Currently viewing the tag: "Geller"

In “King Blew It,” in The American Thinker today, Pamela Geller discusses how Peter King’s hearings on the “radicalization” of Muslims in America fell short of what they could and should have been:

Investor’s Business Daily editorialized Monday that Congressman Peter King (R-NY) "blew it" in his hearings on "Muslim radicalization," and that he "didn’t even come close to delivering what he advertised with his investigation." IBD criticized King for calling as a witness Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN), a "close ally" of the Hamas-linked Islamic supremacist hate group the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Ellison, says the IBD editorial, "stole the show when he broke into tears while retelling the story of a Muslim paramedic who died in the World Trade Center.  Ellison used the victim as an example of the "witch hunt" against Muslims in America by claiming he was falsely accused of involvement in the 9/11 plot."

It gives me no pleasure to be right, again. But I wrote on January 18 that King was over his head. I criticized King for calling Ellison and not terror expert Steven Emerson or Islamic expert Robert Spencer, and wrote: "Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison, infamous for his pro-Hamas rallies and his pilgrimage to the Hajj in Saudi Arabia, paid for by the Muslim Brotherhood, is testifying, but Emerson and Spencer aren’t? What can King achieve?"

All this has been proven correct. The entire enemedia coverage was all about Muslim Brotherhood-linked Congressman Hakim Mohammed (aka Keith Ellison)’s bawling and crocodile tears over a fictitious tale. Hakim claimed that the Muslim paramedic killed on 9/11 was accused of terror ties when he went missing after that day, until his remains were found. In fact, the only mentions anywhere of his being accused of terror ties are in leftwing publications criticizing the right for these accusations - but there is no record of anyone on the right ever actually making the accusations. Also, the media never reported that Hakim Mohammed’s hajj was paid for with $ 13,350 by the Brotherhood, that Hakim was a vocal supporter of the vile Louis Farrakhan, or that Hakim has long time ties Muslim Brotherhood and is a vocal pro-Hamas supporter. King’s hearings should have been designed to expose stealth jihadists like Hakim, aka Ellison. But they fell far short of that….

Read it all.

Jihad Watch

Tagged with:
 

Here is a wide-ranging interview of my colleague Pamela Geller on Quebec TV, who remains focused and informative in the face of openly hostile questioning, hectoring, and frequent interruptions from Richard Martineau, the journalist/propagandist who is conducting the interview. The principal topic is her book The Post-American Presidency, which I co-wrote. Pamela Geller has more on this here.

Jihad Watch

Tagged with:
 

Fakhruddin Ahmed starts out well in this op-ed, explaining the genesis of “Islamophobia” with a greater degree of honesty than most Muslim spokesmen in the U.S. have ever displayed. But he soon enough resorts to the familiar Islamic supremacist tactic of evading responsibility, pointing fingers at non-Muslims who dare to point out how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism and to make recruits among peaceful Muslims. By the end of the piece he has run off the rails entirely, flinging wild charges of racism and bigotry, and blaming Pamela Geller and me for the fact that non-Muslims in America are looking at Islam and Muslims with open eyes, instead of buying into the full-blown campaign of deception, disinformation, and soothing lies that the mainstream media continues to pursue. He never connects up the first half of his piece with the second — in other words, he never explains why Islamic jihad terrorism and Islamic supremacism are real, and yet any resistance to them constitutes racism and hatred.

Yeah, sure, Fakhruddin — as if Pamela Geller and I inspired Khalid Aldawsari, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Lubbock, Texas, or Muhammad Hussain, the would-be jihad bomber in Baltimore, or Mohamed Mohamud, the would-be jihad bomber in Portland, or Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood jihad mass-murderer, or Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square jihad mass-murderer, or Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the Arkansas military recruiting station jihad murderer, or Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be Christmas airplane jihad bomber, or Muhammad Atta, Anjem Chaudary, Omar Bakri, Abu Hamza, Abu Bakar Bashir, Zawahiri, Zarqawi, bin Laden and all the rest.

The Times of Trenton should be ashamed to print such a farrago, but it isn’t really anything special — just another mainstream media outlet printing a deceptive, disingenuous piece claiming victim status for Muslims in order to deflect attention away from jihad terror and Islamic supremacism.

“Examining a painful history fraught with transgressions,” by Fakhruddin Ahmed in the Times of Trenton, March 12 (thanks to James):

There are cogent reasons why roughly half of Americans, according to polls, harbor an unfavorable opinion of Islam. Besides perpetrating the most horrendous crime on American soil on 9/11, Muslims have been responsible for some pretty ugly incidents lately.

The Ayatollah Khomeini challenged one of the West’s core values, freedom of speech, by issuing a “fatwa,” or religious decree, in 1989, for the murder of Salman Rushdie over his controversial book, “The Satanic Verses.”

The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were quickly followed by Muslim terror attacks in Bali, Indonesia (2002), Madrid (2004), London (2005) and Mumbai (2008). And when some Muslims went berserk, burning and boycotting in reaction to the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in 2006, the rest of the world held its collective breath in consternation.

Muslim terrorists’ attempts to blow up planes, airports, tunnels and subways in America were thwarted. And if Qur’ans had actually been burned by Pastor Terry Jones in Florida last fall, as he threatened to do, some Muslims would have reacted by creating mayhem. Clearly, there is a less-enlightened, fanatically violent underbelly at work in the name of Islam. Understandably, the Judeo-Christian polemic against Islam centers on terrorism.

Submerged in an all-encompassing anti-Muslim hysteria, when non-Muslim Americans see signs of increasing Muslim presence around them, they feel besieged by an intimidating culture. That America’s complexion is transforming from shades of white to brown is difficult for many Americans to stomach; when some of those brown faces belong to Muslims, the transformation becomes downright frightening.

With no prominent Muslim-American voice to assuage those apprehensions, fear begets fear, spawning more virulent anti-Muslim vitriol.

Are Muslims, their religion and their culture a mortal threat to America? Is this the vaunted “Clash of Civilizations” between the West and Islam, as Harvard’s Samuel Huntington had predicted in 1993?

Civilizational narratives are rarely one-dimensional. Western democracies, especially Britain and France, exploited and repressed most Muslim nations as colonial powers over the centuries, souring Muslim taste for democracy. Conceivably, America’s more recent interventions in the Islamic world are fueling Americaphobia. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, with the concomitant collateral death of thousands of civilians, have exacerbated Muslim-American relations, as have the al Qaeda-seeking drone attacks inside Pakistan that inadvertently kill civilians and whose legality stands on shaky grounds.

We may consider ourselves to be the “good guys” eliminating the “bad guys” before they attack us; but to the child of the civilian we kill in Afghanistan, we are the bad guys. He or she may vow to exact vengeance.

Quid pro quo is in vogue in international relations. America garnered the Muslim world’s gratitude when it rushed to bolster the Afghans after the Soviet invasion of 1979 (which led to Muslim participation in Gulf War I in 1991), and liberated the Bosnians (1995) and the Kosovars (1999) from the Serbs. Muslims were not thrilled, however, when America attacked Afghanistan in 2001 (and has occupied it since); the neoconservatives fabricated WMD “evidence” to facilitate President George W. Bush’s attack of Iraq in 2003; and America started waging an undeclared war inside Pakistan.

Excluded from the debate about them inside America, and reduced to passive observers, Muslim-Americans are chagrined at the spectacle unfolding right before their eyes. Right-wing Republicans see no downside to demonizing the Muslims. It energizes their base, carries no political penalty, and forces the Democrats to defend a progressively unpopular minority.

Democratic defense of Muslim-Americans has not been stellar either, perhaps because they, too, secretly covet the bigot vote. Deprecators realize that Muslim-Americans, who number only 7 million, cannot retaliate electorally, making Muslim-baiting a win-win proposition.

Sarah Palin tweeted last July, imploring “peaceful Muslims” to “refudiate” the proposed New York City mosque near Ground Zero. Other Republicans and some Democrats jumped on the bandwagon, attaching intellectual heft to an originally ignorant far-right-fringe viewpoint.

A “moderate” Muslim is being redefined as one who condemns on demand. Detractors are not interested in Muslim points of view; they want Muslim condemnation of Islam. For them, Islam-bashing is the new normal, the new acceptable form of racism. If any other ethnic or religious group was so maliciously mauled, the attackers would be branded incurable racists.

What astonishes Muslim-Americans is that those hurling imprecations at them on television, on the radio and in the blogosphere do not seem to care that Muslim-Americans are watching and listening. It’s as though Muslim-Americans are apparitions that do not really exist or have feelings. Muslims feel like screaming: “Hey, I am in the room. Stop backbiting!”

The virus incubated by right-wing bloggers Pam Geller and Robert Spencer has been spread so far and wide by Fox News that all of America is now infected with an anti-Muslim epidemic. It hurts Muslim-Americans to see their patriotism questioned, their faith defined, distorted and defiled beyond recognition by anti-Muslim bigots through blatant lies. It is un-American to attempt to sacrifice an entire America-loving community, already reeling under vicious attacks, at the altar of higher television ratings.

Jihad Watch

Tagged with:
 

Fakhruddin Ahmed starts out well in this op-ed, explaining the genesis of “Islamophobia” with a greater degree of honesty than most Muslim spokesmen in the U.S. have ever displayed. But he soon enough resorts to the familiar Islamic supremacist tactic of evading responsibility, pointing fingers at non-Muslims who dare to point out how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism and to make recruits among peaceful Muslims. By the end of the piece he has run off the rails entirely, flinging wild charges of racism and bigotry, and blaming Pamela Geller and me for the fact that non-Muslims in America are looking at Islam and Muslims with open eyes, instead of buying into the full-blown campaign of deception, disinformation, and soothing lies that the mainstream media continues to pursue. He never connects up the first half of his piece with the second — in other words, he never explains why Islamic jihad terrorism and Islamic supremacism are real, and yet any resistance to them constitutes racism and hatred.

Yeah, sure, Fakhruddin — as if Pamela Geller and I inspired Khalid Aldawsari, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Lubbock, Texas, or Muhammad Hussain, the would-be jihad bomber in Baltimore, or Mohamed Mohamud, the would-be jihad bomber in Portland, or Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood jihad mass-murderer, or Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square jihad mass-murderer, or Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the Arkansas military recruiting station jihad murderer, or Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be Christmas airplane jihad bomber, or Muhammad Atta, Anjem Chaudary, Omar Bakri, Abu Hamza, Abu Bakar Bashir, Zawahiri, Zarqawi, bin Laden and all the rest.

The Times of Trenton should be ashamed to print such a farrago, but it isn’t really anything special — just another mainstream media outlet printing a deceptive, disingenuous piece claiming victim status for Muslims in order to deflect attention away from jihad terror and Islamic supremacism.

“Examining a painful history fraught with transgressions,” by Fakhruddin Ahmed in the Times of Trenton, March 12 (thanks to James):

There are cogent reasons why roughly half of Americans, according to polls, harbor an unfavorable opinion of Islam. Besides perpetrating the most horrendous crime on American soil on 9/11, Muslims have been responsible for some pretty ugly incidents lately.

The Ayatollah Khomeini challenged one of the West’s core values, freedom of speech, by issuing a “fatwa,” or religious decree, in 1989, for the murder of Salman Rushdie over his controversial book, “The Satanic Verses.”

The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were quickly followed by Muslim terror attacks in Bali, Indonesia (2002), Madrid (2004), London (2005) and Mumbai (2008). And when some Muslims went berserk, burning and boycotting in reaction to the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in 2006, the rest of the world held its collective breath in consternation.

Muslim terrorists’ attempts to blow up planes, airports, tunnels and subways in America were thwarted. And if Qur’ans had actually been burned by Pastor Terry Jones in Florida last fall, as he threatened to do, some Muslims would have reacted by creating mayhem. Clearly, there is a less-enlightened, fanatically violent underbelly at work in the name of Islam. Understandably, the Judeo-Christian polemic against Islam centers on terrorism.

Submerged in an all-encompassing anti-Muslim hysteria, when non-Muslim Americans see signs of increasing Muslim presence around them, they feel besieged by an intimidating culture. That America’s complexion is transforming from shades of white to brown is difficult for many Americans to stomach; when some of those brown faces belong to Muslims, the transformation becomes downright frightening.

With no prominent Muslim-American voice to assuage those apprehensions, fear begets fear, spawning more virulent anti-Muslim vitriol.

Are Muslims, their religion and their culture a mortal threat to America? Is this the vaunted “Clash of Civilizations” between the West and Islam, as Harvard’s Samuel Huntington had predicted in 1993?

Civilizational narratives are rarely one-dimensional. Western democracies, especially Britain and France, exploited and repressed most Muslim nations as colonial powers over the centuries, souring Muslim taste for democracy. Conceivably, America’s more recent interventions in the Islamic world are fueling Americaphobia. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, with the concomitant collateral death of thousands of civilians, have exacerbated Muslim-American relations, as have the al Qaeda-seeking drone attacks inside Pakistan that inadvertently kill civilians and whose legality stands on shaky grounds.

We may consider ourselves to be the “good guys” eliminating the “bad guys” before they attack us; but to the child of the civilian we kill in Afghanistan, we are the bad guys. He or she may vow to exact vengeance.

Quid pro quo is in vogue in international relations. America garnered the Muslim world’s gratitude when it rushed to bolster the Afghans after the Soviet invasion of 1979 (which led to Muslim participation in Gulf War I in 1991), and liberated the Bosnians (1995) and the Kosovars (1999) from the Serbs. Muslims were not thrilled, however, when America attacked Afghanistan in 2001 (and has occupied it since); the neoconservatives fabricated WMD “evidence” to facilitate President George W. Bush’s attack of Iraq in 2003; and America started waging an undeclared war inside Pakistan.

Excluded from the debate about them inside America, and reduced to passive observers, Muslim-Americans are chagrined at the spectacle unfolding right before their eyes. Right-wing Republicans see no downside to demonizing the Muslims. It energizes their base, carries no political penalty, and forces the Democrats to defend a progressively unpopular minority.

Democratic defense of Muslim-Americans has not been stellar either, perhaps because they, too, secretly covet the bigot vote. Deprecators realize that Muslim-Americans, who number only 7 million, cannot retaliate electorally, making Muslim-baiting a win-win proposition.

Sarah Palin tweeted last July, imploring “peaceful Muslims” to “refudiate” the proposed New York City mosque near Ground Zero. Other Republicans and some Democrats jumped on the bandwagon, attaching intellectual heft to an originally ignorant far-right-fringe viewpoint.

A “moderate” Muslim is being redefined as one who condemns on demand. Detractors are not interested in Muslim points of view; they want Muslim condemnation of Islam. For them, Islam-bashing is the new normal, the new acceptable form of racism. If any other ethnic or religious group was so maliciously mauled, the attackers would be branded incurable racists.

What astonishes Muslim-Americans is that those hurling imprecations at them on television, on the radio and in the blogosphere do not seem to care that Muslim-Americans are watching and listening. It’s as though Muslim-Americans are apparitions that do not really exist or have feelings. Muslims feel like screaming: “Hey, I am in the room. Stop backbiting!”

The virus incubated by right-wing bloggers Pam Geller and Robert Spencer has been spread so far and wide by Fox News that all of America is now infected with an anti-Muslim epidemic. It hurts Muslim-Americans to see their patriotism questioned, their faith defined, distorted and defiled beyond recognition by anti-Muslim bigots through blatant lies. It is un-American to attempt to sacrifice an entire America-loving community, already reeling under vicious attacks, at the altar of higher television ratings.

Jihad Watch

Tagged with:
 

Pamela Geller and I were on Fox Business’s “Follow the Money” tonight, discussing the Peter King hearings. First I “debated” a spokesperson for Hamas-linked CAIR, Christina Abraham, who was following Muhammad’s “war is deceit” principle, and then Pamela appeared on Bolling’s panel refuting politically correct falsehoods. She comments on the proceedings here.

Jihad Watch

Tagged with:
 

Pamela Geller is pretty worked up about the Southern Poverty Law Center’s designation of her group, Stop Islamization of America, as a hate group. But not because she gives the designation any credence. On the contrary, Geller — the blogger behind Atlas Shrugs and one of the most vociferous opponents to a planned Muslim community center near Ground Zero in New York City — says “a slam from the SPLC is a badge of honor.”

Stop Islamization of America was included as a hate group in the SPLC’s Spring 2011 “Intelligence Report.” The 9/11 Christian Center at Ground Zero group also made the list. The SPLC considers both groups “anti-Muslim.”

On her blog last Friday, Geller wrote that the SPLC had “slandered our human rights organization,” and called the SPLC a “subversive organization.” On Saturday, in a post titled “Southern Poverty Law Fraud Center,” Geller posted pictures of what she said is SPLC founder Morris Dees’ posh Montgomery home, as well as what she said are his divorce papers.

In a press release reacting to the news, Geller defended her group and further bashed the SPLC.

“It’s outrageous that the SPLC designates a group dedicated to protecting the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and legal equality for all Americans as a ‘hate group,’” she said. “The SPLC, instead of standing for those freedoms, is carrying water for the real haters, the real neo-Nazi Jew-haters: the forces of Islamic supremacism and jihad. The SPLC doesn’t even have a category for Islamic jihadi groups. The greatest threat facing our nation, our people, our world, and they are shilling for them.”

Geller told TPM in an email that Stop Islamization of America’s parent group, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, has decided to create a kind of counter to the SPLC’s list: an annual list of groups that are “Threats to Freedom.”

“The SPLC and CAIR [Council on American-Islamic Relations] will almost certainly make the initial listing, but not because they have demonized our human rights organization,” Geller wrote. “This is by no means the first time that these organizations have set themselves up in opposition to individuals and groups like ours that are dedicated only to defending the freedom of speech and legal equality for all citizens. They need to be exposed, and we are going to expose them.”

Geller said she found out about the hate group designation in a press release sent out by CAIR, “which was crowing over the aid the useful idiots of the SPLC were giving to the Islamic supremacist cause.”

When asked about her writing in 2009 that the SPLC “has outlived its usefulness,” Geller granted that the SPLC’s past efforts against the KKK were “noble.” But she dismissed the group’s current activities.

“Certainly to fight against the KKK was a noble cause,” she said. “But now the SPLC is just a cash cow for the clueless and/or complicit tools of Islamic supremacism on the Left. The SPLC is reviled in civil rights circles for its notorious reputation. It does little to no work, while its officials enriching themselves by raising huge amounts from unsuspecting donors.”

Since the SPLC announced the designation, Geller says she and her group have received an “outpouring of support from lovers of freedom.”

“And SIOA on Facebook has received a hundred new requests to join,” Geller added.







TPMMuckraker

Tagged with:
 

The Southern Poverty Law Center has branded vile NYC-based Atlas Shrugs blogger Pamela Geller and her fellow anti-Islam protesters as a hate group. Geller came to national prominence last year when she led the attack against the so-called Ground Zero mosque.

Stop the Islamization of America was included in the civil rights organization’s annual roundup of extremist groups - a rogue’s gallery that includes everything from the Ku Klux Klan to white supremacists and Nazis. Geller’s group was one of the most vocal opponents of the proposed Islamic Center near Ground Zero. The group was also behind ads that were placed on city buses urging Muslims to leave “the falsity of Islam.” Geller, who runs a blog called Atlas Shrugs, dismissed the Law Center as an “uber left” group that has “failed to address the greatest threat to our national security.” “My group is a human rights group,” she said. “And these people are taken seriously? This is the morally inverted state of the world.”

Also making the new list is the Dove World Outreach Church, whose Pastor Terry Jones threatened to burn a stack of Korans if the mosque wasn’t stopped.

Joe. My. God.

Tagged with:
 

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) started as a civil rights organization with good intentions, fighting racists such as the KKK. However in recent years it has gone crazy, leveling accusations of racism unjustly, branding as “bigoted” many groups and individuals whose only crime lies in their refusal to embrace the SPLC’s leftwing agenda (The group is so left wing that they receive grants from the progressive puppet master himself George Soros)

For example during the summer of discontent, when Americans were showing up at town hall meetings to protest the Obamacare bill, Mark Potok, spokesman and director of publications and information for the SPLC appeared in an ABC News story about how racist white militias are somehow connected to town hall protests. Potok shared his belief that the election of Obama has “triggered fears among fairly large numbers of white people in this country that they are somehow losing their country.”

Last March the SPLC created a report called “Rage on the Right” which attacks Tea Parties, CPAC, Glenn Beck, Rep. Michelle Bachman and others as part of “dangerous, right wing groups rich with veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism.” The report was filled with misstatements and exaggerations that give the reader a feeling the SPLC never really explored what they reported about but simply watched commentaries on the subjects given by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann.

Here’s one of the quotes from “Rage on the Right

We are in the midst of one of the most significant right-wing populist rebellions in United States history,” Chip Berlet, a veteran analyst of the American radical right, wrote earlier this year. “We see around us a series of overlapping social and political movements populated by people [who are] angry, resentful, and full of anxiety. They are raging against the machinery of the federal bureaucracy and liberal government programs and policies including health care, reform of immigration and labor laws, abortion, and gay marriage.

Sixty-one percent of Americans believe the country is in decline, according to a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. Just a quarter think the government can be trusted. And the anti-tax tea party movement is viewed in much more positive terms than either the Democratic or Republican parties, the poll found.

It was the founders of this country said that Government is not to be trusted, that power is in the people not in the government. Yes the people are frustrated and angry, does that make them a raging hate group? What did that make the Anti-Bush MoveOn movement?

The signs of growing radicalization are everywhere. Armed men have come to Obama speeches bearing signs suggesting that the “tree of liberty” needs to be “watered” with “the blood of tyrants.
The Tree of liberty sign was a call to return to the constitution vision of our founders. The full quote is

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is natural manure. Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787.

This year’s SPLC report on “hatred” is just as acerbically biased as last:

But despite those historic Republican gains, the early signs suggest that even as the more mainstream political right strengthens, the radical right has remained highly energized. In an 11-day period this January, a neo-Nazi was arrested headed for the Arizona border with a dozen homemade grenades; a terrorist bomb attack on a Martin Luther King Jr. Day parade in Spokane, Wash., was averted after police dismantled a sophisticated anti-personnel weapon; and a man who officials said had a long history of antigovernment activities was arrested outside a packed mosque in Dearborn, Mich., and charged with possessing explosives with unlawful intent. That’s in addition, the same month, to the shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona, an attack that left six dead and may have had a political dimension.

The SPLC ignored its own report at the time, saying the Neo-Nazi had ties to the “National Socialist Movement.” Gee I could be wrong but every time I did the research socialists were leftists. As for the MLK bomb no arrests have been made, but TPM reported that the bomb mirrored the type used by Palestinian Terrorists.

The theory is that someone hit with a piece of shrapnel covered in an anti-coagulant is more likely to bleed to death. Israeli officials have claimed in the past that Palestinian terrorists were using rat poison to make their bombs more deadly.

There has been no evidence whatsoever that this bomb had anything to do with people on the right.

As for Roger Stockholm, the man arrested in Dearborn, it isn’t so much that he has a long history of anti-government activities, he has a long history of being a couple of fries short of a happy meal, the guy severely mentally disturbed. The evidence shows that he is neither rightist or leftist, he is “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest-ist.”

All the evidence regarding the Tuscon shooting proves that not only was the perpetrator was simply disturbed, but he never even followed the news to have a political opinion. That’s why it’s not right to blame the left, even though the killer said one of his favorite books was the Communist Manifesto.

There is one group in the SPLC report named as one of the 1,000 hate groups in America that I can personally vouch for, as reported in the NY Daily News

Manhattan blogger Pamela Geller and her posse of anti-Islamic protesters have been branded a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Stop the Islamization of America was included in the civil rights organization’s annual roundup of extremist groups - a rogue’s gallery that includes everything from the Ku Klux Klan to white supremacists and Nazis.

Geller’s group was one of the most vocal opponents of the proposed Islamic Center near Ground Zero.

The group was also behind ads that were placed on city buses urging Muslims to leave “the falsity of Islam.

Before I go on, in the spirit of full disclosure it’s important to reveal Pamela Geller has been my friend since I started blogging

.

There are people in the world who see a wrong, give a quick “oh that’s so sad” and get on with their lives. Then there are others who see a wrong and go all out to right it. That’s Pamela, someone who goes out of her way to do what we call in Hebrew “Tikun Olam” repairing the world. Pamela’s heart is the size of a skyscraper. She will grab a wrong by the neck and do whatever she can to eradicate the evil. For example, when honor killing victim, Aqsa Parvez, was buried without a tombstone Pamela raised money for Aqsa to have a memorial.

Pamela has thrown her weight into the fight to prevent the mosque being built on the ground zero site, not because she believes that Mosques should not be allowed to be built in NYC, but because she feels empathy to the families and victims. She feels the pain of those who see a Mosque on the site of a terrorist attack made in the name of Allah as a deliberate attack on their memory. Many of these victims feel the real purpose of the Mosque is to steal the heritage of the site, which is part of the Muslim tradition is to place mosques (or even to destroy) the religious, or sacred sites of others to usurp the tradition of others (the Temple Mount for instance).

And who do they use to support the SPLC? CAIR!

One need not go beyond the name of this hate group, Stop the Islamization of America, to recognize the validity of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s designation,” said Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

In November 2008 a jury convicted the Holy Land Foundation and each of the associated defendants of raising money to fund Hamas terrorism. Implicated along with those convicted was supposed civil rights organization CAIR which lobbies the government from its headquarters in Washington DC. CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land case and despite that, its leaders are frequent guests Network News Programs, where they are usually called upon to whitewash some terrorist act, or to call people saying that we are at war with radical Islamists, Islamophobes.

One key piece of evidence in the case was the Wiretap evidence heard in the case put CAIR’s executive director, Nihad Awad, at a Philadelphia meeting of Hamas leaders secretly recorded by the FBI. Participants hatched a plot to deceive Americans and disguise payments to Hamas as it launched a campaign of terror attacks. CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad joined Hamas big shots at the summit.

Despite this and other pieces of evidence implicating CAIR, the Hamas splinter group has constantly objected to the un-indicted co-conspirator label, but the FBI keeps reinforcing those ties. In a letter to Congress, the FBI reported:

Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and trial exhibits show the Brotherhood created the Palestine Committee CAIR officials adamantly deny any involvement with either Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood. The FBI letter, however, shows that the Department of Justice has not wavered in its conclusion that the internal record it possesses proves that connection.

In the end what were are left with is something right out of the first scene of Macbeth, when the witches set up the entire tragedy explaining that nothing will be as it seems, “Fair is foul, and foul is fair: Hover through the fog and filthy air.” The Southern Poverty Law Center which claims to be a civil rights organization is really an anti-right hate group, funded in part by George Soros. Pamela Geller who is described by the SPLC as a hater is really someone who is so filled with love and passion for her cause that she becomes a target for anyone who wishes to whitewash the connection between radical Islam and terrorism. And rushing to support the SPLC’s smearing of Pamela Geller is a group identified by the FBI as a “sister organization” to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Sadly none of this was mentioned in the Daily News report, nor will it be pointed out by any mainstream media organization covering the bogus SPLC report.




YID With LID

Tagged with:
 

In “The ABA’s Jihad” in The American Thinker today, Pamela Geller reveals that the American Bar Association has started a Task Force to resist anti-Sharia legal initiatives in various states:

The American Bar Association (ABA) has decided to undertake the fight for Sharia law. The ABA’s Executive Counsel “has organized a Task Force to review the legislation of 14 states — Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming — in which anti-Sharia legislation has been introduced.”

The goal of the ABA’s Task Force is to fight against these legislative initiatives by free people, and to develop “an informal set of ‘talking points’ that local opponents of these initiatives could use to make their case in each of these states.”

Here’s the relevant extract from the ABA’s International Policies 2010:

Oklahoma referendum related Rule of Law initiatives.

The Section’s Executive Counsel has organized a Task Force to review the legislation of 14 states — Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming - in which anti-Sharia legislation has been introduced. The goal of the Task Force is to have a Report and Recommendation against such legislation as well as an informal set of “talking points” that local opponents of these initiatives could use to make their case in each of these states. We received a lot of interest from members and have forwarded your interest. At this point, the task force is in the planning and organizing stage. We will keep you updated as to the progress and we may call upon some of you who expressed their interest in this matter to volunteer.

In reality, Islamic law is the most radical and intolerant system of governance on the face of the earth. It denies the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and legal equality for women and non-Muslims. That’s why so many states are trying to ban it. The ABA should be on the forefront of this battle. The Oklahoma ban was brilliant but poorly worded (which is why a liberal judge found it so easy to overrule the will of the people) and had 70% of voters approving of it — it is clear that American people understand the Islamic threat to our constitutional republic.

Instead, our cultural warlords in the mainstream media, academia and entertainment strictly enforce the blasphemy laws of Islam, which command that one must not insult or slander Islam. In Muslim countries, blasphemy is punishable by death; in the West, it is your character that is assassinated if you dare to speak out against the Islamic supremacist agenda. Our last line of defense was always the rule of law. So it is particularly jarring and deeply disturbing to come upon this latest initiative from the ABA, the last line of defense against sharia creep….

Read it all.

Jihad Watch

Tagged with:
 
GellerJasserThinker.jpgSanta, unicorns and moderate Islam

Famed Muslim reformer Zuhdi Jasser went out of his way to attack Pamela Geller and me at The American Thinker Sunday; Pamela Geller responds here: “Where Are All the Jassers?,” by Pamela Geller at The American Thinker, February 14:

In an extraordinarily lengthy article in the American
Thinker
yesterday, Zuhdi Jasser responded
to the reservations I expressed about Congressman Peter King’s upcoming
hearings on the radicalization of Muslims in the U.S., and in particular, about
King’s capitulation to pressure from Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups. Methinks
Jasser protests too much. The objective is bigger than just responding to me.
Rather, it is an attempt to validate and advance Jasser’s preposterous narrative.

Jasser entitles his article “American Islamists Find Common
Cause with Pamela Geller.” Equating me with Islamic supremacists is like saying
that Patton found common cause with the German General Rommel, the Desert Fox,
because Patton criticized the British Field Marshal Montgomery. My criticism of
King’s capitulation and CAIR’s attempt to impose the Sharia in America by
silencing and punishing those exposing the hidden war have nothing in common
with each other. So here Jasser is intellectually dishonest and deliberately
misleading.
He knows this, and yet entitles
his article based on this false premise. He is being at the very least
disingenuous here, and is attempting to marginalize me in the most debased and
dishonest fashion (as does CAIR). Placing me on the same moral playing field as
those who are working toward “eliminating and destroying Western civilization
from within” and annihilating the Jews is very stealth jihad. It is propaganda
of a kind I am very familiar with. Not good, Mr. Jasser.

 

Expanding on this outrageous
claim, Jasser says that “Geller and Spencer’s comments in their echo chambers
show that they are against any solutions from within the ‘House of Islam’. This
only aids and abets all Islamists. But, then again, that doesn’t matter if the
target includes all Muslims and their only viable solution is conversion of
one-fifth of the world’s population.”

 

Echo chamber? Between the
two of us, Robert Spencer and I reach just under two million people a month on
our blogs.
That and our book sales, regular
TV and radio appearances, speaking engagements, conferences, and additional
50,000 “friends” on our various Facebook pages, Twitter and SIOA group, etc., make
for quite a cacophonous echo chamber. I submit that it is Jasser’s chamber that
is empty. Where are all the Jassers?
 

 

Jasser mentions “many Muslim reformers.” Where are they? Where
are the Muslims who take to the streets when another girl is killed for honor,
or another apostate is murdered under the Sharia?
Where were all the Muslims taking to the streets after Mumbai, London,
Madrid, Beslan, Bali, Times Square, Fort Hood? But they take to the streets by
the hundreds of thousands, light embassies on fire, and slaughter innocents
when a cartoon offends them.

 

Even the title of Jasser’s article, “American Islamists Find
Common Cause with Pamela Geller,” plays into this false narrative. “Islamist”:
what is that? What is a Christianist? A Judaist? A Hinduist?

 

Simply his use of the word “Islamist” here predetermines the
futility of Jasser’s enterprise. It’s not Islamism, it’s Islam.

 

But the fact that Islam teaches violence and supremacism
doesn’t mean that I am against all Muslims, as Jasser implies. This is patently
untrue. Through my work with “Refuge from Islam,” we help Muslims here in
America who want to leave Islam and are under threat from their families and
communities. Escaping their mosque, their “faith community” and their families
to safe houses is dangerous. People do not begin to know the difficulty,
although Amina and Sarah Said, murdered by their father for dating non-Muslim
boys, gave us a graphic window into the lives of these girls. 

 

The safety network was covertly established, and requires
utmost secrecy and security. Does Jasser do this kind of work? Does he even
acknowledge it? I was raked over the coals for this work — for my campaign to
save them. Did Dr. Jasser come to my defense? He was strangely silent. He lives near the spot where Noor Almaleki’s father
murdered her for honor. He should talk more about that, and about why women
suffer so under Islam. I am glad his wife is safe, but the world is bigger than
Jasser’s home.

In my January 20 American Thinker article, “King Abdicates,” I wrote: “Jasser’s Islam
does not exist. He does not have a theological leg to stand on. His mosque
threw him out.” Jasser first says that neither I nor any other non-Muslim am
allowed to speak about this question.
He apparently thinks that only
Muslims should be permitted to speak about what Islam may or may not be, despite
the fact that anyone can read the Qur’an and Hadith, and the statements of
Islamic jihadists and supremacists who read and quote them.
Jasser says non-Muslims have to shut up and have no
right to read such documents and think about them: “Frankly, it takes a lot of
chutzpah
for any non-Muslim, let alone one who has never met me, to insist that I am not
practicing Islam.”

 

Nevertheless, Jasser acknowledges that he does see a “valid
debate as to the prevalence and intellectual underpinnings of the Islam I and
my family practice, and whether it constitutes a minority or majority of
Muslims. It is an important national conversation whether most Muslims can be
counted upon to lead any type of genuine, lasting reform toward modernity.”

 

It is a valid debate, only non-Muslims can’t participate.
Got it?

 

Despite Jasser’s wishes, I am going to participate. What I
wrote was true: Jasser’s Islam really does not exist. When I interviewed him, he spoke about moderate
Muslims, saying that they should be judged by “how devout they are, how they
treat other people, the Golden Rule, how honest, what their integrity is, what
their character is.” That sounds good, but in reality,
Islam has no
Golden Rule
. In the Qur’an Muslims are told
to be “merciful to one another but harsh to unbelievers” (48:29). That’s a far
cry from “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

 

In that same interview, Jasser claims that the Qur’an has
“passages where God tells Muhammad if I wanted everyone to be Muslim or believe
in God I could have made them but I did not.’” Jasser makes this sound like an
expression of tolerance and pluralism by Allah. Actually it is something quite
different. Here’s the full verse: “And if We had so willed, We could have given
every soul its guidance, but the word from Me concerning evildoers took effect:
that I will fill hell with the jinn and mankind together.” (Qur’an 32:13) So
actually Allah is saying that he decided not to guide some people, but instead
to send them to hell - apparently for no reason at all.

 

He also claims in that interview that “there are passages
that say ‘your affairs are up to you.’ That’s the only passage actually in the
entire Qur’an that refers to government. There is absolutely no passage that
talks about how citizens should form their government. So to me it is
completely consistent that on modern interpretation is that you can separate
religion and government.”

 

But the Qur’an also says this: “If any do fail to judge by
(the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than)
unbelievers.” (Qur’an 5:44) And unbelievers can be killed (2:191, 4:89, 9:5). So
the society the Qur’an envisions is a coercive one in which people who do not
“judge by what Allah has revealed” may be killed
- this is hardly a pluralistic vision.

 

Jasser tried to blame the antisemitic passages in the Qur’an
on faulty English translations: “I am not sure I agree with that translation.
You have to remember that a lot of the translations that are currently being
used are coming out of Wahabist interpreters.” Would he have us believe that
there is some possible translation of the Qur’an that doesn’t say that the Jews
are the Muslims’ worst enemies (5:82) and are under Allah’s curse (9:30)?

 

Also in my interview with him, Jasser even claimed that ”
the passage that is being interpreted by most translation as being permission
to beat your wife actually does not mean that in Arabic. Those that are experts
in classical Arabic will tell you that that means…it actually means whenever
you have an argument step away, take a timeout, etc. It doesn’t mean to beat
them.”

 

Nonsense. This is a false statement. Robert Spencer
explains:

 

Qur’an 4:34 tells men to beat their
disobedient wives after first warning them and then sending them to sleep in
separate beds. It is worth noting how several translators render the key part
of this verse, waidriboohunna:

 

Pickthall: “and scourge them”
Yusuf Ali: “(And last) beat them (lightly)”
Al-Hilali/Khan: “(and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful)”
Shakir: “and beat them”
Sher Ali: “and chastise them”
Khalifa: “then you may (as a last alternative) beat them”
Arberry: “and beat them”
Rodwell: “and scourge them”
Sale: “and chastise them”
Daryabadi: “and beat them”
Asad: “then beat them”

 

Pickthall, Yusuf Ali, Al-Hilali/Khan, Shakir, Sher Ali,
Khalifa, Daryabadi and Asad are Muslims. All these Arabic experts, both
Muslim and non-Muslim, got the word wrong, and Jasser is the only one who got
it right?

 

Of the Islamic law that Muslim men can marry non-Muslim
women, but Muslim women cannot marry non-Muslim men, Jasser said: “Most of the
Shariah interpretations are that Muslim women need to marry Muslim men because
of protecting their rights and because of the way the faith is transmitted
paternally rather than maternally.” He makes it sound so benign. In reality
Muslim women can’t marry non-Muslim women because if they did, the non-Muslim
communities would grow instead of perpetually declining.

 

Jasser in the interview characterized Islam as “a completely
personal faith between me and God. There is no institution for excommunication
or communication.” Yet historically, Islam has never been this way. All sorts of authorities excommunicate Muslims they
consider heretical (
takfir).
Islam has never taught that the Muslim is on his own as an individual before
Allah - instead, he is part of the umma. He also says that Islam “accepts all
of the same moral constructs” as Judaism and Christianity. But it doesn’t:
Polygamy, wife-beating, honor killing, clitorectomies, suicide bombing, on and
on: none of this is justified by Judaism or Christianity.
Only by
Islam.

 

So does Zuhdi Jasser have his own private Islam? You be the
judge.

 

Jasser says in his new article: “Between the two of us, I
certainly more than Geller have a far more credible perspective coming from a
lifetime as a practicing Muslim from within diverse Muslim faith communities,”
but the record of those “Muslim faith communities” is clear. It needs pointing
out that wherever Muslims live in non-Muslim countries, there is a level of
agitation, conflict if you will, the level of which is directly tied to the
size of the Muslim population. That says a great deal about which brand of
Islam - Jasser’s or, say, Anwar al-Awlaki’s - is more mainstream among Muslims
worldwide.
Aside from those Muslims in
non-Muslim countries, the rest of the world’s Muslim population is already
living in one of 56 Muslim nations, so the only conflict there is between
differing Muslim groups, i.e., Sunni vs. Shia.

 

Jasser says, “To dismiss me as having a ‘private Islam’ is
absurd for anyone let alone an outsider,” but can he point to “Muslim faith
communities” that not only do not practice violent jihad or pursue the Islamic
supremacist imperative to impose Sharia, which Muslims may refrain from doing
for a variety of reasons, but also reject them in theory and have a version of
Islamic theology that rejects them, as does Dr. Jasser?

Jasser also objects to my pointing out that when I interviewed him in
2007, “he referred
to Israel as occupied territory
in the last five minutes of the
interview….He blew his cover.” He first says that “this is absolutely false,”
but a few paragraphs later he admits that he did say this - or something
close to it:
“Geller alleges that I ‘referred
to Israel as “occupied territory”‘
(singular) - when, in fact, as the
recording and transcript of this interview show, I actually said ‘occupied
territories’
(plural).” He says this makes a big difference, because
Hamas thinks of all of Israel as “occupied territory,” while he was referring
only to Judea and Samaria (the “West Bank”) and Gaza.

In the first place, he’s wrong: I said “territories.” In my
May 22, 2007 blog post about the interview, I wrote this in an update I added
that same day: “The occupied territories? That says it all. Jasser refutes Islamic antisemitism and then refers
to ‘the Occupied territories?’” Second, it’s just as bad to refer to “occupied
territories” as it is to refer to “occupied territories.” Judea and Samaria are
not occupied; they are Jewish land. Israel gave up (not back) Gaza for peace.
They
got nothing in return but another base for jihad attacks against them.

Also, no one complained about Judea and Samaria and Gaza being “occupied
territories” when they were under the control of Jordan and Egypt between 1948
and 1967. It’s only when they were administered by Israel that they became
“occupied.” That Jasser would accept this construct speaks volumes.

Jasser also tries to make a big deal out of a time lapse he
claims between the interview and my pointing out that he spoke about “occupied
territories”: “Well surely, you’re saying, she must have mentioned it the next
day, right?  Or the following week - or month?  Nope.  When did
she finally make this allegation, for the first time?  Two years later - on May 13, 2009 - just as ‘The
Third Jihad’
was about to be released.”

 

Not true. I wrote
about it the same night as the interview, May 22, 2007: see here.

 

On several points Jasser accuses me of fabrication. On my
statement that he was thrown out of his mosque, Jasser says: “I have never been
thrown out of any mosque - let alone the mosque that I and my family have
attended for years, and continue to attend.” My source for this was Dr. Andrew
Bostom, who had it, he said, on good authority. I don’t know who might be
protecting whom in this case, but I passed along the information in good faith.
That is also true of Jasser’s disputing of my statement that Geert Wilders
“refused to meet with Jasser because Wilders ‘doesn’t meet with Muslims’. That
never happened, according to Wilders.” Bostom informed me of this also; if
Jasser’s story differs, I believe Bostom.

 

Jasser complains that Robert Spencer had no trouble
participating in a FrontPage symposium with him in May 2010, and didn’t say
anything about this 2007 interview. He doesn’t mention that Spencer said in that symposium that “interpretations
of Islam such as Dr. Jasser’s are personal, idiosyncratic, and non-traditional
- a fact that is all too often glossed over by his enthusiastic and well-heeled
non-Muslim backers, who would prefer to pretend that he represents the dominant
mainstream.”

 

Jasser goes on: “During the twenty-four month period between
our interview and this libelous assault, she conducted many more radio
programs, and wrote hundreds of blog articles - yet never once mentioned this allegation. To the contrary, she
posted instance
after instance
of positive references to my efforts to fight radical Islamism - yet not a word
about how I supposedly ‘blew my cover’ on anything.”

 

Yes, because I do not hate all Muslims. Because I, too, wanted to believe. Those “positive
references” are years old — prior to my continued reading of Ibn Warraq,
Robert Spencer, Wafa Sultan, et al, and earlier in my study of Islam in the
West and in the Muslim world. Who doesn’t want to believe Jasser? Yes, I was
more supportive when I was less informed on Islam.
We all want to
believe in Santy Claus
. But avoiding
reality is not an option. You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the
consequences of avoiding reality.

 

Jasser claims that my “target
includes all Muslims” and that the “only viable solution” I offer is
“conversion of one-fifth of the world’s population.”

 

Here again Jasser echoes the
stealth jihadists
, in adding some
implied threat against 1.5 billion Muslims threat into the pot. Conversion? Is
he saying that the Muslim world will not reject the violent teachings of the
Qur’an and work to expunge it of its violent texts? I never suggested
conversion of one-fifth of the world’s population. But any ideology that
calls for violence and oppression of those outside the fold must be defeated.

 

Jasser insists that he has been “one of the most outspoken
American Muslims against the toxic and potent linkage of our Muslim faith
community to the goals and propaganda of the Palestinian lobby in the United
States.” But where has he been outspoken against the virulent Jew-hatred in
the Qur’an, which is the source of and motivation for everything that
Palestinian lobby does?
The hatred against
the Jewish homeland is not a “Palestinian” invention. (“Palestine” itself,
incidentally, is a Latin word for the Jewish state.)
No, it is rooted
in Islamic teaching that encourages Jewish genocide.
If Jasser strongly supports Israel, he must fight to
expose and expunge Islamic teachings of this hate, but instead, he obfuscates
on this key issue.

 

Above all, Jasser criticizes me for taking issue with King’s
hearings. Of course I support King, but I am free to observe and opine on
what I see as his mistakes.
And I support
Jasser’s objective of separation of mosque and state — the objective of the
American Freedom Defense Initiative and Stop Islamization Of America — but the
premise is false, and smoke and mirrors will not effect any change.

 

Regarding the fact that King is planning to call the Muslim
Brotherhood-linked Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) to testify at his hearings,
Jasser writes: “Testimony from Islamists would actually serve to give Americans
an on-the-record understanding of the obstacles and the actual ideological
diversity within the Muslim community.” 

 

This may be — but without an understanding of true
Islam, the very thing Jasser obscures, such exposure is impossible
. Were that not true, Islamic supremacism would never
have advanced as far as it has since 9/11 in the “hidden war.”

 

Jasser must know that in Islam he is a “hypocrite,” and
under the Sharia that is punishable by death. He advances the idea of
separation of mosque and state, but even he must know that in Islam, mosque is
state.

 

So when Jasser writes that he wants Americans to “see the
stark difference between Muslims who are part of the problem (promoters of
Islamism) and Muslims who are part of the solution (anti-Islamists who promote
reform and modernity),” forgive me, but who is he talking about other than
himself? Daisy Khan and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf? Jasser here sounds just like
Daisy, who recently said, “The era of extremism is over.”

 

I understand that everyone wants moderates or secular
Muslims to be the silent majority, and Jasser gives them a much-needed face. But
in order for Islam to reform itself, the truth about Islam must be made known
by the civilized, and the genocidal, racist aspects
of Islamic teaching must be rejected (like Nazism) and those who hold it forced
under the weight of international pressure to reform.

 

So the answer is no, Dr. Jasser, I am not aiding the
“Islamists.” But it is not at all certain that you aren’t.

Jihad Watch

Tagged with:
 

Pamela Geller was on Eric Bolling’s show on FOX Business to discuss the mandatory Arabic program instituted in Texas public schools (since put on hold); at the same time and on almost the same channel, I was on the Sean Hannity Show facing off against Michael Ghouse of the World Muslim Congress, discussing the Egyptian revolution and the likelihood of an Islamic state there. In the course of the discussion, we got into an impromptu debate, of sorts, about the Qur’an — during which Ghouse engaged in taqiyya about taqiyya, a phenomenon I’ve noted twice recently. One might almost get the impression that someone is feeding these people a uniform set of talking points.

In the same vein, I have noted several times before that the Islamic supremacist pseudo-moderate Reza Aslan often recycles the same talking points that others on his side have already trotted out many times. I thought that this was simply more evidence of his being hopelessly outmatched intellectually, but perhaps it is also evidence that he is taking marching orders from the same source or sources that other Islamic supremacist and Leftist spokesmen are also using.

That impression is reinforced by the two videos above. Note that Bob Beckel challenges Pamela Geller in exactly the same way that Ghouse challenges me: by charging that we are making a good living off this work (a fiction, alas) and thereby implying that we are profiteering on “hate.” Of course, it is not “hate” to fight for justice and Constitutional freedoms, and Beckel and Ghouse probably make more money than Pamela Geller or I do, but here again we see a curious uniformity of attack. Are these guys working from the same source? And if so, who is devising these talking points for Leftists and Islamic supremacists?

Jihad Watch

Tagged with:
 

Tonight I’m scheduled to be on the Hannity Show sometime after 9PM Eastern, debating the situation in Egypt with Mike Ghouse of the World Muslim Congress. I’ve tangled with Ghouse before; above is video of our exchange on the Hannity Show last August over the Ground Zero Mosque.

At the same time, Pamela Geller will be appearing on Fox Business, discussing the now-shelved mandatory Arabic program in some Texas public schools.

It’s wall-to-wall AFDI on Fox! I will post video of both as soon as they are available.

Jihad Watch

Tagged with:
 

Leading up to last week’s Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC, some on the right — led by Frank Gaffney — dredged up their anti-Muslim, Islamophobic fury, claiming that leaders of the American Conservative Union — which puts on CPAC — had been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood and other “radical Islamists.” Gaffney told ThinkProgress in an interview at CPAC that ACU board members Grover Norquist and Suhail Kahn were the main perpetrators of this alleged Muslim Brotherhood infiltration.

Also at CPAC, ThinkProgress asked Norquist to respond to Gaffney’s allegations. Norquist said conservatives have to “knock that stuff down and just make it clear that there’s no place for that in the party of Reagan.” He added that he thinks the right’s Islamophobia “will go away because it doesn’t work. I would like it to go away because it’s the wrong thing to do.”

Right-wing anti-Ground Zero Islamic community center crusader Pam Geller hosted a panel at CPAC, “The Ground Zero Mosque: The Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks.” During the question and answer period, ThinkProgress asked Geller — who also said that CPAC has been “corrupted and been compromised by Muslim Brotherhood operatives” — to respond to Norquist’s call for calm. “Grover’s got to go, Suhail Kahn’s gotto go,” Geller said dismissively, adding that the whole ACU board “has got to go!” After the event, ThinkProgress caught up with Geller and asked her to expound:

GELLER: I think that he should resign his seat and let true conservatives — … Here is a man, where the basic premise of freedom of speech. This is the tenant of conservative values. … So I think there’s something really wrong at CPAC.

TP: And you said something about the Muslim Brotherhood at CPAC? What did you mean by that?

GELLER: I didn’t mean anything about it. It’s been documented that he has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

TP: Who does?

GELLER: Suhail Kahn and Grover Norquist.

Watch the video clips:

ThinkProgress also asked Geller who she wants to see run for president in 2012 to help advance her views. “I think that the only person looking at a world that’s changing in the way that it’s changing catechistically, John Bolton would be my candidate,” she said.

See below for transcripts:

TP: Yeah my question is for mainly Pam. Grover Norquist said yesterday that making an issue out of the mosque – making an issue out of the mosque and the Sharia law thing, he said that he wanted it to go away because he doesn’t think it’ll work and he said he wants it to go away because it’s the wrong thing to do and I was wondering if maybe you could respond to that.

GELLER: Well I want the Sharia law to go away because I don’t think that’ll work. [applause] This is the problem with CPAC –

AUDIENCE MEMBER: We want Grover to go away.

AUDIENCE MEMBER 2: Grover should go!

GELLER: This is the problem with CPAC, that it’s corrupted and been compromised by Muslim Brotherhood operatives [applause] and the 12,000 people that come, the 12,000 people, this is why I do my event here. Every year I do an event because if you look at the agenda of CPAC look at all of the panels and then look at your daily news headlines, they’re either clueless or complicit and I believe it’s the latter. And I’m telling you that before you throw the baby out with the bathwater, there are 12,000 people that come to this event that don’t know that they’ve been completely sold out by CPAC leadership. We have to take CPAC back. You can’t create this again. You’re not going to create an event where 12,000 people come. You know how hard that is to do? Why do we have to walk away from something so great where the people are coming – people are coming here to be activated. You shouldn’t be sold to the highest bidder, the Ron Paulians. … So he’s, Grover’s gotta go, Suhail Kahn’s gotta go. Those copies of those checks by the Muslim Brotherhood. Keene is going to go. I see that Keane is leaving that’s fine but he’s really a figurehead. That board has to go! And people have to know what’s going on and the right doesn’t want to run these articles that I write because “we don’t want to eat our own.” And I say, “That ain’t our own!”

///

TP: Can I ask you a follow up on a question I asked you in there? You said that Grover Norquist has got to go. What did you mean by that? Do you mean that he should get out of the movement entirely or –

GELLER: I think that he should resign his seat and let true conservatives – yes –

TP: Resign his seat at ACU or –

GELLER: Yeah. That’s all I’m talking about. I’m talking about the CPAC. And this is a unique opportunity. You could never create an organization like this again. They should’ve done a Ground Zero mosque event. They absolutely should have.

TP: The ACU should have?

GELLER: CPAC should have. I should not have had to do this. I should not have had to beg to have Geert Wilders…speak here and then take a room and by the way I had 500 people there and we turned away 300 people. It was overflowing crowds ok?

Here is a man, where the basic premise of freedom of speech. This is the tenant of conservative values. I have to beg and I still can’t get it done? So I think there’s something really wrong at CPAC.

TP: And you said something about the Muslim Brotherhood at CPAC? What did you mean by that?

GELLER: I didn’t mean anything about it. It’s been documented that he has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

TP: Who does? Oh Grover does.

GELLER: Suhail Kahn and Grover Norquist and you know? Knowing what we know about the Muslim Brotherhood. According to an internal captured document in the holy land trial, the largest terror funding trial in American history, Hamas funding trial – according to an internal document, the stated goal of the Muslim Brotherhood is to eliminate and destroy Western Civilization from within. This was entered into evidence. It’s actually on my site I have it off of the holy land trial. I mean, they’re telling you! They’re telling you! And if we’ve been infiltrated by this movement then we need to route it out.

TP: So I’m assuming you want this to be an issue in the presidential campaign.

GELLER: I think it absolutely should be.

TP: Who do you think is going to be the candidate –

GELLER: Who do I think or who do I want?

TP: Which candidate do you think is going to help your cause more you think?

GELLER: It’s not my cause; it’s the cause of free men. It’s the cause of individual rights. It’s not my cause. I speak for the smallest minority in the world! I speak for individual rights. I think that the only person looking at a world that’s changing in the way that it’s changing catechistically, John Bolton would be my candidate. We need an intellectual heavyweight. We need a patriot. We need a man who loves America. We need a man who understands American exceptionalism. … So that would be my candidate. Maybe some people would say, “Oh you know he’s not charismatic enough. He doesn’t have the million dollar like Obama’s smile. I think that things are going to get to such a state that actually, that’s going to be the least on people’s lists of top, you know, top, you know?

ThinkProgress

Tagged with:
 

In case you haven’t been following along, nutjob Pam Geller is the Atlas Shrugs blogger largely behind the battle to block NYC’s now infamous “Ground Zero mosque.”

Joe. My. God.

Tagged with:
 

Pamela Geller, the loudest of the activists opposed to so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” which will be built two blocks from the former site of the World Trade Center, said Friday that the Conservative Political Action Conference she was speaking at had been “corrupted” and “compromised by Muslim Brotherhood activists.”

Speaking at a non-official CPAC event on Friday afternoon, Geller said that many members of the board of the American Conservative Union had to go because they were allowing the event to be infiltrated by Muslim Brotherhood activists.

“If you look at the agenda of CPAC, look at all of the panels and then look at your daily news headlines, they’re either clueless or complicit,” Geller said. “And I’m telling you that before you throw the baby out with the bathwater, there are 12,000 people that come to this event that don’t know they’ve been completely sold out by CPAC leadership. We have to take CPAC back, you can’t create this again.”

“Why do we have to walk away from something so great?” Geller asked.

Geller warned the audience about the disturbing images in the film, which was previewed before a nearly full overflow room to a crowd snacking on soft pretzels and tortilla chips on Friday. The full film, “The Ground Zero Mosque: The Second Wave of The 9/11 Attacks,” was shown at another unofficial CPAC event on Saturday.

“It’s very graphic,” Geller said before screening 10 minutes of the movie, which opens with footage of bodies falling from the World Trade Center. “I told the 9/11 family members, I suggested they leave. And I wasn’t doing it to be provocative, it was a very difficult film to make, it’s a difficult film to watch. But these are images you haven’t seen, 9/11 has been white washed.”

Geller said that people were calling her and her followers racists to shut them up. “Do not shut up,” she said.

The lights went down and the film began. “That was the sound of someone falling. Someone dying. It was raining bodies,” a narrator says.

The event on Friday was a mixture of anti-Islamic rhetoric, guilt-by-association and heartbreaking tales from members of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks. One family member had to walk out of the room as another Sept. 11 family member described hearing about body parts coming back in bits and pieces.

Some in the crowd went even further than demanding that there be no mosques built in the downtown New York area and said there shouldn’t be any more mosques built anywhere.

“That’s why it’s too soon to build mosques in general,” one audience member commented. “This is like we’re living in Germany,” she commented to a friend.

“These guys over here are the same guys we’ve been fighting over there,” another audience member told the crowd.

“Moderate Muslims don’t exist,” one woman told the crowd. “It’s like Blue Dog Democrats,” a woman in towards the front of the crowd commented to her friend.

Justin Elliot has video of his interview with Geller following Friday’s panel.

David Horowitz also blasted Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan for being involved in CPAC. (There were also anti-Norquist and Khan fliers circulating at CPAC.)

Khan told Dave Weigel that Horowitz’s shots at him were “old, tired, baseless attacks that have been debunked by reputable sources. This is baseless, and they’re coming from people who are becoming more and more marginalized,” he said.







TPMMuckraker

Tagged with: