Posts

Teach-Organize-Resist

College professors organize national ‘Teach-In’ to challenge ‘Trumpism,’ ‘Islamophobia’

“Islamophobia” is a propaganda term designed to intimidate people into being afraid to resist jihad and Islamic supremacism. But that doesn’t faze today’s enlightened Leftist academics:

“On that day, we intend to organize against the proposed expansion of state violence targeting people of color, undocumented people, queer communities, women, Muslims, and many others. On that day, we intend to resist the institutionalization of ideologies of separation and subordination, including white supremacy, misogyny, homophobia, Islamophobia, and virulent nationalism.”

State violence? Who is proposing any state violence? Why, no one, of course, but the Left is in the midst of a hysterical meltdown of Vesuvian proportions over the prospect of the inauguration of Trump on Friday. Meanwhile, imagine how surprised these professors will be when their Muslim friends start to force their women into hijabs and niqabs and start to throw the members of “queer communities” off the tops of tall buildings.

“College Professors Organize National ‘Teach-In’ to Challenge ‘Trumpism,’” by Susan Berry, Breitbart, January 15, 2017:

Some 25 colleges and universities – many of them public – have answered a call by professors at UCLA to use their regular class time to “teach, organize, and resist” what they view as the discriminatory political agenda of President-elect Donald Trump.

Slated for Wednesday, January 18, the teach-in, dubbed #J18, is taking place between the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday and Trump’s inauguration. The event’s planners say:

Let it be known that on #J18 and beyond, universities, colleges, and high schools refused to bear silent witness to the politics of hate and fear; that in these times, these places of teaching and learning not only served as a sanctuary for its students and workers but also stood up to proclaim the power of knowledge on the frontlines of social justice.

On January 18, the professors are calling upon their colleagues to “Teach, Organize, Resist,” and “affirm the role of critical thinking and academic knowledge in challenging Trumpism.”

They continue:

On that day, we intend to teach about the agendas and policies of the new administration, be it the proposed dismantling of economic and environmental regulations or the threatened rollback of the hard-won rights that form the fragile scaffolding of American democracy. On that day, we intend to organize against the proposed expansion of state violence targeting people of color, undocumented people, queer communities, women, Muslims, and many others. On that day, we intend to resist the institutionalization of ideologies of separation and subordination, including white supremacy, misogyny, homophobia, Islamophobia, and virulent nationalism.

In addition to UCLA, universities participating in the event to date include: American University, Washington, D.C.; University of California, Berkeley; University of Cincinnati; University of Dayton; University of Minnesota; New York University; Princeton University; Texas State University; University of Kentucky; Vanderbilt University; and University of Washington….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Where are anti-Trump marchers defending women against abuse by Sharia-adherent Muslims?

US professor says journalists must not call jihad attacks on Israeli soldiers “terrorism”

islamophobia-sf-bus

Those pushing ‘Islamophobia’ are advocating Sharia law, oppression of free speech & hamper public safety

People who push the false Islamophobia narrative are advocating Sharia law, trampling other people’s free speech rights, and hurting public safety.

Approximately 1.7 million Muslims in America believe Sharia is superior to the United States Constitution, and approximately 800,000 Muslims in America believe violent jihad would be justified to make Sharia superior.

Failure to confront this issue could have dire consequences for our freedoms.

Organizations with links to the Muslim Brotherhood like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Islamic Circle of North America(ICNA), and Muslim Student Association (MSA) together with the leftist media and educational institutions who empower them, are using grade school humiliation tactics of name calling and social stigmatization to intimidate people away from criticizing Islam.

Those who use the term Islamophobe to label and stigmatize people who criticize Islam are enforcing a top tenet of Sharia law.  Muslims are instructed by the Quran to strongly oppose anyone who criticizes Islam even if that means brutal violence.  Quran 5:33 states “Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam.”

Many Americans personal and professional lives have been “maimed” for criticizing Islam on social media and in the marketplace and classroom. The consequences of being labeled an Islamophobe can cost a person their employment, educational opportunities, business relationships, and friendships.

The threat of encountering such personal costs for being labeled an Islamophobe are having a chilling impact on the rights of Americans guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.   The fear of being labeled a racist or Islamophobe has intimidated scores of Americans to forego saying anything about Islam. Such stifling of free speech impairs public safety and helps the Islamist political agenda to go unnoticed and therefore not countered.

It appears that people who push the Islamophobe false narrative believe their First Amendment Right is superior to the First Amendment Right of the people they stigmatize as Islamophobes.  They know that their punitive name calling tactics can “maim” people’s socio-economic status.  Consequently, they know that many people will give up their free speech right to criticize Islam in order to avoid such “maiming” consequences.  The Islamist and leftist progressive will to win the political correctness game at the cost of “maiming” people’s socio-economic lives indicates that they believe their speech is superior to Americans who express legitimate concerns regarding Islam.

This superiority of rights is documented by the statements that CAIR leaders have made. Omar Ahmad, Chairman and founder of the Council on American Islamic Relations, told a Muslim crowd that “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”  Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branch, told a crowd at a Muslim rally in Austin, Texas in 2013 that “if we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land.” 

The Center for Security Policy commissioned a poll in May 2015 which found that 51 percent of Muslims in America preferred Sharia courts over the legal system governed by the U.S. Constitution.  The poll also found that nearly 25 percent of Muslims in America believe the use of violent jihad was justified in establishing Sharia.

Pew Research reports that there are an estimated 3.3 million Muslims living in America. Therefore, based upon the Center for Security Policy poll results approximately 1.7 million Muslims in America believe Sharia is superior to the United States Constitution and approximately 800,000 Muslims in America believe violent jihad would be justified to make Sharia superior.

Islamophobia campaigns attempt to discredit prominent, safety conscious Americans who voice support for vigorous efforts to counter terrorism and the Islamist agenda.  Islamophobia propaganda and “maiming” tactics have caused people to remain silent regarding situations that they have observed that could pose a public safety risk from terrorism.

Fear of being branded an Islamophobe played a role in suppressing communications that may have had different results for the lives of thirty-six people in San Bernardino and 102 people in Orlando.  Townhall.com issued a report titled “Neighbor Didn’t Report Suspicious Activity of San Bernardino Killers For Fear of Being Called Racist.”  The Townhall article by Katie Pavlich on December 03, 2015 reported in part “According to a local Los Angeles news report, a neighbor of San Bernardino massacre suspects Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik didn’t report suspicious activity at their apartment for fear of being accused of racism.” Floridatoday.com issued a report titled “Mateen’s employer ignored complaints about his death threats because he was a Muslim.”  The Floridatoday.com article reported in part “Gilroy, a former Fort Pierce police officer, said Mateen frequently made homophobic and racial comments. Gilroy said he complained to his employer several times but it did nothing because he was Muslim.”

Many in the liberal left media and educational institutions appear to also follow and advocate for other tenets of Sharia law which instruct Muslims to hate Christians and Jews.  Quran 5:51“O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you – then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.” Quran 9:30 “The Jews and Christians are perverts, fight them.”

The leftist media and educational institutions are complying with and enforcing a top tenet of Sharia law with their Islamophobia propaganda.  Such “maiming” propaganda scares Americans away from reporting suspected Islamic terrorism and thwarts the sharing of facts regarding the Islamist political agenda to subvert the United States Constitution in favor of Sharia law.

EDITORS NOTE: The Florida Family Association is spearheading numerous projects with the goal of countering Islamophobia propaganda.  These projects include countering CAIR’s “maiming” of Americans who are brave enough to oppose Islamism and countering the Huffington Post’s proliferation of Islamophobia propaganda.

free speech woman islam

VIDEO: On the War against the First Amendment

The ground we’ve lost during the Obama years — and the dangerous consequences for national security. I’ve posted this video before, but here is a transcript as well.

Below are the video and transcript to Robert Spencer’s speech at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s 2016 Restoration Weekend. The event was held Nov. 10th-13th at the Breakers Resort in Palm Beach, Florida.

Robert Spencer: Thank you very much.  It’s great to be here on this occasion.  I’m here year after year and this is certainly the happiest Restoration Weekend I’ve been to and very happy to say we won’t have Chick Nixon to kick around anymore.  Come on.  The fact is that Hillary Clinton’s defeat is a very, very serious victory not only for the Second Amendment, but for the First and this is something that has been insufficiently appreciated in all the commentary before the election and after.  Donald Trump, of course, he went after her many times saying Hillary Clinton is against the Second Amendment, she’s going to stop the sale of lawful weaponry in every way she possibly can, but he never spoke about the threat that she posed to the First Amendment and that is an ongoing threat and a still existing threat and it’s very important to bear that in mind because even though she was defeated, this threat has not gone away.  The left is in a full court press and a year’s long effort to destroy the First Amendment and essentially to criminalize any point of view that is not their own and this is a struggle that they are going to continue.  Now, there are many, many facets of this.  One is, of course, the most notable one I should say, is the organization of Islamic cooperation, which is 57 Islamic governments around the world, 56 states and the Palestinian Authority, the largest voting block at the United Nations, and they of course for years now since the publication of the Danish Cartoons of Mohammed in 2006 they have been working to restrict the freedom of speech and to compel Western states to restrict the freedom of speech at the UN.

I know a lot of you are familiar with that effort and that they have, under the guise of what they call “incitement to religious hatred,” been trying to compel Western governments to criminalize essentially criticism of Islam.  Obviously, when you talk about incitement through religious hatred, any kind of incitement, unless it’s absolutely direct and explicit, is a subjective judgment in the first place.  Secondly, nobody cares when people put crucifixes in jars of urine or mock Israel and Judaism.  Nobody cares about those things.  They only care about religious hatred in an Islamic context, and the most insidious aspect of this endeavor, this initiative, is of course that any honest discussion of how Islamic Jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence is classified explicitly by the OIC as incitement to religious hatred.  So, what they want to do is criminalize any discussion of the motivating ideology behind Jihad terrorism and the goal of that, of course, is to enable Jihad terrorists to advance unopposed and unimpeded.

Now, this has been going on for years.  It’s been going on since the Bush Administration and the Bush Administration at the UN vetoed these initiatives every year, but then of course came Barack Hussein Obama and twice the United States signed on to these initiatives and actually cosponsored one with Egypt in 2009 and even more notoriously signed on to Resolution 1618 of the UN Human Rights Council, which once again called upon UN member states to criminalize incitement to religious hatred and then had a little asterisk going to a footnote explaining that yes, the UN understood that there were certain countries that had protection for the freedom of speech and they would have to devise other ways to implement this initiative that would not collide with their laws.  Now that was the most insidious aspect of the whole thing and Hillary Clinton explained what it was all about not long after that in a speech in Istanbul to the OIC. And she said, and I know many of you have heard this quote, many of you are very well aware of what she said in this, but I think that not many of you are aware of exactly how this initiative is proceeding.  What she said of course was that we value the freedom of expression, which she doesn’t, but she said that she did and that in light of protecting the freedom of expression as well as protecting religious sensibilities, in order to compel people not to do what we don’t want them to do, we have to resort to, she said, old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming. Remember when she said that?  This is exactly how the Western media has proceeded in order, essentially, not to criminalize, but to rule out of the realm of acceptable discourse any honest discussion of these issues.

What happened to Oleg in his presentation just now is actually a case in point.  He’s not facing a felony charge for using the wrong kind of glue.  C’mon, we weren’t born yesterday.  We know that if he had been putting up posters for the Palestinians there would have been no problem at George Mason University, but because he was putting up pro-Israel posters from the David Horowitz Freedom Center suddenly all these rules about glue kick in and he goes to jail.  Now, peer pressure and shaming is essentially a strategy that makes it impossible for us to discuss these matters because of exactly that kind of bias and favoritism.  Only one point of view is acceptable and any other point of view is something that we’re going to be shamed out of.  You can just think about how many times Trump supporters were mocked, ridiculed.

I read a piece by Paul Berman from December 2015.  I re-read it a few months ago.  I recommend that you find it and read it.  It was in Tablet Magazine and he explains how Trump gives his poorly educated, redneck racist supporters permission to hate.  Now what is that but peer pressure and shaming?  People read that in Tablet and they think, “Oh, well, I don’t want to be one of those.  I don’t want to have permission to hate.  I don’t want to be a racist redneck yahoo,” and so they’re shamed out of it. The objective, the goal is — I would hope that nobody was foolish enough to read that and think, “Oh, I better not support Donald Trump” — but the goal of it was to shame his supporters out of it and this is something that goes on. It manifests itself in all kinds of forms.  Of course, the primary vehicles for this peer pressure and shaming is the whole concept of hate speech.  Now, hate speech is really pretty straightforward.  If somebody is speaking hatefully and saying that you’re a terrible person, you ought to be killed, you ought to be beaten up, that’s pretty hateful, but hate speech as a concept, hate speech as something that ought to be a consideration in determining who gets a platform and who doesn’t is an entirely spurious fiction, an invention of the left in order to silence those with whom it disagrees in order to silence us.  That’s what hate speech is all about.

I was speaking a couple years ago at Cal Poly University in San Luis Obispo, wonderful little town, and very nice crowd and some very good questions during the presentation.  At one point I said that there was actually restriction on the freedom of speech on the Cal Poly campus and people said, “What? What are you talking about you racist, bigoted Islamophobe That’s not true,” and I said, “Well, take me as a case in point.  I’ve written all these books.  I’ve written a biography of Mohammed.  I’ve written a guide to the Quran.  Several studies of Jihad from various angles.  I guarantee you,” I said to the students, “that the point of view that I represent is not discussed in your classes on Middle East studies or Islam and if it is it is only discussed in order to be dismissed if not reviled outright,” and a young lady said, “Oh no, you’re wrong.  We did discuss your books.  We did discuss your work in a class that I just took.” And I said “Oh that’s very interesting.  What was your conclusion?” And she said, “Hate speech is not free speech.” That was the first time I heard that. Have you ever heard that?  Hate speech is not free speech.  This is an increasingly common slogan that is going to be used and is being used right now to shut us down.  What the young lady at Cal Poly was saying was that she had supposedly read my work and decided that it was hate speech and that hate speech in and of itself does not enjoy the protection that the freedom of speech ought to be given, that hate speech is not speech that we ought to respect even to the extent of saying I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.  And so I said, “Okay, that’s very interesting.”

I asked the young lady this following question.  Then who gets to decide because I don’t think what I’m doing is hate speech, unless the Quran is and I quote it, but you think it’s hate speech.  Now, which one of us has the right to determine what’s hate speech? What governing authority, to whom should be entrusted this governing authority so that we know what hate speech is and rule it out of free speech protection? And she said, “Well, the relevant governing authority. That’s not important for this discussion. That would be something that would be determined by Congress and the president.” And I asked her, “You really want to give them that kind of power?  Do you realize that to give anybody the right to determine what hate speech is and silence it on that basis is a tool of the powerful to silence the powerless and the tool of the tyrants to silence their critics?” And she said, “That’s just a Hobbesian argument against the powerful.” And I thought, “Oh, now I’m stretched because I had to remember okay who’s Hobbes and what does she mean by that?” I haven’t been to college in 30 years, but of course she meant Thomas Hobbes, who wrote Leviathan. I had to look it up and Leviathan is a political treaties from the 17th century that posits that the only thing that can save us, because we’re all sort of brutal and violent and selfish and vicious, the only thing that can save us from an all-out war of all against all is a strong government that keeps everybody in line. And there are some countries you can say that’s true about, but what she was saying was that I was manifesting an alarming lack of trust and that really I ought to just relax and let the relevant authorities determine what is hate speech and quietly go to jail with Oleg.

But the thing is, of course, that she only thinks that because her position is the dominant one that’s in power.  The problem that she manifests however, the problem of which she is an example, is the fact that there’s a whole generation of young people who are growing up with the idea that there is a concept of hate speech and that we are it and that we are way beyond the pale and ultimately to be criminalized and this is happening.  As a matter of fact, no less a constitutional authority that Chris Cuomo articulated this last year when we dared to try to stand up for the freedom of speech in Garland, Texas and, of course, in January 2015, 13 people who had dared to draw Mohammed were murdered by Islamic Jihadis in Paris and in response to that we thought we have two choices.  When they say we’re going to kill you for drawing Mohammed you either have to draw Mohammed or you have to submit and say yes you can get me to do what you want by threatening to kill me, and so you can manipulate me into silence and slavery. And so to stand up for freedom and for freedom of speech of course we had a Mohammed art exhibit and cartoon contest in Garland, Texas. Jihadis attacked it and there was a great deal of media coverage there for a while about it at which time Chris Cuomo actually stated that the First Amendment does not apply to hate speech and what we were doing was hate speech and therefore it was ruled out.

Now, actually, if you read the First Amendment it doesn’t say anything about hate speech nor is there any legal thing in United States law called hate speech.  There is no such concept because of course what’s hateful to you is not hateful to me.  One man’s ceiling is another man’s floor.  Everybody has a different evaluation of what is true and good right and what is evil and hateful for that matter, but just the advance of this idea, that Chris Cuomo could think that, a major commentator on a major network, that in itself indicates how deep the rot has gone and how far advanced this concept is, that there is an idea of hate speech and that we are it.  Now, the peer pressure and shaming advances of course by charging us with this hate speech and recently — there are so many examples of this I could talk all evening (I promise I won’t) — but there are so many examples of this where opinions that are perfectly valid and have a claim to truth and in an earlier and saner age would have been evaluated on their merits are instead dismissed as hate speech, labeled as such and that is all part of this overall initiative of peer pressure and shaming that Hillary Clinton told us they were going to do.

One example of course is our friends at the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group that actually did valid work in the ’60s for civil rights, but now has completely gone off the rails and become a tool for the left. The Southern Poverty Law Center recently, as you may know, issued a report on the 15 top anti-Muslim extremists in the United States, which included of course David Horowitz and me, Frank Gaffney, Pamela Gellar, many others, 10 or 12 others obviously and two of the people on the list of these anti-Muslim extremists were a reformist Muslim from the UK, Maajid Nawaz and the ex-Muslim from Somalia, the famous freedom fighter Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  Now, this made this all very interesting because Frank, David and I and the others we’re used to being defamed in this way, although this was a new one.  To call us anti-Muslim extremists, if you think about that for a minute, what does the Obama Administration call terrorists?  Extremists.  Their whole program to fight Jihad terrorism doesn’t say “Jihad” or “Islam” because that’s forbidden in the Obama Administration and it’s called “countering violent extremism.”  So, to call us extremists the SPLC is saying we are terrorists.  We are the equivalent of Baghdadi, the ISIS Caliph and Osama Bin Laden and Al Laki and all the rest of them.  We are just the flipside of the coin.  Now actually it’s true.  David and I do plan to fly a plane into a high-rise building later on tonight, but in the meantime, I do think that that is an absurd categorization, but what happened in the wake of this was that Maajid Nawaz, in particular because he is very prominent on the left and particularly popular among the atheist critics of Islam and Jihad, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and so on, the atheists’ spokesmen who have actually spoken about Islam, there was a petition to get Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan off the list and of course the implication was it was perfectly fine for us racists and bigots to be on it, but now they had crossed the line.  Now, there was a certain touching naïveté to this.

You see, these supporters of Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali were thinking that those 13, those terrible deplorables, they belong on the list, but our friends, they don’t.  These people, no, they’re just unjustly maligning Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan.  They’re taking their statements out of context and misrepresenting them.  They are claiming guilt by association, indicating that they have associations with unsavory types and they’re questioning their motives and so on.  Well, what do you think happened to the rest of us?  This is just what the SPLC and its allied groups have been doing to us for years.  It’s exactly the same thing.  It’s all been a large-scale effort at peer pressure and shaming, making it so that we are toxic so that nobody else wants to speak out in the same way because they don’t want to be toxic and the whole idea of speaking out is stigmatized so that everybody is mute and silent as the Jihad advances.  It’s very well thought out.  I’ve really got to give them credit.  It’s a very skillful plan.  It’s very clever and very imaginative and deeply evil, but there’s always a silver lining, and the uproar about Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan being included among us anti-Muslim extremists it woke up a lot of people who I think had no idea that the SPLC is just a propaganda machine, but it is part of this propaganda machine that is working to extend the peer pressure and shaming to every honest critic who explores the motivating ideology of the Jihad terrorists and so we see it in all kinds of contexts.  Quite aside from the Southern Poverty Law Center.  We even see it at ESPN.

Now, ESPN is where I go when I want to not think about this, but it intruded even there.  Of course you probably know that Curt Schilling, the great baseball pitcher, after his pitching years were over he joined ESPN as a sports analyst of some kind.  I guess he probably talked about baseball and Curt Schilling actually is a conservative.  He now has a conservative talk show in the Boston area and he’s got very sound views on pretty much everything as far as I know and he actually dared to tweet out on his Twitter account some statements about Islam, most notoriously one where he said you say that only a tiny percentage of Muslims are Jihadis.  Well, only a tiny percentage of Germans were Nazis.  How did that work out?  For daring to say that he was suspended.  For saying other things that were outside the realm of what is acceptable he was ultimately fired by ESPN.  So, apparently, in order to talk about baseball on ESPN you have to have the right opinions or you will be shamed out of your job and the wrong opinions are of course the ones that probably most of us hear hold today.  It’s being taken for granted that we represent hate speech and it’s being extended into every aspect of society.

The ultimate goal of course is to make everyone afraid to hold these opinions because everyone will be afraid of losing their job, of being stigmatized as a racist and a bigot and so on and of course we’re so used to this we’ve heard ourselves called this for so many years, but it has never been so far advanced into the mainstream.  It is a tremendous blow to this whole initiative that Donald Trump was elected president.  Above all, because it shows that people don’t just buy this off hand.  I actually started to get some hope.  All summer and all fall the news was so bleak, the polls were so bad and Hillary was saying, “Why aren’t I ahead by 50 points?” And everything was so bleak, but I saw one thing that made me just dare to hope that things might turn out better and that was that trust in the media was at the lowest point it had ever been since anybody started keeping track of this sort of thing. And so while they are working to shame us and to apply peer pressure to silence us and while they are working to label what we do as hate speech, more and more people are waking up to it and 60 million of them did not buy it and voted for Donald Trump.  What we have now, however, is a president of the United States who commits hate speech and is subject to peer pressure and shaming and it’s an extraordinary position because after working so hard to delegitimize half of the American electorate and half of the spectrum of opinion that Americans legitimately hold, now that opinion is in power against their best efforts.

Now things are really going to get interesting and one of the best things actually that’s come about in this election cycle besides the election of Donald Trump was also the WikiLeaks exposure of just what the media really is and that’s one of the reasons why the trust in it is so very low because we grew up – I remember my father yelling at Walter Cronkite.  Walter was not in the room.  He was on the screen, but it was just what he was saying, and I remember Nixon, the first one, saying that he had faced bias from the press when he was running against John Kennedy in 1960.  Now that’s an awfully long time ago and that’s a lot of elections.  We’ve all grown up taking for granted media bias, but now we know that it’s far worse than that.  I took an online tour of the major news outlets in the early fall and the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, Politico, The Hill, all the major names, and every last one of them had story after story after story about what a dangerous scoundrel Donald Trump was and stupid to boot.  There is an inherit self-contradiction in how they classify all conservatives.  They did this with George W. Bush, too.  He was a monkey, he was a marginal idiot, but he was also an evil genius who had somehow thwarted all their plans while being an idiot monkey.  Really astonishing talents. And of course Trump is the same way. And every last media outlet had anti-Trump, anti-Trump, anti-Trump stories.  Not even the pretense of trying to be balanced news outlets anymore.  Not even pretending to have any objectivity.  It was just all wall-to-wall anti-Trump all the time and then it came out in WikiLeaks.

George Soros-funded organizations paid those august, trusted news outlets, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, you name it, they paid them for favorable coverage of the Iran nuclear deal.  They paid them for favorable coverage of the Muslim migrant influx into Europe.  They paid them for reports on the terrible Islamophobes.  They probably paid for that Southern Poverty Law Center anti-Muslim extremist list, but they certainly paid for other reports about how David Horowitz and I and others are these terrible, hateful, evil people who no decent person should have anything to do with.  And so we now know this is not news outlets at all.  These are bought and paid for propaganda outlets and their hegemony has been broken.  Even if Hillary Clinton had won, they would never have the hold that they had.  They will never have it again.  And so, we have every reason to be upbeat.  This is an ongoing initiative, as I said, and it’s not going to go away.  There are going to be continued efforts to stigmatize us, continued efforts to smear Trump as he becomes president, as he does anything, continued efforts to say that this is just some anomaly, sunspots, an accident of the Electoral College, something happened so that this maniac got to be president, but he’s still a maniac and any decent ordinary person will think he’s a maniac.  Nonetheless, the blades of grass have broken through the concrete, and it can’t be repaired, and so there’s every reason for hope.

But I will close with noting what exactly it is that we’re up against, what the effect of this stigmatization really is.  We have heard for decades now, and particularly after 9/11, that any honest discussion of how Islamic Jihadis use the text and teachings of Islam, which you can see in my Guide to the Koran and biography of Mohammed, available now, any honest discussion of that is hateful in itself, bigoted, racist, beyond the pale of acceptable discourse.  No.  This is how this works.  A few years back there was a Jihad plot against Fort Dix in New Jersey, and a group of Muslims were going to go into Fort Dix and shoot as many American soldiers as possible before they themselves were killed because the Koran promises paradise to those who kill and are killed for Allah.  It’s the only promise of paradise in the Koran.  It’s Chapter 9, Verse 111 if you want to look it up, and it says you’ll go straight to paradise if you kill and are killed.  These Muslims were going to go into Fort Dix and kill and be killed and go straight to paradise.  But they were foiled.  Now, they were only foiled — it was on a shoestring.  As it happened, these guys were Islamic Jihadis.  Islamic Jihadis love death.  They always tell us that.  They love death, they love bloodshed, they love gore. And they went to a video store because they had their bloody Jihad videos, their beheading videos and their bombing videos, they had them on VHS tapes, and so they asked the young man at the video store, 17-year-old boy, they asked him to transfer their VHS Jihad tapes to DVD.  As he’s doing the job, he saw what was on the tapes and he got alarmed, and he went to his boss, and he said, “Dude, I’m seeing some very weird shit on these videos.  Should I call the police or would that be racist?”  Now, I should tell you, these Jihadis were Albanians; they were Albanian Muslims.  Albanians are blond-haired, blue-eyed white guys, so there was nothing remotely racist about what they were doing, not by any stretch of the imagination.  The idea that turning them into the cops would be racist was just something that had been drummed into this young man’s head all his life, that Muslims are victims and that any movement against Jihad terrorism, there’s something wrong with it.  And you think that that’s outlandish; it’s not.

A very successful program of surveillance in Muslim communities, a completely legal program that had been challenged in court and held up to the challenge, in New York City, was shut down by Mayor de Blasio on the grounds that it was hateful.  Now, what’s hateful about trying to defend ourselves against these people?  If you think about it, you know, how Trump is Hitler because he had proposed a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration.  Now, you may recall the real Hitler, in 1940, he banned the immigration of Jews so that he could kill them.  And Trump, not Hitler, wants to ban the immigration of Muslims so they won’t kill us.  Those two things are not exactly equivalent.  But the idea that it’s a terrible anti-Muslim thing completely obscures the fact that he doesn’t have something against Muslims.  He doesn’t have something against brown people.  That’s the way it’s always put.  He does not have some racist agenda here because, for one thing, he’s not saying let’s have a ban on Hindu or Buddhist or any other kind of immigration of people of the same brownness as supposedly the Muslims are.  The problem is that he’s trying to address in suggesting this ban is that there are going to be Islamic Jihadis among the Muslims who get into the country.  How do you keep them out?  You can’t tell the Jihadis from the peaceful Muslims.  They don’t carry membership cards in Al-Qaida.  So how are you going to tell?  There’s no way to tell to distinguish the one from the other, so you either have mass immigration of Muslims into the United States or more Jihad massacres or you have a ban on the immigration, but the idea that it’s racist and hateful is just more of this peer pressure and shaming that almost worked with that young man at Fort Dix.  He did turn them in.  He decided to go ahead and be racist, and so he saved a lot of people from being killed, but the stigma had already worked or he wouldn’t have hesitated, and the stigma is what they are trying to apply to any and every form of resistance to Jihad terror, that it’s anti-Muslim, it is hateful, and therefore, it must be ruled out of polite society.

Now, you understand, we still have the First Amendment.  We still have the freedom of speech.  But we now that there are certain things that can be said in the mainstream and certain things that will immediately be branded as hateful, and that is how Hillary Clinton’s program of peer pressure and shaming works just absolutely so well, and is going to continue to do so, unfortunately, despite her defeat.  The upshot is, however, that we do have every reason to be optimistic not just with Trump’s election, but with the breaking of the stranglehold of the mainstream and the possibility that truth might now actually even breakthrough somewhere like CNN.  I’m not counting on it.  I suspect that these great news conglomerate industries will go out of business before they would moderate what they’re doing, but the people have had enough and that is our hope.  What we have is an ongoing struggle that we have to be very aware of and resolute in whatever fashion that we can be in our own sphere in life to resist, and to identify this as an insidious attempt at the peer pressure and shaming to stigmatize what is a legitimate point of view and indeed a necessary one for our common defense.  And because, ultimately, we do have the truth on our side, we know that we will, in the final instance, be victorious.  Thank you very much.

Question and Answer Session

Audience member: Robert, could you tell us how do you undo Resolution 1618 that has been signed by Hillary Clinton?

Robert Spencer: Well, resolutions in the UN are not iron dogma, but they can be reversed. They can be repealed just like in any other parliamentary body, and one thing that I think the Trump administration ought to do is make sure that the United States is clearly and explicitly and defiantly on record defending the freedom of speech at the UN.  And –

Audience member: Because in fact, they’re going forward with this 1618 resolution and making it larger and bigger, all of the states at the United Nations, so it’s something perhaps –

Robert Spencer: Hillary probably would have tried to implement it.  All you needed was a ninth justice who was a foe of the freedom of speech.  The four leftist justices on the court right now have all gone on record saying they would be in favor of various kinds of restrictions on the freedom of speech. And so all you needed was one more.  We really dodged a bullet here.  All you needed was one more to say hate speech is not free speech and does not enjoy First Amendment protection and actually codify that in a Supreme Court decision and the First Amendment would have been dead.

Audience member: One more question.  There’s 1.7 billion Muslims according to your very, very thorough research.  What percentage would you say of that 1.7 billion are a threat to the world?

Robert Spencer: There’s no way to answer that question. The reason why is because the teachings about Jihad warfare against unbelievers and subjugating them under the rule of Islamic law, which denies the freedom of speech and the freedom of conscience and equality of rights of women and so many other things, all that is in Islamic law.  It is not negotiable.  It’s not some extremist opinion.  It’s basic mainstream ordinary Islam.  Those who tell you otherwise are lying.

Now, that said, does every Muslim believe that?  Is every Muslim bound to carry those things out?  No.  Absolutely not.  Just like in any other religious tradition, there’s some people who are very serious about it and some people who aren’t and every gradation in between.  So you have in the Catholic church, contraception is illegal, is immoral according to the Pope, but surveys show most Catholics practice contraception.  Does that mean that the Catholic church does not teach that?  No, it really does, but most Catholics don’t pay attention.

Now, in Islam, it’s the same thing.  Does Islam in all its various sects and forms teach Jihad warfare against unbelievers?  Yes.  Does that mean every Muslim is a Jihadi?  Absolutely not.  Many, many Muslims don’t know about that, don’t care about that, are never going to put it into practice.  They would rather live a comfortable life than go blow themselves up, but they’re not going to lift a finger to stop the guys who are blowing themselves up because they know that it’s in there.

Who has the mic?

Audience member: I do. This is a question I wanted to ask Anne Coulter and probably would have gotten a flip, funny answer, but I’d actually rather ask it to you, which is what would you like to see happen to the UN in a Trump world?  I’d appreciate your perspective on that.

Robert Spencer: What would I like to see happen to the UN in a Trump world?  Was that the question? Well, can you imagine the mushroom cloud?  Seriously, what I would like to see happen to the UN is that certainly the U.S. should withdraw all funding from it and evict it from the United States.  We can’t shut it down because there are a few other countries in it, but we can keep it out of New York and the United States in general.  They can go to Geneva and they can raise their own money.  It’s a propaganda arm for the global Jihad, for the OIC.  It’s a propaganda arm to hit Israel above all and so we have no business allowing our ally to be subjected to this or to continue with this pretense that it’s something that actually brings anything good to the world.  It doesn’t.

Audience member: Robert, thank you.  First of all I want to thank you profusely for all of your efforts in the cause of freedom. Your courageous efforts.  Now, could you kind or explain or expound upon and assess the following two assertions that we hear all too frequently?  One of them, we are not at war with Islam and the second one, the ideology of takfirism is an existential threat to the United States.

Robert Spencer: Well, the ideology of takfirism is kind of an incoherent thing to say because takfir is the practice of one Muslim group declaring that another Muslim group is not Muslim and can therefore be killed as heretics or apostates because heresy and apostasy carry the death penalty in Islam.  So many of the groups that are more entrenched in holding on to their wealth and power, like the Saudi government, the Iranians, they declared groups like Al Qaeda, they call groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS takfiris, which means these are the people who are saying that the rest of us are not Muslims and trying to kill us, but that doesn’t mean that, of course, the Saudis or the Iranians — the Iranians say it because they’re Shiites and the Al Qaeda and ISIS people are Sunnis, but in any case, nobody should get the idea that the takfiris or that is Al Qaeda and ISIS and the other Jihad groups are the only people who hold to the view that there should be warfare against unbelievers.

This is, as I said, standard Islam, kill them wherever you find them.  It’s three times in the Quran, Chapter 2:191, 489 and 95 if you want to look it up.  Chapter 9, Verse 29 says to wage war against the Jews and Christians and subjugate them as inferiors under the rule of Islamic law, paying a special tax.  All these things are in basic Islam.

So if somebody says that it’s just these takfiri groups, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Abu Sayyaf and so on, that practice this, that’s just completely false on the face of it.  It’s taught by all the mainstream sects of Islam.

And the first question, we are not at war with Islam.  That also is sort of a false statement.  I mean, we’re not at war with Islam, but large portions of Islam are at war with us and the Muslims who are at war with us, they point to the Quran and Sunnah the example of Mohammed to justify what they’re doing and they recruit some unpeaceful Muslims and unless and until we recognize that, we’re never going to get anywhere.

The Obama administration in 2011 outlawed any honest discussion of the motivating ideology of the terrorists.  It actually is forbidden.  If you joined the FBI today, which I would not recommend, maybe when Trump is in, but not right now, if you joined the FBI today and you say I want to go into counterterror, you will not learn anything about Islam, anything about Jihad, even though that’s the largest global threat the U.S. faces.  You will hear about right-wing extremists and militias and constitution groups, but it is official policy of the Obama administration that there be no mention of Islam and Jihad in connection with terrorism.  The upshot is that our agents are completely unequipped to deal with what they are seeing with the Jihadis.  You can’t defeat an enemy you don’t understand and to get the intel about these people they don’t know what it means.

The Tsarnaev brothers who blew up the Boston Marathon, Russia reported them to the FBI.  They said these guys, actually Tamerlan the older one, he went to Jihad groups, he joined Jihad groups in Dagestan.  Now this was right around the time that the FBI under orders from John Brennan and Obama were erasing all mention of Islam and Jihad from counterterrorism.  So they get the intel from the Russians that says these guys joined Jihad groups right when the United States is blinding itself as official policy to the idea that Jihad is benign, nothing to worry about, nothing to be concerned with.  How could they possibly have followed through on that intel?  It went against the state policy of the administration and so the marathon blew up.

And so we have to understand that Islam, to a tremendous degree, is at war with us and that if we don’t realize that, it’s just going to get worse, but of course, Trump he made a big deal during the campaign of the fact that he would say that there was a threat from what he called radical Islam. It’s actually mainstream Orthodox ordinary Islam, but even saying radical Islam after these 8 years of denial and willful ignorance is refreshing and one would hope that he will change the institutional culture in the FBI and the CIA and Homeland Security and all the rest of them.  It’s drastically needed.

Who has the mic?  Yes, sir.

Audience member: Hi.  So I go to a high school where 99 percent of the students their parents are lobbyists or work in government.  I guess you could say I live in the swamp.  So I recently wrote something reflecting on the results of the election and as you can probably imagine it’s pretty positive and also as you can imagine I received a slew of peer pressuring shaming as you’d say.  I was told that Trump validates the KKK and white supremacy and I said no, the only reason they latched onto the campaign is because of the media’s lies and character assassination that told everybody that Trump was racist even though that’s not the case.

However, what other advice would you give to someone like me who lives in the midst of all those people to defend myself against such claims?

Robert Spencer: I think that mockery is awfully undervalued and that there’s a tremendous potential for it, particularly on college campuses.  I didn’t quite hear everything that you were saying.  Are you in a college right now or –

Audience member: No, high school.

Robert Spencer: High school, okay, even better.  Same thing really at this point.  The colleges are high schools and the high schools are middle schools and so on.  But the Muslim groups, I don’t actually know about high school, but I know that when you get to college you’ll see, the Muslim groups or the anti-Israel groups, the Students for Justice in Palestine and so on, they make a great show of their victimhood and their grievance theater is always featured on campuses.  So, for example, they have Israeli Apartheid Awareness week and they build a wall and have a checkpoint and you have to go through the mock IDF soldier to get to your class and it’s supposed to show you how terrible Israel is.

Well, we can have a lot of fun with that kind of thing if we turn it around on them and have, for example, they have Islam awareness week, well, why don’t we have Quran awareness week and put up “kill them wherever you find them” and “if you fear disobedience from your wife, beat her,” and all these things from the Quran. And they’ll say how could you have this terrible Islamophobia?  Well, it’s just the Quran.  I thought you wanted us to be aware of Islam.  And you play their contradictions back on them.

They talk about being feminists and being in favor of women’s rights and yet they are in bed with and in league with the most misogynistic and absolutely violent ideology toward women on earth.  So you have honor killing victim awareness week and put up the pictures of the unattractive women who have been killed by their fathers or their brothers for not wearing the hijab.  Actually, they have hijab week now on campuses and I’m seeing that all these non-Muslim girls are wearing the hijab to show solidarity with the poor Muslim girls who are yelled at for wearing hijab by racist, Islamophobic Trump supporters and, well, what about all the girls that have been killed for wearing hijab?  I can give you a long list and give you pictures of them.  And what about them?  Do they have any rights?  Can we have an awareness week for them?  What, you don’t care about these women?  It’s only those women?  And so on.

You see what I mean, that you have to in the first place have a very thick skin and be ready to be called everything that there is and understand that this is their tactic, to shame us out of doing what we’re doing, but you bring it back on them and shame them for their own contradictions and hypocrisy.

Audience member: Why are you so racist? No, that wasn’t my question.  My observation first of what you last said.  There are student groups working on colleges planning just that.  Saudi Arabia apartheid week. And planning to do street theater with gays hanging from – in Iran week.  But the question now, if I can remember, it was about changing the culture in our security services.  I know people from the intelligence and FBI community.  On a personal level, they are highly aware of this, but their investigations cannot be geared that way.  How long do you think it will take after 1:00 or 2:00 on January 20 for that to change? And how do we go about doing it?

Robert Spencer: You’re absolutely right.  I also know many people in the FBI and other agencies who are well aware of the nature and magnitude of the Jihad threat, but they’re keeping their head down, they’re doing their job, they’re biding their time and so things will get better very quickly.  But there’s also 8 years’ worth of agents who don’t have a clue and who have been completely misinformed.  I have a local FBI agent whenever I get death threats. He calls me or I call him and he says they’re on it and I say yes and then we go back to our business and nothing happens.

But I talk to him now and again and he was reassuring me the other day, last time I got a death threat and he’s saying, “I want you to know that I’m well aware of this problem with these guys that you’re tracking and also, we’re right on top of the other guys on the other side” and I said, “What do you mean, the other guys on the other side?”  And he said, “The people upstate, the right-wing militias, they’re just as dangerous as the guys you’re talking about,” and I thought, do they smoke opium now in the FBI as a matter of training?

Can you imagine, he thinks right-wing, when have you heard of right-wing militias, I mean, 30,000 terror attacks around the world by Islamic Jihadis acting explicitly in the name of the Quran, Islam, Mohammed since 9/11.  How many right-wing militias have done that?  And you can say, oh, yes, well, this fella or that fella or this guy had a Confederate flag, the psychopath with the bowl haircut in South Carolina.  This is hardly proportionate and hardly remotely the same magnitude of threat, but this is what they’re being taught nowadays and they can only explore the ideology of the one group and not the other.  So we can hope and I have every confidence now that that’s going to change and change quickly when the new administration comes in.

Thank you so much for being here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

France: Peugeot car plant closed as Muslim workers took “too many prayer breaks”

Reza Aslan: A Muslim “Will & Grace” will cure “Islamophobia”

tucker-carlson-ilamophobia

Tucker Carson vs. Muslim Professor on Islamophobia

Did Islamophobia cause the terror attack at Ohio State?

If that question seems as ridiculous to you, as it does to us, we have a video you need to see!

Fox News host Tucker Carlson, recently debated a Muslim Professor over the motivation for the recent Ohio State terrorist attack.

This conversation outlines perfectly, the discussion taking place in our increasingly divided America.

In one corner, we have those willing to speak the truth about the threat of radical Islam and in the other, we have those who not only deny the reality of the threat, but attempt to shame, and silence those who speak the truth.

To individuals like the Muslim Professor in this video, the reaction to an Islamic terrorist attack is not, “How can we do our best to prevent these horrific incidents from re-occurring?”

Rather, it is “What did we as Americans do to cause this hatred towards us?”

If these appeasers had it their way, our only defense to Islamic terrorism would be silence and submission.

More to it, that is exactly what our radical Islamic adversaries would prefer, for us to keep our lips sealed, and hands tied behind our backs.

We cannot allow ourselves to fall into this fatal trap of tolerance. Instead, we must continue to speak the truth, regardless of how uncomfortable it makes the politically correct appeasers.

trump-islamophobia

The ‘Hate-Crime’ Victims Of Trump Who Weren’t by Jamie Glazov

To gain power, totalitarian movements always portray themselves as victims. And while they are in the process of abusing, they cry in front of the world posing as the abused. They stage “hate-crime” attacks against themselves because hate crimes are their political and cultural capital. When those hate-crimes don’t exist, they must be invented.

We are witnessing precisely this phenomenon at this very moment in regards to the myriad hoax “hate-crimes” that anti-Trump forces are manufacturing out of thin air and blaming on Trump supporters. The media are bolstering the entire hallucination process, with CNN leading the way.

Central to the whole narrative is the supposed “Islamophobic” anti-Muslim crime-wave sweeping the nation. The rumors spread and the media regurgitates the lies without any evidence to back them up. And then, after the hoaxes are debunked one by one, the media is, by that time, bored and no longer interested.

The latest “Islamophobia” counterfeit involves a Muslim student at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette (ULL). The Muslima alleged that her hijab and wallet were stolen by two white Trump supporters who were shouting racial slurs. The woman’s accusation incensed leftists and Muslims across the nation and the world, prompting the ACLU of Louisiana to issue a statementdenouncing both the incident and, of course, Donald Trump. The investigation into the incident involved several law enforcement agencies, including the FBI. The Washington Post, New York Times and CNN, meanwhile, ate the story up.

But what happened to this Muslima’s story under tough police questioning? Well, the ULL student eventually broke down and admitted to police that she had fabricated the entire thing. By that time, of course, the media wasn’t too interested in such an innocuous little detail.

Recently, The Huffington Post reported on an incident of “Islamophobia” under the headline “Islamophobia Just Drove This Boy And His Family Out Of America.” It was all so heartbreaking and unjust. The one little problem with the story, however, was that it never happened.

Trump supporters, meanwhile, are supposedly involved in a lot of other evil than just attacking Muslim women on campuses and driving little Muslim boys out of America:

A gay Canadian filmmaker, Chris Ball, was alleged to have been beaten up by Trump supporters on election night in Santa Monica. It was upsetting, but it turned out the incident never really happened at all.

An image also recently went viral online that purported to show KKK members in North Carolina celebrating Donald Trump’s victory. It was really awful. And it was also confirmed to be a hoax. The proof of the hoax, however, didn’t go viral.

Many other hoaxes of Trump-induced terror are being debunked as we speak.

All of these “hate-crime” fabrications made up by the anti-Trump forces are nothing new. They are a completely natural ingredient of how totalitarians operate and, hence, how the Unholy Alliance of the Left and Islam operates. Shillman Fellow Daniel Greenfield explains this phenomenon in the context of the Left:

“The left is a victimhood cult. It feeds off pain and fetishizes suffering as a moral commodity to be sold and resold in exchange for political power.”

Greenfield calls this leftist charade “victimocracy” and labels its foot soldier the “cry-bully” who is, in reality, the “abuser-victim.” This monster, Greenfield writes, is

“the abuser who pretends to be a victim. His arguments are his feelings. He comes armored in identity politics entitlement and is always yelling about social justice or crying social justice tears. If you don’t fight back, the cry-bully bullies you. If you fight back, the cry-bully cries and demands a safe space because you made him feel unsafe.”

Thus, because now the Unholy Alliance maniacs feel “unsafe” because they didn’t get their way in the election, it becomes very clear why it’s crucial for them to play the victim – and, most importantly, to fabricate “hate-crimes” being perpetrated against themselves. Greenfield explains:

“If cry-bullies can’t safe-bait you, they will manufacture threats by faking hate crimes against themselves or phoning in bomb threats to validate their need for a safe space in which no one is allowed to disagree with them. Surviving their own fake crimes turns cry-bullies into social justice heroes.”

Islamic supremacists play a key part in this story. And since the Left controls our culture and boundaries of discourse, it makes complete sense that the media, instead of focusing on how the Muslim community should make Americans feel safe by repudiating Islamic texts that inspire and sanction violence against unbelievers, instead amplify the narrative that it is Muslims who are afraid and that it is non-Muslim Americans who need to make Muslims feel safe. Leading scholar of Islam Robert Spencer explains this charade, unveiling why Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as the CAIR need there to be hate crimes against Muslims so badly:

“The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) wants and needs hate crimes against Muslims, because they’re the currency they use to buy power and influence in our victimhood-oriented society, and to deflect attention away from jihad terror and onto Muslims as putative victims.”

This is why the Muslima at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette fabricated the “hate-crime” against herself. And it is also why her lie is only the latest example in a long list of so many other Muslim counterfeit stories.

Just to list a few of the typical and notorious incidents:

In February 2016, a Michigan Muslima, Said Chatti, was arraigned in Dearborn’s 18th District Court for making a false police report about an “Islamophobic” plot to bomb Dearborn FordsonHigh School, a majority-Muslim high school. She contacted the Dearborn Police Department and claimed that an “anonymous” friend of hers overheard a group of individuals plotting to blow up the school to retaliate against the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris. When the police presented her with the evidence of the holes in her story, she admitted it was a false report.

In December 2015, a 37-year-old Muslim man, Gary Nathaniel Moore of Houston, was charged with first-degree arson for setting a Houston mosque on fire on Christmas day – a mosque where he himself was a regular, having attended it for five years, coming five times per day to pray seven days per week. Using surveillance video from multiple businesses nearby, investigators were able to identify Moore and a search warrant of his home recovered a backpack and clothing similar to that which was seen in surveillance footage, as well as half of a two-pack of charcoal lighter-fluid bottles that seemed to match another lighter fluid bottle found inside the mosque.

In March 2012, we beheld the murder of Muslima Shaima Alawadi. At first reported as a “hate-crime,” it then turned out to be an honor murder. The media and Unholy Alliance were extremely vocal and indignant while the murder was a hate-crime, even staging a campaign, “One Million Hijabs for Shaima Alawadi.” But once the murder turned out to be an Islamic crime, Shaima turned out not to matter to even one of the activists who had, at one point, made so much noise and howled so many cries of indignation.

The list goes on and on: a Muslim woman in England was proven to have lied to police about claiming to have been punched in the face for wearing a hijab; a Muslim woman in Dearborn dropped a lawsuit against police after video proved she was lying when claiming they forced her to remove her hijab; a supposed “hit-and-run” on a Muslim woman in Brussels blamed on “far right” anti-Islam demonstrators turned out to be perpetrated by a Muslim named “Mohamed.”

Many more of these Muslim victimization fantasies and lies have been documented by Robert Spencer in his special report, “The Top Anti-Muslim Hate Crime Hoaxes of 2014,” and in his recent video, Yet Another “Islamophobic Hate Crime” Hoax.

And so, we come to see that faking hate-crimes is a long and standard tradition of the cry-bully, and the Unholy Alliance is the premier cry-bully of our modern age. With Trump’s victory now a reality, the Left/Islam forces are foaming at the mouth and gnashing their teeth.

And while they set fires and break windows, brutally beat young girls for liking Trump, break the faces of those they think look like Trump and injure police officers, they cry and whine because they are the real victims of real hate-crimes. But, as the evidence reveals, these are the hate-crimes perpetrated by the Trump supporters who might have been — and inflicted on the victims who weren’t.

Reprinted from Daily Caller.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump’s CIA nominee Mike Pompeo promises to roll back Iran deal

Jamie Glazov Moment: Steve Bannon, Keith Ellison and the Left’s Ugly Record on Anti-Semitism

mateen pulse

Why Did Orlando Happen? A Massive Intel Failure

One year after the first U.S. ISIS attack — on our free speech event in Garland, Texas — an Islamic jihadist, Omar Mateen, succeeded in carrying out the largest terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11.

About this massive intel failure, Obama’s FBI Director James Comey declared:  “I don’t think there’s anything we could’ve done differently.”

Nothing they could have done differently?

This was a massive intel failure.

There were innumerable red flags. But if you see something and say something, you will be smeared as an islamophobic-anti-Muslim-bigot.

Here are some of the warning signs about which the FBI could have and should have acted much differently:

Omar Mateen posted to Facebook on June 12, 2016: “I pledge my alliance to abu bakr al Baghdadi..may Allah accept me.” “The real muslims will never accept the filthy ways of the west”; “taste the Islamic state vengeance.” In a final post, Mateen apparently wrote, “In the next few days you will see attacks from the Islamic state in the usa.”

But in spite of all this and more, counterterror analysts and media talking heads are still scratching their heads and wondering why this attack happened. In a New York Times article titled “Why Do Terrorists Commit Terrorism?,” “terrorism expert” Peter Bergen wrote about Omar Mateen that “it’s unlikely that anything will ever really explain why he did what he did.”

Really? Nothing? How about this: Muhammad commanded Muslims to put gays to death. Mateen thought that to kill a large number of gays during Ramadan would get him a great reward from Allah.

But Obama’s FBI wasn’t looking into that as having any kind of connection to a possible terror attack. Instead, FBI Director Comey is“confused” as to jihadi Mateen’s motivations. Why is he confused? Because the Obama administration has purged its counter terror materials and program of any mention of Islam and jihad.

Under Obama, the Department of Homeland Security was prohibited from using words like jihad and sharia. Instead, according to the Daily Caller: 

One of the sitting members on the Homeland Security Advisory Council’s (HSAC) Subcommittee on Countering Violent Extremism is a 25-year-old immigrant of Syrian heritage who said that the 9/11 attacks “changed the world for good” and has consistently disparaged America, free speech and white people on social media. Laila Alawa was one of just 15 people tapped to serve on the newly-formed HSAC Subcommittee on Countering Violent Extremism in 2015 — the same year she became an American citizen.

The result?

The subcommittee Alawa serves on instructed the DHS to begin “using American English instead of religious, legal and cultural terms like ‘jihad,’ ‘sharia,’ ‘takfir’ or ‘umma’” when discussing terrorism in order to avoid offending Muslims.

Not only did this Syrian immigrant cheer 9/11; in April 2013 she told me to “go f–k yourself” after I called the Boston bombing jihad. This is who Obama assigns to keep us safe. Who is going to keep us safe from this woman? And she is not alone: another Homeland Security Advisor, Salam al-Marayati, has said that the U.S. is doing Israel’s “dirty work” and blamed Israel for the 9/11 attacks. Salam al-Marayati defends terrorist acts and the groups who carry them out.

It is no surprise, in light of all this, that the ACLU and leftists elites blame the GOP for the jihad slaughter. Because the left in media, academia, entertainment, and the U.S. government treat Muslims like a protected class and deny the Islamic doctrine that inspires and fuels this holy war.

The ghastly death toll is a stunning indictment of Obama’s sharia-compliant “countering violent extremism” policies. Obama now seeks to disarm us and import hundreds of thousands more “believers” after his policies has led to an unprecedented escalation in the war in the homeland. Guns are not the problem. Bombs, knives, suicide vests, machetes, cars… it’s the jihad.

Obama is now completely unmasked (pronounced unmosqued). He is going full-on Muslim, sounding and acting more and more like terror-tied jihad groups (i.e. CAIR, ISNA et al).

As dangerous and frightening as it is, it will be good for us. It is these acts of outrageous sedition, and treason that will get Trump elected.

RELATED ARTICLES:

FBI Investigates Whether Omar Mateen Visited Pulse Before Massacre

Obama’s AG Lynch: Best Response to Terrorism Is Love and Compassion

Muslim former FBI agent who refused to wiretap fellow Muslims now Homeland Security Adviser

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of NBC News.

blood on hands

Those who promote ‘Islamophobia’ have blood on their hands

Islamophobia campaigns like those at the University of California Berkeley and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) must share some blame for terror attacks like Orlando and San Bernardino.

Islamophobia campaigns can intimidate people to restrain their communications that might otherwise save lives.  Proponents who continue to promote Islamophobia campaigns given the evidence from Orlando and San Bernardino would appear to be maintaining a position that the greater good of suppressing free speech of millions of Americans is worth the downside risk of not preventing jihad and saving lives.

Proponents of Islamophobia campaigns must share some of the blame for the Islamic terror attacks that killed 49 people in Orlando and 14 people in San Bernardino.  These campaigns can cause people not to report suspicious actions by Muslims because they fear being branded a racist or Islamophobe.

Fear of being branded an Islamophobe played a role in suppressing communications that may have had different results for the lives of 63 people in San Bernardino and Orlando:

SAN BERNARDINO

Townhall.com  Neighbor Didn’t Report Suspicious Activity of San Bernardino Killers For Fear of Being Called Racist

Katie Pavlich Dec 03, 2015 10:15 AM

According to a local Los Angeles news report, a neighbor of San Bernardino massacre suspects Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik didn’t report suspicious activity at their apartment for fear of being accused of racism.

This is the same politically correct culture that lead to the Ft. Hood shooting when Nidal Hassan, who had been spouting violent Islamic propaganda to neighbors on post and reaching out to Al Qaeda, was ignored for fear of “Islamophobia” accusations.

ORLANDO

Floridatoday.com Mateen’s employer ignored complaints about his death threats because he was a Muslim.

Gilroy, a former Fort Pierce police officer, said Mateen frequently made homophobic and racial comments. Gilroy said he complained to his employer several times but it did nothing because he was Muslim. Gilroy quit after he said Mateen began stalking him via multiple text messages — 20 or 30 a day. He also sent Gilroy 13 to 15 phone messages a day, he said.

“I quit because everything he said was toxic,” Gilroy said Sunday, “and the company wouldn’t do anything. This guy was unhinged and unstable. He talked of killing people.”

The desire not to be labeled a racist or Islamophobe will likely result in more people not being willing to report suspicious behavior in the future.  Tragically, Islamophobia campaigns are having a chilling impact on the free speech of Americans and helping jihad.

The Council on American Islamic Relations issued a press release on June 10, 2016 which states in part:

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 6/10/2016) – On Tuesday, June 14, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Center for Race and Gender at UC Berkeley will release a report detailing the more than $200 million provided to 33 Islamophobic groups nationwide in recent years.

The report, titled “Confronting Fear,” also documents the negative impact of Islamophobia on American society and offers a four-point strategy designed to push back against the well-funded and well-coordinated promotion of anti-Muslim sentiment.

WHAT: Release of ‘Confronting Fear’ Report on Funding of Islamophobic Groups
WHEN: Tuesday, June 14, 11 a.m.
WHERE: CAIR’s Capitol Hill Headquarters, 453 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, D.C. 20003

The behavior of millions of Americans are influenced by various Islamophobia reports and campaigns.  Most people who see UC Berkeley’s negative branding of prominent organizations and people will not want to have any part of that humiliation.  Being branded a racist or Islamophobe can cost a person’s educational opportunities, employment and career path.  While there is obviously no direct link between any proponent’s Islamophobia campaign and a terrorist act such propaganda suppresses free speech in a manner that adversely impacts public safety.

(Five years ago)  On Thursday, June 23, 2011 the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the University of California, Berkeley’s Center for Race and Gender (CRG) held a news conference on Capitol Hill to release “Same Hate, New Target,” the first-of-its-kind annual report outlining the disturbing growth of Islamophobia in the United States during 2009-2010.

As of 10:00 PM EDST, June 15, 2016 UC Berkeley and CAIR have NOT released their Islamophobe report that CAIR’s press release stated would be announced on Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 11 AM.   The University of California, Berkeley’s Center for Race and Gender website contains the 2015 Islamophobia Report but not the 2016 report mentioned in CAIR’s June 10, 2016 news release.  Is it possible that UC Berkeley officials think it is a bad time to release this report in the aftermath of the Orlando terror attack?

Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send that urges University of California Berkeley officials to stop promoting their Islamophobe campaigns that suppress free speech in a manner that can adversely impact public safety.

To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button. You may also edit the subject or message text if you wish.

Click here to send your email that urges University of California Berkeley officials to stop promoting their Islamophobe campaigns that suppress free speech in a manner that can adversely impact public safety.

04/14/11   (Lannis Waters/The Palm Beach Post)  BOCA RATON  --   Florida Atlantic University Professor Bassem Al-Halabi, whom protesters claim has ties to terrorism, denies being a terrorist or believing in terrorism.

VIDEO: Florida Atlantic University Professor Defends Islamic Practice of Cutting Off Hands

On Tuesday on the campus of Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, FL, the university’s Muslim Student Association’s hosted a so-called Islamophobia panel discussion, which was attended by The United West.

FAU Department of Computer and Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Associate Professor Bassem Al Halabi was included on the panel of these distinguished experts and he made the incredible statement about the case to be made for Sharia Law and it’s provisions of capital punishment, including the cutting off of hands.

Professor Bassem Al Halabi mug shot

Professor Bassem Al Halabi mug shot. Photo: Palm Beach County Sheriff.

‘“Where there is no Sharia, Islamic Sharia, they die in dozens and hundreds every day because of organized crime. People kill people, other people or steal pizza for $10 and so – so when Islamic Shariah is saying about capital punishment – so even though it sounds like it is severe but if that is the solution to prevent any crimes, then it still has a lot of rules and regulations. I will just mention one and stop here, which is let’s say cutting off the hands of a person if they steal. It sounds very severe. It sounds very barbaric, I know. But if takes one or two people to have their hands cut off, and then there’s no more stealing and there’s no more stealing in the whole nation – that’s a much better resolution than having hundreds of people die every day.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Islamist Professor Teaches Lesson in Violence: Florida Atlantic University continues to harbor terrorist-associated criminal, Bassem Alhalabi

EDITORS NOTE: This video originally appeared on Breitbart TV. Read may follow The United West on Twitter @TheUnitedWest.

free speech woman islam

Video: How Islam killed freedom of speech in just 30 years

Last Thursday, April 14, I spoke at a private event in Montreal about the Islamic war on the freedom of speech that began with the Iranian fatwa against Salman Rushdie and is now approaching final victory.

Thanks to Vlad Tepes for the video and for his indefatigable work making these videos that were filmed in less than ideal conditions watchable and listenable.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Kabul: Taliban target security team protecting government VIPs, murder at least 28

“Massive diversity” among Islamic State jihadis, many have PhDs, master’s degrees, MBA’s

trevor_phillips

Man who popularized term ‘Islamophobia’ says it was a mistake, Muslims won’t assimilate

It was Trevor Phillips who first gave the spurious propaganda term “Islamophobia” an intellectual veneer. Now he is admitting he was wrong all along, and has enabled and abetted the creation of Sharia enclaves in Britain and all over Europe. So what is he going to do about it now? Can the damage done to Britain be repaired? Does Phillips or anyone else have the will to try to repair it.

“UK Equalities Chief Who Popularised The Term ‘Islamophobia’ Admits: ‘I Thought Muslims Would Blend into Britain… I Should Have Known Better,’” by Raheem Kassam, Breitbart, April 10, 2016:

The former head of Britain’s Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Trevor Phillips, has admitted he “got almost everything wrong” on Muslim immigration in a damning new report on integration, segregation, and how the followers of Islam are creating “nations within nations” in the West.

Phillips, a former elected member of the Labour Party who served as the Chairman of the EHRC from 2003-2012 will present “What British Muslims Really Think” on Channel 4 on Wednesday. An ICM poll released to the Times ahead of the broadcast reveals:

  • One in five Muslims in Britain never enter a non-Muslim house;
  • 39 per cent of Muslims, male and female, say a woman should always obey her husband;
  • 31 per cent of British Muslims support the right of a man to have more than one wife;
  • 52 per cent of Muslims did not believe that homosexuality should be legal;
  • 23 per cent of Muslims support the introduction of Sharia law rather than the laws laid down by parliament.

Writing in the Times on the issue, Phillips admits: “Liberal opinion in Britain has, for more than two decades, maintained that most Muslims are just like everyone else… Britain desperately wants to think of its Muslims as versions of the Great British Bake Off winner Nadiya Hussain, or the cheeky-chappie athlete Mo Farah. But thanks to the most detailed and comprehensive survey of British Muslim opinion yet conducted, we now know that just isn’t how it is.”

Phillips commissioned “the Runnymede report” into Britain and Islamophobia in 1997 which, according to both Phillips himself and academics across the country, popularised the phrase which has now become synonymous with any criticism – legitimate or not – of Islam or Muslims.

Durham University’s Anthropology Journal noted in 2007: “It has been a decade since the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia was established, a Commission that through its 1997 report, “Islamophobia: a challenge for us all” (“the Runnymede report”) not only raised an awareness of the growing reality of anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic hostility in Britain, but also marked the onset of what might be described as ‘the first decade of Islamophobia’. In doing so, the Runnymede report propelled the word ‘Islamophobia’ into the everyday common parlance and discourses of both the public and political spaces.”

Phillips says his new data shows “a chasm” opening between Muslims and non-Muslims on fundamental issues such as marriage, relations between men and women, schooling, freedom of expression and even the validity of violence in defence of religion. He notes – echoing an article on Breitbart London just two weeks ago which reveals a growing disparity between older and younger Muslims in Britain – that “the gaps between Muslim and non-Muslim youngsters are nearly as large as those between their elders”.

And while he is cautious to note that many Muslims in Britain are grateful to be here, and do identify with role models such as Hussain and Farah, there is a widening gap in society with many Muslims segregating themselves.

“It’s not as though we couldn’t have seen this coming. But we’ve repeatedly failed to spot the warning signs,” he admits.

“Twenty years ago… I published the report titled Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, we thought that the real risk of the arrival of new communities was discrimination against Muslims. Our 1996 survey of recent incidents showed that there was plenty of it around. But we got almost everything else wrong.”

His comments will come as a blow to those who continue to attack elements in British society who are concerned about Muslim immigration and integration, and in fact may even go some way to shoring up comments made by U.S. Presidential candidates Donald Trump and

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) seeking to slow down or pause the rate of Muslim immigration into the West.“We estimated that the Muslim population of the UK would be approaching 2 [million] by 2020. We underestimated by nearly a million. We predicted that the most lethal threat to Muslims would come from racial attacks and social exclusion. We completely failed to foresee the urban conflicts of 2001 that ravaged our northern cities. And of course we didn’t dream of 9/11 and the atrocities in Madrid, Paris, Istanbul, Brussels and London.”“For a long time, I too thought that Europe’s Muslims would become like previous waves of migrants, gradually abandoning their ancestral ways, wearing their religious and cultural baggage lightly, and gradually blending into Britain’s diverse identity landscape. I should have known better.”

And Mr. Phillips even acknowledges that the mass sexual grooming and rape scandals that are plaguing heavily Muslim populated towns across Britain are because of Muslim – not ‘Asian’ – men. He writes: “The contempt for white girls among some Muslim men has been highlighted by the recent scandals in Rotherham, Oxford, Rochdale and other towns. But this merely reflects a deeply ingrained sexism that runs through Britain’s Muslim communities” – in a nod to those who have long protested this to be the case in the face of political, media, and even police cover ups.

Even left wing columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown told him: “[W]e [liberal Muslims] are a dying breed — in 10 years there will be very few of us left unless something really important is done.”

Phillips comments: “Some of my journalist friends imagine that, with time, the Muslims will grow out of it. They won’t.”

And indeed he lays the blame at the feet of the liberal, metropolitan elite, media classes: “Oddly, the biggest obstacles we now face in addressing the growth of this nation-within-a-nation are not created by British Muslims themselves. Many of our (distinctly un-diverse) elite political and media classes simply refuse to acknowledge the truth. Any undesirable behaviours are attributed to poverty and alienation. Backing for violent extremism must be the fault of the Americans. Oppression of women is a cultural trait that will fade with time, nothing to do with the true face of Islam.”

“Even when confronted with the growing pile of evidence to the contrary, and the angst of the liberal minority of British Muslims, clever, important people still cling to the patronising certainty that British Muslims will, over time, come to see that “our” ways are better.”

In terms of solutions, Mr. Phillips opines on “halting the growth of sharia courts and placing them under regulation” ensuring that school governance never falls into the hands of a single-minority group, “ensuring mosques that receive a steady flow of funds from foreign governments such as Saudi Arabia, however disguised, are forced to reduce their dependency on Wahhabi patronage” and an end to the “silence-for-votes understanding between local politicians and Muslim leaders — the sort of Pontius Pilate deal that had such catastrophic outcomes in Rotherham and Rochdale”.

Mr. Phillips’s comments echo those of the Czech president, and research from across Europe that revealed attitudes amongst Muslims on the continent have hardened. The younger the Muslim, the more likely they are to hold hard-line views, one recent study found.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Dr. Omar Ahmad and The Agony of the “Decent Muslim”

Canada: Muslim migrant children choking, brutalizing non-Muslim students

TrumpWilders

Geert Wilders: ‘Welcome, Donald Trump’ to the land of thoughtcrimes

Britain: the cradle of freedom, now the land of thoughtcrime.

“Exclusive–Geert Wilders: Delusional Britain Would Rather Ban Donald Trump Than Confront Unpleasant Facts,” by Geert Wilders, Breitbart, January 19, 2016:

Deja-vu. It is not an English word, but French. However, the word immediately springs to mind when hearing about yet another Western politician or Islam critic, whom some British politicians want to ban from entering their country. Welcome, Donald Trump, in the company of Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and myself.

Both Pamela, Robert and myself have been banned from entering the United Kingdom. In my case, it happened on February 12, 2009. Two highly respected members of the British House of Lords, Lady Caroline Cox and Lord Malcolm Pearson, had invited me to show my 2008 documentary Fitna to members of the House in a conference room of the parliament building in Westminster. Fitna is a movie, juxtaposing Koranic versed calling for violence with footage of terrorist attacks and other violent deeds these verses inspired.

Fitna, as well as my view that Islam, rather than a religion, is primarily a totalitarian political ideology aiming for world domination, has resulted in several death threats against my person. I am on the death list of Al-Qaeda, ISIS and the Pakistani Taliban. Since 2004, I have been living under round-the-clock police protection, but I have a mission: Speak the truth about Islam.

However, a Pakistani-born Islamic member of the House of Lords, one Nazir Ahmed, demanded that the then British Labour government ban me from entering the UK. He threatened that he would personally mobilize 10,000 Muslims to prevent me from entering the Upper House. The government complied and had me banned. Though a member of the Dutch parliament, invited by British colleagues, I was locked up in a detention room upon arrival at Heathrow Airport. Three hours later, I was put on the next flight to Amsterdam.

The British authorities said that my “presence in the UK would pose a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society.” My statements as expressed in Fitna and elsewhere were said to “threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK.” Lord Ahmed boasted of his victory in the Pakistani media. He termed the decision “a victory for the Muslim community.”

However, I challenged the ban before the British Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. On October 12, 2009, this tribunal overturned the ban. In March 2010, I returned to London and showed my movie to my colleagues in Westminster. There were no incidents and no disturbances of Britain’s “fundamental interests,” “community harmony,” or “public security.” The bans served but one goal: It was an attempt to shut me up for speaking the truth about Islam.

Yesterday, Pamela Geller wrote on this website that in June 2013, she and Robert Spencer, too, were banned from the UK because their presence was “not conductive to the public good” and a “threat to security of our society.” It sounded eerily familiar, as did the arguments of those who want Donald Trump to be banned from Britain for advocating a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration into the US. Fortunately, they did not succeed.

When the great Ronald Reagan visited the British Parliament in 1982, he told the British parliamentarians that “if history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly.” This is an advice that politicians everywhere should take at heart.

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK jihadis laugh as they watch Islamic State execution video in restaurant

Hugh Fitzgerald: Sticking to the Details

MSA-SDSU

Muslim Student Association demands ‘zero tolerance policy for Islamophobic speech’

Here again we see how Leftist and Islamic supremacist groups use the term “Islamophobia” for both attacks on innocent civilians, which have no justification under any circumstances, and for honest examination of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to incite hatred and violence. These groups use the former to quash the latter, which will have the effect of allowing the jihad to advance unimpeded and unopposed.

Is that what the MSA wants? Probably, since it is a Muslim Brotherhood organization. According to Discover the Networks, “The Muslim Students Association of the United States and Canada, or MSA (also known as MSA National), was established mainly by members of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in January 1963 at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Nyack College theologian Larry A. Poston writes that “many of the founding members of this agency [MSA] were members of, or had connections to,” the Muslim Brotherhood or Jamaat-i-Islami. The three most significant founders of MSA were Hisham al Talib, Jamal Barzinji, and Ahmed Totanji, and all of whom were MB leaders of Iraqi descent. Other noteworthy individuals who served as early co-founders of MSA were Mahboob Khan and Malika Khan.”

Meanwhile, our nation’s universities are increasingly becoming thuggish centers of Leftist indoctrination where opposing views are forcibly silenced. This holds true across the country, from ostensibly Catholic entities such as Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire to secular ones such as San Diego State University.

“Muslim Student Association demands all ‘Islamophobic speech’ be punished,” by Alec Dent, College Fix, December 28, 2015:

The Muslim Student Association at San Diego State University is demanding that administrators combat Islamophobia by developing a “zero tolerance policy explicitly for Islamophobic speech and actions.”

The demands, modeled after similar ones issued by black student associations at campuses across the nation, were lodged after a female Muslim student was allegedly attacked by a white man in a campus parking lot on the afternoon of Nov. 19, about a week after the Paris terrorist attacks, which killed 130 people.

At SDSU, despite reports that several witnesses stood by and did nothing as the attacker grabbed the woman’s hijab, as well as a police sketch of the alleged attacker, a police investigation could not identify a suspect, according to the San Diego Union Tribune.

Meanwhile, the female student who said she was attacked has not been identified. But she told Hanif Mohebi, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations-San Diego, that her attacker grabber her from “behind,” called her a terrorist, “choked her with the hajib” and told her to “get out of this country,” the Union Tribune reports.

Several comments on the article expressed incredulity over the attack, questioning whether it is a hate-crime hoax.

Yet less than a week after the alleged hate crime, SDSU’s Muslim Student Association held a protest against Islamophobia on campus that attracted hundreds of students.

Yasser Kaziha, a member of the Muslim Student Association, said that he personally knew the victim of the attack, and “when the attack on our Muslim sister happened here at SDSU, she felt alone after bystanders and witnesses who watched the attack did nothing,” he told the Union Tribune.

At the rally, the Muslim Student Association issued its list of demands, which members claim will help prevent future acts of bigotry against the Muslim community.

They demanded that the university adopt a zero-tolerance policy toward “Islamophobic speech,” mandatory bystander training, develop more courses on Islam, and increase funding for The Center for Intercultural Relations. Moreover, they demanded that “the SDSU administration address, alleviate, and eliminate systems of oppression that disproportionately target students of color, womyn, and all marginalized students on campus.”

Beth Chee, a representative for the university, told The College Fix in an email that the university has not issued a formal response to the demands, but members of the administration have reviewed the list and are currently “meeting internally and with the students to discuss their concerns.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic State has department of “war spoils,” in accord with the Qur’an

Toronto Sun: Robert Spencer “held up for his views while refugees (whose views we don’t know) are welcomed like heroes”

Bernie-Sanders

Bernie Sanders denounces “Islamophobia,” Hamas-linked terror organization thrilled

A Muslim student, Remaz Abdelgader, said to Sanders: “Being an American is such a strong part of my identity, but I want to create a change in this society. I’m so tired of listening to this rhetoric saying I can’t be president one day, that I should not be in office. It makes me so angry and upset. This is my country.” Sanders replied: “If we stand for anything we have to stand together and end all forms of racism in this country. I will lead that effort as president.”

What race is Islam again? I keep forgetting. What race is Sharia oppression of women, non-Muslims, gays again? I just can’t seem to recall. That is what this controversy is really about: Ben Carson raised a legitimate question about the compatibility of Sharia and the U.S. Constitution. Sharia denies the freedom of speech and the equality of rights of women and non-Muslims before the law, and contravenes the Constitution in other ways as well. In 1960, John Kennedy was subjected to baseless prejudice as a Roman Catholic, and today Sanders and others consigns concerns about a Muslim President to an analogous baseless prejudice. But Kennedy actually addressed concerns, and assured Americans that he would obey and enforce the Constitution and no other law. Nowadays, asking a hypothetical Muslim candidate if he would obey and enforce the Constitution and not Sharia is “racism.”

So what would happen if a Sharia-compliant Muslim candidate did become President, and began working against the freedoms that the Constitution allows but Sharia does not? Would all those who voted for him simply congratulate themselves on their resistance to “racism” as their freedoms were eroded away?

“CAIR Welcomes Bernie Sanders’s Pledge to End Islamophobia and Racism,” Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations, designated a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates, October 29, 2015:

CAIR logo(WASHINGTON, D.C., 10/29/15) – The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today welcomed Democratic presidential candidate and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’s pledge to end Islamophobia and all other forms of racism during a town hall hosted at George Mason University on Wednesday.

Yesterday, Sanders invited Muslim George Mason University student Remaz Abdelgader to join him on stage during a campaign stop and responded to her remarks about Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson’s position that a Muslim should not be president.

Abdelgader expressed to Sanders the personal impact that Islamophobia in the presidential election was having on her. “Being an American is such a strong part of my identity, but I want to create a change in this society,” Abdelgader said. “I’m so tired of listening to this rhetoric saying I can’t be president one day, that I should not be in office. It makes me so angry and upset. This is my country.”

Sanders responded: “If we stand for anything we have to stand together and end all forms of racism in this country,” Sanders said. “I will lead that effort as president.”

“What should have been an unremarkable statement against racism was made noteworthy because only a handful of presidential candidates have gone on the record to denounce Islamophobia,” said CAIR Government Affairs Manager Robert McCaw. “Bernie Sanders’s willingness to vow to stand together in eradicating Islamophobia and all forms of racism is inspirational.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Kerry: Middle East “home of populations that are energetic, youthful, forward-looking. It is in them that we place our faith.”

Islamic State on recruitment spree in Russia, “moderate” imams can’t counter the jihadis’ appeal

huffington-post-logo-1920-800x450

As Jihad Advances, Huffington Post Still Pushing Muslim Victimhood Myth

And they will keep pushing it right up until the moment that the jihadis are at their door.

Islam-jihad-rally

“As Jihad Advances, Huffington Post Still Pushing Muslim Victimhood Myth,” by Pamela Geller, Breitbart, October 26, 2015:

As presidential candidates are finding it tougher than ever before to ignore the reality of the global jihad, the Huffington Post is working harder than ever to push the Muslim victimhood myth.

Friday it published a whiny article by a hijab-wearing Muslim political science professor, Dalia F. Fahmy, titled “Silence on Rising Anti-Muslim Sentiment is Racist and Un-American.” This is bitterly ironic coming from HuffPo, which is unflaggingly silent about the worldwide jihad threat.

“Fear of Islam,” Fahmy claimed, “has become more prominent in everyday political discourse than ever before.” Imagine repeating this with a straight face in 2015, when Jews are being stabbed by Muslims screaming “Allahu akbar,” not just in Israel, but in France as well, as imams preach sermons in mosques while brandishing daggers and suicide vests, exhorting Muslims to stab Jews and “cut them into body parts.”

Is Dalia Fahmy okay with this incitement to genocide?

She begins her article with an account of a stabbing of a different kind: “This past Thursday, in Brooklyn, NY, a man was stabbed in the stomach in front of his wife and 5 year-old child. ‘I’m going to stab you because you’re Arabic and deserve it,’ his assailant allegedly stated.”

How do we know that the assailant said he was attacking because they were Arabs? How can we trust such claims after cases such as that of Shaima Alawadi? Kassim Alhimidi was convicted in April 2014 of beating his wife, Shaima Alawadi, to death in their California home. It was an Islamic honor killing, but it was more than that: after Shaima Alawadi was brutally beaten to death, the Alawadi family blamed Americans that oppose jihad for her murder.

Family members said they had found a note near Alawadi’s body, calling them terrorists and telling the family to go back where they came from. They said they had found a similar note at their home weeks earlier, but they didn’t keep it or report it.

The smear merchants, libelous Islamic supremacists, and their apologists went into overdrive. The media’s favorite Khomeinist and Iran nuke deal supporter, Reza Aslan, screamed bloody murder, blaming Robert Spencer and me for the murder. But when Shaima Alawadi’s husband was found to have been the perpetrator, and the “Islamophobic” note a fabrication, these jackals offered not one word of retraction or apology.

In a similar case in New Jersey, a Muslim named Kashif Parvaiz arranged the murder of his wife and told police that his wife had been attacked by “Islamophobes.”

Fahmy doesn’t mention those cases. Nor does she mention the New Jersey Muslim accused of beheading two Coptic Christians. Yet she takes the claims in the Brooklyn case at face value. But with all this precedent of deception, why should we?

Fahmy does mention, and lament, “the arrest of a boy with a clock.” Clock Boy Ahmed Mohamed is a sign of rising anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States? Clock Boy, who brought a clock that looked like a suitcase bomb to school and was then hailed as a hero worldwide and invited to the White House? Clock Boy who was celebrated at the United Nations, where he met world leaders, including the Prime Minister of Turkey?

Clock Boy who went to Sudan and hugged a genocidal and vicious mass murderer, its President Omar al-Bashir? Clock Boy who was showered with gifts by Microsoft and Google, and courted by MIT, all because he was a victim of “Islamophobia” when he wasn’t even a victim of “Islamophobia” at all, but of school officials’ zero-tolerance policy for weapons?

Meanwhile, one non-Muslim boy was suspended from school for reading the Bible during recess. Another seven-year-old boy was suspended for chewing his Pop Tart into the shape of a gun. Where are their invitations to the White House?

Remember: not 24 hours after meeting the President of the United States, Clock Boy Ahmed Mohamed’s family announced they were moving to Qatar because of “Islamophobia.” Ahmed’s sister said that Qatar was a lot like Texas, except that the family would be surrounded by “Muslims like themselves.” Isn’t that racist and supremacist?

There is no greater article of hate and misogyny than the burka. It is the most tangible anti-woman symbol known to the world. Covering up every inch of a woman is deeply offensive and insulting. But in America, Muslim women are free to wear it. In some Muslim countries under the sharia, however, Muslim women are not free not to wear it. Why doesn’t that arouse Fahmy’s ire?

Why, also, doesn’t Fahmy distinguish between beheading, jihad, and Islam? Why is fear of jihad, beheading, female genital mutilation, Jew-hatred, and creed apartheid not a value shared between Muslims and non-Muslims? Why does Fahmy ascribe opposition to all this to “anti-Muslim” sentiment? How “Islamophobic” of her.

The Huffington Post reports that the sky is green, every day, day in and day out, for years: they report that there is no jihad problem and that Muslims are victims. There is no reportage in the Huffington Post, no facts. There is fiction, only fiction. How can you argue against the anti-real? They are misleading Americans into complacency about the jihad threat. This is evil.

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK imam gets six years in jail for $28.7 million Libyan arms plot

Denmark denies citizenship to Muslim who wants to replace democracy with Islamic law

cancelled

Countering Islamophobia Conference in New York Canceled!

An American Muslim organization with ties to terrorism has canceled its planned conference called “Countering Islamophobia,” which had been scheduled for Oct. 24 at a Holiday Inn in Binghamton, NY.

The group, which calls itself The Muslims of America (MOA), abandoned the conference after an aggressive campaign led by the Christian Action Network that exposed its ties to terrorist activity inside the United States.

Prior to the cancellation, MOA leaders said the conference would expose how Martin Mawyer, president of Christian Action Network, was leading “mass raids with X-ray weapons.”

Leaders of MOA gave no explanation for the cancellation, but Mawyer said he was pleased to learn the event had been scrubbed.

“I’m not surprised the conference was canceled,” said the CAN president. “They clearly wanted media attention. They wanted national coverage. But what legitimate media outlet was going to cover a conference postulating some outlandish, sci-fi conspiracy theory that I was targeting Muslims with X-ray weapons. It was laughable to begin with.”

The Muslim group has been active in the United States for more than 30 years.

In 2012 Mawyer wrote the book Twilight In America, which exposed the group’s terrorist past and its links to murder, assassinations, kidnappings, firebombings and an assortment of other crimes including drug distribution and workers compensation and unemployment scams.

A 2007 FBI report stated, “MOA [exhorts] membership to pursue a policy of jihad or holy war against individuals or groups it considers enemies of Islam which includes the U.S. Government.”

MOA has announced an alternate conference, set for Nov. 4, 2015 in Schenectady, NY.

The new conference is different in several ways from the canceled Oct. 24 event. It is being held at a mosque rather than a hotel. Promotional materials no longer mention CAN president Martin Mawyer (or his alleged X-ray weapons). It also has a decidedly less eye-catching title: Conference on Contemporary Issues of Religion in America: Discussing, Dissecting and Destorying [sic] Islamophobia.