Archive for the ‘Islamophobia’ category

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Exposed: Society of Professional Journalists ‘Guidebook’ on Spinning Islamic Terror Stories

June 16, 2016

Exposed: Society of Professional Journalists ‘Guidebook’ on Spinning Islamic Terror Stories, Truth Revolt,  Tiffany Gabbay, June 15, 2016

sjp_2

The following “handbook” for professional journalists began re-circulating on social media recently and we thought it relevant to share in light of the deceitful mainstream media coverage following the Islamic terror attack in Orlando.

Guidelines for Countering Racial, Ethnic and Religious Profiling, first disseminated by the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) immediately after the 9/11 terror attack, exposes how members of the media are instructed to skew stories about Islamic terrorism.

The professional trade body bills itself as a pillar of journalistic integrity. The SJP website states that “public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy” and that “ethical journalism strives to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough.”

“An ethical journalist acts with integrity,” states the SJP website without hint of irony. In fact, the Society lays out the following “Code of Ethics” members of media are encouraged to follow:

Seek Truth and
Report It
Minimize Harm
Be Accountable and Transparent

SPJ, which reportedly has about 300 chapters across the U.S., released the following guidebook for journalists during its National Convention in Seattle in October, 2001.

The Society passed a resolution “urging members and fellow journalists to take steps against racial profiling in their coverage of the war on terrorism and to reaffirm their commitment to”:

— Use language that is informative and not inflammatory;

— Portray Muslims, Arabs and Middle Eastern and South Asian Americans in the richness of their diverse experiences;

— Seek truth through a variety of voices and perspectives that help audiences understand the complexities of the events in Pennsylvania, New York City and Washington, D.C.

In its general guidelines for all coverage concerning Islamic terrorism, the SPJ guidebook continues by instructing journalists to:

— Seek out people from a variety of ethnic and religious backgrounds when photographing Americans mourning those lost in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

— Seek out people from a variety of ethnic and religious backgrounds when photographing rescue and other public service workers and military personnel.

— Do not represent Arab Americans and Muslims as monolithic groups. Avoid conveying the impression that all Arab Americans and Muslims wear traditional clothing.

— Use photos and features to demystify veils, turbans and other cultural articles and customs.

— Seek out and include Arabs and Arab Americans, Muslims, South Asians and men and women of Middle Eastern descent in all stories about the war, not just those about Arab and Muslim communities or racial profiling.

— Cover the victims of harassment, murder and other hate crimes as thoroughly as you cover the victims of overt terrorist attacks.

— Make an extra effort to include olive-complexioned and darker men and women, Sikhs, Muslims and devout religious people of all types in arts, business, society columns and all other news and feature coverage, not just stories about the crisis.

— Seek out experts on military strategies, public safety, diplomacy, economics and other pertinent topics who run the spectrum of race, class, gender and geography.

— When writing about terrorism, remember to include white supremacist, radical anti-abortionists and other groups with a history of such activity.

— Do not imply that kneeling on the floor praying, listening to Arabic music or reciting from the Quran are peculiar activities.

— When describing Islam, keep in mind there are large populations of Muslims around the world, including in Africa, Asia, Canada, Europe, India and the United States. Distinguish between various Muslim states; do not lump them together as in constructions such as “the fury of the Muslim world.”

— Avoid using word combinations such as “Islamic terrorist” or “Muslim extremist” that are misleading because they link whole religions to criminal activity. Be specific: Alternate choices, depending on context, include “Al Qaeda terrorists” or, to describe the broad range of groups involved in Islamic politics, “political Islamists.” Do not use religious characterizations as shorthand when geographic, political, socioeconomic or other distinctions might be more accurate.

— Avoid using terms such as “jihad” unless you are certain of their precise meaning and include the context when they are used in quotations. The basic meaning of “jihad” is to exert oneself for the good of Islam and to better oneself.

— Consult the Library of Congress guide for transliteration of Arabic names and Muslim or Arab words to the Roman alphabet. Use spellings preferred by the American Muslim Council, including “Muhammad,” “Quran,” and “Makkah ,” not “Mecca.”

— Regularly seek out a variety of perspectives for your opinion pieces. Check your coverage against the five Maynard Institute for Journalism Education fault lines of race and ethnicity, class, geography, gender and generation.

— Ask men and women from within targeted communities to review your coverage and make suggestions.

The SJP guidebook for covering Islamic terrorism is still prominently featured on their website, indicating it is still very much in practice and part of the organization’s professional instruction for journalists.

Given the abominable mainstream media coverage over the last 15 years since 9-11, it’s not difficult to see that this willful, calculated deceit — sorry, “code of ethics” —  has been followed to the letter.

Categories: Islamic hatred of others, Islamic jihad, Islamic terror groups, Islamism, Islamists, Islamophobia, Media, Press censorship, Violent extremism
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

How Many Bodies will it Take?

June 15, 2016

How Many Bodies will it Take?, Front Page Magazine, Phyllis Chesler, June 14, 2016

Orlando victims

After being written off as a racist Islamophobe for fifteen years because I raised precisely the same points that both Carl Bernstein (!) and Barney Frank (!) raised earlier today; after viewing the sweet, doomed faces of the 49 murdered gay and perhaps non-gay people, mainly Latinos and Latinas, often people of color, on my TV screen—what do I have to say?

The question I and others have raised since 9/11 (for me, since the Intifada against the Jews that began in 2000), was: “How many bodies will it take for Americans, especially the intelligentsia, including the feminists, including gay people, including our elected officials, before they understand that we: (the West, America, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Muslim and ex-Muslim dissidents) have a very real enemy?” It is radical Islam or Islamism, Islamic Jihad or, if you prefer, Islamist Jihad; and it is not going away anytime soon.

This is precisely what Israel alone has been up against since its founding in 1948. Actually, long before that, Jews suffered the most profound Islamic anti-Semitism. Buddhists in Afghanistan were murdered or forcibly converted. Hindus in India were slaughtered by Muslims by the millions—simply because they were Hindus. Christians have long been persecuted by Muslims for the same reason; that persecution continues today.

Clearly, more than 3,000 bodies on 9/11 were not enough. Clearly, the many millions of Muslims murdered by Muslim Jihadists have not been enough. Will the murder of 49 gay Americans finally be “enough?”

Somehow I doubt it but I certainly hope so. Of course, sure, yes, let’s ban assault rifles completely. That will not stop someone like Omar Mateen. But the handguns and the rifles are not as important as banning and abolishing the routine hate of women, the “wrong” kind of Muslim, ex-Muslim apostates, homosexuals—hatreds that are intimately part of historic Islam.

How many deaths before we become effective in identifying potential Jihadists? Within our borders? Arriving as refugees and immigrants? How many deaths before we are willing to use the word “Muslim terrorist” without fearing we will be demonized for doing so?

The gay websites are more focused on general “hate” against gays and gun control than they are focused on the nature and the danger of radical Islam. The gay communities have been willing to march against Israel—but never against Jihad?

Long ago, Natan Sharansky asked me if I thought I could “turn the feminists, the leftists, the gays around.” I told him that I doubted it, but that I would try.

Will these 49 dead and 53 wounded start that “turning?”

We shall see.

Categories: Islamic hatred of others, Islamic terror groups, Islamism, Islamophiles, Islamophobia, Media, Obama administration, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Orlando massacre
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Making America unsafe

June 15, 2016

Making America unsafe, Israel Hayom, Judith Bergman, June 15, 2016

When Obama claims, as he did on Tuesday, that “there’s no magic to the phrase ‘radical Islam.’ If someone seriously thinks we don’t know who we’re fighting, if there’s anyone out there who thinks we’re confused about who our enemies are, that would come as a surprise to the thousands of terrorists we’ve taken off the battlefield,” he is simply dissembling. You cannot know an enemy when you prohibit your law enforcement and intelligence personnel from studying or even mentioning them.

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

There is a deep and unacknowledged irony to the fact that U.S. President Barack Obama, of all people, has opined in the days since the terror attack in Orlando that how you term things makes no difference.

“What exactly would using this label [‘radical Islam’] accomplish? … Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction,” Obama said on Tuesday in response to the heavy criticism poured on him after he, once more, refused to use the term in connection with the mass shooting. Islamic State quickly claimed responsibility for the attack, perhaps frustrated that no one in the U.S. administration, nor the Democratic presidential candidate, will give it credit for it.

Positing that calling something or someone a particular name makes no difference is the very epitome of hypocritical dissembling, especially coming from the person at the very top of the Democratic echelons.

These are the same people who for decades fought to entrench political correctness into American society, making it impossible to call certain things by their rightful names without facing a barrage of vilification and personal smears. The American Left has fought ceaselessly to shape language according to its ideas and has succeeded so tremendously that Americans are now afraid to report suspicious activity out of fear of coming across as “Islamophobic.” This has already cost lives. Before the attack, the security company that Omar Mateen worked for was afraid of reporting him, despite his suspicious behavior, exactly because it feared being castigated as “Islamophobic.”

The U.S. has much to learn from Israel in this regard. Israel is so efficient at fighting terrorism precisely because it cannot afford the luxury of integrating political correctness into its security doctrines. The very idea is preposterous. Nevertheless, this is exactly what Obama has done.

Five years ago, Obama erased all references to Islam in the educational materials used to train the American law enforcement and national security communities. In 2011, U.S. Deputy Attorney General James Cole confirmed that the Obama administration was recalling all its training materials to eliminate references to Islam that some Muslim groups had claimed were offensive.

In 2013, The Washington Times also reported that countless experts on Islamic terrorism had been banned from speaking to any U.S. government counterterrorism conferences, including those of the FBI and CIA. Government agencies were instead ordered to invite Muslim Brotherhood front groups.

If it is only a matter of labels, then why has Obama endangered American lives by deliberately blindsiding law enforcement and national security communities on the nature of Islamic terrorism? How are they supposed to grapple with the urgent issue of jihad if they are prohibited from learning about the nature of jihad?

When Obama claims, as he did on Tuesday, that “there’s no magic to the phrase ‘radical Islam.’ If someone seriously thinks we don’t know who we’re fighting, if there’s anyone out there who thinks we’re confused about who our enemies are, that would come as a surprise to the thousands of terrorists we’ve taken off the battlefield,” he is simply dissembling. You cannot know an enemy when you prohibit your law enforcement and intelligence personnel from studying or even mentioning them.

These are all relevant questions that the mainstream media has consistently refused to ask the administration — instead, dangerously dismissing them as conspiracy theories. The price is now being paid by innocent Americans, from a Christmas party in San Bernardino to a gay nightclub in Orlando.

Words matter tremendously, and you cannot fight an enemy that you are forbidden to name. Imagine Churchill telling the British that there was “no magic” in calling out the Nazi ideology and prohibiting his intelligence community from studying Nazi Germany’s strategy and tactics.

Hillary Clinton, feeling the backlash after publishing identical statements to those of Obama, has now opportunistically declared that she is ready to say those “magical words.”

But this is meaningless pandering, especially when you know she was part of the administration that purged training materials of all things Islam.

“In my perspective, it matters what we do, not what we say,” Clinton said. “To me, radical jihadism, radical Islamism, I think they mean the same thing. I’m happy to say either, but that’s not the point.”

The administration pretends there is no Islamist threat. This is what it has firmly projected to its law enforcement and intelligence communities, and Clinton is of course fully aware of the intricate details of this fact. Stating that it matters “what we do” then becomes an empty and even dangerous statement, because it deludes Americans into believing that there is a solid and credible intelligence effort underway to prevent future Islamist terror attacks in the United States, when this cannot logically be the case given that the U.S. law enforcement and intelligence communities are not allowed to study jihad or Islamic extremism.

Categories: CAIR, Hillary Clinton and Islam, Islam, Islamic radicalization, Islamic terrorism, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Obama and Islam, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Obama's hypocrisy, Political correctness, radical Islam, Violent extremism
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

Why are 2nd generation Muslim immigrants becoming jihadis?

June 15, 2016

Why are 2nd generation Muslim immigrants becoming jihadis? Brigitte Gabriel via YouTube, June 15, 2016

Categories: 2nd generation Muslims, Europe, Islam in America, Islamic immigration, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic jihad, Islamic radicalization, Islamic refugees, Islamic terror groups, Islamisation, Islamism, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Mosques in U.S., Obama and Islam, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Sharia law
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

RIGHT ANGLE: Political Correctness Kills 49 in Orlando

June 15, 2016

RIGHT ANGLE: Political Correctness Kills 49 in Orlando via YouTube, June 14, 2016

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Islam and homosexuals, Islamic death cults, Islamic perversions, Islamic State, Islamic terror groups, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Law enforcement, Obama and Islam, Obama and terrorism, Political correctness
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Will CAIR Condemn the Anti-Gay Imams It Associates with and Promotes?

June 15, 2016

Will CAIR Condemn the Anti-Gay Imams It Associates with and Promotes? Counter Jihad Report, Kyle Shideler, June 14, 2016

(The question almost answers itself: No. Yet the Obama administration relies on CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood linked groups as its representatives to the Muslim community. It shouldn’t. Please see also, From Baghdad to Boston: The moderate Muslims need to be given a prominent space to counter the extremist narrative. — DM)

The Council on American Islamic Relations held a press conference on Sunday following the deadly jihadist terror attack on a gay nightclub in Orlando, where the group attempted to link homophobia with the group’s preferred talking point “Islamophobia,” labeling them, “interconnected systems of oppression.”

If that were so, perhaps it would be time to ask why Hamas-linked CAIR has yet to address the homophobia within the Muslim community, and, perhaps more importantly, among the imams which CAIR routinely works with and honors?

CAIR has repeatedly maintained close and deliberate ties to numerous individuals known for preaching virulently anti-gay themes.

Muzammil Siddiqi: Supporting Suicide Attacks and Death Penalty for Homosexuals

During the last mass casualty attack conducted by a jihadist in San Bernardino, CAIR publicly highlighted its close association with Islamic Shura Council of Southern California leader Muzammil Siddiqi. Siddiqi has publicly supported the death penalty for homosexuals in Muslim countries. Homosexuals face the death penalty or extrajudicial killings in numerous Islamic countries, including Iran which has reportedly killed 4-6,000 homosexuals or suspected homosexuals. Siddiqi has also been caught issuing statements in support of suicide attacks, saying Muslims who died “for justice” receive “the highest position” in Heaven. Police killed Orlando shooter Omar Mateen during his attack against the Pulse Nightclub.

Siraj Wahhaj: Wanted to Storm a Gay-Friendly Mosque in Canada

Frequent CAIR fundraiser Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, published an audiotape entitled “Don’t Go Near Zina.” Zina is the Arabic term for types of sexual intercourse forbidden under Shariah law. In the tape Wahhaj condemns homosexuality and references reports of a mosque being opened in Canada for homosexual Muslims. Wahhaj openly calls on the audience to physically go with him to Toronto to shut down the mosque.

Taha Alwani: Issued a Fatwa Calling For“Earthly Punishments” for Homosexuals

Another example is CAIR’s praise upon the passing of Muslim scholar Taha Alwani, a man once raided by the federal law enforcement for suspected terror finance. CAIR issued a press release saying Alwani’s works would “benefit Muslims around the world for generations to come.” Alwani, in his position as member of the Fiqh Council of North America, published a 2003 fatwacondemning a reported mosque for gay Muslims. In his fatwa Alwani refers to the smiting of Sodom and Gomorrah, calls homosexuality “abominable”, and reinforcing Islamic doctrines calling for “earthly punishments” for homosexuals:

It is true that some of the scholars disagreed with these punishments not because of doubt that these actions constitute a crime, but because of a lack of divine textual stipulation for a worldly punishment. But the actions of the Prophet’s Companions do indicate that in fact this crime has a worldly punishment, to be carried out by those in authority among the Muslims.

Alwani goes on to cite for support of his statement a hadith referring to Caliph AbuBakr, who ordered a homosexual to be burned alive. Alwani also ordered Muslims to “take precautions” against homosexual corruption.

Omar Suleiman: Homosexuality a “Repugnant” “Disease”

Another CAIR associated Imam with a record of anti-gay rhetoric is Omar Suleiman. Suleiman, who has routinely provided videos offering fundraising support for CAIR chapters, including in Florida. Suleiman was noted in the Daily Mail for calling homosexuality “repugnant” “a disease” which will destroy Muslim children if Muslims don’t take action to oppose it.

Jamal Badawi: Homosexuality a Sign of the End Times

Consider CAIR-Canada Board Member Jamal Badawi. On his website Badawi, regarded by many as an accomplished Islamic scholar, refers to the spread of homosexuality as a sign of the “End Times.” In another video presentation Badawi argued that homosexuality cannot be genetic, reasoning that if it was God would not have destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Suhaib Webb: Slammed Wearers of “Effeminate” Clothing

Popular Imam Suhaib Webb is a frequent keynote speaker for CAIR fundraisers. Webb is also known forattending a fundraiser with Anwar Awlaki, the Al Qaeda cleric whose videos Omar Mateen reportedly watched. Webb also publicly condemned those who wear “effeminate” clothing, including skinny jeans, and told a D.C. metro area Muslim audience to oppose gay marriage, condemned American values, and urged practitioners to spread Islam’s message “by any means necessary…”

Abu Taubah: Railed Against “F**gots,” Non-Muslims and American Society

Finally, consider Abu Taubah, the anti-gay imam who reportedly was Omar Mateen’s teacher, and who has previously been identified as assisting jihadists joining terror groups abroad. While Abu Taubah was imprisoned he repeatedly sought out CAIR’s assistance, which CAIR provided, arranging a meeting between Abu Taubah and CAIR Florida Director Hassan Shibly, while Taubah was imprisoned.

Homophobic tweet

Upon Abu Taubah’s release, CAIR immediately took a victory lap, holding a press conference with the Imam’s family.

At what point will CAIR be asked about their repeated ties to virulently anti-gay Imams and Islamic preachers, and its support for Muslims scholars who continue to promote a doctrine calling for homosexuals to be killed?

At their recent press conference CAIR was able to cynically take advantage of the slaughter of innocent people, and the media never once asked a critical question about its support for the very people who espouse the doctrine that makes this violence possible. That needs to change.

Categories: CAIR, Islam and homosexuality, Islam and human rights, Islamists, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama and Islam, Political Islam, Sharia law
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Winning the Jihad War

June 15, 2016

Winning the Jihad War, Political Islam via YouTube, June 14, 2016

(Although Dr. Warner articulates differences between Islam and political Islam (Islamism), he does not appear to recognize that some moderate Muslims reject political Islam. Please see also, From Baghdad to Boston: The moderate Muslims need to be given a prominent space to counter the extremist narrative. — DM)

Categories: Hadith, Islamic perversions, Islamic reformation, Islamism, Islamists, Islamophobia, Mohammad, Political Islam, Quran, Sharia law, Terrorist recruitment in mosques
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Is ISIS a GOP Franchise?

June 14, 2016

Is ISIS a GOP Franchise? Front Page Magazine, Caroline Glick, June 14, 2016

tdy_gosk_mateen_160613.nbcnews-ux-1080-600

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post. 

Making clear the partisan assault intrinsic to Obama’s position, following his statement Sunday, Democratic Senator from Connecticut Richard Blumenthal blamed Republicans for the massacre at the Pulse.

Referring to the jihadist attack as “a public health crisis,” caused by “gun violence,” Blumenthal alleged that fifty people who went dancing in Orlando Saturday night never made it home because Republican Senators oppose Obama’s bill to limit gun ownership rights.

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

Is Islamic State opposed to gay marriage? Was anger at the US Supreme Court’s decision mandating recognition of homosexual marriage what prompted Omar Mateen to massacre fifty Americans at the gay nightclub in Orlando on Saturday night? What about gun control? Is Islamic State, to which Mateen announced his allegiance as he mowed down innocents like blades of grass, a libertarian group that abhors limitations on private ownership of firearms? In other words, are Islamic State and its fellow jihadists from Iran to Hamas, Hezbollah, Boko Haram and al Qaida adjuncts of the Republican Party? Is Omar Baghdadi, the self-declared caliph at the helm of ISIS a social conservative, a libertarian and a card carrying member of the GOP, or just one of the three? Because President Barack Obama seems to think that this is the question most Americans should be asking. In his statement on the massacre on Sunday, Obama placed Mateen’s action in the context the partisan debate on gay rights and gun control.

With regard to the former, Obama said that the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, which was the site of the attack was more than a mere nightclub. It was, “a place of solidarity and empowerment where people have come together to raise awareness, to speak their minds and to advocate for their civil rights.” In other words, Obama intimated, the victims were murdered because Mateen opposed all of those things, specifically.

Turning to gun rights, Obama said, “The shooter was apparently armed with a handgun and a powerful assault rifle. This massacre is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or in a house of worship, or a movie theater, or in a nightclub. And we have to decide if that’s the kind of country we want to be. And to actively do nothing is a decision as well.” So as the president sees things, if you oppose limitations on firearm ownership, then you’re on Mateen’s side.

To say that Obama’s behavior is unpresidential is an understatement. His behavior is dangerous. It imperils the United States and its citizens.

Adolf Hitler did not go to war against Great Britain because he opposed parliamentary democracy. Hitler went to war against Britain because he wanted to rule the world and Britain stood in his way.

Just so, Islamic jihadists are not sides in America’s domestic policy debates about gun ownership and gay rights. Islamic jihadists like Mateen, the Tsarnaev brothers from Boston, Nidal Malik Hassan at Ft. Hood, Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi at Garland, Texas, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik in San Bernadino didn’t decide to slaughter innocents because of their passionate opposition to the liberal takeover of the US Supreme Court.

They killed Americans because they thought that doing so advances their goal of instituting the dominion of Islamic totalitarians across the world. They oppose freedom and democracy because democracy and freedom stand in the way of their goal to subordinate humanity to an Islamic caliphate.

Maybe Obama is right that more limitations on gun ownership would have limited Mateen’s ability to acquire the means to slaughter fifty people. Then again, maybe if guns were easier to come by, Mateen’s victims would have stopped him as soon as he started firing.

There are data supporting both views. A learned exchange about whether or not restrictions on gun ownership would advance or detract from the fight against Islamic violence would be worthwhile.

But to his disgrace, Obama is not remotely interested in having that debate. To the contrary, he has silenced it for nearly eight years. And as he made clear on Sunday, he has no intention of enabling such a discussion now.

The same Obama who was quick to blame permissive gun laws and anti-gay discrimination for the bloodbath, refused to mention the fact that Islam was Mateen’s expressed motive for committing the carnage.

While unforgivable, Obama’s silence on the cause of Mateen’s bloodbath was predictable. From the outset of his first term Obama has studiously avoided discussing the Islamic motivation that stands behind most of the terrorism in the US and throughout the world.

The most devastating outcome of Obama’s behavior is not necessarily the policies he has adopted to counter Islamic violence. Some of those policies are reasonable. Some of his policies are dangerous and destructive. And it is important to discuss each of them on its merits.

The most devastating, and at this point clearly premeditated, outcome of Obama’s refusal to name the cause of the violence is that he has made it illegitimate to discuss it. He has made it controversial for Americans to talk about Islamic supremacism, extremism, violence and war for world domination.

He has made substantive criticism of his policies tantamount to bigotry. And he has rendered the public debate about the most salient strategic threat to American lives, liberty and national security a partisan issue.

Today in Obama’s America, only Republicans use the terms Islamic terrorism or radicalism or jihad. Democrats pretend those things don’t exist.

Making clear the partisan assault intrinsic to Obama’s position, following his statement Sunday, Democratic Senator from Connecticut Richard Blumenthal blamed Republicans for the massacre at the Pulse.

Referring to the jihadist attack as “a public health crisis,” caused by “gun violence,” Blumenthal alleged that fifty people who went dancing in Orlando Saturday night never made it home because Republican Senators oppose Obama’s bill to limit gun ownership rights.

This sort of talk, which makes opponents of leftist policies and ideology illegitimate, is arguably Obama’s dangerous legacy.

Obama’s efforts to render discussion of Islamic violence an illegitimate topic of debate is part of his larger policy of Europeanizing American politics.

For more than a generation, the Left’s policies have reigned supreme in Europe. For leftist ideologues and politicians, controlling policies was never sufficient though. To truly rule, they set out to control the public discourse in order to delegitimize their opponents.

And they succeeded. Today it is impossible for Europeans to openly debate the policies and social forces that affect their lives.

For instance, Islamic immigration is the most pressing public policy issue in Europe today. But due to the Left’s destruction of free speech through criminal statute and social pressure, in Europe today you cannot mention the word “Islamic” in the context of the public discourse on Islamic immigration without risking social exclusion and even criminal prosecution.

Many Americans have expressed alarm, surprise and dismay at Donald Trump’s success in winning the Republican nomination. They note, angrily and to a degree, justifiably, that Trump’s policies of nationalist isolationism and economic protectionism are antithetical to the pillars of the Republican Party.

But what this storm of protest misses is that Trump’s rise to power, and his prospects for defeating Hillary Clinton in November are not fueled by popular opposition to Obama’s foreign policies, or his economic policies per se. Trump’s supporters are attracted to the outspoken businessman for reasons that eclipse the partisan discussions of those issues.

Trump’s main attraction for his supporters – millions of whom voted in the Republican primaries for the first time process — is his willingness to attack Obama’s efforts to delegitimize his political opponents. Obama’s success in making his opponents toxic has caused millions of Americans to feel shut out from the national discourse and national life.

Trump’s supporters object to Obama’s Europeanization of American politics far more than they object to his health care policies or his counter-terror policies. They see in Trump a leader who is willing to “tell it like it is,” and they are captivated by this aspect of his personality. In Trump they see a means to regain their own voice in the public square.

Trump’s supporters understand that the Pulse nightclub in Orlando didn’t become slaughterhouse because Americans disagree on gun control or gay rights. They know that it became the scene of the largest mass murder in US history because Mateen, like his fellow jihadists believed that Allah wants his followers to kill innocents to advance the cause of Islamic world domination.

Trump’s supporters are angry that Obama has made stating the obvious illegitimate. And they are right to be angry.

America must not become Europe. And the most urgent step that must be taken to preserve America as America is to make discussing reality legitimate again.

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump, Gun control, Homosexuals, Islamic jihad, Islamic radicalization, Islamic refugees, Islamophobia, Obama and Jihad, Obama's affinity for Islam, Orlando massacre, Political correctness, Republican principles
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

In Times of Crisis Ignorance Doesn’t Help

June 14, 2016

In Times of Crisis Ignorance Doesn’t Help, Clarion Project, Raheel Raza, June 14, 2016

[W]e Muslims have a huge crisis of a virus within our ranks which we are not accepting. This problem is increased by the lack of acknowledgement by Western leaders. Reform minded Muslims like us can only expose the problems. It’s up to the authorities to take corrective action.

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

In the wake of yet another terror attack by jihadists, this time in Orlando, Florida, we are deeply saddened but not shocked. This attack is not the first or the last. It’s just another checkmark in a string of attacks by the extremists as they gleefully cross off the targets they have destroyed while planning for more attacks.

Once again media pundits and experts are using the language of ‘lone wolf’ and ‘mental issues.’ Even Hillary Clinton in her address to the nation, mentioned that it could be a lone-wolf attack.

Is it just naivety on part of our leadership or is it ignorance? It doesn’t take rocket science to deduce that this is not a lone-wolf attack. This is a premeditated attack, ideologically supported by all the extremist groups around the world who want to destroy the West. Connect the dots from Boston to Brussels to Paris to Ottawa to San Bernardino and now Orlando.

As far as mental issues are concerned, it’s obvious the radical jihadist mindset is the result of a mentally-deranged ideology.

There, I said it. Now you repeat after me: It’s-a-war-on-the-west-stupid!

But no. You can’t. Political correctness, fear or appeasement keeps your lips sealed. And while you, holding on to your white liberal guilt complex are unable to articulate the real cause of terrorist attacks, they will continue unabated. Why? Because the radical jihadists know your weakness and fear of being called an Islamophobe, so they play you like a piano pressing all the right keys while you sing their song.

Meanwhile, Muslim organizations are competing about who will snare the first news conference. Great idea if they plan to slam the Radical Jihadists, or name them and acknowledge (perhaps for the first time) that we have a problem within the House of Islam. But that’s not the rhetoric in this case. Muslim organizations and places of worship are not generally inclined to be warm and fuzzy towards the LGBTQ community and regularly slam those of us who support them.

In Florida, an Islamic religious scholar was caught on YouTube gently and firmly suggesting that it’s compassionate to kill gays. Why is he not in jail?

Raheel Raza hosts By The Numbers:

CAIR (The Council on American-Islamic Relations) came on Fox News very soon after the Orlando attack. The CAIR representative said all the right things about not killing people in the name of God. And then he condemned ISIS saying “1.7 billion people (Muslims) are united in rejecting their (ISIS) extremism, their interpretation, their acts and senseless violence.”

How much can one person lie on public television?  Sadly many people will believe the CAIR representative and of course Muslims are thrilled because he has now absolved all 1.7 billion from any responsibility whatsoever.

If CAIR was really concerned about the Orlando attacks, they would condemn the comments of the religious scholar from Florida, they would speak about ways in which radicalization of our youth can be stemmed and they would openly and publicly reject the concept of “armed jihad” as a 7th Century construct, no longer applicable in the 21st Century. They will never say this because they are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Herein lies a huge problem which must be addressed. Both Muslims and non-Muslims must understand that while all Muslims are not terrorists, most of the terrorists today are Muslims. The ideology of ISIS is the same as Hamas, al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Are they not represented in the 1.7 billion? After killing four innocent people in Tel Aviv, the Hamas operatives who celebrated the murder are also part of the 1.7 billion Muslims.

According a to Pew Poll shown in the Clarion documentary By the Numbers, there are between 40,000 to 200,00 Muslims who are ‘members’ of ISIS; up to 100,000 al-Qaeda affiliates; 7-9,000 members of Hamas, 15,000 to 100,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards and about 15,000 members of Hezbollah. All these are terrorist organizations and jihadists who should be included in the 1.7 billion Muslims making ALL Muslims not so peaceful. While these are the overtly violent groups, the mindset of millions of other Muslims (according to the poll) is also skewed towards violence and acceptance of violence against other human beings.

This is all to say that we Muslims have a huge crisis of a virus within our ranks which we are not accepting. This problem is increased by the lack of acknowledgement by Western leaders. Reform minded Muslims like us can only expose the problems. It’s up to the authorities to take corrective action.

It’s taken 15 years for the term ‘Radical’ to become accepted usage. How long more will it take to stop the Radicals from carrying out their nefarious agendas and waging a war on the West?

Categories: CAIR, Homeland Security, Hypocrisy, Islam and homosexuals, Islamic jihad, Islamic perversions, Islamic radicalization, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terror groups, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Orlando massacre, Political correctness
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

FBI Director Comey: Investigation into Orlando jihad mass murderer DROPPED after he claimed his co-workers were islamophobic

June 14, 2016

FBI Director Comey: Investigation into Orlando jihad mass murderer DROPPED after he claimed his co-workers were islamophobic, Pamela Geller, June 13, 2016

Geller

In addition to FBI Director Comey’s “confusion” as to the Orlando jihadi’s motives, Comey explained why the FBI dropped the investigation into jihad mass murderer Omar Mateen (not once but twice). Mateen had claimed to be aligned with Islamic terrorist groups and threatened coworkers. When the FBI questioned Mateen, he claimed his coworkers were picking on him “because he was Muslim.” The case was dropped.

FOX 59: Additionally, the FBI said they investigated Mateen for 10 months beginning in May 2013 after  he made “inflammatory and contradictory statements” to co-workers. The FBI interviewed him twice.

He admitted to making the comments but said it was because his co-workers were racist and making fun of him because he was Muslim. (FOX News)

Islamophobia, a club Muslims wield to silence critics of Islam and stymie law enforcement.

Categories: FBI, Islamic jihad, Islamic terror groups, Islamophobia, Orlando massacre
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »