no mention either of their “cultural” hatred and contempt for Western liberties, so often articulated by Muslim spokesmen.

Whereas this Muslim community is recognized as having made innumerable contributions to the cultural and economic fabric and well-being of United States society;

“Innumerable contributions”? Which ones? I can’t think of any advances in medicine, science, literature, or any of the other arts that Muslims have contributed to American society. In terms of an economic contribution, I can think of a spike in gun sales to Americans who, for some strange reason, wish to arm themselves against Islamic depredations. I can see, too, how the presence of millions of Muslims is tearing the fabric of our Western society, because their “culture” is alien and hostile to everything America stands for. Again, in terms of economics, there are the millions of Muslims who have gravitated toward the welfare state and working as little as possible, if ever. Most American Muslims are here for the same reason millions of Muslims want to settle and colonize Germany, Britain, Sweden, and other European welfare states.

Whereas hateful and intolerant acts against Muslims are contrary to the United States values of acceptance, welcoming, and fellowship with those of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;

Come again? Where do we see that “welcoming and fellowship” of Muslims with Jews? With Christians? Except in some bogus “outreach” program or in interfaith “dialogue”? There is a word that covers the act of a Muslim willing to talk civilly with Jews and Christians: hudna, or a temporary truce that Muslims are willing to endure to buy time or gain the trust of infidels. The Koran, however, specifically prohibits Muslims from being friends with infidels or treating them as equals. Any “friendship” or “dialogue” that occurs between Muslims and infidels is simply the practice of dawah, or attempts to persuade infidels to convert to Islam.  Effusive protestations of “friendship” with non-Muslims are but practiced taqiyya.

On the other hand, Koran 003.118 goes:
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks: They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin: Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse. We have made plain to you the Signs, if ye have wisdom.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Take not for intimates others than your own folk, who would spare no pains to ruin you; they love to hamper you. Hatred is revealed by (the utterance of) their mouths, but that which their breasts hide is greater. We have made plain for you the revelations if ye will understand.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not take for intimate friends from among others than your own people; they do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater still; indeed, We have made the communications clear to you, if you will understand.

Point made. There is much more where that came from. Raymond Ibrahim, for example, has an excellent post on the role of taqiyya and false friendships, “Islam’s Doctrines of Deception.” Or absorb Stephen Coughlin’s section on “Interfaith Outreach” in Catastrophic Failure.

Whereas these acts affect not only the individual victims but also their families, communities, and the entire group whose faith or beliefs were the motivation for the act;

So, we mustn’t consider the individual victims of Islamic terrorism, nor their families and friends. Only alleged Muslim victims and their families, and communities, and the whole Islamic ummah can claim victimhood. Non-Muslim victims of Islamic terrorism are simply blanked-out when Muslim victimhood is making the rounds in Washington, D.C.  See the CNS report on the number of anti-Muslim “hate crimes” here.

According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports: Hate Crime Statistics, 2014, there were 1,140 victims of anti-religious hate crimes in the U.S. in 2014. “Of the 1,140 victims of anti-religious hate crimes: 56.8 percent [56.8%] were victims of crimes motivated by their offenders’ anti-Jewish bias.” That amounts to approximately 647.52 instances where Jewish individuals, businesses or institutions were targeted. A mere “16.1 percent [16.1%] were victims of anti-Islamic (Muslim) bias,” amounting to approximately 183.54 instances where Muslim individuals, businesses or institutions were targeted.

Whereas Muslim women who wear hijabs, headscarves, or other religious articles of clothing have been disproportionately targeted because of their religious clothing, articles, or observances; and

If they have been disproportionately “targeted” for “discrimination” it is because such garb is 1) required of Muslim women, otherwise they are beaten or assaulted or honor-killed by other Muslims; and 2) because women are regarded in Islam as second-class human beings, as chattel.  Muslim women who wear the full burqa or other garb that covers their faces are not to be trusted because too many of them have been suicide bombers.

Whereas the rise of hateful and anti-Muslim speech, violence, and cultural ignorance plays into the false narrative spread by terrorist groups of Western hatred of Islam, and can encourage certain individuals to react in extreme and violent ways:

This is perhaps the most obtuse and odious “Whereas” in the resolution’s text. Islamic terrorist groups do not engage in “false narratives”; they mean what they say and they as a rule quote chapter and verse from the Koran about why they do what they do. Western “hate speech” does not “play into the hands of terrorists”; we, however, are putty in their hands because we have adopted the false narrative that the terrorists have “hijacked” a “peaceful religion” or have a perverted interpretation of “kill the Jew or Christian if he does not submit or pay jizya.” To wit:

Qur’an (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Suras 9 and 5 are the last “revelations” that Muhammad narrated – hence abrogating what came before, including the oft-quoted verse 2:256 –“There is no compulsion in religion…”.

That is from the horse’s mouth. It can’t be “perverted.”

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes;

(2) steadfastly confirms its dedication to the rights and dignity of all its citizens of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;

(3) denounces in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against mosques, Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslim;

(4) recognizes that the United States Muslim community has made countless positive contributions to United States society;

(5) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all United States citizens, including Muslims in the United States, should be protected and preserved;

(6) urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes; and

(7) reaffirms the inalienable right of every citizen to live without fear and intimidation, and to practice their freedom of faith.

Commentary on these seven points would be redundant.

Someone, please, tell me that H.Res.569 is not in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. That it is not thoroughly and treacherously unconstitutional, aside from it being a commiserating overture to censorship and a not-so-subtle recasting of the UN/OIC Resolution 16/18, which would criminalize freedom of speech about Islam and Muslims, regardless of the form the speech takes.

Someone please tell me that H.Res.569 is not a formal recognition and application of Sharia law, which also purports to be the “law of the land” in contravention of the U.S. Constitution being the “law of the land.”

No one can deny it. No one can say that the resolution does not represent an itch to legally gag Americans when they try to discuss Islam and the Obama-enabled invasion of this country by enemy aliens. No one can tell me that this resolution is not a victory for the Muslim Brotherhood and the OIC.

Doubtless, the House resolution cannot be declared unconstitutional because it is a mere opinion expressed by members of the House. It does not carry the force of law. Therefore, it cannot be enforced or entered into the statutes, provided it survives, as a bill intended to become a law, vetting by the Senate, and is signed by the President.

To become the “law of the land.” Barack Obama would not hesitate to sign it.

Also see:

“Protocols of the Elders of …Islam”, Really?

512R2aJ0iLLFormer New York Times reporter David K. Shipler’s new book, “Freedom of Speech: Mightier Than the Sword” has a chapter called “Protocols of the Elders of Islam” in which he impugns the work of Stephen Coughlin on the Muslim Brotherhood’s Memorandum of Understanding. You really have to hear this:

Frank Gaffney and Stephen Coughlin discuss on Secure Freedom Radio:

Telling the Truth About Muhammad to the Bleeding Hearts

main-qimg-d0a7e7c524eb284f87b13ecd2ab69821By Eric Allen Bell:

Muslims are not what is wrong with Islam. This is what has been nearly impossible to communicate to most Liberals today.  The problem with Islam is the Prophet Muhammad.  According to Islamic scripture, in other words, what mainstream Muslims are taught to believe, the Prophet Muhammad was a slave owner, a rapist, committed mass murder, hated Jews with a passion, wanted homosexuals punished, killed his critics, stripped women of all rights and had sex with a nine year old girl, whom he married when she was six, named Aisha.

If the Prophet Muhammad was a Republican Senator from Kentucky, Liberals would oppose him vehemently. But as I have stated before, within the Liberal mind there seems to be a perceptive disability. When I say “Islam” they hear “Muslim”. Such is the nature of the Collectivist mind.

But Muslims are a symptom and not the source of the problem.  The problem is the Prophet Muhammad. If he were alive today, Amnesty International would certainly have a problem with his followers obeying his laws, which demand that certain people have their limbs amputated and their nose cut off. The Democrats would have him in their crosshairs as being at the forefront on the “war against women”. The New York Times would certainly seek to expose him and any whistle blower in his ranks would be celebrated as the next Julian Assange.

The Huffington Post and Daily Kos would be collecting signatures, to demand that our government do something to stop him. Media Matters would be reprinting all of the outrageous things he said, such as “I have become victorious through terror”.

Michael Moore would probably follow the Prophet around, trying to trick him into a “gotcha” question, then win an Academy Award for his latest documentary, “Muhammad and Me”. The poster would feature Michael Moore gloating in his baseball cap, next to a cut out of the Prophet – and then of course he would be executed, because of the piction of the Prophet.

Gloria Allred would be representing all of the women whom the Prophet Muhammad took as sex slaves. Every major women’s rights group in America would send out mailers, asking for donations to stop the Prophet Muhammad from instructing his followers to rape his enemies, as an act of war.  Rachel Maddow would have a field day, every day, with this story – and rightfully so. Organizations for the rights of women would have an issue with the Prophet Muhammad, were he alive today.

CNN’s Anderson Cooper would profile the Prophet Muhammad in his “Keeping Them Honest” segment of his highly rated show, because of all the contradictions in Muhammad’s best seller, the Holy Quran (look up “Abrogation”).  Cat Stevens would be held in Guantanamo Bay for aiding an enemy of the United States, since he is a follower of the Prophet and Muhammad says that no government is legitimate, unless it follows the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. And he would be likely be sharing a bunk with Representative Keith Ellison.

The ADL would have an issue with the Prophet Muhammad stating that Jews are all apes and pigs (see Suras 2:65, 5:60, and 7:166), rather than trying to protect the rights of Islam’s female followers to wear black sheets over their bodies, as the Prophet’s laws command. If someone were alive today, calling Jews apes and pigs, while having 1.6 billion followers, the ADL would have something to say about it.

The Daily Show would have more fun mocking the Prophet than taking pot shots at Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck.  Bill Maher and Sean Hannity would ironically be sharing a Nobel Peace Prize for their brave and pioneering work, in exposing the war crimes of the Prophet Muhammad.  No one would be drawing parallels between the persecuted yet devout followers of Muhammad and the Holocaust, if the Prophet Muhammad were conducting his mass genocide of infidels today (see Quran 9:5).

Gay rights groups would be a little concerned about the Mormon Church, but totally freaked out about anyone who follows the laws of the Prophet, known as the Sharia, because Sharia Law calls for homosexuals to be severely punished.  Every cult awareness website and organization out there would put out an alert, since the penalty for leaving the Prophet’s religion is death.

After the Prophet Muhammad beheaded an entire tribe of Jews, possibly no one would have a problem with waterboarding anyone who knew where to find him.  The Prophet Muhammad had several wives, but the one named Safiyya became his wife after he tortured and killed her father, her brothers, the men in her tribe, told his fighters to take the women of that tribe as sex slaves and then raped Safia that night. Anyone who had a problem with that, which would be anyone in their right mind, would not be called a “bigot”.

Given that the Prophet Muhammad advocated slavery and owned slaves, it would be unlikely that any African Americans would follow him.  Louis Farrakhan’s speeches would end up on a blooper reel, right next to Malcom X and of course the champion of human rights, Ben Affleck.

The young multibillionaire owner of the world’s largest social network would not be able to quietly obey the blasphemy laws of the Prophet Muhammad, were he alive today.  But the Prophet is said to have been told about his impending death by the Angel Gabriel. He was said to have been given a choice between being a great king on Earth and going to meet Allah. Apparently he chose not to remain immortal. However, if we compare the body counts of Pol Pot, Hitler and Chairman Mao against the 270 million people killed in the name of the Prophet Muhammad, I guess you can say he has become immortal after all.

Anyway, that young multibillionaire is named Mark Zuckerberg and his social network is called Facebook. At the time this article was written, there are an estimated 1.2 billion Facebook members and the average time a member spends on Facebook is 55 minutes a day. So, whatever policy Facebook decides to adopt is kind of a big deal – in some ways it has more of an impact than what the United Nations decides.

Currently the United Nations has approximately 57 nations which make up what is called the OIC, or the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.  The OIC is trying to make it an international law that criticizing the Prophet Muhammad become illegal. Vice President of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, here in the United States, Syrian immigrantAbdou Kattih, said he supports such a law.  But the OIC are lightweights compared to the power of Facebook. There is an argument to be made that the world went inside the internet and became the world.

Today as I write this, there have been about 25,000 acts of terrorism committed, just since 9/11 alone, in the name of the Prophet Muhammad.  That is several per day – approximately 2 million people actually.  But you can’t say that on Facebook. A new Facebook educational page went up this morning, called “Exposing the Prophet Muhammad” and was taken down, hours later, as it violates Facebook’s policy concerning anything that offends the followers of the Prophet Muhammad.

What did that Facebook page post that was so offensive?  It posted a video that referenced all of the Islamic scripture that tells the story of how Muhammad took Aisha as his wife when she was six years old and consummated their marriage when she was nine.  Oh, and it referenced the Islamic law that states that anyone drawing a picture of the Prophet be killed.

What does this mean for you and me?  It means that in the Information Age, the most powerful force on the internet has agreed to follow the blasphemy laws of the Prophet Muhammad.  Islamic Law is also called “Sharia”.  Do you still think the Sharia scare is some crazy Right Wing conspiracy theory?

Eric Allen Bell is a writer, filmmaker and Media Adviser living in Los Angeles, California.  While making a documentary about the construction of a 53,000 square foot mega mosque in Murfreesboro, TN he attempted to expose “Islamophobia”. Once he stated that Islam was the biggest threat to human rights in the world today, he was banned from the writing for Daily Kos and MichaelMoore.com, after LoonWatch.com created a petition to silence him. His article, “The High Price of Telling the Truth About Islam” has been widely circulated and has caused several Liberals to rethink how they look at the Religion of Peace.

Honor the 9/11 Dead: Defeat the Enemy & Punish Those Supporting Them

WTC-and-Pentagon-on-9-11By John Guandolo at Understanding the Threat, September 11, 2014:

It is 13 years after September 11, 2001.

How are we honoring those slain on that day? How are we honoring those in uniform who have given the last full measure of devotion for a cause they believed is truly right and just?

In preparation for his speech Wednesday night (9/10/14), America’s President sought council from the King of Saudi Arabia – the largest financial sponsor of the global jihad.

At the leadership level of our federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies, “catastrophically ignorant” is the only appropriate way to describe their status with regards to our enemy.  And yet our leaders shut down meaningful, fact/evidence based training on this enemy in compliance with the requests of their Muslim Brotherhood masters.

Nearly every major Islamic organization in the United States has been identified in U.S. federal terrorism trials as being a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Movement with the stated goal of destroying America from within via Civilization Jihad.  Yet, our President, National Security Council, State Department, FBI, DHS, Pentagon, and others, ONLY rely on Islamic advisors who are leaders of known MB organizations or affiliated with the MB Movement.

Around the world the Islamic armies are overthrowing nations, brutally murdering non-Muslims (over 100,000 Christians per year in the last few years) by beheading them, crucifying them, burying them alive, and the like – all of which comports to Sharia (Islamic Law).  Yet our leaders say this war has “nothing to do with Islam.”

Because of cowardly and criminally negligent leadership on both sides of the political aisle in America, in our Universities, in our churches, and across our media, the enemy has been given wide latitude to push their jihadi movement forward with great force and success.

We wouldn’t want to offend them after all.

On Wednesday (9/10/14), demonstrating the light of hope for rational thought is still alive, Vice President Dick Cheney called (19:06) for the Muslim Brotherhood to be designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and noted they are the root of the global jihad.  At the same time this administration materially supports the MB and Al Qaeda in Libya and Syria against the sitting governments.  All of us would be in jail for such actions.

This behavior, in no way honors the 9/11 dead or our troops who have died in battle.  It is time we rectify this.  It is time to engage and defeat the enemy and punish those who support them.

It is time to recognize the fact that the enemy leading the MB Movement in America wearing suits and spending time with our leaders in cities like Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, New York, Nashville, Denver, Charlotte, Miami, Dallas, Detroit, and others, is the same enemy  cutting off children’s heads and putting them on pikes in Syria and Iraq.  It is the same enemy our troops fought and are fighting in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, North/Central/East Africa, and elsewhere.  This is the global Islamic Movement with one unified goal – the establishment of a global Islamic state (caliphate) under which Sharia (Islamic Law) is the law of the land.

Our Constitutional Republic stands on the principle that God gave us our liberty and no man nor any government may take that liberty from us.  That is the ideal found in our Declaration.  Our Constitution is the first great attempt to make that ideal a reality.  Since its inception, our nation has been the most prosperous, generous, and virtuous in the history of mankind.  Not perfect, but our system requires the drive towards liberty and away from tyranny.

The Islamic Movement seeks to impose Sharia, which necessarily enslaves people and strips them of their God-given liberty.  Women are property under Islamic Law.  Apostates and homosexuals must be killed if they do not repent and change their ways under Islamic Law.  Non-muslims must convert, be killed, or submit to Sharia and pay the non-muslim poll tax under Islamic Law.  100% of all published Islamic law agree on these matters.

This enemy only understands one thing – strength and power.  We must exert our strength and power and ensure the enemy knows we will not surrender anymore ground, and we will retake the ground lost thus far.

It is time for the think tanks across this nation to stop mincing words about this Islamic enemy by creating fictitious meaningless phrases which do anything but identify the enemy.  We must recognize that at the nation-state level (hint: Organization of Islamic Cooperation), there is a global war being waged by an Islamic enemy, and we appear to be the only ones unaware.

It is time to shut down the thousands of MB front groups and Islamic Centers in America – which the MB itself says are places from which the jihad will be launched.  All of the MB leaders should be treated like the jihadis (“terrorists”) they are.

Saudi Arabia should be handled like the terrorist state it is.  Men like former Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. Prince Bandar, who funded two of the 9/11 hijackers through a third party,  should be treated as a “terrorist,” as should other members of the Saudi elite class who the U.S. government knows are currently funding the global jihad.

Men like Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, one of the richest men in the world and a leading funder of the global jihad, and who sits on the board of Time Warner  and News Corp, should be handled like any other terrorist, not like an executive of a media giant.

George Soros has created thousands of organizations which work daily to undermine our Constitutional Republic.  Included in these are many organizations, like the New America Foundation, which directly support and work with the Islamic Movement.  Mr. Soros, his enterprise, and at least one of his sons all work to support our enemies and destroy this nation, and all should spend the rest of their days behind bars for it.

Leaders of DHS, FBI, CIA, State Department, and other branches of the government, as well as elected officials who:  continue to appoint Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas, and Al Qaeda individuals to positions of authority inside our bureaucracy; give quarter to our enemies; apologize for and defend their actions; attend functions to raise money for the jihadis; and aid and abet them in any way, should meet the fate of a traitor because they have and are violating the law – not to mention violating their Oath of Office to “protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies.”

When men like Denis McDonough, the President’s former Deputy National Security Advisor, publicly laud leaders of MB organizations and funders of Hamas like Imam Mohamed Magid of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), allow him to have input on U.S. foreign policy and domestic counterterrorism strategies, and give him a security clearance and access to sensitive U.S. systems, Mr. McDonough should go to jail, not get promoted.

When the FBI Director collaborates with leaders of Hamas (dba “CAIR”), the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and other jihadis, and then testifies before Congress that he did not know the place where the Boston Marathon bombers were radicalized was founded by an Al Qaeda operative – and Americans are dead – well…we put doctors and lawyers in jail for criminal negligence like this.

When elected officials and law enforcement leaders raise money for Hamas in America, they should be prosecuted for a variety of charges, including material support for terrorism.  They are breaking the law and should pay the price for directly supporting our enemies.

The President himself has violated his oath of office and federal law, abused his powers of the office he holds, and has exposed America and its people to grave dangers on a number of levels.  At no time in history has such a gross disregard for the Constitution been so evident, yet the American people so silent.

It is time for those who give aid and comfort, propaganda, material support, and financial reward to our enemies to pay a price.  And it should be a harsh price.

If we are to honor the great and heroic sacrifices of all of the men and women who gave their lives on 9/1/01 and since, it is time for America to shed its weak and traitorous leadership and begin to retake our place in the world as the strong, principled leader we are and were meant to be.

If Americans would like to experience on U.S. streets what we are witnessing in Syria, Iraq, Niger, Mali, Pakistan, and elsewhere around the world, then let us continue on the road we are on of capitulation and defeat.

If we want to stand on the wall and defend Western civilization, the actions advocated here are much less severe than we will have to engage in when the enemy makes itself prominently known in our hometowns.

John Guandolo bio

Sharia and Human Rights

cairo-1990-declarationBy John Guandolo at his blog, Understanding the Threat:

The primary focal point for this week’s daily articles on Sharia (Islamic Law) is to get readers to digest the reality that when Islamic Leaders speak, their words must be translated into what Islamic Law would have them mean. The phrase “Human Rights” is no exception.

To put it as simply and as factually as possible, when Islamic Leaders say “Human Rights” they mean the “Imposition of Islamic Law.”

In 1990, the leadership of the entire Muslim world – at the Head of State and King level – signed the Cairo Declaration. In summary, the Cairo Declaration states the Islamic world agrees with the International Declaration of Human Rights insofar as (1) it does not contradict Sharia, and (2) the Muslim world only understands Human Rights as the Sharia defines it.

In 1993, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) – now calling themselves the Organization of Islamic Cooperation – served the Cairo Declaration as a formal document to the United Nations. This means that at the Head of State and King level, the entire Muslim World has officially defined “Human Rights” as the imposition of Sharia since 1993.

The last two articles in the Cairo Declaration read:
“Article 24: All rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah. Article 25: The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles in this Declaration.”

What is most interesting is that most people at the U.S. State Department have never heard of the Cairo Declaration. The practical reality is, however, that when our leaders call for certain Islamic leaders to be brought before international legal forums for “justice” because of their “Human Rights” violations, the legitimate defense for these tyrants is that they are legally on the record stating Sharia defines human rights. So, homosexuals can be killed, women can be treated as property, those who leave Islam can be killed, and non-Muslims can have less rights under an Islamic government than Muslims – and there is nothing the World Court or the United States can do about it because Sharia unequivocally states all these things are a part of Islamic Law and legally binding.

Notably, the OIC’s Ten Year Programme of Action approved in Saudi Arabia in 2005 reaffirms the entire Muslim leadership’s understanding of “human rights” under section VIII “Human Rights and Good Governance” where it states: “Call upon the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers to consider the possibility of establishing an independent and permanent body to promote human rights in Member States, in accordance with the provisions of the Cairo Declaration…”

Most disturbing is that the promotion of the “Islamophobia” campaign is not a random occurrence but a part of an international strategy to silence truth-speaking critics of Islam and destroy the freedom of expression in the West and elsewhere. Islamophobia campaign is the imposition of the Islamic Law of “Slander” which Sharia makes a capital crime for saying anything about Islam or Muslims the a Muslim would “dislike.”

In the OIC’s Ten Year Programme it specifically calls for criminal punishments for those who slander Islam (according to the definition of “slander” under Sharia, not Western law). Under section VII entitled “Combating Islamophobia” sentence (3) states: “Endeavor to have the United Nations adopt an international resolution to combat Islamophobia, and to call upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments.”

Sentence (4) in that same paragraph calls for Muslim countries to be empowered to “help in the war against extremism and terrorism.” Readers of UTT will recall that “terrorism” in Islam is the killing of a Muslim without right. As a bonus for today…”Extremism” in Islam is exceeding your ability or authority. For instance, a few years ago when Islamic jurists contemplated labeling Osama bin Laden an “extremist” our government got giddy assuming THOSE particular Islamic jurists must be “moderates.” In fact, Osama bin Laden’s forces were losing a lot. Since Allah never loses a jihad, the jurist argued bin Laden had exceeded his ability to succeed and was thus putting the Muslim ummah (community) at greater risk, making him an “extremist.”

Words matter in this war. Sharia matters in this war. Knowing something of Sharia matters if we intend to win the war.

It should not surprise us that Parvez Ahmed, the former Chairman of the Board for Hamas in America (dba CAIR), was voted back on as the Human Rights Commissioner by the city council in Jacksonville, Florida last year. His definition of “human rights” is significantly different than the councils. Since being the leader of a designated terrorist organization (Hamas) didn’t stop the Jacksonville City Council from voting him in back in, Ahmed’s support for the imposition of Sharia likely won’t sway them in the future either.

Also see:

Obama DHS Adviser: ‘Inevitable That Caliphate Returns’

Mohamed-Elibiary-Twitterby KERRY PICKET:

Mohamed Elibiary, a member on the Obama administration’s Homeland Security Advisory Council, and is at the center of a controversy involving allegations that DHS Sec. Janet Napolitano gave him secret clearance to download classified information. According to Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Elibiary later shopped that classified material around to a reporter.

Elibiary, a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood who regularly goes after the Sisi led Egyptian government,  is also an active participant on Twitter and mocked the “freak out” by U.S. talking heads discussing the terrorist activities relating to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

me tweets

me tweet2

me tweet3

me tweet4

Elibiary’s reference to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) goes back to a 2011 resolution the Obama administration approved of. At the time, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton agreed to a U.N. Human Rights Council proposal known as “resolution 16/18″.  CNS News reported at the time:

The head of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has acknowledged that a U.N. religious tolerance resolution heavily promoted by the Obama administration has the same aims as the Islamic bloc’s annual “religious defamation” resolutions, which Western democracies have consistently opposed for more than a decade.

The State Department this week hosted three days of talks with foreign governments and international organizations, including the OIC, on implementing “resolution 16/18,” a measure adopted “by consensus” – without a vote – at the U.N. Human Rights Council last March and set to be endorsed by the full U.N. General Assembly within days.

The resolution, formally entitled “combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons based on religion or belief,” has been championed by the administration – and some human rights advocacy groups – as a historic achievement, in that it supposedly seeks a balance between freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

It was hailed as a shift away from earlier “defamation of Islam” (later changed to “defamation of religion”) resolutions introduced by the OIC, and duly voted through each year at both the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly – in recent years, by steadily smaller margins.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday told the closing session of the meeting at the State Department that the adoption of resolution 16/18 had “ended 10 years of divisive debate where people were not listening to each other anymore.”

A problem with resolution 16/8 is how other countries will choose to interpret the resolution’s language. CNS News also interviewed Elizabeth Kendal, an international religious liberty analyst and advocate who said resolution 16/18 was “far from being a breakthrough for free speech … is actually more dangerous than” the religious defamation resolutions.”

Also see:

Criticizing Islam Becomes “Incitement to Imminent Violence”

998_largeby Abigail R. Esman
Special to IPT News
June 11, 2014

You could say it is a new form of Islamic honor crime: the silencing of those who dare besmirch the honor of Islam or its prophet, except the suppression now doesn’t come from Muslims only. These days, it’s the work of secular groups and governments: theaters in Germany, prominent publishers in England and the USA, of public prosecutors in the Netherlands, and most recently, of the Spanish Supreme court.

On May 30, that court ruled that Pakistani refugee Imran Firasat be stripped of his refugee status and deported. A Pakistani Muslim apostate, Firasat for years received death threats for marrying a non-Muslim, and for his outspoken criticism of Islam. In 2006, he received amnesty in Spain, a country where he was guaranteed the glorious freedoms unavailable to him in his homeland – freedoms enshrined in the foundations of any Western democracy: of religion, of opinion, and of speech.

But evidently he was not.

In 2012, Firasat produced a film critical of Islam in which he included footage of the attacks of 9/11, along with subsequent Islamic terrorist attacks in London and Madrid. According to a report from Gatestone Institute, “Shortly after Firasat’s film was released, Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel García-Margallo and Spanish Interior Minister Jorge Fernández Díaz initiated a process to review his refugee status.”

The reason? Garcia-Margallo had determined that Firasat’s film created a security risk from Muslims who might be angered by its content. (That those Muslims themselves posed a risk seems not to have entered the discussion.)

The Supreme Court’s decision, which affirms the ruling of a lower court, reflects the growing influence of an anti-blasphemy measure introduced to the United Nations in 2011 by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), comprised of the 56 Islamic states. That measure, Resolution 16/18, aims to limit – even criminalize – speech that can be understood as “discriminatory – which, as I wrote at the time, “involves the ‘defamation of religion’ – specifically that which can be viewed as ‘incitement to imminent violence.'”

But nearly anything can be called “incitement to imminent violence,” just as a woman walking the street without covering herself ankle to brow in a niqab could be called an “incitement to imminent rape.” Who decides what “incitement” and “imminent” are? Should we now arrest all non-veiled women in the West? Has Spain become another Sharia state? Has UN Resolution 16/18 marked the end of freedom as we know it in the West?

In fact, as the Heritage Foundation recently reported, “throughout Europe, in Canada, and even in the United States, judicial systems in countries with large Muslim minorities are under pressure to adopt Sharia free speech restrictions. As a result, in many places, including Denmark, it is now a crime to say anything negative about Islam or the prophet Mohammed, regardless of whether such statements are factually true or not. The concept that even offensive speech is protected—so fundamental to the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment—is collapsing.”

Such attacks on democratic values – and their success in destroying them – are what have many experts, human rights groups, and politicians concerned about multiculturalism in the West. The idealized model – in which multiple cultures coexist peacefully within the same society – simply doesn’t work; the conflicts of values are too extreme.

True, it would be easy enough to wave off such incidents of censorship if they were limited to a mere one or two: but they aren’t. In 2010, for instance, Comedy Centralpulled a “South Park” episode satirizing the violent reactions to depictions of the prophet Mohammad after a New York-based Islamic group, Revolution Muslim, threatened the show’s writers with death.

Four years prior, the Berlin-based Deutsche Oper cancelled its run of Mozart’s “Idomeneo,” in which the severed heads of Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammed are placed on chairs onstage. Explaining their decision, the organizers of the opera, which was first performed in 1781, cited warnings from the police that “the publicity surrounding the play would severely heighten the security risk.” (Neither Buddhist nor Christian groups, it should be noted, expressed any discomfort with the production.)

And there are others: the extended criminal case against Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders for his statements against Islam and his film “Fitna,” which, like Firasat’s, focused on a recent history of Islamic terrorism and various calls for violence written in the Quran; or (also in the Netherlands) the arrest, at the demand of a radical imam, of pseudonymous cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot for sketches deemed “insulting” to Muslims.

America has hardly been immune: in 2008, Random House publishers cancelled publication of The Jewel of Medina, described as “a fictional account of the life of Mohammed’s wife, Aisha.” A year later, Yale University Press deleted images from a book about the so-called “Danish Cartoons” – a series of cartoons that ran in Denmark’s Jyllands Post in 2005, citing fears of “insulting Muslims” and – there it is again – a risk to national security.

And earlier this month, the New York Times demanded that the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) revise an ad slated to run on the Gray Lady’s web site, claiming that there had been numerous complaints about a previously approved, full-page version of the ad in the print edition of the paper. Explained the IPT at the time, “The NYT ordered us to insert the word ‘radical’ before the term ‘Islamist groups,’ so that it read, ‘Stop the radical Islamist groups from undermining America’s security, liberty, and free speech.'”

That change was not as minor as it might at first seem, argued IPT Executive Director Steven Emerson in an editorial for the IPT website. It suggested that Islamist groups who are not radicalized – like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) – are not dangerous. And yet it is precisely these organizations worldwide which often exert the kind of pressure that results in censorship of speech, in the subjugation of the arts, in the compromise of truth.

Fortunately, America’s capitulation to pressure on this issue has been limited to the private sector. But Firasat’s story should be taken as a warning, as much for the U.S. as for Europe, of the damage Resolution 16/18 and similar efforts are having on our culture – and on our future.

One week after the Spanish court robbed Firasat of his democratic rights in a democratic country, President Barack Obama stood on the beaches of Normandy and spoke to those gathered to mark the 70th anniversary of D-Day. On that day, he said, the world marked the moment of “commitment” to liberty and freedom; and since then, “From Western Europe to East; from South America to Southeast Asia; seventy years of democratic movements spread. Nations that once knew only the blinders of fear began to taste the blessings of freedom.

That would not have happened without the men who were willing to lay down their lives for people they’d never met, and ideals they couldn’t live without.”

Those ideals still remain our ideals. We still cannot live without them. We cannot give up the fight.

Abigail R. Esman, the author, most recently, of Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy in the West (Praeger, 2010), is a freelance writer based in New York and the Netherlands.

Hate Speech Laws Revisited

Via Gates of Vienna:

Dave Petteys is a member of the Colorado chapter of ACT! For America. He is one of the hard-working members of the anti-sharia group that made such a difference at the OSCE conferences in Warsaw in 2012 and 2013. Below is his take on the continuing controversy over “hate speech” laws.

burningjanhusHate Speech Laws Revisited

by David Petteys

ACT! For America, 5280 Coalition

Hate speech laws originated during debates in the United Nations immediately after World War Two. At the time, it was the Soviet Bloc versus Western Europe and the United States. The Soviets wanted “hate speech laws” to suppress the criticism of their totalitarian system as well as the calls for greater democracy. Their excuse was: “We cannot allow fascists to speak lest it lead to violence “. The same language is being used today.

Although the Communist totalitarian governments have disappeared, (at least we used to think so), the legacy of the notion that it is up to government to regulate speech remains.

Initially, “Hate Speech” laws addressed anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. But now the reach of these laws has steadily expanded to include any issue, provided its supporters have the political clout to influence legislatures.

Global warming advocates, homosexuals and Muslims are all demanding laws to protect them from “insult” and criticism. Priests and pastors have been arrested and prosecuted for preaching Christian doctrine that” hurts the feelings” of homosexuals[1]. Global warming skeptics are silenced.[2]

The Muslims are a particular case in point. They know they can’t confront our First Amendment directly. So what they are doing is drilling down into the definitions of words inside the laws: specifically, the definition of “incitement”.

Traditionally “incitement” resided in the content of speech or writing. The Muslims are working to refocus “incitement” from content to consequence. If I were a Ku Klux Klan leader addressing my followers, and I advocated that they march to another section of town and burn down houses, that would comprise speech with content that directly advocated violence.

But the Muslim strategy is more insidious.

Let us now move to the definition of “Hate Speech” in Forums such as “The Rabat Plan of Action”[3] (RPA). This was a document produced at a workshop put on by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) that met in Rabat, Morocco in October of 2012. The UN appears to have convened the Conference at the behest of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), mindful of its funding and its large voting bloc of 56 states plus the Palestinian Authority.

The subtitle of the document (“Conclusions and recommendations emanating from the four regional expert workshops organised by OHCHR, in 2011, and adopted by experts in Rabat, Morocco on 5 October 2012”) refers to the plan as adopted by “experts” without any disclosure of who these “experts” are. Within this document there is a six part “threshold test” to give “guidance” to law enforcement. The final test is “Likelihood, including imminence”. To quote:

“The action advocated through incitement speech does not have to be committed for that speech to amount to a crime. Nevertheless some degree of risk of resulting harm must be identified.”[4]

Thus, speech that “might” hurt someone’s feelings, or “might” lead to “discrimination or intolerance” becomes a criminal offense! Yet the argument that such speech “might lead to violence” has not been substantiated.[5]

Next, the Muslims claim the right to violence against anyone who “insults” the Prophet or Islam:

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.”[6]

Therefore, Muslims hold that any speech that they deem an “insult” is illegal “hate speech” because it would trigger the violence that they themselves threaten and guarantee! It makes no difference that we have the constitutional right to say what we want to say, including criticism of Islam.

Islam is mostly a political movement, and not separate from religion, as the Muslims themselves assert. Yet they hold:

  • That since it is a “religion” it is beyond criticism and off the table. Any criticism is “insulting Islam”
  • And we guarantee any such criticism will trigger violence. Therefore, under the guidelines of the RPA the “likelihood and imminence of harm” renders the speech illegal!

This neatly finesses the First Amendment. Sadly, Western authorities are buying into this! It codifies into law the “battered wife syndrome” with its “blame the victim” premise.

Read more at Gates of Vienna


hhby :

Recently, the Obama Administration announced that it would transfer its oversight of internet domain management to a yet-to-be-named international multi-stakeholder.  Many are concerned that this will lead to the suppression of speech in capitulation to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and other free speech tyrants.  And though some on the left insist that these concerns amount to nothing more than alarmist folly, the concessions have already begun.

The internet originated in America, initially launched as a government experiment in networks.  Over a period of two decades, it grew to include researchers and think tanks.  In 1992, the “network of networks” opened its doors to the commercial world, and the internet as we know it today was birthed.

A global system of domain management was needed.  Someone had to keep a list of domain names and assign them numbers for internet users worldwide.  This had to be done by a central body in order to prevent multiple individuals, organizations or other entities from winding up with duplicative domain names, causing confusion.

Initially, domain management was conducted informally. Then, in 1998, the Department of Commerce (DoC) recognized ICANN, a California-based non-profit organization, to perform this function.  In a cooperative arrangement, the DoC’s National Telecommunications Information Agency (NTIA) would retain some minor administrative tasks regarding internet management, but would also have a critical oversight function over ICANN to ensure that the internet is free, secure and stable.

NTIA’s contract with ICANN is set to expire in September of 2015.  On March 14, 2014, the Obama Administration announced that it would decline its option to renew the contract and instead allow ICANN oversight to transfer to the “global multi-stake holder community”.

Despite some alarm on the right that ICANN will fall into the hands of China, Russia or the UN, both ICANN and the NTIA have been clear that they will not agree to transfer oversight responsibilities to any government entity or to the United Nations.  What is not clear is what entity is qualified to assume this function or whether ICANN might wind up without an oversight body altogether.

Currently, there is bipartisan concern that US relinquishment of domain oversight will have negative consequences for freedom of speech.   The Wall Street Journal referred to it as “America’s internet surrender.”  Newt Gingrich warned that “every American should worry about Obama giving up control of the internet to an undefined group. This is very, very dangerous.”  Even former President Bill Clinton has been extremely vocal on the issue, proclaiming that “I just know that a lot of these so-called multi-stakeholders are really governments that want to gag people and restrict access to the Internet.”

Two legislative bills are now in the works to prevent the Obama Administration from moving oversight of ICANN out of US hands.  The first is a bill sponsored by Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, which would stall the transfer until the Government Accountability Office could do a study on the transfer’s impact.  The second bill, sponsored by Congressman Mike Kelly, would prohibit the administration from making the transfer without congressional approval.

Because ICANN has no control over website content, fraud or email spam, some on the left erroneously assume that this precludes the possibility of stifling free speech on the internet.

Others naively believe that if attempts at censorship through domain name assignments were to occur, it would be met by “stiff opposition” from domain registry operators and ISP’s…. as if this would be sufficient to stop the likes of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and other tyrannical free speech oppressors.

In truth, ICANN has already started to crack under the OIC’s pressure.

Read more at Front Page

The Real Agenda Behind the Push for “Islamophobia”

by Raheel Raza:

Islamists have been successful in building the Islamophobia industry: it diverts attention from activities they would probably prefer not be noticed, such as promoting sharia law in the West, stealth jihad, and a push to implement a global Islamic caliphate, among many others.

What is ironic and hypocritical about the Islamophobia hype from members of the OIC is their double-standards when it comes to minorities in their own lands. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, Mauritania, Nigeria, Sudan, Bangladesh, Iraq, Kuwait, Syria, the Palestinian Authority and Iran are among OIC members that have appalling human rights violations against minorities.

Islamophobia has almost become a fad for a certain group of academics and Muslims across North America. 2013 was a bumper year for Islamophobia conferences in America and abroad.

  • “Islam, Political Islam, and Islamophobia: an International Conference” was held at Indiana University, Bloomington on March 29-30, 2013.
  • Islam, Politics and Islamophobia,” an international conference of the Ottoman and Modern Turkish Studies Chair, took place at the Indiana Memorial Union Faculty.
  • International Conference on Islamophobia: Law & Media“, hosted in Istanbul, was organized by the Directorate General of Press and Information, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and under the auspices of Mr. Bulent Arinc, the Deputy Prime Minister of Turkey, and took place in September, 2013. The website starts off by stating “Islamophobia, which is a term used to express the groundless fear and intolerance of Islam and Muslims, has swept the world, becoming detrimental to international peace especially in recent years.”
  • The IWIC’s 2013 conference on “Women in Islam,” in Atlanta, Georgia from November 22 to 24, used the theme, “Eradicating Islamophobia.”

One would think that four conferences in one year would be enough for the International group of speakers to discuss, debate and hash out that, in their view, there is an epidemic of Muslim-bashing taking place in North America.

However it seems that these are not enough to complete the agenda of the Islamists. Therefore this year the University of California, Berkeley is hosting its fifth annual International conference on the study of Islamophobia, from April 14 to 19, 2014.

It is frightening to realize that this is their fifth such conference; the website states, “the obsessive pre-occupation of everything related to Islam and Muslims, congressional and parliamentary hearings criminalizing Muslims and violations of their civil liberties and rights, domestic and international surveillance programs exclusively on Muslims and Arabs, extra-judicial use of force on Muslims and Arabs, interventions, military campaigns, and policies rationalizing its exercise, are, in essence, what we see and bear witness in the Muslim world. These are the direct effects of latent Islamophobia.”

University of California, Berkeley is home to Professor Hatem Bazian, who directs the school’s “Islamophobia Research and Documentation Project,” and teaches a course titled, “Asian American Studies 132AC: Islamophobia.”

Seriously? A course on Islamophobia? Recently, Professor Bazian told 100 students in his class to tweet about Islamophobia — all being done to promote an agenda of “victimhood.”


UC-Berkeley Professor Hatem Bazian speaks on “Promoting Islamophobia” at the Occupy AIPAC Summit in 2012. (Image source: YouTube screenshot)

Obviously the Islamophobia conferences, the courses and the tweeting professor must find support for their self-serving propaganda somewhere. Part of this support comes from the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), an international organization consisting of 57 Arab and Muslim member states, including the entity of the Palestinian Authority. The organization states that it is “the collective voice of the Muslim world” and works to “safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony.” The term “Muslim world” is offensive: no one speaks for all Muslims, and for the OIC to consider itself the “voice of the Muslim world” is dictatorial in the extreme.

No surprise, then, that on their website they have an Islamophobia Observatory, where they mention their support of Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, adopted in 2011, on “Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief”.

What is ironic and hypocritical about all the Islamophobia hype by members of the OIC is their double standards when it comes to minorities in their own lands. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, Mauritania, Nigeria, Sudan, Bangladesh, Iraq, Kuwait, Syria, the Palestinian Authority and Iran are among OIC members that have appalling human rights violations against minorities, and are routinely ignored under UNHRC Resolution 16/18.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Also see:

Free Speech Alert: Islam Rips Ever Deeper Into Europe

dont-speakBy :

As a wild beast would pull its prey closer to guard it from other predators, Islam is sinking its barbed paws ever deeper into the heart of the European Union (EU). Right under the radar of the EU, the European Parliament is considering a proposal that requires the direct surveillance of any EU citizen suspected of being “intolerant.”

The proposal is called, “European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance”, and it intends to compel the governments of all 28 EU member states to create “special administrative units” to monitor individuals or groups expressing views that these self-styled sentinels of European multiculturalism assess to be “intolerant”… an unprecedented threat to free speech in Europe. European citizens are already habitually punished for expressing the “wrong” views, specifically concerning Islam.

Remember, it’s all those citizens “Suspected” of being “intolerant”…I guess it depends on who looks through Allah’s microscope…

For those of us who have our coffee every morning, this was predictable. First we had the establishing of an OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) office in Brussels in June 2013. This placed the influential 57 Muslim country bloc (actually, 56 sovereign states, plus the Palestinian Authority [given State status in the OIC]) at an in-your-face position to the European Parliament.

This is a doubling down of their efforts to control free speech in Europe…and the West. Something the OIC has been working arduously to accomplish at the UN. Since 1999 the OIC has attempted to have the issue of religious defamation included in UN Human Rights Council resolutions. And they’ve been making progress with elitists and fools (as if there’s a difference).

What the Sharia machine of the OIC fails to realize is…the Leftist World media/leaders, the little Islamic helper monkeys walking around with eyes wide shut…are not the only kafir out here. There is a growing number of infidels with eyes wide OPEN, who know what they’ve swept under their magic prayer rugs: Sharia Islamic Law forbids questions or criticism of Islam (including the Quran & Muhammed) of any kind. The idea of “questions or criticism” is intentionally vague and is subjective to the offended Mohammedan. It’s considered blasphemy whether it be committed by a Muslim OR non-Muslim. Sharia also calls for severe punishment, even death, for the offense.

Read more at Clash Daily

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s “Islamophobia” Campaign against Freedom

Dr. Mark Durie

Dr. Mark Durie

By Andrew E. Harrod:

The “quite formidable” Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) “has really escaped the notice of a lot of foreign policy observers,” religious freedom scholar Nina Shea noted at a January 17, 2014, Hudson Institute panel.  To correct this deficiency, Shea moderated an important presentation on the OIC’s stealth jihad against freedom by her “old friend” Mark Durie, an Anglican theologian and human rights activist.

As Durie’s PowerPoint presentation available online noted, the 1969-founded OIC headquartered in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, contains 57 mostly Muslim-majority states (including “Palestine”).  The second largest international organization after the United Nations (UN), the OIC is a “major global voting block” at the UN and unique in being the “only such organization devoted to advancing a religion.”  The OIC is “largely funded by Saudi Arabia,” Shea noted, having contributed $30 million to the 2008 budget, far greater than the next largest contribution of $3 million from Kuwait.

Ominously, the OIC has been “lobbying assiduously” since about 2000 against “Islamophobia,” Shea observed.  “Islamophobia” was analogous to “homophobia,” Durie’s PowerPoint elaborated, an analogy previously noted by Islamic sharia law expert Stephen Coughlin and analyzed by this author.  A “[n]arrow reading” of this “deep-seated and irrational fear about Islam or Muslims” would encompass only prejudices such as the “xenophobic aversion to Muslims” of some.

A “[b]road reading” by the OIC and others, though, condemns “all expressions of opposition to or disapproval of Islam” as “irrational and manifestations of prejudice.”  “Islamophobia is a deliberate scheme to distort the teachings and principles of peace and moderation engrained in Islam,” the PowerPoint quoted from the OIC’s 2013 Sixth OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia.  “9/11 came as a long awaited opportunity,” the report specifies, “for the anti-Islam and anti-Muslim elements in the West to set in motion their well orchestrated plan to slander Islam and target Muslims by equating terror with Islam and Muslims.”  Such bigots were “just hanging out” and waiting for Al Qaeda’s September 11, 2001, attacks, Durie mocked.

The OIC and its recently retired Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu assume that the “Islamic religion is under attack,” thereby posing an “atmosphere of threat to the world,” Durie stated.  Yet American Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) hate crime statistics in Durie’s PowerPoint belie this Islamic victimhood, with attacks upon Jews far outstripping those on Muslims in 2012 (674 to 130).  Western states in the past have also often aided their Muslim minorities and Muslim countries, such as when the British government donated land for the United Kingdom’s first mosque, London Central Mosque.

The “Islamophobia” campaign, moreover, manifests the distorted subordination of human rights to Islamic sharia law present throughout the OIC’s 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.  Therein rights such as free speech may not contradict the Koranic phrase “what is good” according to Islam.  Similar distorted sectarianism is evident in the juxtaposition of OIC documents on “Combating Islamophobia” internationally and OIC-supported UN resolutions such as 16/18 in the Human Rights Council advocating religious equality.

Read more at Religious Freedom Coalition

Also see: Video: Mark Durie on the OIC and Free Speech Implications of a Proposed Ban on “Islamophobia (counterjihadreport.com)

Video: Mark Durie on the OIC and Free Speech Implications of a Proposed Ban on “Islamophobia

oic conferenceHudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom:

(Very good Q&A begins at 34:00)

“Islamophobia” is a widely used yet vague and controversial term referring to anti-Muslim bigotry. In recent years, identifying, monitoring, reporting on, and working to ban Islamophobia worldwide has been a major focus of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

The OIC is an international body of 56 member states that is based in Saudi Arabia and active within the United Nations. While the United States has formally recognized its work in the past – US ambassadors have observed its sessions and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton co-chaired some of its meetings – American awareness of the organization remains scant.

In 2007, the OIC began issuing regular “observatory” reports on Islamophobia, and since 2009 has published monthly bulletins that cite primarily Western examples of Islamophobia.

Is Islamophobia a serious problem, or is the term itself an ideological cudgel designed to incite fear and criminalize dissent? Dr. Mark Durie discussed these and other basic questions related to the OIC’s efforts to ban Islamophobia. Click here for his PowerPoint.

Mark Durie is an Anglican pastor, theologian, author, and human rights activist. A fellow of the Australian Academy for the Humanities, he is a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum, a Research Fellow at the Centre for the Study of Islam and Other Faiths at the Melbourne School of Theology, and the Director of the Institute for Spiritual Awareness.

Hudson Institute Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Religious Freedom Nina Shea moderated this discussion.

For more videos of Mark Durie go here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL56A31DB2DE8D692D and http://vimeo.com/search?q=mark+durie

The U.K. aims to become the “unrivaled center for Islamic Finance” in the West.

sukukBy Jerry Gordon:

Word came from UK Prime Minister David Cameron of a plan to float a 200 Million Sterling ($324 Million) Sukuk issue next year. This would be the first Shariah compliant sovereign debt issued by a Western government. The Financial Times noted the comments of Chancellor of Exchequer Osborne who trumpeted the announcement as making the City of London the “unrivaled center for Islamic Finance”. The Wall Street Journal, in an article, “U.K. Considers Islamic Bond Sale” reported:

Treasury officials are working on details for a potential offering of Sukuk – bond-like instruments that comply with Shariah law –that could be launched early next year. The issue would raise about 200 million Sterling ($324 million) according to a statement from the Prime Minister’s office.

‘This government wants Britain to become the first Western sovereign to issue an Islamic bond, “Prime Minister David Cameron is expected to say in a speech at the World Islamic Economic Forum in London on Tuesday.

Turkey issued its first $1.5 billion Sukuk in September 2012 [at the urging of the Islamic Development Bank, of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation]. Tesco PLC and HSBC Holdings PLC have issued Sukuk bonds through subsidiaries in the Middle East and Southeast Asia.

Some $27 Billion Sukuk have been issued globally so far in 2013,  less than the  $40 billion in 2012.

The London Stock Exchange is also planning to launch an Islamic market index that will enable investors to identify companies that comply with Islamic business practices, the prime minister’s office said.

Islamic financial principles prohibit lenders from receiving interest. Sukuk offer fixed payments based on the profit generated by an underlying asset, but include no interest. The concept behind the Sukuk was explained in this Guardian article,“Could principles of Islamic finance feed into a sustainable economic system?”


The U.K. announced plans five years ago to become the first Western government to issue bonds compliant with Islamic law only to disband the initiative in 2011 when the Debt Management Office said the securities don’t “provide value for money.” Shariah Finance Watch in a March 2013 post identified the growing use of Sukuk flotations as a means of forcing Shariah compliance in international financial markets. It noted:

1. Islamic issuers increasingly issue Sukuk rather than conventional debt instruments. Therefore, creditors who want to invest in the credit markets are compelled to invest their money in a Shariah-compliant way.

2. On the flipside, Islamic investors who invest in the credit markets are increasingly insisting on Shariah-compliance, thus compelling issuers/borrowers to issue Sukuk instead of conventional credit instruments, such as debentures. This is happening in the sovereign debt markets, as well as the corporate debt markets. The power wielded by oil-rich Islamic nations, institutional and individual investors makes this form of Islamic imperialism to impose Shariah-compliance globally potentially very powerful.

We wonder who are the Shariah experts that will advise the London Stock Exchange in developing the index of compliance with alleged Islamic business practice?  And how much of a split of the profits in these Sukuk issues goes to fund Zakat, Muslim charity, one purpose of which is to follow the way of Allah, Jihad?

Read more at New English Review

Saudi Arabia, the UN and the OIC

by Lawrence A. Franklin:

Saudi Arabia’s rejection of a term on the UN Security Council likely reflects its view of itself as helping to establish an alternate international order based on Sharia law. The 56-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation is already the largest international organization after the UN. For Islamists, the UN, like all secular international organizations, lacks legitimacy.

A stated Islamist goal, to replace Western civilization’s liberal democratic order with a Sharia-governed Ummah[community of Muslims], now seems to involve an effort to delegitimize Western international organizations, as seen this week by Saudi Arabia’s refusing a seat on the United Nations Security Council. Saudi Arabia’s refusal likely reflects its view of itself as helping to establish an alternative international order based on Sharia law. For Islamists, the United Nations, like all secular international organs, lacks legitimacy.

OIC vs. UN

The Islamic world threw down the gauntlet to the secular international order in 1990 when it drafted an alternative declaration of human rights, the Kairos Document, based on the Sharia law. The 56 countries of what was then called the Organization of Islamic Conference, since renamed the Organization of Islamic Cooperation [OIC], criticized the UN’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights as being insensitive to religious concepts of the non-Western world. In Saudi Arabia’s UN Ambassador Abdallah al-Mouallimi’s October 13, 2013 statement, explaining the sudden and unprecedented rejection of a seat on the Security Council, he cites Saudi Arabia’s “historical responsibilities toward its people, Arab and Islamic nations as well as toward the peoples aspiring for peace and stability in the world.” The Saudi explanation continues by enumerating a litany of UN failures to solve problems in the Mideast. This statement underscores Saudi Arabia’s role as the capital of a shadow-caliphate alternative to the current liberal democratic international order.


Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (L), Secretary-General of the OIC Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu (2nd L), Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu (3rd L) and EU High Representative Catherine Ashton (4th L) participate in the OIC conference on “Building on the Consensus” in Istanbul, Turkey, on July 15, 2011. (State Department photo)

Riyadh’s sentiment was preceded by last summer’s rebuttal — which revealed the global scope of Islamist objectives — by the Pakistani Taliban fugitive, Adnan Rashid[1], to the UN address by the heroic Pakistani Malala Yousafzai (then 15 years old), shot by the Taliban for having asked for women’s education. In a letter, Rashid denounced Malala’s naiveté for placing trust in an international organization that he claimed is a tool of the West with which to punish Islamic nations.

Rashid’s riposte, however, has an unwritten corollary. He and his fellow Islamists bear allegiance to an alternate network that exists in parallel with the institutions of the current international order, the most visible symbol of which is the OIC.[2] The OIC, which promotes Islamic social, economic, and political solidarity, is, in fact, already the second-largest international organization after the UN. It has not only attempted to negotiate disputes among Islamic factions in Muslim-majority countries, such as Iraq and Somalia, but has also helped to mediate disputes between non-Muslim-majority states and their Islamic minorities, as in the Philippines and Thailand. In adjudicating these disputes, the OIC has employed, as the legal frame of reference, the principles of Sharia law rather than international law.

One has only to examine the flag and the logo of the OIC to realize its ambition. A crescent moon encompasses the entire globe. The earth rests on a sea of green, the color of Islam, with the Kaa’ba in the center of the globe. The flag resembles the national banner of the al-Saud Kingdom (the only country among all the embassies in Washington D.C. that, on 9/11, did not lower its flag). The OIC, however, is just one of several all-Islamic multinational organs that parallel secular international community structures. There is also, for example, the International Association of Islamic Banks and several other organs for cooperation, such as the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and the Islamic States Broadcasting Organization.

Jihadi terrorists, as a matter of targeting policy, strike at representative symbols of the existing international order. One of the initial targets of Iraq-based al-Qaeda terrorists was the United Nations Special Commission in Iraq.[3] Pakistani and Nigerian Muslim terrorists have routinely assassinated international volunteers, even those working to eradicate deadly diseases such as polio. The most extreme assassinations have occurred in Sharia-governed northern Nigeria and Pushtun tribal areas in northwestern Pakistan, where, in both places, the murders closely followed sermons that vociferously denounced ongoing inoculation campaigns. Any form of assistance from international organizations is rejected by Muslim extremists as part of a Western conspiracy to influence Muslims to abandon their faith. Inoculations against polio, for instance, have been described by Islamic extremists as a plot to sterilize Muslim children.[4] It is more likely, however, that the radical clerics who urge believers to renounce such aid efforts are more concerned about losing control of their constituency.

Read more at Gatestone Institute