Rep. Trent Franks and Robert Spencer Indulge in “Obama is a Secret Muslim” Conspiracy Again

Rep. Trent Franks and Robert Spencer Indulge in “Obama is a Secret Muslim” Conspiracy Again

Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona was one of the politicians  involved in promoting the book, “Muslims Mafia,” by the now retired and disgruntled racist Islamophobe, David Gaubatz.

Franks recently shared a panel with the former adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahoo, Caroline Glick and Rev. Deacon Robert Spencer who, not for the first time, indulged in the “Obama is a Muslim” conspiracy theory–Franks agreed with him.

Trent Frank Agrees That Obama Is Either A Secret Muslim Or Acting Just Like One

Right-Wing Watch

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) appeared at a David Horowitz Freedom Center function last month where he agreed with a co-panelist who said Obama may be a secret Muslim, or is at least acting like one. Franks sat on the panel with anti-Muslim activists Robert Spencer, Erick Stakelbeck and Caroline Glick. A member of the audience asked Spencer — to laughter and applause — that if the Quran dictates that apostates must face execution, “If so, how does this apply to Obama? And if so, what should we do about it?”

Spencer replied that the president’s religion is “murky, probably intentionally so.” He went on to say that because you don’t hear Muslims “calling for Obama to be executed as an apostate” for leaving Islam for Christianity, then it is likely he is still a Muslim.

“With so many hotheads and firebrands and hardliners, you would think that somebody would say that, unless maybe they know something,” Spencer said.

He went on to argue that Obama’s Christian faith is further proof that he’s a Muslim, explaining that he can still be a Muslim while he identifies as a Christian. Spencer added: “Whatever his personal beliefs are, certainly if he were a secret Muslim, he wouldn’t be acting any differently from how he is anyway.”

“That’s exactly right,” Franks said. “He wouldn’t be any different.”

Robert Spencer Discovers Chess Set Jihad

Islamized Chess

by Ilisha

In the widely used Staunton chess set, the king is topped with a Christian cross. At this years’s World Youth Chess Championship in the United Arab Emirates, a new design has been introduced. The Christian cross has been replaced by the Islamic crescent.

Robert Spencer is outraged. He has accused “Islamic Supremacists” or “forcing” non-Muslim children to play with the “Islamized” chess sets. The horror!

Judging from Spencer’s outrage, one might think European Christians invented chess, and the Muslims are trying to co-opt “their” game.

In fact, Chess was brought to Christian Europe by Muslims. 

The precise origins of chess are unknown, but the game is thought to have originated in ancientIndia or Central Asia, and from there, spread to Persia. When the Arabs conquered Persia, chess was taken up by the Muslim world and subsequently spread to Europe.

One of the world’s oldest chess sets was found in Afrasaib, near Samarkand in Uzbekistan. The set included a king, chariot, vizier, horse, elephant, and 2 soldiers.

The traditional Staunton chess set Robert Spencer is defending as sacred is actually the product of European “Christianization” of earlier designs.From

The original Indian and Islamic game was adapted to reflect medieval European society, so that the Indian war elephant was replaced with the figure of the bishop. The rooks biting their shields resemble the Viking berserkers of Norse myth, while the pose of the queens is derived from depictions of the grieving Virgin Mary. The pawns, lacking any human features, reflect the abstract pieces used in the Islamic version of the game.

Are Muslims reclaiming the game of chess in the Name of Islam? Of course not. Many cultures have influenced chess over its 1500 year history, and unless you’re a paranoid “counter jihadist,” there’s no reason to view those contributions as divisive or sinister.

World Youth Chess Championships in UAE using Islamized chess sets

Jihad Wartch

..The photo above of some of the chess sets being used in this year’s tournament in Al Ain are just the icing on the cake. Traditional chess kings have a cross on the top (a design that has been in use for centuries). But this year in the UAE, they’ve removed the cross and replaced it with an Islamic crescent. A veteran chess player tells me: “In my entire life playing chess I have never seen such a thing.”

Some of the children in this year’s tournament are being forced to use these sets:here are some photos from the actual playing hall with participants using the Islamized sets..

…As you will see, only some of the sets have this Islamic design — probably because few have been made as yet, and the organizers need thousands of sets for such a huge tournament. So the majority of sets under use are “normal” style. But even so, the Islamic supremacist implications of the new design are self-evident. This is not a big deal, but obviously it was to the Emiratis who went to so much trouble to alter the set. Why not leave it as it was? Was it because of Islam’s abhorrence of the cross?

UPDATE: The Islamized sets are in wide use…

Pamela Geller has cross posted Spencer’s article on her blog Atlas Shrugs, and added her own paranoid twist:

Robert Spencer has broken the story that in the UAE, the World Youth Chess Championships are listing Israeli players as from the country “FIDE” (World Chess Federation), and are using Islamized chess pieces (above). If the Jews win the tournament, there will be a worldwide terror alert! All free nations must go to Defcon 5 — expect embassies to burn and millions to march and call for death to the Jews. The magic Islamic chess pieces will have lost their mojo — Allah is not pleased. Allah may be akbar, but these chess pieces will have proved not to be.

Yes, Pam, climb onto your broom and head to the UAE. You and your minions must save the world from the Muslim rage that will no doubt follow if the “magic Islamic chess pieces” fail to defeat “the Jews.”

Robert Spencer Lies About Praising Angola’s “Ban on Islam”

Angola Bans Islam Destroys Mosques

Omar Sacirbey, a journalist for the Religion News Service has a blog post summarizing Islamophobia and Muslim news over the past week in which he gives us a very nice commendation,, an excellent website keeping tabs on the Islamophobe industry, reported this week that the anti-Muslim blog published a story about a Muslim mob in Egypt that threw a 15-year-old Christian girl out a third-floor window. The FreePatriot story came with a photo of a woman falling out a window. Pretty enraging stuff, except that the story is completely made-up. The 2011 photo of a woman jumping from a fifth-floor window was shot in Shanghai.

Sacirbey also noted that Islamophobes Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller both welcomed the, as it turns out, inaccurate news about Angola’s ban on Islam,

Speaking of false reports, did you catch the one about how Angola had banned Islam and was planning to raze mosques in the country? Anti-Muslim bloggers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer both welcomed the false news. At The Daily Beast, Jacob Mchangama writes how the bloggers’ praise of Angola’s purported Islam ban contradicts their self-styled images as defenders of free speech.

There is a lot more that plainly showcases the anti-freedom bona fides of Spencer and Geller and can easily be found detailed on Spencerwatch.

In the comments section Spencer showed up, addressing Sacirbey in his usual arrogant and ego-driven tone, Spencer decided he would lie,

Robert Spencer

“Fabricating stories to demonize people is nothing new” — and you should know, Omar Sacirbey, since you’re a master at it yourself. Here, you are retailing the falsehoods of other smear artists, but are you too lazy to do any fact-checking? In reality, I never praised the supposed ban on Islam in Angola, and actually condemned it:

You’re a disgrace to journalism.

Robert Spencer

Other commenters pointed out Spencer’s hypocrisy and called him out for being a despicable liar,

Robert Spencer,

The hypocrite is YOU.

You did indeed welcome the possibility of the ban of Islam in Angola when news first broke of it, or at the very least did anything but condemn or even criticize it. From your own blog:

“This is extraordinarily strange news, given that the world is racing in the other direction, to accommodate and appease Islam. It will be interesting to see, if these reports turn out to be accurate, how the mainstream media and Islamic supremacist groups will find a way to accuse the Angolans of “racism.” In any case, clearly this is a national security issue, with Islamic supremacists and jihadists wreaking havoc in Nigeria and spreading elsewhere in Sub-Saharan Africa. There is no way in Angola any more than there is anywhere else to distinguish jihadis in Angola from the peaceful Muslims among whom they move, organize and recruit, and clearly this measure is designed to stop that activity. However, censure from the UN and the world “human rights” community will probably soon compel Angola to change its stance, and allow the jihadis free rein.”

Let’s analyze your statement here:

1 – The alternative to a ban of Islam (“the other direction” as you put it) is to “to accommodate and appease Islam.” And since your entire blog rants and shills about the prevalence and evil of such accommodation and appeasement, one can easily conclude which of the two “options” in your binary world view you prefer.

2 – You scoffed at the possibility – that if the ban turns out to be true – “how the mainstream media and Islamic supremacist groups will find a way to accuse the Angolans of “racism.”” You are clearly stating you would disagree with such opposition and in fact go further to mock those who would.

3 – You justify the possibility of the ban to be “clearly this is a national security issue”

4 – Incredibly, you argue that there is no way to distinguish between bad Muslims and good Muslims in Angola or anywhere in the world, essentially endorsing the ban as the final solution not only in Angola, but everywhere in the world: “There is no way in Angola any more than there is anywhere else to distinguish jihadis in Angola from the peaceful Muslims among whom they move, organize and recruit, and clearly this measure is designed to stop that activity.”

5 – You put those who would seek to oppose the ban on human rights grounds in quotes (“human rights”) suggesting that you do NOT agree that this would be a human rights issue. You indicate that the consequence of reversing the ban on a human rights ground is: “the free reign of Jihadis.” Now, unless you are now changing your mind that “the free reign of Jihadis” is an undesirable thing, you are explicitly warning against the reversal of the ban.

The full quote: “However, censure from the UN and the world “human rights” community will probably soon compel Angola to change its stance, and allow the jihadis free rein.”

In conclusion, the claim by Omar Sacirbey is 100% true.

You either have a painfully low IQ, are a shameless hypocrite, or suffer from severe amnesia when you come here to deride this fine journalist and accuse him of lying about your first response to the news of the ban when it is so clearly documented.

Moreover, if you are ashamed of your own views, why hold them, let alone parade them so proudly, in the first place? Time for a psychiatric evaluation.



It’s good to know that sane and well informed voices are willing to push back more and more against the hate brigades.