Hertiage Foundation: Robert Spencer’s Islamophobe Allies Gather For Anti-Muslim Hate Fest

Heritage Foundation Benghazi panel descends into Islamophobic freak show

 (Salon.com)

Although its reputation for intellectual seriousness was previously overstated, those who worried that former South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint’s ascension as chief of the Heritage Foundation would lead to the right-wing think tank’s disgrace are looking mighty prescient after a Monday afternoon panel on the Banghazi attack’s lingering “unanswered questions” devolved into a bigoted freak show.

When one considers the panelists involved, it’s unlikely the so-called discussion was ever going to go too well. Alongside straight-up crank and professional bigot Frank Gaffney, Heritage also invited ACT! for America’s Brigitte Gabriel (known for repeatedly describing Muslims as “barbarians“) and Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi’s Clare Lopez (who previously described the Obama administration as having “switched sides” in the war on terror). Leading the conversation was Chris Plante, a conservative talk radio host.

According to the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, while the panel rather quickly and predictably transitioned from vague expressions of concern about a Benghazi conspiracy to a more free-floating animus toward Islam and Muslims, things didn’t get really ugly until one audience member, an American University law student named Saba Ahmed, decided to push back against the panelists’ many ignorant and harmful assertions.

“We portray Islam and all Muslims as bad, but there’s 1.8 billion followers of Islam,” Ahmed reportedly told the panel. “We have 8 million-plus Muslim Americans in this country, and I don’t see them represented here.”

This was unacceptable. Gabriel was the first to attack, according to Milbank, responding that “180 million to 300 million” Muslims are “dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization” and that the “peaceful majority” of the world’s Muslims “were irrelevant” on September 11, 2001. Besides, Muslims are like Nazis, Gabriel argued: “Most Germans were peaceful,” she said, “yet the Nazis drove the agenda, and as a result, 60 million died.”

Gabriel then questioned Ahmed’s citizenship before telling her that “political correctness” of the kind she spouts should be kept “in the garbage” where it belongs. Ahmed was then asked “Where are the others speaking out?” but before she could explain why demanding a community of hundreds of millions have “others” who “speak out” against murder is ridiculous and disingenuous, the audience drowned her out with a standing ovation.

As the evening progressed, Plante implied Ambassador Chris Stevens’ real cause of death was being hidden, Gabriel suggested Stevens was secretly working on a weapons-swap between Libya and Syria, and Lopez joked about how journalists covering the attack are secretly friends with Islamist terrorists, with whom they were “sipping frappes … in juice bars.” One audience member even suggested that Gen. Carter Ham, then-commander of U.S. Africa Command, had been “placed under house arrest” so as to allow the attack to occur. Plante said he’d heard the same.

Here’s video of the debacle, via Media Matters:

Also See:
-VIDEO: Heritage Foundation’s Benghazi Panelists Mock Muslim Student
-Heritage’s ugly Benghazi panel

U.S. Islamophobes stand by Wilders as his own party members defect

gwilders

U.S. Islamophobes stand by Wilders as his own party members defect

(Imagine 2050)

Dutch politician Geert Wilders has once again become the subject of controversy after he led supporters in an anti-Moroccan chant during a campaign rally last month. Despite the mass condemnation he has received for the remarks, Wilders’ anti-Muslim counterparts in the United States are standing by his draconian approach to immigration.

While at the rally in The Hague, Wilders, who heads the Party for Freedom (PVV), asked the crowd: “Do you want in this city more or fewer Moroccans?” to which they chanted, “Fewer! Fewer! Fewer!”

“We’ll take care of that,” he responded with a wry smile.

Wilders later defended his comments and outlined his party’s plans to uphold his promise by “limiting immigration from Islamic countries, including Morocco” and promoting “re-emigration.” Wilders also plans on “deporting criminal Moroccans by revoking their Dutch passports” — as well as their dual-citizenship — and “sending them back to their country of their nationality.”

However, many PVV members believe Wilders has gone too far with his latest spectacle, and has led to a crisis within its ranks. Many have chosen to resign and disassociate themselves from the party, including Laurence Stassen who represents PVV in the European Parliament. “I deeply regret having to take this decision, but staying in my function was not an option after these comments,” she said in a statement.

Despite the mass exodus from his own party, anti-Muslim activists in the United States continue to uphold Wilders as a symbol of resistance against the devastation they believe will come as a result of an increased Muslim population:

  • Longtime anti-Muslim activist Daniel Pipes said although he didn’t agree with Wilders’ tactics, he sympathized with his goal of curbing immigration. “It is entirely understandable that the indigenous peoples of a country feel stress when large numbers of immigrants from an alien civilization, more than a few of them hostile, move in,” he said on his website.
  • Frank Gaffney took to his radio show to say Wilders is representing the “free world.” During the show, Gaffney described PVV’s policy as being a subscript for “describing the affliction that immigration, some of it illegal, has represented for a country like the Netherlands.”
  • Islamphobic columnist Diana West joined Gaffney on his show and took issue with the negative media coverage Wilders has received. She implied she saw nothing wrong with his comments because “Moroccans top the charts in criminality” as well as in “social dependence.” In another column at the Columbia Daily Herald, West defended Wilders anti-immigrant stance by posing the question: “Is it ‘racism’ to oppose the demographic obliteration of a nation clearly underway?”
  • David Horowitz Freedom Center fellow Bruce Bawer also defended Wilders at FrontPage Magazine. He said he doesn’t see him as a “bigot,” but instead as “the real thing: a brave, selfless man determined to steer the ship of state through turbulent waters safely into port.” He added: “The Dutch would be fools to throw him overboard.”

Wilders’ latest diatribe is rooted in an anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim platform that has made him one of the most prominent figures of the global Islamophobia movement. He has previously advocated against the construction of any new mosques in the Netherlands, claiming they are a “symbol of an ideology of hatred, violence and oppression.” He has also equated the Qur’an to Mein Kampf. Wilders spent the summer forming a new political alliance with France’s far-Right National Front party leader, Marine Le Pen. Their goal is to take on the European Parliament this year. Both parties blame immigration and multiculturalism for Europe’s economic malaise and supposed loss of identity.

Even at a time when Wilders’ own party is trying to distance themselves from his extreme rhetoric, those in the broader anti-Muslim movement continue to show their unwavering support for him.

Right-wing runs with “John Brennan-is-a-Muslim” theory

brennan-cia.jpeg3-620x412

Islamophobes run with the theory that John Brennan is unfit-for-duty because he’s a “secret Muslim.” The real reason Brennan is unfit for duty is because of his track record in support of torture and drone warfare.

Right-wing runs with “John Brennan-is-a-Muslim” theory

by Jillian Rayfield (Salon.com)

A disgraced former FBI agent and anti-Islam activist claims that John Brennan, President Obama’s pick to head the CIA, is “unfit for duty” because he just might be a secret Muslim.

As Salon reported, John Guandolo claimed last weekend that “Brennan did convert to Islam when he served in an official capacity on behalf of the United States when he served in Saudi Arabia” and it “was the culmination of a counterintelligence operation against him to recruit him” by foreign operatives.

The theory, which was picked up by conspiracy-theorist central World Net Daily, has an eager audience on the right. Here’s a rundown:

Glenn Beck: ”I don’t know if this is true or not, I will tell you that there is so much in John Brennan background that should be questioned, that this is plausible. He added: ”If somebody makes a charge like that, shouldn’t we at least explore it?” Watch:

Former Rep. Fred Grandy, R-Iowa, also of Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy: “The influence of Islam as a religion among top intelligence authorities in this country is not limited to John Brennan. Whether or not that influenced his political determinations probably has more to do not so much with Islam but to what degree has been co-opted by Saudi authorities.”

Sandy Rios of the American Family Association: “Well I think the proof is in the pudding. When he redefines jihad to mean something that it doesn’t mean, to water it down; when he rewrites the training manuals for our law enforcement, for those that would protect the United States; it’s all very, very frightening and suspicious to me.”

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association: “[Obama] wants a guy to be the director of the CIA who may be a Muslim covert. There’s a highly-placed source, I can’t verify this because it’s only come from one source but John Brennan who President Obama wants to be his CIA director, there’s a well-placed source that says everybody understands in the intelligence community that he converted to Islam when he was on an overseas assignment. He’s allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to infiltrate his administration.”

Guandolo left the FBI after the corruption case for former Louisiana Rep. William Jefferson, amid revelations that Guandolo had sexual relationships with agents and a government informant on the case. He has since been traveling the anti-Islam speech-making circuit, occasionally arguing that Muslims “do not have a First Amendment right to do anything.”

 

Jillian Rayfield is an Assistant News Editor for Salon, focusing on politics. Follow her on Twitter at @jillrayfield or email her at jrayfield@salon.com.

David Yerushalmi: Pamela Geller’s anti-democracy lawyer & “SION” senior member exposed: The facts

Original article by Jai Singh

I have recently come across some major information regarding a pivotal member of Robert Spencer & Pamela Geller’s inner circle, specifically David Yerushalmi. The main cross-published article below is from the Center for American Progress think-tank, although I’ve also included URL links for extensive further information about Yerushalmi at the end of this article. It certainly explains a lot. It is also very revealing indeed about the core anti-Muslim propagandists’ endgame.

Along with being Pamela Geller’s laywer, David Yerushalmi is a senior member of Spencer & Geller’s Stop Islamization of Nations/”SION” organisation. Yerushalmi was even one of the main speakers at Spencer & Geller’s anti-Muslim conference in New York in September 2012 (Geller enthusiastically provided video footage on her Atlas Shrugs website here).

David Yerushalmi is also General Counsel for Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy organisation, which has had a considerable influence on certain senior Republican politicians, particularly their wild claims about “extremist Muslim infiltration” in the Obama Administration. According to the New York Times, Gaffney is “Yerushalmi’s primary link to a network of former and current government officials, security analysts and grass-roots political organizations” and is also able to tap “a network of Tea Party and Christian groups as well as ACT! for America, which has 170,000 members”.

There is, however, much more. As the main article below (and the subsequent URL links) discusses, David Yerushalmi has tried to conceal a huge amount of self-incriminating information from the public. Not only are his racial and religious views self-evident, but it also raises several further questions:

1. Exactly why is Pamela Geller allying herself so closely with someone who believes that American women should not have the right to vote ?

2. Yerushalmi heads an organisation (Society of Americans for National Existence/”SANE”) whose charter explicitly states that it is “dedicated to the rejection of democracy” in the United States. It is worth noting that such actions are defined as sedition, a major offence under multiple Federal laws: See here, here, here, and here. Why is Yerushalmi not being prosecuted for sedition ?

3. Exactly who are the members of Yerushalmi’s anti-democracy “Society of Americans for National Existence” organisation, and to what extent have they penetrated the United States’ educational, legal, and political systems, government, intelligence, the media, and US military ?

4. Considering the fact that Yerushalmi heads an organisation explicitly dedicated to the rejection of democracy in the United States, why have the relevant authorities not stripped Yerushalmi of his license to practice law ?

5. To what extent are Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller and David Horowitz involved in furthering Yerushalmi’s anti-democracy agenda ?

6. Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller are also closely allied to John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the UN; Bolton was Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s senior foreign policy advisor during his campaign. As publicised by Geller, Bolton was even originally scheduled to be one of the main speakers alongside Yerushalmi at the SION conference in New York in September 2012. Bolton has also appeared on Frank Gaffney’s radio show in order to defend the aforementioned claims that extremist Muslims have “infiltrated” the US Government. To what extent is John Bolton involved in furthering Yerushalmi’s anti-democracy agenda ?

7. Following on from #6, is John Bolton himself a member of Yerushalmi’s “Society of Americans for National Existence” organisation ?

8. Following on from #6 and #7, to what extent is Mitt Romney aware of all this ?

9. The other main guests & speakers alongside Yerushalmi at the SION conference in New York in September 2012 included New York State Senator David Storobin, English Defence League leader Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka “Tommy Robinson”, also see here, here, here, and here), English Defence League co-founder/British Freedom Party deputy leader Kevin Carroll, and British Freedom Party leader Paul Weston. To what extent are they aware of Yerushalmi’s anti-democracy agenda ?

10. To what extent are Frank Gaffney (also see here) and his Center for Security Policy organisation involved in furthering Yerushalmi’s anti-democracy agenda ? (Note: The CSP link includes extensive details of the organisation’s main financiers, board members, military committee members, and academic council members. The information about the level of involvement of extremely senior [and well-connected] former military officers and major weapons manufacturers is particularly startling).

11. To what extent are Newt Gingrich (also see here and here), Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Rep. Peter King (R-NY) (also see here), Rep. Allen West (R-FL), Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Rep. Thomas Rooney (R-FL), Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), and other anti-Muslim members of Congress aware of Yerushalmi’s anti-democracy agenda ?

12. Peter King, previously known for his active support of the terrorist IRA, is currently Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, and is also a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He has appeared on Frank Gaffney’s radio show, where he made a series of demonstrably false statements about American Muslims. More recently, Peter King has received an award from Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy organisation. Why is the Chairman of Homeland Security accepting an award from an organisation whose General Counsel is dedicated to the rejection of democracy in the United States ?

13. To what extent are Congress, the Department of Homeland Security, and American intelligence agencies aware of the fact that several of the senior politicians listed in #11 have demanded action based on dubious material from an organisation whose General Counsel is dedicated to the rejection of democracy in the United States ?

14. To what extent are Congress, the Department of Homeland Security, and American intelligence agencies aware of the fact that a disproportionate number of the senior politicians listed in #11 have direct links to the same fundamentalist Christian organisation dedicated to influencing American politicians ? Further to the recent US presidential election, updated details of some of these politicians and their activities are available here, here, and here.

15. To what extent are Congress, the Department of Homeland Security, and American intelligence agencies aware of the fact that several recent Republican presidential candidates, including one of the senior politicians listed in #11 (who is also a member of the House Intelligence Committee), have extensive links to “Dominionism” ? (Note: Dominionism is an extreme interpretation of Christian fundamentalism deriving from “Christian Reconstructionism”, which involves the belief that rule by non-Christians anywhere in the world is sacrilege, explicitly approves of the historical slavery of African-Americans, and openly advocates the replacement of American law with Old Testament injunctions including the death penalty for apostasy and homosexuality; Dominionism also claims that its adherents have a God-given mandate to infiltrate the highest echelons of power and subsequently impose their beliefs on the entire world).

16. Yerushalmi has also proposed a range of measures targeting Muslims in the United States (see ThinkProgress article below). If Yerushalmi and his main allies were given free rein to implement these measures, exactly what criteria would they use in order to identify someone as a “suspected Muslim” or a “known Muslim” ?

17. Following on from #16, exactly what measures would Yerushalmi propose in order to conclusively prove that someone is (or is not) a Muslim ?

18. Exactly what actions would Yerushalmi describe as “knowingly acting in furtherance of, or supporting the, adherence to Islam” ?

19. Considering the fact that Yerushalmi, Geller and Spencer publicly claim to be such staunch supporters of the concept of “freedom of speech” and refer to this concept when justifying their own actions, why do they keep threatening to sue people who exercise their own freedom of speech against them ?

The original ThinkProgress article is cross-published in full below:

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

Neocon ‘Team B’ Author Yerushalmi: ‘Islam Was Born In Violence; It Will Die That Way’

I wrote last week that the new “Team B” report from neoconservative activist Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy on the threat of Islamic sharia law is notable for, among other things, the fact that its authors consulted with no actual Muslims or Islamic scholars in writing it.

A key “expert” behind the report’s interpretation of Islamic law is a man named David Yerushalmi. In addition to running a DC law practice, Yerushalmi serves as General Counsel of the Center for Security Policy. Yerushalmi is also a contributor to Andrew Breitbart’s Big Peace. On his law office website, Yerushalmi claims to be “considered an expert on Islamic law.”

The release of the sharia report was hailed last week by three leading Congressional conservatives — Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), and Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) — so it’s worth looking into what one the report’s key contributors actually believes about Muslims and Islam.

Here’s what Yerushalmi wrote in the American Thinker in 2006:

”Islam was born in violence; it will die that way. Any wish to the contrary is sheer Pollyannaism. The same way the post World War II German youth were taught by their German teachers and political leaders to despise the fascism of their fathers, with strict laws extant still today restricting even speech that casts doubt on the Holocaust, so too must the Muslim youth be taught from the cradle to reject the religion of their forebears.”

Yerushalmi also wrote in 2006 that the Muslim Brotherhood “has succeeded in penetrating our educational, legal, and political systems, as well as top levels of government, intelligence, the media, and U.S. military, virtually paralyzing our ability to respond effectively.” He criticized President Bush for his “fatal, but well-intentioned ideological whim to build democracies among a ruthless people who believe in a murderous creed falsely labeled a ‘religion of peace.‘”

Yerushalmi heads an organization called Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE), whose charter — now hidden behind a paywall but shared here by Talk to Action’s Brian Wilson — states:

“America is a unique people bound together through a commitment to America’s Judeo-Christian moral foundation and to an enduring faith and trust in G-d and in His Providence… America was the handiwork of faithful Christians, mostly men, and almost entirely white, who ventured from Europe to create a nation in their image of a country existing as free men under G-d. The founding fathers understood that party-led parliaments and democracy were the worse form of government and sought to resist the movement that was soon to find fertile ground in France with the French Revolution…

…at its core, SANE is dedicated to the rejection of democracy and party rule and a return to a constitutional republic…

…Any world view, ideology, or -ism that promotes directly or indirectly the elimination of national existence and the establishment of a world state is our foe. So you can know at the start that liberalism (and this includes libertarianism) and Islam are in our sights.”

Yerushalmi’s group suggests the following measures for dealing with America’s Muslim problem:

“- It shall be a felony punishable by 20 years in prison to knowingly act in furtherance of, or to support the, adherence to Islam.
- The Congress of the United States of America shall declare the US at war with the Muslim Nation or Umma.

- The President of the United States of America shall immediately declare that all non-US citizen Muslims are Alien Enemies under Chapter 3 of Title 50 of the US Code and shall be subject to immediate deportation.
- No Muslim shall be granted an entry visa into the United States of America.”

Unsurprisingly, Yerushalmi’s antipathies extend beyond Muslims. In a 2006 article, “On Race: A Tentative Discussion” [Note: Despite Yerushalmi's efforts to destroy the online evidence, his full article in PDF form can still be accessed directly here] — tentative because, as Yerushalmi laments in the article, one cannot engage in “a discussion of Islam as an evil religion, or of blacks as the most murderous of peoples (at least in New York City), or of illegal immigrants as deserving of no rights” without being labeled a racist — Yerushalmi writes that the American founders were on to something when they limited the vote to white men:

“There is a reason the founding fathers did not give women or black slaves the right to vote. You might not agree or like the idea but this country’s founders, otherwise held in the highest esteem for their understanding of human nature and its affect on political society, certainly took it seriously. Why is that? Were they so flawed in their political reckonings that they manhandled the most important aspect of a free society – the vote? If the vote counts for so much in a free and liberal democracy as we ‘know’ it today, why did they limit the vote so dramatically.”

So Yerushalmi isn’t crazy about Muslims, African-Americans, immigrants, or women. But wait, he also strongly dislikes liberal Jews:

“Jews of the modern age are the most radical, aggressive and effective of the liberal Elite. Their goal is the goal of all “progressives:” a determined use of liberal principles to deconstruct the Western nation state in a “historical” march to the World State……one must admit readily that the radical liberal Jew is a fact of the West and a destructive one.”

I contacted Mr. Yerushalmi to give him an opportunity to explain these writings. He declined.

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

[Note 1: This is just the tip of the iceberg. Extensive further information on David Yerushalmi's real views & agenda here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here]

[Note 2: As discussed by Richard Silverstein here, Yerushalmi is also on record as making the following anti-democracy statements: “Our constitutional republic was specifically designed to insulate our national leaders from the masses, democracy has seeped up through the cracks and corroded everything we once deemed sacred about our political order.”]

[Note 3: As discussed here, other articles on Yerushalmi’s website included openly racist statements such as the following: “Race matters and affects your intelligence. Jews are the smartest white people around. Orientals smarter than Whites. Latinos next. Then Blacks.”]

[Note 4: As discussed here, Yerushalmi has also written articles claiming that "most of the fundamental differences between the races is genetic." In the aforementioned article “On Race: A Tentative Discussion”, Yerushalmi described African-Americans as a "relatively murderous race killing itself” and stated: "If evolution and the biologists who espouse the theory are correct, then the idea that racial differences included innate differences in character and intelligence would[,] it seem[,] be more likely than not.”]

[Note 5: Yerushalmi tried to silence Richard Silverstein by threatening to sue him for defamation when he referred to Yerushalmi as a “white supremacist”. However, Yerushalmi withdrew the threat after Silverstein publicly presented the mass of information supporting his allegation and refused to back down.]

[Note 6: As discussed here, Yerushalmi is also on record as making the following Robert Spencer/Julius Streicher-style statement in his own defence: “I have never written anything that calls for discrimination against…Muslims qua Muslims.”]

[Note 7: Yerushalmi, Spencer, Geller, Gaffney and Horowitz are part of the core anti-Muslim propaganda network. Extensive further information on the main US-based individuals, organisations and financiers involved in this network is available here, here, here and here.]

On Conspiracy Theories and Islamophobia: Rep. Louie Gohmert and the Omnipresent Muslim Brotherhood Cobra

The Islamophobic characterizations rampant amongst the anti-Muslim movements are steeped in conspiracy theories.

by Garibaldi

Do we live in a conspiracy theory based culture?

Yes, and it is not just the United States but the globe which is affected by bad ideas/theories that gain significant or widespread social traction. This is not to say that one should be dismissive of all so-called “conspiracy theories,” there are some conspiracies that are well founded, buoyed by facts and proven to be true later.

Nicoli Nattrass notes in The Lancet that,

“Anthropologists and social psychologists typically interpret conspiracy theories as responses to powerlessness—as ways of making sense of the bewildering social, economic, and political context of modern life. But not all conspiracy believers are powerless.” (emphasis mine)

How does this explain Islamophobic conspiracy theories? In general I have observed that Islamophobic conspiracy theories are not responses to a real sense of “powerlessness,” but rather a false sense of powerlessness coupled with a pervasive victim mentality. Many of those involved in forwarding Islamophobic conspiracies are in fact part of an elite political and financial class or receive support from such quarters (see Fear, Inc.).

Take Rep. Louie Gohmert, one of many US Congressmen who regularly engage in strange ideas about Muslims and Islam. Gohmert recently spilled his guts to Frank Gaffney regarding his belief that the Obama administration is receiving advice from the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood has become a catch-all phrase which is used to fear-monger, as though the organization was some omnipresent worldwide machine capable of manipulating heads of state, and yes such conspiracies are a part of a political program by the Right to retake the government, and yes such conspiracies do provide a narrative for their base to swallow and make sense of a fast changing world.

It will be intriguing to see the foreign policy debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Will we see an appearance of the pervasive omnipresent-Muslim-Brotherhood-cobra-conspiracy-theory, with its venomous fangs biting into the USA?

(h/t: CriticalDragon)

Gohmert: Obama Administration is ‘Getting Advice’ from ‘People who are in the Muslim Brotherhood’

by Brian Tashman (RightWingWatch)

Fresh after his speech insisting that President Obama is reestablishing the Ottoman Empire, Texas congressman Louie Gohmert told anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney that the Obama administration is “getting advice on how to deal with the Muslim Brotherhood from people who are in the Muslim Brotherhood.” He claimed that the Obama administration is sending money to “radical jihadists” in order to “buy [them] off,” not understanding that they can only use “raw power” against those who worship “a radical, mean-spirited, hateful Allah that these people that twist Islam believe in.”

Gohmert, who signed letters with Michele Bachmann calling for an anti-Muslim witch hunt within the administration that were ultimately rejected but lauded by Gaffney and Newt Gingrich, charged that Muslim Brotherhood agents may be the ones shaping Obama’s foreign policy. Gohmert claimed that Muslim Brotherhood operatives are involved in Janet Napolitano’s “super-secret, trusted, Homeland Security advisory council” but said she won’t give him the names. He also criticized Napolitano for allowing an Egyptian lawmaker to meet with members of the U.S. government in Washington, even after he was vetted by Homeland Security, the State Department and the Secret Service, because he is a member of a political party tied to a listed terrorist organization that has since renounced violence.

Gohmert: This administration thinks they’re going to buy off bullies, radical jihadists who want to destroy our way of life, they don’t understand that when you try to pay off a bully that wants to hurt you, not only do they not love you but they don’t respect you, they have more contempt for you, and this administration does not get that the only thing they understand is raw power and response that kills them and their beliefs of a radical, mean-spirited, hateful Allah that these people that twist Islam believe in. It tells them, ‘ah, Allah must not like what we’re doing’ because the United States had just overwhelmed and kill all of those who were trying to kill them.

Gaffney: Congressman, I mentioned that Newt Gingrich called you one of the National Security Five. That was in connection with a series of letters that you and Michele Bachmann and others sent out back in June asking about people who are associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, the prime mover behind much of this jihadism around the world, inside our government. You’ve not gotten answers to those inquires as I understand it, but as I understand it against the backdrop of this bewildering response by the administration, do you think that that may have something to do with the influence operations that these sorts of people are running inside the wire of our government?

Gohmert: I think it tells us very clearly that we are getting advice from people who are either A) intentionally misinforming them or misadvising them, or B) they are getting information from people that don’t have a clue about how to deal with our problem. It certainly is consistent, Janet Napolitano as you recall could not even tell me how many of her super-secret, trusted, Homeland Security advisory council or counter-violent extremism working group were actually Muslim Brotherhood. She didn’t know. When I brought up the fact that immediately before that there was a member of a known terrorist organization that had been allowed in the White House, she wasn’t even aware of it, she said that wasn’t true, but the next day when she was testifying before the Senate all the sudden she’d become aware of it and was able to talk about it but said ‘oh well he was vetted a number of times.’ These people have no idea what’s really going on, they are getting terrible advice from whomever and it certainly consisted with them getting advice on how to deal with the Muslim Brotherhood from people who are in the Muslim Brotherhood.

Gaffney upset Jews, Gays, Feminists aren’t anti-muslim

Frank Gaffney

Frank Gaffney

I think you will find that there are Jewish, Gay and feminist anti-Muslims, but I guess it is a good sign that Gaffney is whining that there aren’t enough. (h/t: CriticalDragon)

Gaffney upset Jews, Gays, Feminists aren’t anti-muslim

by Brian Tashman (RightWingWatch)

Yesterday on Secure Freedom Radio, Frank Gaffney hosted the vociferously anti-Muslimanti-gayanti-Obama Rabbi Aryeh Spero to discuss his new book, “Push Back: Reclaiming the American Judeo-Christian Spirit.” Gaffney asked Spero why women’s rights and gay rights advocates, along with “the Jews who make up many of the most visible members of the international or at least domestic left,” are “making common cause” with Islamists.

In Gaffney’s view, any opposition to efforts by him and other anti-Muslim activists to undermine the religious freedom and civil rights of Muslim-Americans is tantamount to the promotion of Sharia law and Islamism. Spero replied to Gaffney’s ridiculous question by claiming that the left has “partnered up with Islam” and have become “tools of Islam” in order to bring about “the destruction of Judeo-Christian ethos” and “the destruction of the historic American civilization.” Spero also falsely claimed that feminists and gay rights supporters are silent on abuses in Muslim-majority countries, which is of course not thecase.

Gaffney: We’re often struck by the seeming commitment of those you’ve properly characterized as leftists seeking a transformation of the United States, to the Islamists who are seeking their own transformation of the United States and indeed the entire world. To what do you attribute the fact that despite when you’ve used the terms misogyny, the hatred of women, that the Islamists routinely engage in as they promote Sharia with a community of people who are all about feminism; the antipathy of the Islamists to homosexuality yet being supported by people who prize homosexual rights and have many of them in their ranks; the artists; the Jews who make up many of the most visible members of the international or at least domestic left. How can they possibly be making common cause against the culture, the Judeo-Christian culture of America with people who so clearly oppose them on all of those fronts?

Spero: Now this is actually what I consider the most important question of the day: how is it that those on the left who are always championing certain rights are now partnered up with Islam who is the very antithesis of the rights that the left is always championing. I think it forces us to see the left in a light that we’ve never saw before. I don’t think that the left is concerned is concerned so much with civil rights. If they were the feminists would be the first ones condemning what is happening to women all throughout the Muslim world and they are quiet and the people on the left and the homosexual lobby would be condemning Islam for what they’re doing in curtailing freedoms and killing homosexuals. I think what we now see, what the left has always wanted or what the left wants today is the destruction of Judeo-Christian ethos and I think that they want the destruction of the historic American civilization.

Spero: The left, who wish to control, they think that they are going to live with this blissful partnership with Islam becomes stronger in the country; they’re going to share all this power with Islam. Fools that they are, they are being used by Islam, they are tools of Islam, but it is wewho will be the victim.

At the end of the interview, Spero said that Obama is a Marxist who identifies with “Muslim Brotherhood Islam,” which Gaffney agreed with.

Spero: This election’s very important because the General, the poster child behind the economic Marxism and transnationalism and the acceptance of Muslim Brotherhood-type Islam is Barack Obama. How this happened to America is a very unfortunate and alarming condition that we are faced with that we elected a man that basically did not believe in Americanism, he’s an economic Marxist and he identifies with Islam but actually it’s the Muslim Brotherhood Islam that he identifies with.

Gaffney: You’re absolutely right.

RightWingWatch.com: Huma Abedin Conspiracies Get Weirder

Walid_Shoebat

Walid Shoebat

Walid Shoebat weighs in with his own conspiracy theories about Huma Abedin:

Huma Abedin Conspiracies Get Weirder

The conspiracy theories about Huma Abedin’s marriage to former congressman Anthony Weiner keep getting weirder. Walid Shoebat, who according to the Center for American Progress [pdf] is a “former purported Islamic terrorist turned apocalyptic Christian,” recently told David Horowitz’s FrontPageMag that Abedin’s marriage to Weiner, who is Jewish, is either part of her Muslim Brotherhood espionage or shows that Weiner converted to Islam, or both:

It is extremely rare to have Muslim women marry non-Muslims, much less to have conservative Muslims look the other way, unless Huma has a “higher calling” and a unique exception was made for her, since she is an ear into top U.S. sensitive information, or Anthony Weiner has converted to Islam or even both.

On Monday, Shoebat told the American Family Association’s Sandy Rios that the rise of Muslim Brotherhood is all part of biblical prophecy and we are witnessing the birth pangs of the End Times:

He also claimed that Obama is assisting the Muslim Brotherhood and is “in bed with terrorists,” and that Michele Bachmann and Louie Gohmert, two of the five Republican congressmen who have accused Abedin of cooperating with the Muslim Brotherhood, are acting like modern day John the Baptist fighting today’s Herod:

 Rios: Did you have any idea, even ten years ago or right after 9/11 that things would come to this dangerous state where we do have, and we’re going to talk about this, this incredible infiltration at the highest levels and no one would listen? Did you ever foresee this?Shoebat: Yes, yes, of course I expected this. Americans had a test when the elections happened and the results were Obama. We’ve seen anybody, you know, who looks at Obama’s record, he was in bed with terrorists. People need to confront this issue once and for all, President Obama doesn’t have a clean record.

Rios: Should we be worried about Michele Bachmann and Louie Gohmert and all these letters? Should we defend them, what’s the point?

Shoebat: Well, I mean, if you look at the story of John the Baptist, John the Baptist was doing what? He was a symbol of the church. He was fighting against Herod, Herod was a symbol of the Antichrist, a symbol of the evil one. So what happened? He exposed Herod and he got his head chopped off. So there is a danger in fighting this but the church’s position is to expose and to fight for what is right.

Expose the Islamophobia Industry

Our friend Nathan Lean on the necessity of exposing the Islamophobia Industry:

Expose the Islamophobia industry 

by Nathan Lean (NY Daily News)

One victim wrote his telephone number in blood that ran from his head. Another described the sensation of feeling his brain through an empty eye socket.

During the trial of Anders Breivik, the Norwegian behind the July 2011 Oslo bombing and shooting attacks that killed 77, such testimonies were reminders that the city which awards the world’s most prestigious prize for peace is itself not immune to brutal displays of violence.

The 33-year-old Breivik is charged with terrorism and murder. On Aug. 24, judges will announce if he is sane enough for prison. The 10-week proceedings against him resembled a freak show more than a judicial event: Shoe throwing, self-immolation and far-right salutes were among the happenings that animated a normally humdrum process.

What was absent from the scene, though, was blunt discussion of the anti-Islam ideology that influenced Breivik and caused him to be so fearful of Muslims that his only response was to slaughter fellow citizens whose politics he blamed for their presence.

Breivik carried out his bloodbath alone, and his idiosyncrasies give him the appearance of a sociopath. But his delusions are hardly products of his imagination. Instead, they are the workings of a cabal of fear merchants who roam the post-9/11 world scaring people about Islam.

Breivik’s 1,500-page manifesto offers a clear view of the people and ideas that shaped his actions.

“About Islam, I recommend essentially everything written by Robert Spencer,” Breivik gushed in one of 162 shout-outs to the blogger, whose website is a one-stop shop for everything anti-Muslim. Spencer has waged a populist campaign against “stealth jihad,” “creeping Sharia” and even Campbell’s soup (which offers halal-certified cans of its famous products).

Breivik cited Spencer’s partner, blogger Pamela Geller, 12 times. Geller and Spencer co-founded Stop Islamization of America, the American branch of a European hate franchise, Stop Islamization of Europe, a group whose soccer hooligan members have whipped the populations of Britain and Denmark into nationalistic frenzies. SIOE’s motto states: “Racism is the lowest form of human stupidity but Islamophobia is the height of common sense.” Both Geller and Spencer organized the vitriolic protests against the Park51 Islamic Center in 2010.

Breivik mentioned Frank Gaffney, who runs the Center for Security Policy, seven times. Gaffney provides legal counsel for Spencer and Geller and is famous for decrying the threat of Sharia law and claiming that President Obama is in cahoots with the Muslim Brotherhood. He is also on the board of the Clarion Fund, a group that produced the now-infamous anti-Muslim film “Obsession.” Breivik’s manifesto linked to that movie 10 separate times.

Read more…

Robert George Refuses to Explain Funding Anti-Muslim Extremists

Robert George was recently appointed to the USCRIF along with Zuhdi Jasser. In the video below George is clearly unwilling to answer the question about whether or not he sees a contradiction between his stated position of “supporting Muslim rights” while at the same time serving on the board of a foundation well known for funding anti-Muslim organizations:

Robert George Refuses to Explain Funding Anti-Muslim Extremists

Posted by Kristin Ford (Faith in Public Life)

Last November, Fear, Inc., an extensive Center for American Progress report, revealed who was funding prominent anti-Islam organizations.  One of the financial sponsors of Islamophobia they unearthed was the Bradley Foundation.

As we noted, prominent Catholic intellectual Robert George sits on the board of this foundation and hasn’t reconciled this position with his ostensible public commitment to defending the religious freedom of Muslims

Nick caught up with Robert George today at an event hosted by Georgetown University’s Berkley Center and asked about this contradiction:

Here’s what Nick asked and George’s response:

FAITH IN PUBLIC LIFE: So you don’t see a conflict between your being on  a board that has funded these things, as public knowledge, and your personal beliefs about this?

GEORGE: My record is very clear. I will not discuss with you confidential matters that go on in the Bradley Board. The Bradley Foundation does fund many, many different  organizations. Some of them are run by Muslims, some of them are trying to advance good relations between Muslims and other American citizens and that’s all I have to say on the matter.

As you can see, George refused to discuss the issue, but didn’t deny the facts. He apparently thinks it’s acceptable to simultaneously stand up for Muslims’ religious freedom in public and participate in the work of an organization that’s trying to dismantle that very right. George might not see an ethical conflict here, but we do, and we’d be interested to see if the Muslim Americans he works with see that contradiction as well.

Here’s a reminder of who the people the Bradley Foundation funds, via the Fear, Inc. report:

David Horowitz

  • Described Muslims in the Middle East as “Islamic Nazis” who “want to kill Jews, that’s their agenda.”
  • Alleges that Muslim Student Associations at American schools “are Wahhabi Islamicists, and they basically support our enemies.”
  • Promulgates the debunked smear that 80% of U.S. mosques are controlled by radicals

Daniel Pipes

  • Describes his Legal Project website as “a source of information on ‘Islamist lawfare’–that is, attempts by supporters of radical Islam to suppress free discourse on Islam and terrorism by (1) exploiting Western legal systems and traditions and (2) recruiting state actors and international organizations such as the United Nations.”
  • Claims President Obama is a former Muslim who “practiced Islam.”

Frank Gaffney

  • Said “It is now public knowledge that nearly every major Muslim organization in the United States is actually controlled by the MB [Muslim Brotherhood] or a derivative organization. Consequently, most of the Muslim American groups of any prominence in America are now known to be, as a matter of fact, hostile to the United States and its Constitution.”
  • Alleged that there is “mounting evidence that the president not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself.”
  • Believes that conservative paragon Grover Norquist is running a “Muslim Brotherhood influence operation” to infiltrate the conservative movement.

Frank Gaffney Links The Center For American Progress To The Muslim Brotherhood

Frank Gaffney

Frank Gaffney Links The Center For American Progress To The Muslim Brotherhood

By Eli Clifton

The Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney and “lawfare” expert Andrew McCarthy offered their response to the Center for American Progress’ Islamophobia report, “Fear, Inc.“, in a 10-minute segment on Gaffney’s radio show this week.

Gaffney and McCarthy, who both are mentioned in CAP’s report as part of the influential “Islamophobia network,” make a series of unfounded allegations against CAP and the report.

McCarthy, the author of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America, has made no secret of his dislike for Muslims and progressives. His eagerness to create a grand-conspiracy between the two was on full display during the interview.

But Gaffney and McCarthy take a turn into uncharted, and wildly unsubstantiated, territory when they float the theory that the CAP report was, as Frank Gaffney declares, a product of “a red-green axis between George Soros’ friends and beneficiaries on the radical left like the Center for American Progress and the Islamists, the Muslim Brotherhood most notably.”

Listen here (Gaffney’s theory of a “red-green axis” starts at 3:45):

Gaffney, and his allies like Robert Spencer and David Horowitz, have been desperate to paint Fear, Inc. and CAP as a radical institution aligned with violent Islamists. But their attempts to make their fantasies a reality has resulted in some bizarre attempts at guilt-by-association.

Gaffney, McCarthy, and most critics of the report — Islamophobe Pamela Geller said the authors should “choke on their own vomit” — are eager to discredit CAP and the report’s authors using factually baseless attack and wildly speculative conspiracy theories. McCarthy responded to Gaffney’s “red-green axis” theory that, “the evidence [that radical Islamists and the Center for American Progress] cooperate is so strong, that the real question that the interesting quesiton is ‘why this happened’ not ‘whether it happened.’

Conveniently, neither McCarthy nor Gaffney provide any actual evidence of this bizarre theory. But the report does show plenty of evidence of their hostility toward American Muslims. In 2009, Gaffney announced there is “mounting evidence that the president not only identifies with Muslims but may actually be one himself” and, after the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) banned Gaffney for making baseless accusations against board members, he declared that the Muslim Brotherhood had “infiltrated” CPAC.

While Gaffney might be finding fewer friendly audiences for his anti-Muslim conspiracy theories, he and his friends still have a home on AM radio, every weeknight.