This is a good example of why we must not allow Sharia Law to be recognized by our U.S. court system. The Egyptian Islamic cleric and chairman of the International Union of Muslim Scholars — “We will colonize you with your democratic laws” — will come true. This is Stealth Jihad. Nancy
EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE: Jihad by court is one of the favorite means of the organizations and individuals ideologically linked with the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in the West and sometimes is connected with the accusation of Islamophobia. The strategy is clear: any journalist, writer, intellectual, academic, activist or any newspaper, organization, association criticizing or exposing a Muslim Brotherhood individual or organization is very likely to be sued for defamation.The Legal Projectof the Middle East Forum, based in the U.S., has given a very useful definition of this tactic:
Such lawsuits are often predatory, filed without a serious expectation of winning, but undertaken as a means to bankrupt, distract, intimidate, and demoralize defendants. Plaintiffs seek less to prevail in the courtroom than to wear down researchers and analysts. Even when the latter win cases, they pay heavily in time, money, and spirit. As counterterrorism specialistSteven Emersoncomments, “Legal action has become a mainstay of radical Islamist organizations seeking to intimidate and silence their critics.” Islamists clearly hope,Douglas Farahnotes, that researchers will “get tired of the cost and the hassle [of lawsuits] and simply shut up.”
French intellectuals, journalists, officials do not yet understand that they must organize, raise funds and elaborate strategies with lawyers to counter this threat. No one can compete individually against court by jihad. If an organized counter-strategy is not elaborated, thepredictionof Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Egyptian Islamic cleric and chairman of the International Union of Muslim Scholars — “We will colonize you with your democratic laws” — will come true.
The goal of this trial is to create judicial precedent: to ensure that in the future, any criticism or insult against Islamism must be considered “racism”.
Valentina Colombo, a professor at the European University in Rome, warned early on about jihad by court. In 2009, she wrote that, “The lawsuit that was initiated by The Union of the Islamic Organizations of France and the Great Mosque of Paris against the satirical magazine ‘Charlie Hebdo’ for republishing the Danish cartoons about Muhammad is one of the most recent examples of this kind of jihad.” But nobody paid attention to the warning. And when jihadists came in 2015 to murder eight journalists and cartoonists, nobody understood that “jihad by court” is only the first step.
“Legal action has become a mainstay of radical Islamist organizations seeking to intimidate and silence their critics.” — Steven Emerson, Founder and President of The Investigative
“Gays for Trump” had submitted an application to display a float during this year’s Charlotte Pride parade.
“It was going to support Donald Trump,” group spokesman Derek Van Cleve told me. “It was going to be a patriotic float with American flags and a few ‘Make America Great Again’ flags.”
He also said the float would be populated with a number of drag queens – dressed as Uncle Sam and the Statue of Liberty.
“We wanted to have a couple of drag queens on the float dancing in ‘Make America Great Again’ dresses,” he said.
“All we wanted to do is let the community know the gay community does not speak for every single gay – just like the mayor of Pittsburgh does not speak for every single person in Pittsburgh,” Mr. Van Cleve said.
“Not every single lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender citizen is anti-Trump,” he said. “Some of us love him and some of us support him – including myself.”
A little over four years ago the University of Colorado, Boulder began a three-year pilot program that I believe has no precedent in American higher education. With the help of private donors, and the support of the university’s board, president, and chancellor, the school created the position of Visiting Scholar of Conservative Thought and Policy.
According to its supporters, the chair’s purpose is to advance that type of diversity—political and ideological diversity—that seems a natural fit for a public academic institution that has the motto, “Let Your Light Shine.”
With its fifth year beginning in the fall of 2017, it is safe to say that this is no longer a pilot program, but a permanent fixture of the university. I was honored to have served as the 2016-17 occupant of the chair, which is a full-time faculty appointment with a regular 2-2 course load.
With all my grades now turned in, I’d like to offer some reflections on my time in Boulder.
Kimberley Strassel
Author,The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech
Kimberley Strassel writes the weekly “Potomac Watch” column for TheWall Street Journal, where she is also a member of the editorial board. A graduate of Princeton University, her previous positions at theJournalinclude news assistant in Brussels, internet reporter in London, commercial real estate reporter in New York, assistant editorial features editor, columnist for OpinionJournal.com, and senior editorial page writer. In 2013 she served as a Pulliam Distinguished Visiting Fellow at Hillsdale College, and in 2014 she was a recipient of the Bradley Prize. She is the author ofThe Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech.
The following is adapted from a speech delivered on April 26, 2017, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series.
EXCERPT FROM THIS SPEECH: We need to think hard about ways to limit the powers of the administrative state, tostop rogue agents at the IRS and other agencies from trampling on free speech rights. We can make great progress simply by cutting the size of federal and state bureaucracies. But beyond that, we need to conduct systematic reviews of agency powers and strip from unaccountable bureaucracies any discretion over the political activities of Americans. The IRS should be doing what it was created to do—making sure taxpayers fill out their forms correctly. Period.
Another example of the unacceptable intolerance of the Left on college campuses. Robert Spencer writes for www.JihadWatch.org and I have sent out many of his articles regarding terrorism, Sharia Law, The Muslim Brotherhood, and Islam . Nancy
Last night I appeared at the University of Buffalo at the invitation of the courageous students of Young Americans for Freedom, who have to put up with this Left-fascist thuggery on a daily basis, while I left Buffalo this morning. I say I “appeared,” because to say “I spoke” would be exaggerating a bit. Rather, I started a few sentences, made a couple of points, in between being screamed at by Leftist and Islamic supremacist fascists who think they’re opposing fascism.
The Spectrum article below is not that bad a report from the campus newspaper, showing the Left-fascist opposition to the freedom of speech, with a few exceptions: I am not a “self-proclaimed expert on radical Islam,” as I have never proclaimed myself an expert on anything, and my work stands or falls on the basis of the evidence from the Qur’an and Sunnah, history and current events. Nor do I ever speak about “radical Islam,” which is a Western construct that does not exist in the Islamic world. And I didn’t call the fascists “uninformed fascists”; although they are indeed uninformed and think they know a great deal more than they actually do, I didn’t use that word. Finally, the reporters Ashley Inkumsah and Sarah Crowley wrote that I was “unphased” by the screaming fascists, when I was actually “unfazed.”
That said, I am grateful to Ashley Inkumsah and Sarah Crowley for a generally accurate report. Note the claims of victimhood trotted out yet again by the Muslims quoted in the article. They have hoodwinked the University of Buffalo Left-fascists into thinking that it’s “Islamophobes,” rather than jihad terrorists, who are killing people around the world. And that is one thing I said last night, although it is doubtful that the fascists heard it: the guy holding the sign “Queers Against Islamophobia” and any feminists in the audience have no idea what they’re enabling. By shutting down any discussion of the motivating ideology of the jihad threat and consigning it all to the realm of “hatred” and “bigotry,” they are only enabling that threat to grow, and one day, they may very well experience the consequences of their actions firsthand.
Bigot, racist, islamophobe, xenophobe, not who we are as a nation, global citizen, safe spaces, civil society, social justice, inhumane, diversity – These are just some of the words we hear every day from the Cultural Marxists whose goal is to change our way of thinking about any issue that they want to control.
If we understand what their goals are, then we have a much better chance of being able to fight their insidious ideology. Nancy
Cultural Marxist academics, their sycophant students, and the main stream media are at war with America—a war of violent Marxist ideology and a war of cleverly chosen words and euphemisms that appear time and time again in many college courses, high school classes, in propaganda literature, newspapers, conferences, and in the manufactured news. Cultural Marxists are regular guests on all the alphabet soup networks masquerading as real news, spewing their hatred, their disdain and disrespect for our President, and their calls to renewed violence in the streets through their masked Black Shirts.
As David Horrowitz said, “Worse yet, this is the dominant culture in our universities, in our media, in our judiciary, in government, in unions, and in the shadow political universe of non-profits, with billions of tax-free dollars at their disposal.”
Language is a powerful tool of discourse, mass political indoctrination and agitation. Marxist Democrats are quite adept at using inflammatory language and deceptive euphemisms to suit their nefarious political ends.
Thanks to John Pizzo for sharing the brilliance of Andrew Breitbart. Since Andrew Breitbart was once a liberal in college, he understood their ideology and was able to expose exactly what they where trying to accomplish and to warn against it. Nancy
This helps to understand the positions of all the candidates in the French presidential race. This French election has important implications for the future of France, the EU and the Muslim migrant issue. Nancy
“What poses a problem is not Islam, but certain behaviors that are said to be religious and then imposed on persons who practice that religion.” — Emmanuel Macron
“Those who come to France are to accept France, not to transform it to the image of their country of origin. If they want to live at home, they should have stayed at home.” — Marine Le Pen
“It [France] is one nation that has a right to choose who can join it and a right that foreigners accept its rules and customs. — François Fillon
Jean-Luc Mélenchon has called for a massive increase in public spending, a 90% tax on anyone earning more than €400,000 ($425,000) a year, and an across-the-board increase in the minimum wage by 16% to €1,326 ($1,400) net a month, based on a 35-hour work week.
Benoît Hamon has promised to establish a universal basic income: he wants to pay every French citizen over 18, regardless of whether or not they are employed, a government-guaranteed monthly income of €750 ($800). The annual cost to taxpayers would be €400 billion ($430 billion). By comparison, France’s 2017 defense budget is €32.7 billion ($40 billion).
Voters in France will go to the polls on April 23 to choose the country’s next president in a two-step process. The top two winners in the first round will compete in a run-off on May 7.
The election is being closely followed in France and elsewhere as an indicator of popular discontent with mainstream parties and the European Union, as well as with multiculturalism and continued mass migration from the Muslim world.
We all might want to take a trip down memory lane to when Glenn Beck had an hour show on Fox News at 5 pm. I learned so much from Glenn about George Soros and his Open Society Foundations and Obama. I stopped whatever I was doing at 5 pm and sat down with an extra large glass of wine as Beck pulled back the curtain with his chalkboard for all to see how the One World Government powers and Socialism were taking hold in our country. Fox News was pressured to push Glenn Beck out too supposedly because of pressure from sponsors. The Left wanted to shut down Beck because the public was learning too much about what really goes on in the world of the Puppet Masters.
For the last year or two O’Reilly has been more critical of the Left and now he has been shut down too. Do we see a pattern here ? The following is an excerpt from Rush Limbaugh’s commentary about what really happened to Bill O’Reilly. To read the entire article , please click on the link. Thanks to Lynn Ross of South Carolina for sharing. Nancy
Ask Yourself Why Left-Wing Media Personalities Are Never the Target of Advertiser Boycotts
Apr 20, 2017
EXCERPT FROM RUSH’S COMMENTARY:
The way this works is this. The New York Times runs a story, and the story talks about how valuable O’Reilly is to Fox News and how much money O’Reilly is generating, and this irritates everybody that reads the New York Times. They don’t want to see this. They don’t want to see how successful O’Reilly is. They don’t want to see how big Fox is ’cause they hate it. They hate Fox, they hate O’Reilly, they don’t want to see any of this. And the New York Times pounds ’em with how much money O’Reilly is making, how much money he’s generating for Fox, how powerful Fox is, and they see as they read this.
And then the New York Times lowers the boom and points out that O’Reilly is a serial whatever and has paid off $13 million to other women to shut up. There has to be an outlet for the anger. Then what happens is where the real story begins. And it is not that advertisers are reading the New York Times and going, “Oh, my God, I can’t have my product there,” and they call their agency and say, “You get us out of there.” That is not how it happened. That is what they want you to think happens, but that’s not how it happens.
The advertisers are not taking the initiative here. The advertisers are themselves being inundated with what they think is tens of thousands of complaint emails and tweets from people they believe represent tens of thousands of legitimately angry citizens. When in truth it is a bunch of bots, Facebook bots and Twitter bots that may have been generated by no more than 10 people, made to look like tens of thousands. And that’s all she wrote.
The Islamic terrorist front group that transformed the way U.S. law enforcement agencies conduct anti-terrorism training isorderingthe Air Force to sever ties with an instructor it considers to be anti-Muslim. The question is will the Trump administration cave into its demands? Under Barack Obama, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group that reportedly raises money for Hamas, wielded tremendous power and managed to bully law enforcement agencies at the local, state and federal level to alter counterterrorism training materials deemed by the group to discriminate against Muslims.
This includes getting the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to purge anti-terrorism training curricula of material determined to be “offensive” to Muslims. Judicial Watch uncovered that scandal and obtained theFBI records. Based on troves of government documents, Judicial Watch subsequently published a special, in-depthreporton the scandal. CAIR is not specifically named but the records show that an undisclosed group of “Subject Matter Experts” (SME) determined the federal training material was offensive to Muslims. CAIR also got police departments in Illinois toeliminateanti-terrorism training materials and instructors deemed anti-Muslim. As an example, CAIR asserted that an instructor for the Lombard, Illinois police force wrote an article years earlier that included disparaging comments about the Prophet Muhammad. The course was called “Islamic Awareness as a Counter-Terrorist Strategy” and departments in Lombard, Elmhurst and Highland Park caved into CAIR’s demands.
Kimberley Strassel writes the weekly “Potomac Watch” column for The
And then the New York Times lowers the boom and points out that O’Reilly is a serial whatever and has paid off $13 million to other women to shut up. There has to be an outlet for the anger. Then what happens is where the real story begins. And it is not that advertisers are reading the New York Times and going, “Oh, my God, I can’t have my product there,” and they call their agency and say, “You get us out of there.” That is not how it happened. That is what they want you to think happens, but that’s not how it happens.