Posts

Marquette University pays for faculty to attend ‘Overcoming Islamophobia’ workshop

It also “will offer a graduate credit for attendees that also submit a written assignment.”

When will Marquette pay faculty to attend a workshop about the ideological and theological roots of jihad terrorism? Why, that would be inconceivable. And so would any honest discussion of the jihad terror threat at Marquette or most, if not all, other universities in the U.S. today, especially Catholic universities. They are radioactive centers of hard-Left indoctrination, not institutions of higher learning in any genuine sense.

The real “Islamophobia” industry, the one dedicated to fooling people into thinking that “Islamophobia” is a genuine problem, operates by deliberately conflating two quite distinct phenomena: vigilante attacks against innocent Muslims, which are rare but never justified under any circumstances, and honest examination of the motivating ideology of jihad terrorists. By lumping the two together, “Islamophobia” victimhood propagandists hope to inhibit all examination of the jihad doctrine, and to demonize and marginalize all those who engage in such examination.

“University Offers To Pay For Faculty Attending ‘Overcoming Islamophobia’ Workshop,” by Rob Shimshock, Daily Caller, July 17, 2017 (thanks to Tom):

A Wisconsin university announced Monday that it will cover costs for its faculty to attend an anti-Islamophobia workshop, and will offer a graduate credit for attendees that also submit a written assignment.

Marquette University will pay the $30 registration fee for faculty that choose to attend “Overcoming Islamophobia: Creating a Positive Classroom Culture,” hosted at Alverno College in August. The fee will also cover lunch at the Islamic Society of Milwaukee.

The event is co-sponsored by the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Alverno College, the Milwaukee Muslim Women’s Coalition and the Islamic Society of Milwaukee. Marquette University will grant attendees that submit a written assignment pertaining to Islamophobia an Alverno graduate credit….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim cop tells friends, not investigators, he was “startled” by unarmed woman he killed

Boston to hang 50 posters addressing public harassment, “Islamophobia” around city

Students for Justice in Palestine UC Irvine — Out of Control

How long before someone gets hurt?

The group has incited against and disrupted Jewish speakers on campus since 2010.

In February 2010, eleven UCI students, including SJP UCI members, disrupted Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren’s speech. These students, dubbed the “Irvine 11,” were arrested and prosecuted.

On May 18, 2016, SJP UCI members disrupted a pro-Israel film screening. SJP UCI student leader, Celine Qussiny led a crowd of fifty who tried to force their way into the venue. They called for “Intifada” (violent uprising) and to “Fight the police.” Pro-Israel attendees were escorted out by police, for their own protection.

The university administration put SJP UCI on probation, effective until March 2017.

When the probation period expired, Celine Qussiny and SJP UCI were back. On May 10, 2017, they stormed a pro-Israel panel discussion event, with Qussiny leading a crowd in various chants including, “When people are occupied, resistance is justified!”

Again, attendees needed a police escort out of the venue.

The next day, Celine Qussiny bragged how SJP UCI had gone “to disrupt the event” in order “to let them (the panelists) know that we refuse to allow the normalization of their presence here.”

She admitted that SJP UCI knew full-well that “the administration told us not to disrupt, that we have to be civil.”

It’s hard to understate the seriousness of this. But it gets worse.

Our 2017 Report on the University of California, Irvine unearthed the shocking discovery that a number of protesters from the May 10th incident were members of the UCI student government.

SEE THE FULL REPORT

When student senators join disruptions that flout university rules and jeopardize student safety, is it not time to say enough is enough?

Contact UCI Chancellor Howard Gillman at chancellor@uci.edu and tell him that you have had enough of SJP UCI disrupting Jewish life on UCI’s campus. SJP should be banned from the UCI campus and the student government members who participated in their disruptions, impeached.

RELATED ARTICLES:

College Trustees Are Largely to Blame for Today’s Campus Madness

Palestinian Preacher on Temple Mount Calls for Slaughter of Americans

Israel, the Arab States, and the Illusions of Normalization

New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness lists Antifa as a “Domestic Terrorism” Organization

Judicial Secularists Attack Religious Freedom

On June 7, the U.S. District Court of the Middle District of Florida dealt the latest blow to religious freedom in our country.

The case arose from a request by Cambridge Christian High School, which had earned the opportunity to compete in the 2A division playoffs finals, to use the stadium’s public announcement system in prayer prior to the beginning of the game. The team’s opponent was another Christian school equally devoted to serving God and to conducting itself in His image with every activity it undertakes.

Citing issues of potential coercion and fearing that such prayer might be offensive to others, Dr. Roger Dearing, the executive director of the Florida High School Athletic Association (FHSAA), declined the request.

Of course, in so doing, Dr. Dearing dismissed the fact that the same FHSAA had approved such a request in 2012. He also dismissed the national tradition of engaging in prayer prior to the start of a football game. And most astoundingly he ignored that both teams, meaning all parties involved, wished to engage in a unified prayer as one community under Christ.

Following the denial, Cambridge Christian brought the case to the judiciary for consideration. After all, they weren’t asking for the announcer to lead everyone in prayer. They weren’t asking for the FHSAA to buy new equipment. They weren’t even asking for the game to be delayed for one moment because, in point of fact, the two teams were going to pray on the field and in front of the fans anyway.

No. The only question they were asking was, “Hey, man, can I borrow your microphone?”

Court predictably quashed religious freedom

But almost predictably, the court ruled against religious freedom citing issues of perceived endorsement of religion by government and of the infringement praying might have on the rights of others (yes, this is not a misprint).

Every time I learn of a case like this, I am baffled at the extent to which the state squashes the public’s ability to pray in an open forum merely because of government’s presence. This catastrophic road upon which the Supreme Court of the United States has placed us suppresses our right to worship and to pay reverence to God — in direct violation of the original intent First Amendment.  It ignores the spiritual aspects of human existence, and most importantly, casts aside the foundational roles of religion and religious worship in our nation’s birth.

Repeatedly, I am told that the reason for following this road is the wall of separation between church and state espoused by Thomas Jefferson in his letter written on the first day of 1802 to the members of the Danbury Baptist Church.

But there is so much that runs counter to this assertion.

First, President Jefferson’s comment was completely extrajudicial in nature.

Second, the concept of a wall of separation between church and state has been tainted by the agenda-driven nature of the Supreme Court’s 20th-century opinions. Following the 19th-century Court’s introduction of Jefferson’s wall into the legal corpus, the first two 20th-century cases invoking it did so in an effort to keep the government from interfering with state-based, religious-supporting programs.

But in 1947, the Court changed direction to one that would inhibit, rather than support, religious worship. With its McCollum decision, the court prohibited Bible verses from being recited in public schools, and later, it struck down prayer in schools as well as the observance of even a bland and neutral moment of silence.

The subsequent deterioration in the nation’s moral posture and the breakdown in the family as a central societal unit are the predictable consequences of these actions.

An alternative route ensuring freedoms

But lost in these recitations is the overt bias the Court displayed in selecting Jefferson’s wall of separation in its interpretation of the First Amendment.

Let’s consider a few similarly applicable observations made by some of the nation’s foundational greats in equally extrajudicial fashion.  George Mason, in writing the Virginia Bill of Rights, wrote, “all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and. . . it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.” His proposed amendment was subsequently approved by the Virginia legislature, the same legislature Madison and Jefferson inhabited — a far greater weight of influence than one man’s personal letter.

Based on Mason’s language, would it not have been more appropriate for a 20th century court to hold that in interpreting the First Amendment we should recognize that our nation was created with the purpose of guaranteeing that all men be able to engage in Christian forbearance? If so, wouldn’t using a public microphone for spontaneously requested prayer be not only allowed, but encouraged?

Or how about using John Marshall, the most prolific justice in the history of the Supreme Court? When asked about the nexus of Christianity and the nation’s government, he wrote in a letter, just like Jefferson did, that, “The American population. . . is entirely Christian, and with us, Christianity and religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institution did not presuppose Christianity.”

Consequently, wouldn’t a more appropriate truism for the Supreme Court to follow in its interpretation of the First Amendment be that the United States of America, through its foundation and its culture, presupposes Christianity?

Or consider the observation made by Justice Joseph Story, one of the early members of the Supreme Court, who extra-judicially wrote, “My own private judgment has long been (and every day’s experience more and more confirms me in it) that government cannot long exist without an alliance with religion to some extent; and that Christianity is indispensable to the true interests and solid foundations of free government.”

From this, wouldn’t a more appropriate guide for the interpretation of the First Amendment be that Christianity is indispensable to the true interests, foundations, and existence of these United States of America?

Back the need for a legislative override

If any of these guides had been adopted instead of, or perhaps in addition to, Jefferson’s wall of separation, imagine how different American jurisprudence would be as it relates to religious liberty and our freedom to worship! Sharia law would be an impossible legal threat, and the concepts of love for one’s neighbor and respect for the dignity of man would be freely taught in our schools under the direct supervision of the community’s parents.

From this analysis a few conclusions may be reached.

First, there is no inherent reason for Jefferson’s wall of separation, at least as the courts apply it today, to be the only compass in interpreting the First Amendment of the Constitution. So long as all religious views are respected, the government can peacefully cohabitate with worshipers be they Christian, Jewish, or any peace-loving faith.

Second, neither the people of this great nation nor its elected representatives selected the road our nation has traversed regarding religious liberty. Instead, it was embraced by an oligarchy of legalists unaccountable to the will of the people.

Consequently, if it is true that the Courts have interpreted the Constitution in a manner inconsistent with the will of the people, then isn’t it up to We The People, as the true purveyors of the Constitution, to override an opinion of such a Court and reverse an ill-conceived opinion? We know, through their writings, that at least Jefferson and Madison would think so.

Truly, the road we are following regarding our religious freedom is nothing short of harrowing. It has diminished our sense of morality and has curtailed our abilities to teach our children that there are things bigger than themselves.

It is time for our country to navigate back to the road built upon Christian forbearance; the same road that would lead us to the shining city on the hill.

RELATED ARTICLE: 2 Cases Threaten to Shut Down Public Prayer. Why the Supreme Court May Need to Act.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Revolutionary Act.

Religious Protection Gone Wild

The First Amendment guarantees Americans the freedom of religion in the “establishment” clause:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Words matter, so the first question that must be answered is a matter of definition. What is religion?

The dictionary defines religion as:

  1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
  2. A particular system of faith and worship.
  3. A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes superhuman importance.

Dictionaries have been used for centuries to help codify the meaning of words in an attempt to make language useful. Without accepted specific meanings for words it is impossible to communicate through language effectively. Language is the common denominator of speech. Even biblical stories express the importance of the meaning of words as they are understood or misunderstood in any language. The most famous example is the biblical story of The Tower of Babel that begins with everyone on Earth speaking the same language and able to understand each other. Whether the scattering of people around the world was a punishment for hubris or not, the consequence was that people began speaking different languages and could no longer understand each other.

But what happens when people speaking the same language no longer understand each other because they interpret the meaning of the same words differently? That is the situation we are facing in contemporary American society today.

The second question that must be answered is a matter of interpretation. What does religion mean to you?

Thomas Jefferson wrote eloquently on the subject in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists who worried about their minority status in Connecticut. Jefferson was reassuring the Baptists that being a minority religion would not be a problem in a Protestant majority state as far as the federal government was concerned.

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”(Wikipedia)

Jefferson’s letter clearly indicates that for Jefferson, religion was a matter of Man and God. Jefferson’s interpretation was the widely accepted and understood view of religion in the early 18th century. By the 20th century the U.S. Supreme Court “incorporated” the Establishment Clause and expanded its application from the federal government to the state governments as well.

The practical application of the freedom of religion also requires a uniform understanding of the meaning and interpretation of the word religion. The Exercise Clause clarifies the supremacy of Constitutional laws and freedoms over religious laws and freedoms. This is particularly important in contemporary America because we are facing “religious” practices of Islam that threaten our Constitutional freedoms.

The Free Exercise Clause distinguishes between religions beliefs and religious practices. It is the equivalence of distinguishing between thinking and doing. In America an individual is free to think murderous thoughts but he is not free to murder. Islam is a religion governed by religious Sharia Law that endorses honor killings, female genital mutilation, murder of apostates, murder of homosexuals, wife beatings, child marriage and pedophilia. American jurisaprudence does not have the will or authority to change people’s beliefs whether they are citizens of the United States, guests in this country, here illegally, or citizens of other countries, but we most certainly have the right and legal obligation to disallow any and all practices in conflict with the U.S. Constitution and our cultural norms. Free Exercise Clause (Wikipedia)

“Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order.”[28] In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Supreme Court found that while laws cannot interfere with religious belief and opinions, laws can be made to regulate some religious practices (e.g., human sacrifices, and the Hindu practice of suttee). The Court stated that to rule otherwise, “would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government would exist only in name under such circumstances.”[29] In Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), the Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied the Free Exercise Clause to the states. While the right to have religious beliefs is absolute, the freedom to act on such beliefs is not absolute.

In Jefferson’s time as in Truman’s time the meaning of the word religion was understood as items 1 and 2:

  1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
  2. A particular system of faith and worship.

Seventy years later in 2017 we must reconsider the meaning of the word religion and ask the question What is Islam?

Islam is not a religion like Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, or Judaism. Islam is a unified supremacist socio-political system with a military wing and a religious wing. Islam is governed by religious sharia law. The goal of Islam since the 7th century is to make the world Islamic and impose sharia law worldwide.

Islam is tyrannical in its demand for conformity to its barbaric sharia laws. Islam is intolerant. Islam is a political force seeking world dominion and cannot be allowed religious protections like the Baptists in Connecticut during Jefferson’s times.

Islam is far more like the Nazis during Hitler’s time. Consider this question. What if Hitler declared Nazism to be a religion. It certainly qualifies as a religion according to Item 3. A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes superhuman importance.

If Adolph Hitler declared his Nazism a religion would the left-wing liberal apologists for Islam defend Nazism and its determination to rule the world and rid the Earth of every Jew? Would the lefty-wing liberals declare murder of Jews protected by religious freedom? How is this different from allowing Muslims to perpetrate honor killings, female genital mutilation, murder of apostates, murder of homosexuals, wife beatings, child marriage, and pedophilia.

There is no difference.

If, as apologists for Islamic barbarity claim, Islamists have perverted their religion – then it is also true that they have perverted our concept of religious freedom. Islam is not a religion like any other and its savage practices do not deserve protection under our religious freedom laws and the free exercise clause.

Palestinians Paid Terrorists and their families $1 Billion in past 4 Years

The PLO (Palestinian leadership) pay Palestinians and their families  who murder Jews and Christians in Israel money as a reward for  murder. They also name monuments and streets after these murderers. Leaders as well as people and countries who continue to pay the PLO money used to incite murder are ‘Accessories to Murder’ .

Congress should immediately cut off funds paid to the PLO unless this incitement to murder is stopped.

Palestinians Paid Terrorists $1 Billion in Past 4 Years

The Palestinian Authority has paid out some NIS 4 billion — or $1.12 billion — over the past four years to terrorists and their families, a former director general of the Ministry of Strategic Affairs and ex-head of the army’s intelligence and research division told a top Knesset panel on Monday.

Setting out the figures, Brig.-Gen (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser told the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that the longer the period for which a Palestinian security prisoner is jailed, “the higher the salary… Anyone who has sat in prison for more than 30 years gets NIS 12,000 ($3,360) per month,” said Kuperwasser, according to the (Hebrew) NRG website. “When they’re released, they get a grant and are promised a job at the Palestinian Authority. They get a military rank that’s determined according to the number of years they’ve served in jail.”

Kuperwasser also told the committee that PA claims that the payments to terrorists’ families are social welfare benefits to the needy are false. The Palestinians’ own budgetary documents, he said, “clearly state that these are salaries and not welfare payments.”

Kuperwasser was briefing MKs days after US President Donald Trump visited Israel and held talks with PA President Mahmoud Abbas in Bethlehem. In an apparent public upbraiding of Abbas over the payments, Trump told him at their joint press conference: “Peace can never take root in an environment where violence is tolerated, funded or rewarded.”

Read more…

RELATED ARTICLES: 

For Some, Sex Appeal is Part of Jihad’s Lure – IPT News

HuffPo: U.S. Refugee processing pipeline being restarted, contractors optimistic

Falls Church, Virginia Mosque Dar al-Hijrah to Host Pro-Brotherhood Egyptian Imam

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Mahmoud Abbas celebrating the return of Palestinian prisoners as part of Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations in August 2013 (photo credit: Issam Rimawi/Flash90)

Major policy shift: Trump administration declares Jerusalem part of Israel

Major, and most welcome. Jerusalem belongs to Israel by the record of history, international law, and the right of conquest that is recognized for every other state in the world, but not for Israel. This is an extremely encouraging development; we can only hope there will be more to come.

“Trump Admin Declares Jerusalem Part of Israel in Major Policy Shift,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, May 22, 2017:

The Trump administration declared the president is in “Jerusalem, Israel,” on Monday for a series of meetings with Israeli officials, a proclamation that breaks with years of American policy refraining from stating that the city of Jerusalem is part of Israel.

Senior Trump administration officials had ignited a wave of controversy over the past several weeks when discussing Jerusalem, with some top officials refusing to say that the ancient city is part of Israel.

Decades of U.S. policy has refrained from formally labeling Jerusalem as part of Israel due to concerns this could negatively impact the Middle East peace process, in which Palestinian leaders have staked a claim to the city as their future capital.

Ahead of a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the White House, on its official website, provided a live stream of the event. Prior to its start, the White House included a frame stating, “President Trump gives remarks with Prime Minister Netanyahu.” The location provided was “Jerusalem, Israel.”

The statement appears to be part of an effort to normalize this language, which is widely backed by U.S. lawmakers and senior officials in the administration, sources said.

The State Department, which is disposed to address the issue with more caution, declined to comment on the latest declaration, instead referring a reporter to the White House. The White House did not provide comment on the matter by press time. Pro-Israel observers on Twitter and other social media immediately praised the declaration.

The Obama administration also faced its own controversies when dealing with the city. The former administration was caught altering official photographs to remove “Israel” as the location for several meetings. The effort roiled the pro-Israel community, but was in line with standing U.S. policy.

The Trump administration has faced its own struggles on the issue.

Candidate Trump vowed in multiple speeches on the campaign trail that he would move the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the country’s capital.

While U.S. law states that the embassy should be moved, consecutive presidents have waived the requirement, claiming that it interferes with efforts to advance Middle East peace.

Trump’s administration has taken heat from the pro-Israel community for failing thus far to take concrete action on moving the embassy. While White House officials maintain that the plan is still being examined, the slow roll of the move has angered Trump’s biggest pro-Israel supporters.

Trump administration officials also have issued a range of answers when pressed to explain whether they believe Jerusalem is part of Israel.

White House National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster last week would not tell reporters whether Israel’s holiest site, the Western Wall, is located in Israel proper.

The latest declaration on the issue by the Trump administration appears to show that the president is committed to affirming Israel’s sovereignty over the city and turning the page from years of chilly relations between the Israeli government and the United States under former President Barack Obama.

In joint remarks with Netanyahu, Trump emphasized his opposition to the landmark Iran nuclear deal, blaming the previous administration for inking a deal that has only emboldened the Islamic Republic….

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Abbas and Palestinian Authority Honor Terrorists Amid Trump Visit by IPT News

Trump Signals a Reset Between Israel and US

The Unapologetic American — Donald Trump brings a new message to the Middle East

UK: Several killed, many injured after two explosions in arena at Ariana Grande gig

Robert Spencer in PJ Media: Trump Moves U.S. Towards a Realistic Approach to Jihad Threat

Manchester Explosion: UK Has Been Targeted By Terrorists ‘Time and Time Again’

Benjamin Netanyahu: Moving U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem Wouldn’t Harm Peace

Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel, said the United States could move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem without worrying about any dings to the peace process.

U.S. Embassy to Israel

His remarks came after Secretary of State Rex Tillerson hinted that Bibi might not want the embassy moved there, because it could prove an impediment to peace talks.

But Netanyahu doubled down and said his position on the embassy hasn’t changed.

From CNS News:

“‘Israel’s position has been stated many times to the American administration and to the world,’ Netanyahu said in a statement, which his office said was in response to Tillerson’s remarks.

“‘Moving the American embassy to Jerusalem would not harm the peace process,’ the prime minister said. ‘On the contrary, it would advance it by correcting an historical injustice and by shattering the Palestinian fantasy that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel.’

“For months Israeli and regional media outlets have speculated that while Israel has long sought embassies to move from Tel Aviv and surrounding areas to its declared capital, the government worries that should President Trump make good on his campaign promise to move the U.S. mission the benefits could be outweighed by negative consequences.

“The implication has been that Netanyahu – while unable to say so publicly for fear of alienating his support base – hopes that Trump will not keep his pledge.

“Moving the embassy would be deeply controversial since Palestinians contest Israel’s right to the city and want to establish the capital of a future independent state there – a demand Palestinian Authority (P.A.) chairman Mahmoud Abbas reiterated at his March 3 Oval Office meeting with Trump.”

Islamic leaders have warned that recognizing Israel’s claim to the land in so openly a manner would put a stop to peace talks, and trigger anger in the Muslim world.

But Trump made a campaign vow to move the embassy.

Again, from CNS News:

“Moving the embassy to Jerusalem would not only keep an unequivocal campaign promise but would also be in line with U.S. law, which three successive administrations have chosen not to observe over the past 18 years, by passing six-monthly national security waivers.

“President Obama invoked the last such waiver on December 1 last year, so Trump will either have to follow suit on or before June 1, or set in motion steps towards moving the embassy from its current Tel Aviv beachfront location.

“The now-confirmed new ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, is due to take up his duties from Monday. An orthodox Jew and ardent Zionist, Friedman made clear when nominated and since, that he hopes to be working from Jerusalem as soon as possible.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Swedish Senior Citizen Prosecuted for ‘Hate’ for Posting on Facebook She Saw Migrants Defecating in Streets, Setting Cars Ablaze

Germany Confiscating Homes to Use for Muslim Migrants: “A Massive Attack on the Property Rights”

Denmark: Imam calls for murder of Jews

VIDEO: Muslim Migrant beats up helpless disabled Dutch boy on crutches

British Child Rape Victim: ‘Authorities Did Nothing’, Was Told Not to Mention Attackers Were Muslim

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report.

VIDEO: Bibi Netanyahu to Mahmoud Abbas ‘Google Yourself’

Netanyahu is right to call this savage out on his lies. It is a shame that Trump seemed to believe him. We can only hope that someone around him set him straight.

“Netanyahu Recommends Abbas ‘Google Yourself,’” by Hana Levi Julian, Jewish Press, May 6, 2017:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recommended in a tweet to Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas on Friday that he try “Googling [himself] sometime.”

The tweet – and the video that came along with it – followed the incredulous lies spoken by Abbas at the podium of the White House during his joint press briefing with U.S. President Donald Trump this past week.

Abbas said during the briefing with media that his government “educates for peace,” and affirmed the Palestinian Authority is “raising our youth, our children, our grandchildren on a culture of peace.”

The Palestinian Authority has named sports events, children’s summer camps, schools and public buildings, streets and squares after some of the most bloodthirsty terrorists in the world.

The PA government also funds and sponsors television programming — clips of which are translated by the Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) organization — encouraging small children to hate Israel and Jews, and teaches them it is their sacred duty to murder. They are also taught by these programs that the entire Land of Israel is actually “Palestine”, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, and that someday it will all belong to the Arab nation “once more” – when they have eradicated the “Zionist enemy.”

These concepts are reinforced to children and teens in the classroom during the day in their textbooks and in the curricula formulated by the Palestinian Authority’s Ministry of Education.

Adult citizens of the Palestinian Authority are reminded of the “truth” of these vicious lies via the daily media they are exposed to in government-backed newspapers, radio stations and television programs, whose incitement-filled hate is also often translated and then publicized by the Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) so the world can at least be aware of what is being said.

All of these lies are funded via the PA Ministry of Communications, which receives support from the European Union and the United States, among other foreign nations….

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report.

President Trump Loosens Free Speech Cuffs on Churches

President Donald Trump, in an executive order released Thursday — timed to coincide with National Prayer Day — loosened some of the Internal Revenue Service restrictions on churches that prevented pastors from preaching about politics from the pulpits.

Specifically, he called for the easing of the tax agency’s enforcement of the Johnson Amendment, a decades-old rule that bans churches from openly endorsing political candidates.

Churches and places of worship may have an easier time getting in the political game, thanks to a new executive order signed by President Donald Trump that loosens some of the regulations guiding nonprofits and tax exemptions.

The rule’s been used by far-leftists and atheist groups, like the Freedom From Religious Foundation, in recent years to clamp all types of speech in churches that seem applicable to modern day issues, however. The FFRF, for example, complained in 2012 to the IRS that a bishop was breaking the Johbnson Amendment by telling readers of a local newspaper in a letter to the editor that Catholics, in good conscience, could not vote for candidates who favored gay marriage and abortion.

Trump’s newest executive order makes clear: such enforcement is above and beyond the scope of the Johnson Amendment.

USA Today writes:

“Seeking to redefine the balance between church and state, President Trump signed an executive order that – depending on your point of view – either protects religious liberty, licenses religious groups to practice discrimination, or doesn’t go far enough in any direction.

“‘We’re a nation of believers,’ Trump told supporters during a signing ceremony in the Rose Garden at the White House. “Faith is deeply embedded in the history of our country… No American should be forced to choose between the dictates of the American government and the tenets of their faith.’

“Trump’s executive order, which he signed on Thursday to coincide with the National Day of Prayer, calls for easing of Internal Revenue Service enforcement of the so-called ‘Johnson Amendment,’ which prohibits churches from getting directly involved in political campaigns.

“While only Congress can formally do away with the law, this will pave the way for churches and other religious leaders to speak about politics and endorse candidates without worrying about losing their tax-exempt status.

“Trump, criticizing the Johnson amendment as a violation of free speech rights, views his actions as fulfillment of a campaign pledge. “I talked about it a lot” during last year’s presidential campaign, and “promised to take action,” he said. “I won.”

“The Executive Order on Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty also aims to make it easier for employers with religious objections not to include contraception coverage in workers’ health care plans, although it would be up to federal agencies to determine how that would happen.

“At the ceremony, Trump recognized members of the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of nuns which runs homes for the elderly. The group objected to the Obama administration’s policy that while religious organizations don’t have to directly provide birth control to employees, workers could still get it through a third party. ‘Your long ordeal will soon be over,’ he told them.

“Vowing to fight what he called discrimination against religious people and institutions, Trump said, ‘We will not allow people of faith to be bullied, targeted, or silenced any more.’ The government, he added, has been used as ‘a weapon’ against religion and people of faith.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump: ‘No One Should Be Censoring Sermons or Targeting Pastors’

Trump’s Executive Order Fails to Address Most Pressing Religious Liberty Threats

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report.

‘The Catholic Church…has become one of Islam’s loudest boosters’

In this excellent piece, George Neumayr refers to the rupture of relations between the Vatican and al-Azhar that took place during the time of Pope Benedict. As I explained here, that rupture took place because Pope Benedict dared to speak out about the Muslim persecution of Christians.

By contrast, Francis energetically defends Islam, and leaves the persecuted Christians twisting in the wind, so he is acceptable to al-Azhar.

The worst part about this is the fact that because this man is Pope, all too many Catholics, including some in positions of high authority, treat him as if he were a divine oracle, his every utterance to be revered, respected, studied, and followed. Because of the statement of Vatican II that “religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra,” and “must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will,” Catholic leaders and publications tend to think that they must adhere to anything the Pope says about anything.

This leads them into impossible positions. When Pope Benedict XVI appeared to criticize the aspects of Islam that incite and justify violence, they allowed for criticism of Islam. When Francis showed himself to be an Islamic apologist, they became Islamic apologists. All too many Catholic leaders and institutions, in other words, are more interested in being papists than in being truthful. They would rather show loyalty to the Pope, no matter how damaging his utterances, than stand for the truth on the own against the Pope.

The contradiction is clear, and absolute. If the Catholic Church has become one of Islam’s loudest boosters, then those who are aware of the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, rooted in Islamic texts and teachings, have to make some hard decisions about where they stand.

“Leave them; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14)

POPE-ISLAM-NON-VIOLENT“The Papal Propagandist for Islam Heads to Egypt,” by George Neumayr, American Spectator, April 26, 2017 (thanks to Lookmann):

As the prototypical progressive Jesuit, Pope Francis prides himself on his “ecumenism.” He oozes enthusiasm for every religion except his own. At the top of his list of favorite religions is the Church’s fiercest adversary — Islam.

He often sounds more like a spokesman for CAIR than a Catholic pope. After jihadists cut off the head of a French priest in July 2016 — yelling “Allahu Akbar” over the priest’s slit throat — Pope Francis rushed to the defense of Islam. “I don’t like to talk about Islamic violence, because every day, when I read the newspaper, I see violence,” he said, before ludicrously blaming the rise of terrorism on the “idolatry” of free-market economics: “As long as the god of money is at the center of the global economy and not the human person, man and woman, this is the first terrorism.”

As Europe turns into Eurabia, Pope Francis is picking up honors and awards from progressives, including, hilariously, the 2016 “Charlemagne Prize” for his Islamic apologetics. It is hard to imagine a Christian leader less like Charlemagne. Pope Francis is energized not depressed by the disappearance of Christian Europe. “States must be secular,” he told La Croix. Christian states, he said, “end badly” and go “against the grain of history.” He added that “when I hear talk of the Christian roots of Europe, I sometimes dread the tone, which can seem triumphalist or even vengeful.” It also takes on “colonialist overtones,” he complained.

The most liberal pope ever, of course, sees no irony in shilling for the most illiberal religion on Earth. On his anti-colonialist scorecard, Islam wears the white hats and Christian Europe, the black ones. After jihadists gunned down ten journalists at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, Pope Francis rushed to Islam’s defense again, in effect rebuking the dead journalists for incitement: “You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.” Those who do, he continued, should “expect a punch.”

This week Pope Francis takes his pro-Islamic apology tour to Egypt. Previewing the trip, which starts on Friday, he said he seeks to “offer a valid contribution to inter-religious dialogue with the Islamic world.” Francis’s fawning media courtiers are already rolling out the propaganda for it, predicting that it will “build bridges to moderate Islam.”

“A main reason for the trip is to try to strengthen relations with the 1,000-year-old Azhar center that were cut by the Muslim side in 2011 over what it said were repeated insults of Islam by Francis’s predecessor, Pope Benedict,” according to Reuters. “Ties with the center were restored last year after [Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb] visited the Vatican. Tayeb, widely seen as one of the most moderate senior clerics in Egypt, has repeatedly condemned Islamic State and its practice of declaring others as apostates and infidels as a pretext for waging violent jihad.”

Being “one of the most moderate senior clerics in Egypt” is about as meaningful a distinction as being one of the most chaste Kardashian sisters. Useful idiots in the West call Tayeb moderate, but anyone paying attention knows that he is not, unless calling for the killing of apostates now counts as “moderate.”…

Past popes regarded Islam as a font of poisonous heresies. Dante placed Muhammad in hell. St. Thomas Aquinas said Muhammad peddled “fables and doctrines of the greatest falsity” and sardonically remarked upon the perverse basis for his claim of divine favor: “Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms — which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants.”What has changed? Nothing. Islam remains as violent as it started. But one thing is new: The Catholic Church, under the death-wish progressivism of Francis, has become one of Islam’s loudest boosters.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Europe: What Happens to Christians There Will Come Here

Robert Spencer, PJM: Florida Diocese Punishes Teacher Who Quoted Saint’s Critique of Islam

Austrian President: Day will come when we ask all women to wear headscarf

RELATED INFOGRAPHIC:

islam graphic

The Crimes of Qassem: The U.S. should shut down Iran’s top terrorist

He might not be a household name in America — at least, not yet. But throughout the Middle East, Qassem Suleymani makes the righteous and the innocent tremble.

To the righteous — meaning, from his perspective, the Shiite zealots who believe the Islamic state of Iran should establish the caliphate and dominate the world — he is an awe-inspiring figure.

He is powerful. He is brash. He brazenly shows up on the battlefield to encourage his troops. In Iraq, he has become the maker of prime ministers and governments, and commands a militia of 100,000 men.

To his innocent victims, he is the face of Terror, Inc. As head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps – Quds Force (IRGC-QF), Qassem Suleymani is Iran’s top terrorist.

The Quds Force is euphemistically in charge of “extraterritorial” operations for the IRGC. I call it their expeditionary overseas terrorist wing.

In the early days, they were the ones who sent terror trainers to Lebanon to teach Hezbollah how to build better car bombs. Later, they knocked off a Lebanese prime minister and launched an all-out war on Israel in the summer of 2006, firing thousands of rockets at Israeli schools, hospitals and towns.

When Iran’s leaders decided in the early 1990s to forge an alliance in terror with a Saudi dissident named Osama bin Laden, they turned the file over to the Quds Force for action.

The Quds Force has been implicated in terror plots all around the world, including a failed 2011 attempt to blow up the Saudi ambassador at a Washington, D.C. restaurant. Suleymani and his operatives were also implicated in the September 11 plot, helping 10 to 12 of the Saudi “muscle” hijackers travel clandestinely through Iran to Afghanistan and providing logistical and other support.

In February 2007, Pentagon officials briefed reporters in Baghdad on Quds Force assistance to insurgents in Iraq.

The briefing included information and documents seized from Quds Force operatives detained by U.S. forces in Iraq, and photographic evidence of Iranian-made roadside bombs, known as Explosively Formed Projectiles, or EFPs.

The introduction of EFPs onto the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan by Suleymani and his men changed the scope and scale of U.S. casualties, ultimately accounting for as many as 1,500 U.S. battlefield dead.

I spoke recently to medically retired U.S. Army Sgt. Robert Bartlett about his encounter with an Iranian EFP. The force of the projectile “cut me in half from the left corner of my temple down to my jaw, and took my gunner’s legs off. Because of this Iranian bomb, I died three times in five days.

“Only my faith kept me alive,” he said.

The U.S. Army told Samantha Balsely that her 23-year old husband Michael had been killed in Iraq by an Improvised Explosive Device. Later, it became apparent that he, too, had been killed by an Iranian EFP.

“When I found out the government had given Iran billions of dollars, it was the biggest slap in the face,” Samantha told me. “How can you say you respect what our men and women do when you order them over there and then you pay their killers. It’s not right.”

Samantha Balsley is right. It’s just not right for the U.S. government to continue rewarding the Iranian regime, when they continue to kill Americans.

We know who these killers are. They have names. And they work for an organization: the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and its “expeditionary” Quds Force.

As an immediate step, the Trump administration should follow through on hints that it is contemplating designating the IRGC and the Quds Force as international terrorist organizations.

The United States should take additional steps against Suleymani personally, blocking his assets, punishing businesses that transact with him or his Quds Force killers, and seeking an international travel ban.

Beyond that, the U.S. intelligence community should investigate reports from officials and media in Iraqi Kurdistan that Suleymani and the Quds Force facilitated the ISIS takeover of Mosul and the Nineveh Plain in June 2014, acts that could qualify as war crimes.

The crimes of Qassem Suleymani are many. After Osama bin Laden, he has more American blood on his hand than any terrorist. It’s time we shut him down for good.

Israelis file multiple lawsuits against Facebook for providing radical Islamists a platform

While Facebook is being sued for providing a platform for jihadists “involved in the ‘stabbing intifada’” against innocent Israelis, the social media giant has apparently been all too busy playing thought police by cranking down on harmless conservatives. According to “former Facebook workers,” they “routinely suppressed conservative news,” including stories that were trending on major news sites. The “news curators” were ordered to “artificially inject selected stories into the trending news mode,” even if they were unpopular.

Media and social media collusion has become the norm, to the detriment of the people, whose thoughts are being manipulated via lies by omission.

Facebook even reportedly banned a Trump supporter last May for complaining that the social media site was censoring “right wing activists,” thereby proving his point.

“Terrorism Cases Against Facebook Reach climax”, by Yonah Jeremy Bob, Jerusalem Post, March 2, 2017:

American-Israeli Richard Lakin, [sic] told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday that he is “outraged” at Facebook for pretending that it has zero tolerance for terrorism.

He spoke minutes after a climactic hearing in a terrorism lawsuit against the social media giant.

Lakin was one of the original plaintiffs in a 2015 lawsuit filed by a group of 20,000 Israelis against Facebook for providing a platform for terrorists involved in the “stabbing intifada,” and demanding an injunction ordering the firm to act more forcefully against terrorist incitement on its pages.

Wednesday’s hearing was the final one in a US federal court in Brooklyn before the judge decides whether Shurat Hadin – Israel Law Center, representing the plaintiffs, has found the first-ever legal silver bullet for breaking what has been an impenetrable barrier protecting Facebook from terrorism lawsuits.

Lakin was wounded and later died from his wounds in an attack by two Palestinians armed with a knife and a gun on a Jerusalem bus in fall 2015.

The 20,000 plaintiffs’ case is combined with a $1 billion damages case on behalf of the families of five victims, including US Army veteran Taylor Force, of the terrorist group Hamas.

Facebook had filed a motion to dismiss both cases arguing that, like all prior similar terrorism cases against it, the US Communications Decency Act (1996) bars all legal claims against it for posts by third parties using its platform – a defense that has proved unbeatable to date.

Shurat Hadin has argued that Facebook was not the intended target of the Communications Decency Act, which was focused on publishing, and that the social media platform has powerful algorithms it could use to catch and take down incitement and terrorist communications.

One relatively novel issue is the NGO’s attempt to use the US Anti-Terrorism Act against Facebook and to define the company as providing material support for terrorism by letting terrorists use its platform, instead of merely accusing Facebook of failing to control incitement, a less serious charge.

Shurat Hadin has admitted that the only court decision to date on this issue, earlier in 2016, went in favor of Facebook, but has claimed that case was “plainly wrongly decided and an outlier,” since a terrorism claim, unlike an incitement claim, relates not to publishing content, but to providing services.

The argument is that even if Facebook is not actively publishing third parties’ content, it is actively providing them the service of its platform.

Avni also told the Post that he “continued to be outraged by Facebook’s behavior… While this is a lawsuit about a specific issue of law, that they shouldn’t provide services to terror organizations, there is a basic ethical question that they shouldn’t help terrorists and allow them to operate freely on their platform.”

He added, “Facebook’s lawyer started his speech saying it has zero tolerance for terror. But the big dirty secret is that they make a ton of money from it. Facebook is getting lots of traffic and selling ads – the quantity of jihadists’ traffic is big and they get a lot of money out of it.”

Shurat Hadin’s New York counsel Robert Tolchin said, “Our case transcends” the Communications Decency Act, since “we are not talking about who published a post – we are talking about who provided services to a terror organization. Most of the judge’s questions [at the hearing] focused on that tension.”

Tolchin said he thought the judge came away with a view that the issue was more complicated than being able to just simply dismiss it because of the standard Communications Decency Act argument.

Shurat Hadin Director Nitsana Darshan- Leitner said, “The terrorist stabbing attacks throughout Israel and the murder of these innocent American and Israeli victims would never have occurred without the massive wave of incitement over social media.

“Facebook believes it is entitled to make billions of dollars annually while having no obligations to police its web pages and filter out calls to murder innocent Jews worldwide,” she added….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Saudi police pack two transgender Pakistanis into a sack and beat them to death with sticks

Islamic State on killing spree of Christians in Sinai

Students for Justice in Palestine caught in a lie

sjp logoArlington, TX – Leadership of Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Arlington, Texas (SJP UTA), which has been embroiled in an anti-Semitism scandal, are claiming that they don’t know former friend and colleague Nancy Salem. They are also denying that any of their members have made anti-Semitics comments.

Canary Mission’s evidence concludes that both of these claims are flagrant lies.

Following the release of a report by campus watchdog Canary Mission, SJP UTA have sought to distance themselves from Salem. The former pre-school teacher who called to “kill some Jews” on Twitter, was fired yesterday from her job at Children’s Courtyard amidst calls for the school to shut down.

In response, SJP UTA yesterday posted a statement on their primary Facebook page making two absurd denials. The first is that Salem has “never been associated with SJP” and second that “Sjp has never had any members make any anti-semitic [sic] statements.”

SJP UTA latest hires.png

Canary Mission’s investigation of the activists Twitter interactions revealed that at least half a dozen SJP UTA members implicated in Canary Mission’s expose, including their Vice President, are closely acquainted with her.

Here is Salem wishing their Vice President a happy birthday last year:

Though never a student at UTA, a point made clear in Canary Mission’s profile on her, Salem was clearly affiliated with the SJP UTA chapter. SJP UTA have a second Facebook account, which can still be viewed now, even though since our expose the names of those individuals implicated in their anti-Semitism scandal have since been removed and there is virtually no content. Nancy Salem was one of those individuals whose name was removed.

Nancy_Salem_FB.jpg

Below are examples of interactions between Salem and the above mentioned SJP UTA activists clearly showing that they know her:

Lastly, here are just two examples conclusively showing just three SJP UTA members together with their anti-Semitic statements. The rest can be found on the Canary Mission UTA page.

Radical Syrian Cleric Comes To Central Florida Preaching Hate

sheikh-mohammed-rateb-al-nabulsi-2

Sheikh Mohammed Rateb Al-Nabulsi

For those who did not see this Channel 9 Investigative report there was a Radical Syrian  Cleric, Sheikh Mohammed Rateb Al-Nabulsi,  who openly calls for the death of Jews and Gays speaking in Central Florida.   Sh. Al-Nabulsi found a welcoming home at the Islamic Society of Central Florida – Imam Musri’s Mosque, AlBir Mosque in Kissimmee, Islamic Society of Pinellas County Mosque, and a Embassy Suites Banquet Hall in Tampa for the American Muslim Leadership Council of Tampa, FL.

Sh. Al-Nabulsi wrote a paper called “Lesson 35: Ruling on Martyrdom Operations in Palestine.

In it Al-Nabulsi says,

…the wicked Jews are a collection of defects and imperfections, and a hotbed of vices and evils. They are the worst enemies of God, against Islam and its people, The Almighty says: Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists. [Quran 5:82]”

Sh. Nabulsi goes on,

It is not permissible under Sharia to relinquish to the Jews any part of the lands of the Muslims nor to make peace with them, for they are the people of cunning and deception, and the breaking of pacts.  

All the Jewish people are combatant…this is essentially an entirely aggressive entity from A to Z. This is the Sharia ruling, This is what many of the Ulema say, the Sharia ruling on Fedayeen activity is that it is permissible. “

Sheikh Al-Nabulsi has never retracted his statements publicly.  These statements of hatred for all the Jewish people from A to Z, is part of his schadenfreude or worldview.  In the Muslim world, Sh. Al-Nabulsi is a world renowned Islamic scholar and those who support him must also, by default, share his hate filled worldview.

Imam Mohammad Musri on January 7, 2014 invited this Hate Sheikh into his Mosque.  Imam Mursri was interviewed by Channel 9 reporter Field Sutton on why he would invite such a controversial  figure to his Orlando, FL Mosque.  Imam Musri did not condemn  his friend Al-Nabulsi’s hate speech against the Jews.  In fact, Musri ignored those  anti Jewish comments thinking Mr. Sutton was referring only to Sh. Al-Nabulsi’s anti gay remarks.

Imam Musri’s answers appeared to only reference Sh. Al-Nabulsi’s video saying that, “All homosexuals deserve the death penalty” not addressing any of the hate Sheikh’s Anti Jewish comments.  Imam Musri said, “We would not welcome any person or organization that will bash any group,” Musri said, “after the Pulse nightclub attack, he hopes the visiting scholar no longer feels the way he used to feel. “If he does, then it gives us the opportunity to discuss and maybe challenge those views and maybe change minds or hearts,” I’m sorry to tell you  this Imam Musri,  but any reasonable person would want that little detail of calling for the murder of an entire demographic cleared up before inviting him to speak at your Mosque, instead of giving the Hate Sheikh a clever pass.  Imam Musri – I find your cavalier attitude towards your brother Al-Nabulsi’s hate speech and incitement to violence pathologically disturbing.

Imam Musri’s  refusing to condemn Al-Nabulsi’s hate speech against the Jews specifically, creates a dilemma for many in the Orlando Jewish leadership.

sheikh-mohammed-rateb-al-nabulsi-speak-posterFor example, Imam Musri co-hosts a interfaith radio show on National Public Radio with Rabbi Steven Engel of the Congregation of Reform Judaism in Orlando.  Rabbi Engel must decide if his personal friendship with Imam Musri is more important than his association with a  radical Syrian cleric who says all Jews are legitimate targets for martyrdom operations and death.  Imam Musri had the opportunity to condemn Sh. Al-Nabulsi on Channel 9 News but never did, one must ask why?  Rabbi Steven Engel and his congregation must ask why?

The afternoon of Sh. Al-Nabulsi’s lecture at Imam Musri’s Mosque we went to ask that exact question, but never got the chance.  Before entering the Mosque, we were confronted by Bassem Chaaban, Director of Outreach for  Imam Musri’s Mosque.  Mr. Chaaban told us, “This is a private event and not open to the public…it was not advertised to the public and for our members only.” We were denied entry and asked to leave.

Nowhere on Imam Musri’s flyer for the Hate Sheikh event does it say ‘Private’ or RSVP required.  The Al-Nabulsi lecture was advertised on the ISCF Facebook page.  Clearly Mr. Chaaban, acting on Imam Musri’s behalf, only wanted Muslim’s in attendance, all others not welcome.

Hate Sheikh’s Anti Gay Comments

Sh. Al-Nabulsi said on video tape that, “All homosexuals deserve the death penalty.”  The only person from Orlando’s gay community who publicly  condemned Al-Nabulsi was Randy Ross, the Orange County leader for President Donald Trump’s election campaign.

How deep does the hate and intolerance run in the Central Florida Muslim community? There are three Mosques and the American Muslim Leadership Council of Tampa who hold Sh. ‘Hate’ Al-Nabulsi in such high regard they invited him to speak, knowing his visceral hatred for Jews and Gays.

Conclusion 

Imam Musri was the voice of the Orlando Muslim community after the Pulse Nightclub terrorist attack.  Imam Musri spoke a message of love, togetherness, and that Islam had nothing to do with the attack by ISIS Jihadi, Omar Mateen.

Imam Musri did an interview next to the Pulse Nightclub with Tim Vargas, local gay leader, and George Stephanopoulos.   Imam Musri was saying how the Pulse Nightclub shooter did not represent Islam and how the Muslim community stands with the Gay community and the entire Orlando community at large.  That was a good and much needed message, only now we learn Imam Musri was not telling the truth.  If Imam Musri was truthful in his interview with George Stephanopoulos,  today he would have condemned Sheikh Al-Nabulsi publicly for his call to murder gays and Jews.  Imam Musri invited a hate cleric to his Mosque as an honored guest for his thousands of Muslim congregants, now he must account for his actions.

This is serious business because Imam Musri is well respected in the Jewish, Christian, Gay, and interfaith communities.  Imam Musri has built these relationships over many years telling these local leaders exactly what they need to hear to build bridges of  friendship.

Then while Imam Musri thinks nobody is looking, he shows what lies underneath his slick polished veneer.  Underneath that veneer of bridge building lies a man who reveres an Islamic scholar who calls for the murder of Jews and Gays.  Imam Musri had the opportunity to set the record straight condemning Al-Nabulsi with Channel 9 News reporter Field Sutton, but he did not.

How many followers of Islam in Central Florida who went to hear the Hate Sheikh speak  agree with his views on the killing of Jews and Gays?

How many people who hear Sheikh Mohammed Rateb Al-Nabulsi’s incitement to violence against Jews and Gays will act upon it?  In light of the Pulse nightclub terrorist attack, Ft. Lauderdale airport  attack,  San Bernardino attack, Ft. Hood terrorist attack, bomb scares to 3 Jewish facilities in Orlando, this question can no longer be ignored.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Family Security Matters. Reprinted under Creative Commons License: Attribution

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.