Posts

Dead Islamic State hacker linked to Garland, TX jihad attack

This is the kind of person that the U.S. intelligentsia was applauding and abetting when it condemned us for standing up for the freedom of speech in Garland.

“U.S. confirms Islamic State computer expert killed in air strike,” Reuters, August 29, 2015:

The U.S. military confirmed on Friday that a British hacker who was one of the Islamic State movement’s top computer experts and active in encouraging people abroad to carry out “lone wolf” attacks was killed in Syria by a U.S. air strike.

Junaid Hussain of Birmingham, England, was killed on Aug. 24 by a U.S. military air strike on the Islamic State stronghold of Raqqah, said Air Force Colonel Pat Ryder, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command.

Hussain had been involved in “actively recruiting ISIL sympathizers in the west to carry out ‘lone wolf’ style attacks,” Ryder said, using an acronym for the militant group that has seized large parts of Syria and Iraq.

Hussain was responsible for releasing personal information of around 1,300 U.S. military and government employees in recent weeks, and “sought to encourage” attacks against them, U.S. officials said.

One official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Hussain had also been linked to the release of the names, addresses and photos of 100 U.S. service members on an Islamic State website in March.

Another official said that Washington had evidence that Hussain was in contact with two men who were shot dead when they tried to attack a “Draw Mohammed” cartoon contest in Garland, Texas in early May.

Islamic State claimed in a radio message after the shooting that the two men were “brothers” connected to the group….

RELATED ARTICLE: Former UK defense chief: Cameron lacked “balls” to head off rise of Islamic State

Garland, TX: Islamic State Jihadi ‘radicalized’ by UK Muslim ‘computer geek’

He hacked the Pentagon. He apparently incited one of the Muslims who attacked our free speech event in Garland, Texas to do so. This is one piously lethal individual. One thing he would almost certainly deny being, however, is “British” — contrary to the witless Mailonline headline. His citizenship with the umma and only with the umma.

“British computer geek, 21, who hacked the Pentagon after fleeing to Syria is No3 on the ‘kill list’ of ISIS militants drawn up by US forces – just after Jihadi John and group leader al-Baghdadi,” by Imogen Calderwood, Mailonline, August 2, 2015:

A young computer hacker from Birmingham has been named as Number Three on the Pentagon’s ‘kill list’ of key ISIS operatives.

Junaid Hussain, 21, fled to Syria in July 2013 and is now believed to be leading the ‘Cyber Caliphate’, ISIS’ own branch of hackers.

US officials said there is an ‘intense’ desire to assassinate Hussain, who operates under the alias Abu Hussain al-Britani and was jailed in 2012 for stealing personal information of Tony Blair.

Only Mohammed Emwazi, the hostage killer known as Jihadi John, and the group’s leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi are higher on the list, reported The Sunday Times.

After fleeing the UK, when he was on police bail for an alleged violent disorder offence, Hussain has risen rapidly through the ISIS ranks.

He married 45-year-old Sally Jones, a former punk rocker from Chatham, Kent, who converted to Islam and fled to Syria with her 10-year-old son.

Yet another convert somehow gets the idea that Islam requires treason and violence. Yet no authorities are in the least interested in studying this phenomenon.

Jones, who now uses the nomme de guerre Umm Hussain Al-Britani, is believed to have snuck into Syria at the end of last year after an online romance with Hussain.

She is suspected of leading the violent all-female ISIS contingent, known as the Khanssaa Brigade. The group imposes strict Sharia law in the de facto capital of the so-called Islamic State, Raqqa.

The couple, who have been dubbed Mr and Mr Terror, also reportedly used Twitter and the hashtag #LondonAttack in May to incite terror in Britain.

US officials believe he is behind the online radicalisation of at least one of the two gunmen who opened fire at a Prophet Mohammed cartoon competition in Garland, Texas, in May….

RELATED ARTICLE: Obama’s $500 million 50-man “moderate” army: half already dead, captured, out of action

Garland, Texas: Islamic State Jihadi Illegally Purchased Weapon from Fast and Furious Operation

The Los Angeles Times reported, Nadiv Soofi one of two Garland, Texas jihadis, the other was roommate Elton Simpson, killed in the May 2015 attack illegally purchased a weapon  in 2010 from a Fast and Furious front in Phoenix, “Assailant in Garland, Texas, attack bought gun in 2010 under Fast and Furious operation”Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) picked up on this and senate investigators are looking into how a terrorist killed in the Texas purchased a weapon illegally from the much maligned Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) “gun walking” program. Fast and Furious first came to light in 2010 with the tragic killing of US Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry by one of the ” gun walking” weapons used by a drug cartel member.

You may recall that former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder criticized Republicans in 2011 for “politicizing” the furor over the revelations.  In testimony before Congress Holder eschewed knowledge and responsibilities simply saying  it was “flawed in its concept, and flawed in its execution”. He was charged with contempt of Congress for his testimony.

The Times investigative report by Richard Serrano noted:

Five years before he was shot to death in the failed terrorist attack in Garland, Texas, Nadir Soofi walked into a suburban Phoenix gun shop to buy a 9-millimeter pistol.

At the time, Lone Wolf Trading Co. was known among gun smugglers for selling illegal firearms. And with Soofi’s history of misdemeanor drug and assault charges, there was a chance his purchase might raise red flags in the federal screening process.

Inside the store, he fudged some facts on the form required of would-be gun buyers.

Late Nadir Soofi Garland Texas Mohammed Cartoon contest assailant

Late Nadir Soofi, Garland, Texas Mohammed Cartoon contest assailant.

What Soofi could not have known was that Lone Wolf was at the center of a federal sting operation known as Fast and Furious, targeting Mexican drug lords and traffickers. The idea of the secret program was to allow Lone Wolf to sell illegal weapons to criminals and straw purchasers, and track the guns back to large smuggling networks and drug cartels.

Texas gunman’s mother: ‘He just had a normal American upbringing’

Instead, federal agents lost track of the weapons and the operation became a fiasco, particularly after several of the missing guns were linked to shootings in Mexico and the 2010 killing of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in Arizona.

Soofi’s attempt to buy a gun caught the attention of authorities, who slapped a seven-day hold on the transaction, according to his Feb. 24, 2010, firearms transaction record, which was reviewed by the Los Angeles Times. Then, for reasons that remain unclear, the hold was lifted after 24 hours, and Soofi got the 9-millimeter.

As the owner of a small pizzeria, the Dallas-born Soofi, son of a Pakistani American engineer and American nurse, would not have been the primary focus of federal authorities, who back then were looking for smugglers and drug lords.

He is now.

In May, Soofi and his roommate, Elton Simpson, burst upon the site of a Garland cartoon convention that was offering a prize for the best depiction of the prophet Muhammad, something offensive to many Muslims. Dressed in body armor and armed with three pistols, three rifles and 1,500 rounds of ammunition, the pair wounded a security officer before they were killed by local police.

A day after the attack, the Department of Justice sent an “urgent firearms disposition request” to Lone Wolf, seeking more information about Soofi and the pistol he bought in 2010, according to a June 1 letter from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, to U.S. Atty. Gen. Loretta Lynch.

Though the request did not specify whether the gun was used in the Garland attack, Justice Department officials said the information was needed “to assist in a criminal investigation,” according to Johnson’s letter, also reviewed by The Times.

The FBI so far has refused to release any details, including serial numbers, about the weapons used in Garland by Soofi and Simpson. Senate investigators are now pressing law enforcement agencies for answers, raising the chilling possibility that a gun sold during the botched Fast and Furious operation ended up being used in a terrorist attack against Americans.

Among other things, Johnson is demanding to know whether federal authorities have recovered the gun Soofi bought in 2010, where it was recovered and whether it had been discharged, according to the letter. He also demanded an explanation about why the initial seven-day hold was placed on the 2010 pistol purchase and why it was lifted after 24 hours.

Asked recently for an update on the Garland shooting, FBI Director James B. Comey earlier this month declined to comment. “We’re still sorting that out,” he said.

This is mind numbing. Nadir Soofi, one of the two jihadis killed in the May 2015 Garland, Texas AFDI Mohammed cartoon contest attack purchased a weapon illegally from the Fast and Furious sting front in Phoenix, with the ironic name of Lone Wolf Trading. Ask yourself why this illegal transaction occurred despite Soofi’s drug and assault charges record. This latest revelation demonstrates that the BATF sting operation was totally misguided and worked against apprehension of suspects giving material aid to Islamic terrorism. Notice this info occurred after record checks were run on weapons seized by local Garland police and run through the federal gun clearance data base.

Too bad that former attorney general Eric Holder, now at premier D.C. law firm Covington and Burling, and the former BATF program officials were never investigated or referred for possible prosecution for this lame brained scheme.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is from Twitter.

Wikileaks: Saudis Tried to Bring Legal Action against Geert Wilders

The  Dutch newspaper NRC-Handelsblad revealed in an article today the Saudi Foreign Ministry keeps a watching brief on the activities of Geert Wilders, leader of the Freedom Party (PVV) in The Hague Parliament. WikiLeaks revealed that in 2010, the Saudi Crown Prince, in conjunction with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation,  considered bringing legal action for his anti-Islamic stands, especially attacks on the Prophet Mohammed. You may recall Wilders’  Arabic sticker campaign launched in December 2013 emblazoned with the words, “Mohammed was a Crook” that infuriated Saudi Arabia. That led to a delayed call by Saudi Arabia in May 2014  for a trade boycott against The Netherlands because of the Wilders’ Mohammed sticker campaign. In our May 18, 2014 Iconoclast post on the provocative episode that gave rise to Saudi sanctions we wrote:

The delayed Saudi reaction to the PVV anti-Islam sticker campaign launched five months ago is all about imposing a Blasphemy code. The Wahhabist Saudi government is trying to silence criticism of  Islam threatening the free speech of  Wilders and the liberty of those Dutch voters who are inclined towards his message.  A message the PVV propounds that Muslim mass immigration in Holland  harbors  the seeds of homegrown terrorism on a significant scale.

Coincident with this latest WikiLeaks revelation concerning Wilders, the Garland, Texas Mohammed cartoons were shown on Dutch TV last night. That has gone viral with over 91,000 views and counting.  Watch the YouTube video of the cartoons:

The viewing on Dutch TV of the 10 Mohammed cartoons from the Garland, Texas contest provoked the Sunni Al Alzhar Islamic authorities today to condemn it.  AFP reported:

The leading Sunni Muslim seat of learning, Al-Azhar, on Thursday denounced the “sick imagination” behind cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed that were aired on Dutch national television.

A statement by the Cairo-based Al-Azhar also urged Muslims to “ignore this odious terrorist act”, a day after some 10 cartoons were screened by anti-Islam Dutch politician Geert Wilders during a television slot for political parties.

Before Thursday’s statement and the cartoon broadcast, Al-Azhar had said that the objective of Wilders was to “provoke the anger of Muslims” around the world.

But it had also warned that this would only benefit “terrorism which takes advantage of such incidents to spread violence and destabilize peace and security in the world”

The Freedom Party (PVV) blog had this post explaining the background and questions posed to the Dutch Foreign Minister about the Saudis closely monitoring.”The stature of the prophet of mercy and humanitarianism is greater and more noble than to be harmed by cartoons that have no respect for morals or civilized standards,” it said.

This week, Wikileaks published a number of documents from the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The documents reveal that the Saudi embassy in The Hague keeps a close eye on the Dutch MP Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV).

A document from the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) also reveals that, in 2010, the Saudi authorities were planning to bring Geert Wilders to court. Permission to do so had already been obtained from the then Saudi Crown Prince.

Today, PVV parliamentarians Geert Wilders and Raymond de Roon asked Bert Koenders, the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs, for more information.

Below are the parliamentary questions of the PVV and the translation of an article, published today (June 25, 2015) in the Dutch newspaper NRC-Handelsblad.

Questions by Mr Wilders and Mr De Roon (both PVV) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

(1) Have you seen of the article, “Saudis Kept a Close Eye on Wilders” in NRC-Handelsblad of 25 June?

(2) Were the Dutch authorities informed that the Saudis in 2010 (or at any other time) wanted to bring PVV leader Geert Wilders to court?

(3) Is it true that the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) was aware of this fact or possibly even involved in these plans?

(4) Is it true that the then Saudi Crown Prince gave permission to initiate such a court case?

(5) Is it true that Ron Strikker, the then Dutch ambassador in Riyadh, told the Saudis in April 2012 that the statements of Mr. Wilders did not represent the views of the Dutch government? What were these specific statements?

(6) Do you share our view that it is a disgrace that a dictatorship like Saudi Arabia, a country that has condemned Saudi blogger Raif Badawi to be whipped with 1,000 lashed, attempts to intimidate Dutch citizens and parliamentarians who use their right to free speech ?

(7) Do you share our view that we have to break off diplomatic relations with the Saudi dictatorship? 

Last night, the controversial Muhammad cartoons of the PVV were finally shown on television. The cartoons, which early May led to commotion at a meeting in Garland (Texas) where Geert Wilders was one of the speakers, attracted a relatively large number of viewers for the broadcast of a political party. But they have not led to disturbances in the Netherlands.

Nevertheless, Dutch diplomats in the Saudi capital Riyadh can again brace themselves for difficult conversations. When, last year, Wilders distributed stickers with the Saudi flag and the text “Muhammad is a crook”, this led to a de facto trade boycott by Saudi Arabia.

Wilders regularly figures in reports of the Saudi embassy in The Hague. Sometimes, the Saudi Ministry explicitly requests  reports about his actions: for example, in 2012, when the Saudis had heard that he was about launch an anti-Islamic book in the US. A report – obviously the answer to this request – describes Wilders’ opinions and actions. It also mentions that he is controversial in the Netherlands for his links with Israel and his “extremist” views.
According to a document of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), in 2010, the Saudis wanted to bring Wilders to court. The document reports that, at an earlier stage, approval had been obtained from the then Saudi Crown Prince to press charges against Wilders for showing his movie Fitna in the British House of Lords. The document refers to a document from the Saudi intelligence chief, who is said to have informed “friendly Dutch intelligence services” about the Saudi view and the possible negative consequences of Wilders’ “unlawful aggression”. It is not clear what happened next.

The Dutch embassy in Riyadh always tries to limit the damage. When Dutch Ambassador Ron Strikker met a high ranking Saudi official in April 2012, he reiterated the government’s position that Wilders’ statements do not represent the government views, but that the Dutch Constitution guarantees both freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

His interlocutor rejected Strikker’s “freedom of speech” argument, because, according to him, Wilders’ statements lead to hatred and lack of understanding, and complicate the relations between religions and peoples. His country, however, is making huge efforts to promote religious dialogue and understanding. He gives the Dutch government the advice speak out in public against Wilders’ statements, “also towards Dutch Muslims who are the victims of this kind of actions.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of Geert Wilders with “Mohammed is a Crook” sticker taken in December 2013. Source: ANP.

Brad Thor’s message for Pamela Geller’s critics: You are pansies

This is the age of cowardice — masked as “respect” and “avoiding provocation” — and so Brad Thor is right. I am proud to call both Brad Thor and Pamela Geller my friends. If future ages revere courage at all, which is an open question in this weak and pusillanimous age, they will be remembered, and honored.

“Brad Thor’s message for Pamela Geller’s critics: You are pansies,” by Benjamin Weingarten, The Blaze, June 12, 2015:

Author Brad Thor is not one to mince words when it comes to defending free speech and challenging jihadists.

So it should come as no surprise that during an in-depth interview in connection with his forthcoming “Code of Conduct,” when the topic of Islamic supremacism versus the West came up — and in particular the Garland, TX shooting — sparks were going to fly.

Listen to what Brad had to say below, and for a sneak peek at the creepy enviro-globalist agenda at the heart of “Code of Conduct,” Brad’s assessment of the threats to the homeland and how to take it to Islamic supremacists and his endorsement for president in 2016, you can skip to the full interview here.

And I don’t care who criticized her…You are weak, and you’re a pansy for not standing behind her

Share:

The First Amendment exists to protect speech you don’t agree with. It actually is there — if all that was worthy of protection was speech everybody agreed with, we wouldn’t need the First Amendment. OK.

So you don’t have to agree with what Pamela Geller is doing, but my G-d, Pamela Geller is doing more to help reform Islam than any pansy on the left or right who is criticizing her.

And I don’t care who criticized her. I don’t care who it is: You are weak, and you’re a pansy for not standing behind her.

It makes no sense to me that you would not support someone who is trying to bring about reform in one of the most dangerous ideologies since Nazism. And it actually predates Nazism, so I can’t say it’s since Nazism.

This idea that Pamela Geller somehow deserved what they got — and she’s making it worse for people. You know I heard people say “Well why provoke all Muslims?” She’s not trying to provoke all Muslims. She’s trying to provoke a discussion.

And moderate Muslims should not be offended by the depiction of their Prophet Muhammad. They can say it’s in their book … Islam is the only major world religion that has not had a reformation. Judaism has. Christianity has. Islam has not.

And … I would encourage you to please link to probably one of the best articles ever written about the West and how we are pandering to fundamentalist Islam. It was actually — I don’t know that you do a lot of links to the Huffington Post — but it was on the Huffington Post and it was written by Sam Harris, who is on Bill Maher a lot. And Sam’s an agnostic.

And Sam wrote a great article called “Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks.” And he talks about the fact that we have allowed a protected space to be carved out in the public square where every other group is expected to debate rationally on the playing field of ideas, except for Islam.

We can go ahead and talk about Catholicism, Mormonism, Buddhism, Hinduism, but we can’t critique and discuss the tenets of Islam. And that’s because we are hamstringing ourselves.

And Islam needs more attention, more criticism, not less. If we don’t criticize Islam and put pressure on Islam, how do you expect reformers and again moderates to have the wind at their backs, the wind in their sails to have them do the work that needs to be done? Because we as non-Muslims can’t affect any change.

All we do, like I said, we get our civil liberties eroded.

It’s longer lines at TSA for those of us who can’t reform Islam.

We need to do everything we can to help reform it. And reforming Islam means we have to draw attention to all its failings.

It’s only when people are shown “Hey, the house is full of termites,” that maybe they’re gonna stop spending money on cable and tons of beer, and start applying the money to fixing their own house.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Max Blumenthal warmly endorses pro-jihad, pro-stoning UK Muslim leader

Australia: Islamic State collecting radioactive material to make ‘dirty bomb’

Jihadi who wanted to kill Pamela Geller said he’d kill his family if they refused to live by Sharia

There are no “lone wolves” in the jihad war

‘No Complete Strategy’ in Iraq, But Embassies Getting Complete Movie Channel Packages

Pamela Geller: “The jihadists aren’t just coming for me, they are coming for all of us that believe in freedom.”

She is right, of course, not that Hollywood is on the case: Hollywood wouldn’t dare make a film that depicted Islamic jihadists honestly and accurately. She also says a great deal more that is on-point and important about the freedom of speech and more in this interview. “Pamela Geller: Hollywood Is “In the Pocket” of Jihadists (Q&A),” by Paul Bond, Hollywood Reporter, June 9, 2015 (thanks to Steve):

Pamela Geller has been on a rampage against radical Islam for years, beginning notably in 2010 by spearheading of the opposition to what she called the “Ground Zero Mega Mosque” near the site of the destroyed World Trade Center. Her most recent controversy was the organization of a “Draw the Prophet Muhammad” contest in Texas.

A “rampage.” How ridiculous. Islamic jihadists have been on a rampage against free people. Pamela Geller is resisting them — and the Hollywood Reporter says she is the one on the rampage.

At the event, two self-described jihadists shot a security guard before police killed them. Then, on June 2, police killed a knife-wielding Muslim man in Boston whose goal was allegedly to behead Geller in retaliation for the contest. Even though the contest was a major news story, few media outlets published the winning cartoon. Geller’s group, American Freedom Defense Initiative, put the image on billboards, 100 of which debuted in St. Louis on Monday with the tagline “Support Free Speech.” She spoke toThe Hollywood Reporter about how the (largely hostile) media is portraying these events.

Why are you being overly provocative, purposely insulting Muslims?

I am not being overly provocative or purposely insulting Muslims. Islamic jihadists, not I, made Muhammad cartoons the flash point for the defense of the freedom of speech when they began killing over them. If we don’t stand against them on that point, the only alternative is surrender and submission. I did not make the cartoons a flash point, the jihadis did.

But if you just don’t insult their prophet, they’ll leave you alone, no?

No. The death penalty for insulting Muhammad is just one aspect of Sharia. There is much, much more of infidel behavior that violates Sharia. If we refrain from drawing Muhammad, more demands to adhere to other aspects of Sharia will follow. Millions are suffering or have been slaughtered under Islamic Sharia law in Muslim countries. Islamic supremacists mean to impose it in the West.

Why shouldn’t cartoons insulting a religion be regarded as hate speech instead of protected free speech?

There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. “Hate speech” is a subjective judgment. If it were outlawed, the authority with the power to decide what constitutes it would have the power to control the public debate.… If a group will not bear being offended without resorting to violence, that group will rule unopposed while everyone else lives in fear, while other groups curtail their activities to appease the violent group. This results in the violent group being able to tyrannize the others. Cartoons have been used as satire since the beginning of satire — especially in our country — and no one gets a pass. Not the Pope of Rome, president of the United States or Hollywood’s biggest movie stars.… If you don’t like it, don’t look at it, boycott the network that airs it, don’t buy the publication, make counter-images, make a million, fine, but you have to adjust to us, not we to you, and if that’s too much, don’t come here. Threaten violence? Commit violence? The consequences are yours to bear.

It seems many media pundits who claim allegiance to the First Amendment aren’t persuaded by your arguments.

They are afraid of being killed by Islamic jihadists and camouflage their fear and cowardice as “respect” for Islam and Muslims.

Are there any TV hosts who have been particularly hostile to you during interviews?

Yes. Martha MacCallumErin BurnettAlisyn CamerotaChris Cuomo — although he let me speak and make my case.

How about behind your back?

Yes. Bill O’Reilly and Laura Ingraham. They said I was insulting the entire religion, one held by our moderate allies such as Egypt and Qatar. They are wrong in assuming that we must submit to Sharia to placate moderates, rather than that moderates need to accept the freedom of speech. Roman Catholics don’t like their religion mocked or the mockery of other religions, but Roman Catholics don’t kill when their religion is mocked — and so no one talks about “provoking” them or “respecting” them. In any pluralistic society, we have to put up with being offended and even with our core beliefs being mocked. Roman Catholics have learned that. Mormons and others have learned that — look at The Book of Mormon on Broadway. Why must we condescend to Muslims and think they cannot learn that? It’s the low expectation of soft bigotry.

So this isn’t entirely a partisan issue where conservatives stand by you and liberals don’t?

No. Chris Hayes stuck up for me on MSNBC. This is not a left/right split, it is a free person/slave split.

Did any TV host say something that struck you as particularly wrongheaded?

They all say I have the right to draw Muhammad but shouldn’t out of respect. They don’t seem to realize that any surrender on this point will only be seen by the jihadists as a victory and embolden them to make more demands. CNN’s Erin Burnett said I relished being the target of a beheading. It’s madness. Who self-promotes to get killed?

So you’re not purposely courting danger, as Burnett and others have insinuated?

Of course not. I love life. But I will not live as a slave.

Are there any TV hosts you’d like to face off with but who won’t have you on?

Bill O’Reilly. I expect he knows he would be shown up.

We know about the man arrested who intended to behead you. Any other threats you can share?

I have received many threats. The FBI and NYPD are aware of them and on the case.

Anyone in Hollywood reach out to you to offer support?

No.

Should Hollywood care about threats against you?

They may think they’re exempt, but they aren’t. Islamic supremacists will be demanding they adhere to Sharia as well. Of course, most producers already are careful not to show anything that might offend Muslims, including accurate representations of jihad plotting and activity, so Hollywood is mostly already in their pocket. But this is their issue, and the entertainment industry should be on the front lines in the information battle space. The jihadists aren’t just coming for me, they are coming for all of us that believe in freedom.

So why do you think Hollywood, which routinely claims to push the envelope in its art, hasn’t supported you?

They’re afraid of being ostracized.

Your “Draw Muhammad” event certainly got a lot of news coverage. Should mainstream media outlets have published the winning cartoon?

Every media outlet should publish the Muhammad cartoons. They can’t kill us all. By kowtowing to violent intimidation, they are inviting more of it. Instead, they should be showing that we will all stand together for free speech. If the media had published the Danish cartoons back in 2005, this would never have become an issue. The submission by media, entertainment and academic elites empowered the savages.

The Southern Poverty Law Center included you on their list of “hate groups.” Are they right?

Of course not. They’re the hate group, using that label to demonize and stigmatize all who don’t share their hard-left agenda. The SPLC smear machine does [not] profile jihad groups, but they target and libel patriots, veterans, Tea Party organizations and other groups that work in defense of freedom. They named [Republican presidential contender] Ben Carson as a hate group. That should tell you everything you need to know about them. Their [sympathizers] have violently attacked family groups, and one tried to assassinate Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. And a few months back an SPLC [sympathizer] killed three Muslims in a parking dispute in North Carolina.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pakistani publication worries Islam’s image tarnished by CAIR rep’s pedophilia arrest

Egypt: Jihad suicide bomber attacks Luxor temple tourist site

Australia PM: Only effective defense against terror persuading people God doesn’t demand death to infidel

NYPD aims to ramp up recruitment of Muslims

Florida Muslims face prison for jihad mass murder bomb plot in NYC

Media jihad: Diet Coke vs. Decapitation by Pamela Geller

“A blatantly revealing moment of radical media activism, otherwise known as ‘news coverage.’”

“Media jihad: Diet Coke vs. decapitation,” by Pamela Geller, WND, June 7, 2015:

Last week brought us a blatantly revealing moment of radical media activism, otherwise known today as “news coverage.”

Two news stories. In one, an American was targeted for beheading by members of the American Muslim community because the target would not adhere to the blasphemy laws under the Shariah. I was the target, and this was the media coverage:

CNN’s Erin Burnett asks Pamela Geller: Don’t You Really Relish All These Muslim Terrorists Trying to Kill You?

“Activist says Boston beheading plot targeted her; police express doubt”

Who is anti-Islamic activist Pamela Geller?

Pamela Geller Calls Allegedly Being Targeted for Beheading by Terror Suspect ‘Chilling’

The depraved media have tried to distract and obfuscate the real story here, which is that ISIS and its devout followers in America are targeting for death Americans on our home soil. I have been targeted for assassination twice in just four weeks. The headline Reuters ran, “Activist says Boston beheading plot targeted her; police express doubt,” is false and vicious.

Meanwhile, Associated Press ran the truth on Friday: “Police confirm Pamela Geller was initial target of Boston Muslims’ jihad terror plot.”

The other news story: A 31-year-old terror-tied Muslim woman went on social media and decried United Airlines for not giving her a can of Diet Coke in the way that she demanded: unopened. Under the hashtag #IslamophobiaIsReal, she wrote: “I am sitting on a United Airlines flight in the air 30,000ft above and I am in tears of humiliation from discrimination. The flight attendant asked me what I would like to drink and I requested a can of diet coke. She brought me a can that was open so I requested an unopened can due to hygienic reasons.”

A fellow passenger claimed that Diet Coke Muslim Tahera Ahmad was a rude liar. Other passengers fear coming forward for fear of being publicly smeared as Islamophobic! Bigoted! Racist! – even though Islam is not a race.

post

Heads exploded in an Islamophobia-fueled frenzy in newsrooms everywhere.

The New York Times covered only one of these two stories. Guess which one. In fact, it ran three stories about this Muslima supremacist’s whining complaint (since proven false) that the reason she could only get a full cup of Diet Coke and not an unopened can was because of Islamofauxbia. While it lavished coverage upon the Diet Coke jihad, the New York Times did not cover the beheading plot at all.

This became national and international news – the media were outraged at United Airlines. The National Catholic Register declared: “Fight Islamophobia in America.”

Muslim Woman Says She Faced Discrimination on United-Linked Flight” – New York Times

Islamophobia in the skies: United Airlines bans accused worker” – The Guardian, London

United fires attendant who told Muslim Tahera Ahmad she couldn’t have Diet Coke” – Daily Mail, London

United Airlines apologizes to Northwestern chaplain …” – Chicago Tribune

‘There is no middle ground in racism:’ On Tahera Ahmad” – Fusion

Islam is not a race.

Muslim chaplain: Derogatory remarks made on United flight” – Boston Herald

Don’t ask for a soda can on United Airlines if you are a Muslim” – The Express Tribune (Pakistan)

Meanwhile, who is Tahera Ahmad? In late December, she attended the MAS-ICNA, or Muslim American Society-Islamic Circle of North America, conference, which featured prominent Muslim leaders with links to the Muslim Brotherhood.

One month earlier, Ahmad posted a picture to Facebook of her with Suhaib Webb, who was then Imam of the Islamic Society of Boston, where Boston Marathon jihadis Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev and many other jihadis worshiped. Webb was once a friend of Anwar al-Awlaki.

Ahmad is also “well-known” to Yasir Qadhi, a Muslim cleric who once called for jihad against non-Muslims. She was part of a Muslim Public Affairs Council, or MPAC,delegation to the Obama White House; MPAC was founded by Muslim Brotherhood members. She has recited the Quran at an Islamic Society of North America convention; ISNA is yet another Muslim Brotherhood-linked group.

United’s first statement, now erased from the web, said the flight attendant “attempted several times to accommodate Ms. Ahmad’s beverage request.” The flight attendant has been fired after the media-waged jihad against United.

I expect this from the media, but I will never fly United again.

And as for the enemedia, they are aligned with the jihad force, and their mission is to destroy the few who dare speak candidly about the jihad threat.

RELATED ARTICLES:

In Syria, Maronite patriarch denounces ‘death of the world’s conscience’

Egypt summons U.S. ambassador over D.C. Muslim Brotherhood meetings

Turkey: Christian schools shut down for distributing Bibles to Muslim refugees from Syria

First They Came for Pamela Geller, and I Did Not Speak Out

Over at PJ Media I explain why everyone who cares about free speech should be standing with Pamela Geller today:

“This is a showdown for American freedom,” said Pamela Geller about the abortive jihad beheading plot against her, and she was right. The showdown is right upon them now, and mainstream media talking heads have no idea of the significance of what is happening.

“They targeted me for violating sharia blasphemy laws. They mean to kill everyone who doesn’t do their bidding and abide by them voluntarily,” Geller added.

“It’s just beginning,” she warned. “ISIS is here. Islamic terrorism is here.”

That is all true. The jihad plot against Pamela Geller was an attempt to enforce Sharia blasphemy laws upon someone who does not accept them. If it had succeeded, it would have shown Americans that no one who deviates from Sharia norms is safe. It would have been a staggering blow to the continuation of the U.S. as a free society.

Heedless of these manifest implications, however, the mainstream media hasn’t caught on. The execrable New York Daily News couldn’t stop sneering at the heroic Pamela Geller — “conservative firebrand,” “Upper East Side right-winger” — even when she was a direct target of an Islamic State-inspired murder plot.

CNN’s Chris Cuomo, interviewing Geller, lectured her:

You can show the cartoon. People have the equal right to criticize your showing the cartoon as an overt provocation of a religion.

And he asked her:

Why not do what we often teach as a function of virtue — when we’re dealing with savagery — which is show that we are better than this? Not show that we can poke them in the eye in a way they don’t like it.

Geller rightly responded:

That’s not what you’re doing. You are submitting, and you are kowtowing. And they’re saying to you, if you draw a little cartoon; if you draw a stick figure and say it’s Mohammed, we’re going to come and kill you. And so you say, okay, we won’t — we won’t draw it. CNN won’t show it.

The Daily News and Chris Cuomo and the rest at CNN, along with their many colleagues among the comfortable media and political elites, are happy to throw her under the bus. They effectively say: “Free speech? Yes, of course, but not deliberate provocation.

They don’t realize that whatever distaste they may have for Pamela Geller (and that distaste ultimately derives from the fact that she speaks truths they would rather ignore and deny), she stands for all of us now. Whether you’re as proud to stand with her as I am, or whether you wish she would go away, she is the figure today about whom one must decide: will I stand for freedom, or kowtow to violent intimidation? Will I submit to the tyranny of violence, or defend free society?

Remember Pastor Niemöller from World War II?

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.

Well, here we are. Those days are upon us again, and as few, or fewer, people are paying attention to what is happening as were in those days….

Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Analysts scratch their heads and wonder why Boston produces so many jihadis

Florida: Imam may have recruited dozens for jihad behind bars

Jihadis don’t show up at Phoenix mosque protest, so no one gets hurt

The Islamic State had threatened to show up and commit mass murder, and specifically threatened the event organizer, but didn’t appear at the event, and so no one was hurt — despite the mainstream media hysteria over “heavily armed protesters” supposedly menacing people at the mosque.

Speaking for myself, I wouldn’t have held a protest at a mosque, as there are people there just going about their business who have nothing to do with whatever jihad activity may have been taking place there. The coverage has, predictably enough, ignored the fact that the protesters were only heavily armed because the jihadis had threatened to show up and kill. No one was going to get killed if the jihadis didn’t show up, and no one did.

Yesterday evening I was amused by the hysteria of Islamic supremacists such as Linda Sarsour and Zahra Billoo on Twitter — many were saying, “Imagine if armed Muslim protesters had shown up at a church!,” as if this were something that never, ever happened. The irony was thick, as most of yesterday, these stories were on the front page of Jihad Watch:

Pakistan: Muslims open fire on Faisalabad church

Islamic State demolishes Christian church in Syria

Egypt: Explosive goes off next to church

And that’s just yesterday. Of course, even to make the comparison suggests that the protesters outside the mosque yesterday were out to do something similar to the mosque, and they weren’t.

Lost in all the coverage, not surprisingly, was the obvious import of this event: when you demonize and marginalize legitimate concerns about jihad terror, including jihad plotting in mosques, you’re not going to bottle people up and make the concerns go away. You’re just going to get more radical protests. Americans are going to defend freedom and stand for the freedom of speech. Whether the authorities and the media elites are going to allow for a free and honest discussion and debate on this is another question.

The mainstream media’s avidity to link Pamela Geller and me to this protest revealed its determination to ignore the reasons why the protest was held at the Phoenix mosque in the first place. Sharon Bernstein of Reuters emailed me and we had this exchange:

1. Bernstein to Spencer:

…We are wondering among other questions whether you or Pamela Geller are involved with this demonstration and what you think of it….

Thanks very much,

Sharon Bernstein
Correspondent
California Politics and Policy
Sacramento, California
Reuters News

2. Spencer to Bernstein:

No, we are not involved in this demonstration.

3. Bernstein to Spencer:

What is your opinion of the event planned? What do you know about the organizer?

4. Spencer to Bernstein:

I am much more interested in the fact that this Phoenix mosque was attended by one of the Garland jihadis for ten years than I am in this rally. Has this mosque been investigated, even after the Garland jihad attack? Did Reuters ask its imam searching questions? If not, why not?

I don’t know anything about the organizer.

Here is Bernstein’s story — she didn’t see fit to mention any of this, but more importantly, has nothing about the mosque, from which not only Ibrahim Simpson, to whom I was referring above, came, but his partner in jihad Nadir Soofi and two other jihadis as well. People are fed up with the authorities turning a blind eye to this problem, when survey after survey shows that 80% of mosques in the U.S. teach warfare against unbelievers and the supremacy of Sharia. The more such concerns are dismissed as “bigotry” and “Islamophobia,” the more there will be protests like this one.

“Tempers flare as protesters spar over Islam at Arizona mosque,” by Ryan Van Velzer, Associated Press, May 30, 2015:

PHOENIX (AP) – About 500 protesters gathered outside a Phoenix mosque on Friday as police kept two groups sparring about Islam on separate sides of the street.

The rally initially was organized by a Phoenix man who says he is a former Marine who fought in the Iraq War and believes Islam is a violent religion. About 250 people who carried pistols, assault rifles, American flags and drawings of the Prophet Muhammad rallied on one side of the street outside the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix.

On the opposite side of the street was another equally sized group of protesters, some holding signs promoting love and peace, who came to show their support for the mosque and Muslim community.

As the two sides argued and yelled, dozens of police officers formed a line between them and kept them separated. There were no reports of injuries or arrests at the protest, which lasted several hours and gained attention around the country on social media. Phoenix police estimated about 500 protesters showed up, roughly 250 on each side.

The protest came about month after a shootout outside a Prophet Muhammad cartoon-drawing contest in a Dallas suburb. Two Phoenix men showed up at the event with assault rifles and were killed by police. The men formerly worshipped at the Phoenix mosque where Friday’s protest took place.

Drawings of the Prophet Muhammad are deemed insulting to many followers of Islam and have sparked violence around the world.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Young Muslims trying to reach Syria got instructions from Montreal mosque

Islamic State claims 2nd suicide bombing at Shi’ite mosque in Saudi Arabia

Islamic State in Nigeria murders 10 with jihad suicide bomb in mosque

Islamic State rapidly expanding into Southeast Asia

Canada to strip citizenship of dual-national terror convicts

UK police tell women not to harm their attackers, get a rape alarm

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Eyewitness to Garland, Texas Islamic State Shooting

Do not miss the only eyewitness account of the Garland Texas jihad attack that was launched on May 3, 2015. “Martin,” the driver of the car that was immediately behind the Muslim shooter’s car, is our special guest. Listen to “Martin” detail his minute-by-minute heart-stopping experience and you will get a sense of the danger he went through on that frightening day.

In addition to “Martin” we have Dom the Conservative back with us to reflect upon the Garland attack and share some thoughts about Memorial Day.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hannity VIDEO: Pamela Geller Schools Juan Williams AGAIN Over Free Speech and Wanting to Enforce Sharia Law

Islamic State gives jihadis cash bonuses for marriage and paid honeymoons

“Danes can not even sit on their balcony and eat a pork sandwich”

New York: Muslim pleads guilty to jihad plot to murder U.S. military personnel

Christians are ‘prisoners of conscience’ in Uzbekistan

All Muslims share the same Islam

The Establishment is always telling us that there are good, moderate Muslims and extremist, jihadist Muslims and that the two different kinds have nothing in common with each other.

Wrong. What all Muslims have in common is the same Koran, the same prayers, the same Sunna of Mohammed and being a member of one umma (Islamic community).

Indeed, the Koran tells us that the jihadist is a better Muslim than the moderate Muslim. The phrase, Allahu akbar, is not only used a war cry, but every Muslim uses it in his daily prayers.

We are told that all Muslims want prosperity and democracy, but all Muslims do not want a democracy, because a democracy means that a Kafir is equal to a believer.

All of the Muslims share the Sunna of assassination. So instead saying they do not want violence of Garland, TX, they need to say that they reject the evil of the assassination Sunna of Mohammed. That would have real meaning.

RELATED ARTICLES:

81% of respondents to Al Jazeera poll support the Islamic State

Pamela Geller, Breitbart: “The UK’s Rape Jihad: A Survivor’s Tale”

Pamela Geller and the Hijacking of America

On the morning of September 11, 2001, I couldn’t help thinking, I could have been a passenger on one of those planes that crashed into the World Trade Center. Today the feeling is back, as if we are all passengers on a hijacked plane the size of America, heading towards an imminent crash. The question is, knowing what we know now, what are we going to do about it?

Shortly before American Airlines Flight 11 hit the North Tower, an Egyptian-born jihadi, Mohammed Atta, addressed the passengers over the intercom:

“Just stay quiet, and you’ll be okay.  We are returning to the airport… Nobody move.  Everything will be okay.  If you try to make any move, you’ll endanger yourself and the airplane.  Just stay quiet… Nobody move, please…  Don’t try to make any stupid moves.”

Twenty minutes later they died a horrible death, accompanied by hundreds of people inside the North Tower. Had the passengers known the real plan, they might have attempted to take matters into their own hands and possibly avert a bigger disaster. But they likely believed Mohammed Atta, especially since no hijacker had deliberately crashed a plane before.  Many were probably thinking, Let the government sort it out, that’s whom the terrorists always blackmail. We just need to stay quiet and make no stupid moves. Of course we’ll be okay.

Tactical deception, especially when lying to non-Muslims, is legally sanctioned under Sharia, which is a mainstream, universal Islamic law.  In Sunni Islam, such practice is referred to as mudarat, or taquiyya.

Fast-forward fourteen years to Garland, TX.  Jihadists drove a thousand miles to enforce Sharia blasphemy laws. The cop who shot them to death likely prevented a gruesome massacre. We are now being told that this would not have happened and everything would have been okay if Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer had stayed quiet and didn’t make any stupid moves, such as, organizing the exhibition of Mohammed cartoons.

This is exactly the behavior of passengers on a hijacked plane. We hope that everything will be okay as long as we remain quiet and make no stupid moves. We willingly trust the voices on TV and hope the government will sort it out. We want to believe that every act of Islamic terrorism is an isolated incident, that they only target the government, and that the 58% of Muslim-Americans in a 2012 survey who think that that critics of Islam in the U.S. should face criminal charges, with 12% of them favoring the death penalty for blasphemy, are not part of a bigger phenomenon. Just stay quiet and nothing bad will happen. After all, no terrorist has ever hijacked and crashed an entire nation before.

Alas, nations have been consistently hijacked and crashed throughout history. This has always been executed according to the same blueprint, which originated in the 7th century Islamic conquests and is known to Islamic jurists as the Pact of Umar.

While the Pact of Umar’s precise origins are a matter of legend, its conditions, based on Muhammad’s treatment of conquered people, have gained a canonical status in Islamic jurisprudence with regard to relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, otherwise known as dhimmis, and as such became a subset of Sharia law.

Given that Sharia by definition cannot be altered any more than one can alter the Koran or the Sunna, and even talking about reforming Sharia is considered blasphemous, its medieval rulings about what dhimmis are allowed or not allowed to do, are still in effect today. According to a recent Pew survey, the majority of Muslims worldwide want Sharia to be the law of the land everywhere; that includes the Conditions of Umar, even if those who practice them may not necessarily refer to them by that name.

Settling in non-Muslim countries, Muslim minorities traditionally bring with them Sharia law, which prescribes them to punish dhimmis who overstep certain boundaries regardless of what the local law says, because the “God-given” Sharia law will always be superior to the “man-made law” of the dhimmis.

Under the many Conditions of Omar, dhimmis aren’t allowed to criticize anything that has to do with Islam, including the very conditions of subjugation under which they live. Dhimmis are supposed to remain ignorant about Islamic teachings and can only refer to Islam in positive terms. Mocking, insulting, cursing, or even upsetting Muslims in any way, testifying against a Muslim in court, or raising a hand against a Muslim, even in self-defense, is forbidden.

Criticism of a Muslim person by a dhimmi — even if it’s based on undeniable facts, constitutes “slander” and is punishable by death. In contrast with the Western definition of slander — false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation — Sharia defines slander as any statement a Muslim would dislike, regardless if its degree of accuracy. This works in conjunction with another Sharia ruling, which gives all Muslims an open license to murder the offender wherever they find him. That doesn’t mean all Muslims will do it, but if someone volunteers to do the killing, he will not be punished under Sharia. In modern times, this means an open season of vigilante street justice on any critic of Islam anywhere on the planet.

Suddenly, the medieval choices jihadis place before their victims are all over today’s news coverage, just as they were originally set out in the Koran:  convert to Islam, submit to the Muslim rule and pay a non-Muslim religious tax called jizya, or die by the sword. Those who submit, as we’ve seen in the territories conquered by ISIS in Iraq and Syria, are doomed to a life of humiliation, subjugation, discrimination, and confiscatory taxation.

Dhimmi translates as “protected person,” which is similar in meaning to protection racket: what a nice dhimmi community you have here, shame if anything were to happen to it. You are protected from violence as long as you obey the conditions and pay the protection money. But if any of the dhimmis act up or “made a stupid move,” his or her action puts the entire dhimmi community in jeopardy of jihadi retaliation, where anyone is fair game for collective punishment.

Western nations with a significant share of Muslim immigrants are now learning to live in a state of permanent vulnerability and fear that one of them might upset a Muslim and thus provoke rioting or jihad slaughter. As a result, Western dhimmis are learning to police each other and make sure no one in their community makes any “stupid moves.”

Pamela Geller just did that. Her exhibition of Mohammed cartoons has crossed the line of permissible dhimmi behavior, and for that she has become a target of criticism by the American media, including some conservative commentators. Among the many stated reasons why Pamela should have “just stayed quiet,” the main argument remains unstated: she made a stupid move and now we’re all in danger of retaliation.

The real questions the media should be asking is, if we aren’t already living under the Conditions of Umar, what would we do differently if we did?

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the American Thinker. You may follow the American Thinker at: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Garland, Texas imam calls for restrictions on the freedom of speech

That is always the endgame for Islamic supremacists: to destroy the freedom of speech so that Islam cannot be criticized and the jihad cannot be opposed, so that it can advance unimpeded. People have no idea what is at stake in this controversy.

“Group that hosted Prophet Muhammad Cartoon Contest has Houston supporters,” by Joel Eisenbaum, Click2Houston.com, May 13, 2015 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

But other Houstonians, including a Houston area Muslim imam, who condemned the Garland attack, but supports restrictions on free speech, believes incendiary language should be restricted by law.

“I think there needs to be a change to the law where people do not disrespect especially high people,” Imam Mobasher Ahmed said.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Canada: 10 Muslims arrested at airport on suspicion of leaving to join Islamic State

Islamic State seizes Syrian city of Palmyra, threatening ancient ruins

 

Bosch Fawstin on his ‘Drawing of Muhammad’

Join us in this fascinating conversation with artist Bosch Fawstin, winner of the Inaugural Muhammad Art Exhibit in Garland Texas, May 3, 2015.

If you never heard of Bosch and his gripping aggressive writing and drawing until the Islamic State attack in Texas, after watching this show you will want to know more about Bosch and his groundbreaking work. Fawstin, a former Muslim, has the bona fides to critique Islam from the inside and the artistic talent to illustrate the inconsistencies and absurdity of Islamic prohibitions against even non-Muslims drawing a picture of Muhammad, Moses or Jesus!

An added benefit to this discussion is that both Bosch and I share some of our personal experiences in this show about being under attack at the Culwell Convention Center by Muslim terrorists…who are now dead.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic State celebrates capture of Ramadi with orgy of bloodshed, 25,000 flee their homes

Kerry: Don’t worry about fall of Ramadi, “Daesh has been driven back”

Since converting to Islam, UK woman has murdered 400 people

Meet the bravest woman in America

The Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest that Pamela Geller and I organized and hosted in Garland, Texas on May 3, along with the jihad attack upon it, has become a defining issue. It has led to a national conversation about the nature of the freedom of speech, its importance, and what should or should not be its limits. It has exposed many people who appeared to be strong defenders of freedom to be cowards and appeasers. It has revealed that many key media players and people in powerful positions of authority have no idea of the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, and no awareness of the war on free speech — much less any understanding of why the freedom of speech matters at all. It has demonstrated that many important opinion-makers neither appreciate nor value the freedom of speech, and don’t even really grasp what it is. It has likewise revealed others to be unexpectedly strong defenders of freedom. Some people I had thought were strong-minded and open-eyed have proved to be cowardly and blinkered. Other people I had suspected were trimmers and appeasers have shone brightly in their honesty and courage on this issue.

Those who have defended free speech in the wake of the jihad attack while heaping scorn upon Pamela Geller, and those who have fastidiously tried to protect themselves from the Left’s inevitable guilt-by-association smears by throwing in a line like, “Now mind you, I don’t agree with everything Pamela Geller says,” or “Now of course Pamela Geller’s approach is not something I agree with” or some such, quite simply disgust me. Pamela Geller has more clear-sighted awareness of the threat this nation faces, and more courage and resoluteness in facing it, thananyone in America today — especially those who are sitting in their armchairs today and sniffing at her for being “outrageous” and “provocative” while she has to live the rest of her life knowing that at any moment some jihadi maniac will try to get to his virgins by killing her. Yet people are acting these days as if she was the one with the AK-47 outside our event, or as if there would be no jihad threat against America were it not for her and for our Muhammad cartoon contest.

They won’t be able to keep up this denial much longer. It simply won’t be possible. The Islamic State has issued a detailed manual for jihad terror attacks and regular bloodshed in the streets of the United States and the nations of Western Europe. That is coming. To cower and say, “We won’t draw cartoons, we won’t do anything to offend you” not only will not stop this from coming, but it will embolden the jihadis, who always step up their game when they see weakness in their prey.

They see weakness in the U.S. That’s because the U.S. is weak. Not militarily, but societally. Culturally. Fewer and fewer people understand and value the principles upon which a free society is based. Fewer and fewer people are willing to stand to defend those principles. Cowards, trimmers, appeasers and open allies of the enemies of freedom abound.

Pamela Geller is standing for freedoms upon which the free world depends. That so few of power and influence are standing with her shows how severe the crisis really is.

These days are revealing many who were thought to be true to be false, and many who were thought to be false to be true. As a defender of freedom, Pamela Geller is the truest of the true. It is my immense honor to work with her, and to call her my friend.

“Meet the bravest woman in America,” by Joseph Farah, WND, May 15, 2015:

She’s been caricatured.

She’s been verbally tarred and feathered.

She’s been vilified, reviled, smeared, defamed and disparaged.

But something keeps Pam Geller going. Do you know what it is? It’s her love for her country and her passion for liberty.

For weeks now, I’ve been watching my friend Pam Geller taking media punches from the left and right for her private event in Garland, Texas, featuring Geert Wilders, another freedom fighter – an event attacked by armed jihadists who have determined to “slaughter” Pam Geller for her campaign to expose radical Islam’s vicious worldwide crusade against freedom, against women, against Jews, against Christians, against life and against everything but its own peculiar seventh-century view of the world.

Bill O’Reilly had the audacity to accuse Geller of “spurring” the attack with her event promoting freedom of speech.

Really?

So by criticizing a worldwide movement responsible for the ongoing genocide against Christians in the Middle East, the subjugation of women, a pattern of female genital mutilation, the ruthless beheading and crucifying and burning alive of its victims, she was spurring the attack? She was inviting it? She was goading them? Her motivation was to serve as a catalyst to an attack on her and her event?

Donald Trump said essentially the same thing, as did the New York Times and most of the handwringing media elite.

Others were satisfied to call Geller an Islamophobe.

That’s a good one. That’s rich.

This made-up word denotes someone who fears Islam. That’s hardly the case with Geller. It’s probably much more true of Geller’s most vocal critics, who, I suggest, think they buy cover from the violent Islamic radicals by bashing their enemies.

Join Pamela Geller in her fight to retain free-speech rights and the uniquely American culture — read “Stop The Islamization Of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance”

Have you ever wondered by so many leftists are soft on Shariah? Leftists say they support everything that Islam detests – “gay rights,” women’s rights, free expression, peace on earth. But they watch tacitly as Islam runs roughshod over their entire agenda. What gives?

Ultimately, it comes down to the left’s ideological commitment to “multiculturalism,” which began as a back-door assault against Western values and morphed into a war with Judeo-Christian ethics, America and Israel. Suddenly, they found common ground with the barbarians who behead anyone doesn’t lie prostrate before Allah five times a day.

Geller is no Islamophobe, a term which suggests cowardice. That’s a laugh. She’s probably the bravest women in America today.

It’s her critics who are the cowards.

Some of them, I am convinced, are even motivated to criticize her because they fear being associated with her strong stand against hatred, against murder, against torture, against rape and against their unholy war. Perhaps they believe they might be spared the kind of abuse and attacks she has experienced by creating a little space between Geller and themselves. Good luck with that! Radical Islam makes no distinctions between courageous enemies and cowardly ones. It doesn’t discriminate in its scorched-earth policies. They even murder Muslims who disagree with them about the chain of command after Muhammad died.

So throw out the Islamophobe term. It has lost its usefulness, if, indeed, it ever had any.

I’m with Pam Geller. I’m no Islamophobe. It’s just that when I see murder and torture and rape and genocide, I feel compelled to speak out about it, to resist it and to call evil what it is. I don’t know any other way. And neither does Pam Geller.

And that’s why I’m proud to call her my friend.

That’s why she’s the bravest woman in America.

And that’s why she needs and deserves the support of all freedom-loving Americans.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Spencer, PJM: Some Christians Object to Our Muhammad Cartoon Contest. Here’s Why They’re Wrong.

Australia: “Ordinary everyday teenager” converts to Islam, joins the Islamic State