Archive for the ‘“Far right”’ category

UK: Extremely Selective Free Speech

October 12, 2017

UK: Extremely Selective Free Speech, Gatestone InstituteJudith Bergman, October 12, 2017

(Please see also, Britain Moves To Criminalize Reading Extremist Material On The Internet. — DM)

The issue is not hate preachers visiting the UK from abroad. While banning them from campuses will leave them with fewer venues, it by no means solves the larger issue, which is that they will continue their Dawah or proselytizing elsewhere.

The question probably should be: Based on available evidence, are those assessments of Islam accurate? Particularly compared to current messages that seemingly are considered “conducive to the public good.”

At around the same time as the two neo-Nazi groups were banned at the end of September 2017, Home Secretary Amber Rudd refused to ban Hezbollah’s political wing in the UK. Hezbollah itself, obviously, does not distinguish between its ‘political’ and ‘military’ wings. In other words, you can go ahead and support Hezbollah in the UK, no problem. Support the far right and you can end up in jail for a decade.

Apparently, 112 events featuring extremist speakers took place on UK campuses in the academic year 2016/2017, according to a recent report by Britain’s Henry Jackson society: “The vast majority of the extreme speakers recorded in this report are Islamist extremists, though one speaker has a background in Far-Right politics….” That one speaker was Tommy Robinson both of whose events were cancelled, one due to hundreds of students planning to demonstrate to protest his appearance. The report does not mention student protests at any of the Islamist events.

The topics of the Islamist speakers included:

“Dawah Training… to teach students the fundamentals of preaching to others… Western foreign policy towards the Islamic world in general… Grievances…perceived attacks on Muslims and Islam in the UK… [calling for] scrapping of Prevent and other government counter-extremism measures [critiquing] arrest and detention of terrorism suspects… [challenging] ideas such as atheism and skepticism… religious socio-economic governance, focusing on the role of religion in fields such as legislation, justice… finance… religious rulings or interpretations, religious verses or other texts, important historical or scriptural figures…”

London was the region with the highest number of events, followed by the South East, according to the report. The most prolific speakers were affiliated to the Muslim Debate Initiative, the Islamic Education and Research Academy (iERA), the Muslim Research and Development Foundation (MRDF), the Hittin Institute, Sabeel, and CAGE. Most speakers were invited by Islamic student societies, and a high proportion of the talks took place during campus events such as “Discover Islam Week”, “Islam Awareness Week” and “Islamophobia Awareness Month”.

One of the most prolific speakers, Hamza Tzortis, is a senior member of iERA. He has said that apostates who “fight against the community[…] should be killed” and that, “we as Muslims reject the idea of freedom of speech, and even the idea of freedom”.

That so many extremist speaker events continue to take place at British universities should be cause for alarm. In March 2015, the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act (CTSA) imposed a dutyon universities, among other public bodies, to pay “due regard to the need to prevent individuals from being drawn into terrorism”, yet at 112 events last year, the number of extremist Islamist events on campuses have not dropped significantly. In comparison, there were 132 events in 2012, 145 events in 2013 and 123 events in 2014.

Evidence shows that the danger of becoming an actual Islamic terrorist while studying at British university campuses is also extremely real. According to one report, also by the Henry Jackson society:

“Since 1999, there have been a number of acts of Islamism-inspired terrorism… committed by students studying at a UK university at the time of their offence…there have also been a significant number of graduates from UK universities convicted of involvement in terrorism, and whom… were at least partially radicalised during their studies”.

The most well known case is probably that of Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, who in 2002 was found guilty of the kidnapping and murder of journalist Daniel Pearl. He is believed to have been radicalized while studying at the London School of Economics and Political Science in the early 1990s.

While removing extremist speakers from campuses might possibly reduce the risk of radicalization, extremist speakers are readily available to talk to Muslim youths outside of campuses. The issue is not hate preachers visiting the UK from abroad. While banning them from campuses will leave them with fewer venues, it by no means solves the larger issue, which is that they will continue their dawah or proselytizing elsewhere.

What, then, have been recent responses by the British government to the issues of Islamic radicalization and terrorism?

One response has been a proposal to tighten existing law on viewing ‘terrorist content’ online. People who repeatedly view terrorist content online could now face up to 15 years jail, Home Secretary Amber Rudd has announced. The law will also apply to terrorists who publish information about members of the armed forces, police and intelligence services for the purposes of preparing acts of terrorism. Tightening the law around viewing terrorist material is part of the counter-terrorism strategy the government is reviewing after the increased frequency of terrorist attacks in Britain this year.

Britain’s Home Secretary Amber Rudd has announced that people who repeatedly view “terrorist content” online could now face up to 15 years jail. (Image source: UK Government/Flickr)

Amber Rudd has included ‘far-right propaganda’ in the new law, saying:

“I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions, face the full force of the law.”

What is ‘far right propaganda?’ Based on previous British policies, ‘far right propaganda’ would likely include reading Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch or Pamela Geller’s ‘Geller Report’. While local hate preachers from legal Muslim organizations freely roam UK campuses, Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller were both forbidden entry to the UK in 2013 by the British Home Secretary, because their presence would “not be conducive to the public good”. This is what Geller was told:

“After careful consideration…you should be excluded from the United Kingdom on the grounds that your presence here is not conducive to the public good…You have brought yourself within the scope of the list of unacceptable behaviours by making statements that may foster hatred, which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK…You co-founded Stop Islamization of America, an organization described as an anti-Muslim hate group… You are reported to have stated the following: ‘Al-Qaeda is a manifestation of devout Islam … it is Islam’ [and] ‘If the Jew dies, the Muslims will die as well: their survival depends on their constant jihad, because without it they will lose the meaning and purpose of their existence.’ The Home Secretary considers that should you be allowed to enter the UK you would continue to espouse such views…”.

The letter to Robert Spencer was in almost identical form:

“The Home Secretary notes that you are the founder of the blog Jihad Watch (a site widely criticized for being Islamophobic). You co-founded the Freedom Defense Initiative and Stop Islamization of America, both of which have been described as anti-Muslim hate groups. You are reported to have stated the following: “… it [Islam] is a religion and is a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers… for establishing a societal model that is …incompatible with Western society…”

The question probably should be: Based on available evidence, are those assessments of Islam accurate? Particularly compared to current messages that seemingly are considered “conducive to the public good.”

It is also conceivable that reading quotes from Winston Churchill’s book about Islam online would be seen as ‘far right’ and therefore punishable by up to 15 years in jail. In 2014, Paul Weston, chairman of the Liberty GB party, was arrested on suspicion of religious/racial harassment for quoting an excerpt on Islam from Churchill’s book, ‘The River War’ — written in 1899 while he was a British army officer in Sudan — in a public speech.

Another recent government response to terrorism has been to outlaw two far-right groups: Scottish Dawn and NS131, which are aliases for the group National Action, a fringe neo-Nazi group, banned in 2016. Being a member of these groups or merely supporting them is now a criminal offense that carries a sentence of up to 10 years’ imprisonment. Amber Rudd said in September:

“National Action is a vile racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic group which glorifies violence and stirs up hatred… Our priority as Government will always be to maintain the safety and security of families and communities… we will continue to identify and ban any terrorist group which threatens this, whatever their ideology”.

Apparently, however, to paraphrase George Orwell, some terrorist groups “are more equal than others.” Amber Rudd recently refused to ban the political wing of Hezbollah, an equally racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic group that has actually committed terror attacks all over the world, as opposed to the banned neo-Nazi groups. Banning Hezbollah’s political wing would have closed a legal loophole that allows demonstrations in support of the political wing of Hezbollah, while its military wing is banned in the UK. Hezbollah itself, obviously, does not distinguish between its ‘political’ and ‘military’ wings.

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, had written to Amber Rudd asking her to close the legal loophole after Jewish groups pleaded with him to stop a large Al Quds day march, which nevertheless took place in London in June 2017 and featured Hezbollah flags. While the British government decided that supporters of fringe neo-Nazi groups should be jailed for up to 10 years, it apparently thought that supporting Hezbollah is just fine. In response to Khan, Amber Rudd wrote :

“The group that reportedly organised the parade, the Islamic Human Rights Commission, is not a proscribed terrorist organisation. This means they can express their views and demonstrate, provided that they do so within the law. The flag for the organisation’s military wing is the same as the flag for its political wing. Therefore, for it to be an offence under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, for an individual to display the Hizballah flag, the context and manner in which the flag is displayed must demonstrate that it is specifically in support of the proscribed elements of the group”,

In other words, you can go ahead and support Hezbollah in the UK, no problem. Support the far right and you can end up in jail for a decade. Evidently, free speech in the UK has become extremely selective.

Judith Bergman is a columnist, lawyer and political analyst.

European Conservative Parties Are Not ‘Far Right’

February 6, 2017

European Conservative Parties Are Not ‘Far Right’, American ThinkerJames Lewis, February 6, 2017

I keep reading in the European fakestream  media that the new upsurge in conservative democratic parties in Europe all comes down to fascists and paleo-Nazis. They are not – any more than Republicans are fascists and Nazis.

Euro-conservatives sound just like you, me, and Donald Trump.  They talk about freedom and democracy.  They talk about tolerance for democratic parties but not for totalitarian killers.  They talk about taking control of their borders again.  Their college campuses have been subverted and turned upside-down, just as ours have.  Their police forces often turn against normal people on behalf of murderous barbarians, just as ours are being pushed to do.

But normal people in Europe have finally gathered the courage to call the enemy by name.

Europe’s media constantly smear democratic conservatives as “extreme right” or “fascist.”  That is a vicious lie, as you can hear for yourself by listening to video speeches on the web by European conservatives.

If you don’t happen to understand their languages, you can listen to Nigel Farage, who sounds just like Trump.

But notice that the Fakestream in Europe can never allow conservatives to speak, not without smearing them in the same sentence.  Trump is a madman according to the media elites in Europe.  But then their own democratic populists are also ready to go for a new Hitler, if you listen to the establishment media.

I’ve just listened to one of the heroic figures of the resistance, Geert Wilders, who has twice been arrested and convicted of “hate speech” by the neo-fascist establishment in the Netherlands.  Over there, the “mainstream media” have lost all credibility, just like the Washington Post and the New York Times.  Over there, normal people are sick and tired – and scared – of the pile of lies they have to listen to every day.  They no longer believe a word of it.

Before Trump was elected, European conservatives were forbidden to speak out, accused of Nazism or racism.  Today, they are finding their true voices.

Democratic conservatism has gone international – not as a centralized ideology, but as a commonsense revolt by ordinary people for their ordinary freedoms.  Patriotism is coming back over there as well, and no, that doesn’t mean a return to the Kaiser’s militarism in Germany, or Napoleonic grandeur in France.  It means a return to normalcy.

When Euro-conservatives give speeches, Donald Trump gets tremendous applause.  Trump’s victory in the U.S. has given courage to tens of millions of Europeans, who have been afraid to speak out.  Some have been jailed, and all have been smeared in the public media.  But they are not going to take it anymore.

You’ll never, ever read this in the New York Times.  Or in the WaPo.  Or in the highly concentrated “news” cartel that controls what most Americans hear.

Marxo-jihadist globalism is always the same, here and there.  And just like here, ordinary people are outraged and ready to take to the streets.  They are not fascists, and they are certainly not Nazis.  They are not totalitarians of any kind at all.  They are true democrats with a small d.

Ordinary, healthy patriotism is in.  Sensible talk is in.  Crazy fascism can be heard coming only from the totalitarian left, just as in our country.

The treacherous establishments in Europe are closely allied to the corrupting forces of jihad and the Soros left.  Young, empty-headed kids are being indoctrinated there, just as they are here.  Trained ruckus-makers in black masks are taking the side of jihad over there, just as here.

Everyday Europeans are very scared, because their governments no longer protect them from thugs and rapists.  Women are afraid to show their blond hair (or any other color hair, for that matter).

The same fascist smear tactics we see in Berkeley today are being used in Europe.  And no wonder: The sources of political poison are the same left-jihadist Axis of Evil we see in this country.  These are people who have been told by Alinsky types like Obama and Hillary that the American middle class is “the enemy.”  And today, when they run the Organs of Propaganda, they are persuading airheads on colleges around the country that their parents and grandparents, normal Americans, are indeed their enemy.

Obama is an expert Alinsky ruckus-maker.  The term “community organizer” used to be called “Communist agitator,” when Communists were not afraid to be labeled accurately, and agitation-propaganda is exactly what they do.  The anti-Trump riots are organized by neo-Stalinists, who have never given up their quest for total power.  They are not subtle about it.

The U.S. media are now completely corrupt, united in their goal of destroying Donald Trump.  The Euro-media are exactly the same.  But normal people don’t speak in a single voice.  They speak in many voices.  Democracy is unpredictable, and power cults around the world are starting to finally see it.

The Times Tales from the Far Side

December 21, 2016

The Times Tales from the Far Side, Washington Free Beacon, , December 21, 2016

(Please see also Are Europe’s ‘Extreme Right’ Parties Really So Extreme? — DM)

nytInstagram user kaylaaajang

President-elect Donald Trump’s cabinet picks plan on moving the country “far to the right,” and not just any far right but the “Israeli far right,” according to the latest reports from the New York Times.

The Grey Lady introduced readers to David Friedman, Trump’s nominee to serve as ambassador to Israel, with the ominous warning that he is a “hard-liner” who could “could end up undercutting the security of Israel and the United States,” as one “left-leaning” expert told the Times on Dec. 15. Friedman was described in the first paragraph as a “bankruptcy lawyer aligned with the Israeli far right.”

“Far right” has become a staple of the New York Times lexicon since Trump’s upset victory over Hillary Clinton. The paper has used the term in connection to Trump 158 times since Election Day, tying him to everything from Europe’s rising nationalist parties to a Klu Klux Klan stabbing and profiles of internet-based white nationalist trolls. The term “far left” was used in connection to President Obama, by contrast, 431 times over the past eight years.

Friedman is not the only Trump cabinet nominee who threatens the balance of American politics. On Dec. 5 the paper stated that Trump’s “Cabinet Picks Portend a Shift Far to the Right.” As evidence of these far right tendencies, the paper cited that many of the president-elect’s nominees “have long records opposing the current administration on social programs, wages, public lands, veterans and the environment.”

The Times pointed to Trump’s Labor Secretary nominee, fast food restaurateur Andrew Puzder, as an example of the shift away from the center. Puzder “has been extremely critical of the Obama administration’s labor policies, including its push for a higher minimum wage and for new overtime rules for workers.”

The Times does not say that the Democratic Party platform’s embrace of a $15 minimum wage—more than double the current rate of $7.25—originated from one of the most liberal wings of the party: union powerhouse Service Employees International Union. On Nov. 22, a federal judge appointed by Obama blocked the new overtime rules because they are “contrary to the statutory text and Congress’s intent” of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The article does not say if the Obama administration’s policies—such as his efforts to “shut down fossil fuel production”—constitute a turn to the “far left.”

Trump’s nominees stand in stark contrast to those of President Obama, who according to the New York Times has never nominated anyone from the far left to a cabinet position or federal court. Dating back to Obama’s Nov. 4, 2008 election victory, the Times has used the word “far left” to describe “nominee” in about 140 instances, according to Lexis Nexis. The use of the term was more likely to help readers navigate photo captions—82 times—than provide context as to a politician or prospective Democratic cabinet member’s political leanings. The Times obituary 0f communist dictator Fidel Castro, for example, employed the phrase just once: “REVOLUTIONARY: Far left, Fidel Castro in 1968.”

The rare appearance of “far left” in the New York Times typically comes in the form of a quote from Republican politicians, rather than a news or headline writer’s copy. The paper’s journalists work hard to provide important context for its readers. When New Jersey Republican Steven Lonegan called now-Sen. Corey Booker “a far left liberal extremist,” Times reporters added that Booker “is frequently criticized in his own party for his moderate views.”

The paper used “far left” twice while covering the nomination of now-Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan. When she cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee on a near party-line vote—Sen. Lindsey Graham was the only Republican to vote for her—the Times reported that “Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, complained of Ms. Kagan’s ‘strong commitment to far left ideological beliefs.’”

Grassley would have known more about Ms. Kagan had he read the June 18, 2010 edition of the New York Times, which featured a 2,500-word profile of her roots titled, “The Kagan Family, Left Leaning and Outspoken.” Readers discovered that she came from a “New York family whose intellectual dynamism and embrace of liberal causes provide a window onto the social milieu and culture that shaped her.” Her father tied himself to a tree once; her brother’s “involvement in radical causes’ [was] an inspiration for her senior thesis on the Socialist movement in New York.”

Far left appears in the article one time: “TOUGH TEACHER: Elena Kagan’s mother, Gloria, far left, with her class at Hunter College Elementary in 1979.”

Kagan now has a more leftwing record on the court than liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg, according to the Washington University School of Law’s Supreme Court Database.

Are Europe’s ‘Extreme Right’ Parties Really So Extreme?

December 21, 2016

Are Europe’s ‘Extreme Right’ Parties Really So Extreme? PJ Media, Roger L Simon, December 20, 2016

(Please see also, CNN Uses Germany Attack To Bash The Right. –DM)

Not more than an hour — or was it ten minutes — after news broke of Monday night’s truck terror attack in Berlin, reports began to appear from the usual suspects (CNN, Reuters, AP, BBC, etc.) with the requisite sentences and paragraphs expressing concern that the horrific event would play into the hands of the “extreme right-wing” parties of Europe.

Buried not so deep was the implication that, bad as these attacks were, something even worse loomed, the return of Nazism or Nazi-like fascism.

I have always wondered how accurate this characterization of parties like Germany’s relatively new Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) as “far right”  (as the BBC did Monday) really was.  I have been to Germany several times, though not recently, so my knowledge is not first hand, but I am skeptical.

I was in England around the Brexit vote and got to speak with people who were members of or sympathetic to the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and didn’t find any of them particularly fascistic. On the contrary, they wanted independence from the EU so they could have local democratic rule and determine the fate of their own country apart from the undemocratic Brussels bureaucracy. But perhaps I missed something.

Perhaps I missed something too when I traveled the country covering the Trump campaign and didn’t find any fascistic leanings to speak of among his supporters — no racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. — just an over-weening disgust with Washington and a feeling they had been substantially overlooked by a morally narcissistic liberal elite busy enriching themselves. (They had.)

Of course there are Nazis in the world. How could there not be in populations, American and European, that together approach a billion? Just about anything could be found. In the USA we have this white-supremacist character Richard Spencer, whose group consists of fewer people than are normally in line for pizza at Ray’s, yet the press persists on making a big deal out of him for reasons that are laughably obvious.  (If Spencer would agree to wear a “Make America Great Again” hat, they’d put him on the cover of TIME.)

But these tiny groups, domestic and foreign, do not constitute the remotest proof that parties seeking to limit Islamic immigration in European countries are extreme or far right. This is what one might call  “guilt by the most minute association.”

What is really going on is an ideological fracturing with extreme — in the real sense — violent implications.  The European left — lost for so many years in a blind, virtue-signaling multiculturalism — now has to come to grips with the fact that maybe all cultures are NOT equal, that some cultures truly are racist, sexist, and homophobic and are governed by a religious ideology that seeks to rule the world with no separation of mosque and state and human rights virtually non-existent, the very things the left claims it abhors. And those same leftists don’t know how to handle this contradiction.  So they blame those who do and call them neo-Nazis.

Ironically, those called neo-Nazis and the like are often the most open-minded people, seeking to preserve Europe’s gift to humanity, the Enlightenment.

Such a person is the extraordinary Geert Wilders, recently found guilty of “discrimination” by a Dutch court and now the odds-on favorite to be the next prime minister of that country. The Dutch are in many ways the most honest people in Europe.  Wilders — no shrinking violet — has already tweeted out in no uncertain terms that Angela Merkel has blood on her hands for what transpired in Berlin.  She does.

The irony of ironies may be that the true heirs to the Nazis are the Merkels of the world, not the AfD, etc. While not Hitler-like in mass murder and megalomania, not to mention all the master-race insanity, they do share a background with the genocidal dictator — socialism.  The Nazis were the National Socialist Party.  That Merkel is East German is not accidental.  Leading (and controlling) from the top is what she is used to. (The AfP, paradoxically, originated in the same area of Germany as Merkel, still an economically disadvantaged region.)

Now these guilty, pseudo-pacifist heirs of their crazy Fuhrer have to confront Hitler’s old ally in irredentist Islam, invading their country under cover of “political asylum” from a situation created, at least in part, by Barack Obama’s Middle Eastern fecklessness.  Aleppo belongs to Barack, but Berlin is Angela’s (and “progressive” Germany’s).

As the madman who drove through the Christmas market disappears into the European night, we wonder where Islam will strike next. France again? Belgium? Sweden? Things look pretty bad there.  Or perhaps Spain — the original home of La Reconquista? Land once claimed by Islam is theirs forever, according to their holy book that even the more peaceful and supposedly moderate of their faith believe. Why then do we expect them to intervene when their more bloodthirsty brethren act out? And indeed they don’t.

The complex knot that Europe needs to cut through is Gordian indeed and the continent is barely in shape to do it.  It may be too late.  Should America help?  Despite Trump’s “America Firstism,” I think we have to, to the extent we can, and I suspect he knows it. Without Old Europe, we’re basically friendless in the world.

Well…. there’s  always Australia. And now Taiwan. And maybe, once in a while, India. (And of course that place the French like to call the “petit pays merdique.”)

Germany Mulls Heavy Fines for Facebook Over ‘Fake News’ Posts

December 21, 2016

Germany Mulls Heavy Fines for Facebook Over ‘Fake News’ Posts, Washington Free Beacon, December 20, 2016

The German government is considering making Facebook pay hefty fines for “fake news” posts due to worries they could impact the country’s elections.

The possible fines come from lawmakers in the country who are worried Russia may try to interfere with elections in 2017. Politicians are mulling legislation that would compel the social media giant to create a “legal protection unit” and pay individuals affected by “fake news” stories that are not swiftly dealt with, Forbes reported.

“If after the relevant checks Facebook does not immediately, within 24 hours, delete the offending post then [it] must reckon with severe penalties of up to 500,000 euros ($522,000 in U.S. dollars),” said Thomas Oppermann, the chairman of Germany’s Social Democratic Party.

 The Social Democratic Party and Christian Democratic Union, the party led by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, both support the “fake news” crackdown.

Merkel warned in November that the country would deal with such stories.

“Something has changed—as globalization has marched on, [political] debate is taking place in a completely new media environment,” Merkel said. “Opinions aren’t formed the way they were 25 years ago. Today we have fake sites, bots, trolls—things that regenerate themselves, reinforcing opinions with certain algorithms and we have to learn to deal with them.”

Patrick Sensburg, a member of Merkel’s party, added, “targeting disinformation to destabilize a state should be a criminal offence.”

Facebook says it is in communication with politicians in the country over their concerns.

“We take the issues raised very seriously. And we are engaging with key politicians and digital experts from all parties and relevant ministries in Germany interested in this matter,” a Facebook spokesperson told the Washington Free Beacon in an email statement.

This is not the first time this month that Germany has singled out Facebook and threatened penalties.

Volker Kauder, an ally of Merkel’s, said at a Christian Democrats conference in early December that large companies could face fines for online hate speech.

“I expect from big companies like Facebook that they adhere to laws. If they are not respected than we must think about new possibilities, fines for example,” Kauder said.

Facebook has said it is difficult to track such speech given the number of users on the social media platform. Kauder disputed this notion.

“They say there is too much. But a big auto manufacturer that produces millions of cars can’t say: ‘I produce so many cars that I can’t guarantee they are all secure.’ No, that is not on,” Kauder said. “I expect and demand from Facebook that laws are upheld.”

Other German politicians have warned they may introduce legislation if social media outlets fail to remove 70 percent of hate speech by March 2017, Yahoo News reported.

Merkel will stand for reelection next year. German far-right politicians have gained traction by hitting the chancellor for her “open-door” immigration policy.

Marcus Pretzell, a member of the Alternative for Germany party, took to social media to blame Merkel’s policies for the loss of life following Berlin’s Christmas market truck attack. That attack killed 12 and injured nearly 50.

“These are Merkel’s dead,” Pretzell posted on Twitter.

German police, believing they arrested the wrong man, released a Pakistani migrant on Tuesday who was the initial suspect for the attacks. Authorities launched a new manhunt following his release.

EXCLUSIVE: ‘Civil Rights’ Groups Fearmongering Over Trump “Hate Crimes” Backed Hillary

December 2, 2016

EXCLUSIVE: ‘Civil Rights’ Groups Fearmongering Over Trump “Hate Crimes” Backed Hillary, Counter JihadPaul Sperry, December 2, 2016

civilrightsgroups

“President-elect Trump must reconsider some of the selections he has made as top advisers to his administration,” asserted Brenda Abdelall of Muslim Advocates. “Otherwise, the selection of individuals like Steve Bannon (White House counselor), Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (National Security Adviser) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (Attorney General nominee) indicates that the bigoted and divisive rhetoric that we saw in his campaign will continue as a matter of policy and practice in the White House.”

************************

A coalition of self-described “civil rights groups” tarring GOP President-elect Donald Trump and his advisers as “white supremacists” unleashing “hate crimes” against Muslims and other minorities is made up of Democrat activists who endorsed or donated heavily to Hillary Clinton, federal records show.

The group — comprised of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Muslim Advocates, The Leadership Conference, National Council of La Raza and the American Federation of Teachers — says it formed to protect minorities from the “hate-filled” and “bigoted rhetoric” of Trump and his supporters. But it has a decidedly partisan political agenda that includes trying to derail key Trump appointments to his Cabinet.

Earlier this week, the group held a press conference in Washington calling on Trump to “disavow” supposedly “anti-Muslim” policy proposals and “reconsider” Cabinet appointees “who have sent a message that white supremacy and anti-Muslim conspiracy theories are in vogue this days.”

“President-elect Trump must reconsider some of the selections he has made as top advisers to his administration,” asserted Brenda Abdelall of Muslim Advocates. “Otherwise, the selection of individuals like Steve Bannon (White House counselor), Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (National Security Adviser) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (Attorney General nominee) indicates that the bigoted and divisive rhetoric that we saw in his campaign will continue as a matter of policy and practice in the White House.”

Added Abdelall: “He needs to disavow the dangerous proposals and ideas that single out and demonize Muslims and other communities.”

The George Soros-controlled group bankrolling Muslim Advocates, the Open Society Foundation, gave $9,463 to Clinton and $0 to Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign.

White House visitors logs show San Francisco-based Muslim Advocates met with Obama officials at least 11 times, including several times in 2011 to lobby the administration to purge FBI and Homeland Security counterterrorism training materials it deemed “offensive” to Muslims. Muslim Advocates played a central role in the agencies removing in 2012 more than 870 pages of material from some 390 presentations — including PowerPoints and papers describing jihad as “holy war” and portraying the Muslim Brotherhood as a worldwide jihadist movement bent on, according to its own bylaws, “establishing an Islamic state.” Security experts say the purge weakened terrorism investigations and left the US vulnerable to the rash of deadly homegrown jihadists attacks seen in the country starting with 2013’s Boston Marathon bombings.

Top Muslim Advocates officials have spoken at Islamic conferences held by known Muslim Brotherhood front groups and defended a major U.S. Muslim Brotherhood charity convicted of financing terrorism.

Southern Poverty Law Center President Richard Cohen called Trump’s naming of Bannon as his top White House strategist “a very unfortunate sign.” He contended that Bannon “is the alter ego” of American white nationalist Richard Spencer.

“Mr. Trump has been singing the white supremacist song since he came down the escalator in his tower and announced his candidacy,” Cohen claimed, adding that “he needs to apologize to the Muslim community.”

Cohen, who says he was the target of discrimination “growing up as a Jewish kid,” has hired security guards to protect his offices and home in Montgomery, Ala. In the past, he has said that he so feared “white supremacists” that he “had to leave his home and stay in a hotel as a precautionary measure.”

A search of Federal Election Commission records shows that Southern Poverty Law Center directors have given more than $13,450 to Hillary Clinton’s campaigns.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is also backed by the ultra-liberal billionaire Soros, and has supported radical leftists, including unrepentant communist terrorist Bill Ayers, whom the group once called “a highly respected figure.”

The National Press Club event also featured Janet Marguia of the National Council of La Raza, an illegal immigrant advocacy group, who claimed Trump was “threatening” Hispanic children.

La Raza, which means “the race,” refuses to condemn an openly racist affiliate known as MECHa, which claims the Southwest was stolen and should be returned to Mexico and whose slogan is “For the race, everything; outside the race, nothing.”

In the 2016 election cycle, La Raza gave $6,600 to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and $0 to Trump’s campaign.

American Federation of Teachers President Randy Weingarten also took the podium to denounce Trump and his appointments.

“The nomination of Jeff Sessions, the appointment of Steve Bannon and the appointment of Mike Flynn all sent a message that white supremacy and anti-Muslim conspiracy theories are in vogue these days,” she said.

American Federation of Teachers formally endorse Clinton and donated$38,885 to her campaign while contributing nothing to Trump.

“We endorsed Hillary today for the same reasons we endorsed (her) in the Democratic primary. She is a tested leaders who shares our values,” Weingarten said</> earlier this year. “Today, our members made it clear we stand with her.”

During the campaign, AFT made more than 1 million phone calls and knocked on more than 500,000 doors to get out the vote for Clinton.

Leadership Conference President Wade Henderson also laced into Trump and his nominations, claiming they were “racist.”

“We are concerned about the impact of Jeff Sessions at the Department of Justice, Gen. Mike Flynn or Steve Bannon just a heartbeat away from the presidency,” he said during the press conference.

Henderson charged that Bannon “has supported and embraced organizations that take direct views that are anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, anti-immigrant and racist.” He also alleged that Sessions is “someone whose record will suggest that he will have great difficulty in enforcing civil rights laws, including hate crimes laws on the books.”

In the 2016 election cycle, records show The Leadership Conference donated $8230 to Hillary Clinton and her presidential campaign, while contributing $0 to Trump. All told, the conference gave $81,800 to Democrat candidates for federal office in 2016 vs. $0 for Republicans.

In addition, FEC individual donation records reveal that The Leadership Council’s top lobbyists — including executive vice president Nancy Zirkin and senior counsel Emily Chatterjee — have personally given thousands of dollars to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.