Germany finds 1500 cases of child marriage among Muslim migrants | Jihad Watch

What exactly did the Germans expect? Few things are more abundantly attested in Islamic law than the permissibility of child marriage. Islamic tradition records that Muhammad’s favorite wife, Aisha, was six when Muhammad wedded her and nine when he consummated the marriage:

“The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)” (Bukhari 7.62.88).

Another tradition has Aisha herself recount the scene:

The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Bukhari 5.58.234).

Muhammad was at this time fifty-four years old.

Marrying young girls was not all that unusual for its time, but because in Islam Muhammad is the supreme example of conduct (cf. Qur’an 33:21), he is considered exemplary in this unto today. And so in April 2011, the Bangladesh Mufti Fazlul Haque Amini declared that those trying to pass a law banning child marriage in that country were putting Muhammad in a bad light: “Banning child marriage will cause challenging the marriage of the holy prophet of Islam, [putting] the moral character of the prophet into controversy and challenge.” He added a threat: “Islam permits child marriage and it will not be tolerated if any ruler will ever try to touch this issue in the name of giving more rights to women.” The Mufti said that 200,000 jihadists were ready to sacrifice their lives for any law restricting child marriage.

Likewise the influential website Islamonline.com in December 2010 justified child marriage by invoking not only Muhammad’s example, but the Qur’an as well:

The Noble Qur’an has also mentioned the waiting period [i.e. for a divorced wife to remarry] for the wife who has not yet menstruated, saying: “And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women, if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated” [Qur’an 65:4]. Since this is not negated later, we can take from this verse that it is permissible to have sexual intercourse with a prepubescent girl. The Qur’an is not like the books of jurisprudence which mention what the implications of things are, even if they are prohibited. It is true that the prophet entered into a marriage contract with A’isha when she was six years old, however he did not have sex with her until she was nine years old, according to al-Bukhari.

Other countries make Muhammad’s example the basis of their laws regarding the legal marriageable age for girls. Article 1041 of the Civil Code of the Islamic Republic of Iran states that girls can be engaged before the age of nine, and married at nine: “Marriage before puberty (nine full lunar years for girls) is prohibited. Marriage contracted before reaching puberty with the permission of the guardian is valid provided that the interests of the ward are duly observed.”

According to Amir Taheri in The Spirit of Allah: Khomeini and the Islamic Revolution (pp. 90-91), Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini himself married a ten-year-old girl when he was twenty-eight. Khomeini called marriage to a prepubescent girl “a divine blessing,” and advised the faithful to give their own daughters away accordingly: “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.” When he took power in Iran, he lowered the legal marriageable age of girls to nine, in accord with Muhammad’s example.

“Germany Moves To Ban Child Marriages After Finding 1500 Cases Among Refugees,” by Jacob Bojesson, Daily Caller, April 5, 2017:

 

Source : Jihad Watch 


America at War

For 1400 years Muslims have terrorized civilized people all over the planet in the name of their “religion”. I use the term religion very loosely here. Because Islam is not really a religion at all. It is more of a political system, which is controlled by their religious leaders.

Sharia Law supersedes ANY laws written by man, including the Constitution of the United States, and including the Bill of Rights. There is no such thing as “Freedom of Speech” in a country which is controlled by Sharia Law.

If you express a view which is contrary to Sharia Law, or that is critical of Islam then you are put to death! That’s it. You see………. under Sharia Law you don’t have to be a Muslim to be expected to follow these laws, they apply to everyone! (In the minds of Muslims) 

So they have created a “religion” here that expects submission from ALL. At the end of the day believers consider themselves superior to you and I. They believe we are here merely to “serve” them and to make their life easier. Violence is acceptable under just about any circumstance, especially when dealing with non-muslims. Make a joke about Islam and you are killed.

For 1400 years Muslim marauders have raped, looted, and killed people of other faiths all over the World. They have destroyed countless Churches, Temples, and Religious Artifacts. Literally destroying priceless monuments along with historical buildings, and writings. For NO REASON other than the conquered people were something other than Muslim. It continues TODAY!

56ffcedfc36188fe4d8b4581

Palmyra Syria / ISIS

Here is a link to a video I found on Youtube that shows 12 of the more recent crimes against humanity committed  by ISIS

12 Historical Treasures In The Middle East DESTROYED!

 

If you track the news daily I’d like to issue you a challenge :  To find a single day in which a Christian Church is not destroyed by Muslims. To find a single day in which Muslims do not kill non-muslims for no other reason than being of another religion.

I made that challenge to myself several years ago, and I have yet to find a single day in which both did not occur. That should really sink in to you. EVERY single day Muslims murder in the name of Islam. EVERY single day Muslims destroy holy sites belonging to other religions.

And EVERY single day underage girls and grown women alike are sexually abused, raped, and murdered by men who believe they have the “Right” to do so under “Sharia Law”.

And EVERY single day Muslims worldwide strive to spread Sharia Law to every corner of the globe. And they will never stop, until YOU are forced to live under Sharia Law!

I harbor no ill-will towards ANYONE, but anyone thinking they’ll be strong arming me into following the rules of a religion I don’t believe in has another think coming!

I really don’t care if you choose to worship a rock………… as long as you don’t have intentions of forcing me to worship it with you! Freedom and Islam CANNOT coexist. I hope that you will stay informed on the battle for the planet, that rages on every single day……. Between Muslims and non-muslims.

Arm yourself with the information you need, and that the liberal media hides from you. Subscribe to Creeping Sharia

https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/

The Civil War is Here

The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

A civil war has begun.

This civil war is very different than the last one. There are no cannons or cavalry charges. The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule. Political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority. The left has rejected all forms of authority that it doesn’t control.

The left has rejected the outcome of the last two presidential elections won by Republicans. It has rejected the judicial authority of the Supreme Court when it decisions don’t accord with its agenda. It rejects the legislative authority of Congress when it is not dominated by the left.

It rejected the Constitution so long ago that it hardly bears mentioning.

It was for total unilateral executive authority under Obama. And now it’s for states unilaterally deciding what laws they will follow. (As long as that involves defying immigration laws under Trump, not following them under Obama.) It was for the sacrosanct authority of the Senate when it held the majority. Then it decried the Senate as an outmoded institution when the Republicans took it over.

It was for Obama defying the orders of Federal judges, no matter how well grounded in existing law, and it is for Federal judges overriding any order by Trump on any grounds whatsoever. It was for Obama penalizing whistleblowers, but now undermining the government from within has become “patriotic”.

There is no form of legal authority that the left accepts as a permanent institution. It only utilizes forms of authority selectively when it controls them. But when government officials refuse the orders of the duly elected government because their allegiance is to an ideology whose agenda is in conflict with the President and Congress, that’s not activism, protest, politics or civil disobedience; it’s treason.

After losing Congress, the left consolidated its authority in the White House. After losing the White House, the left shifted its center of authority to Federal judges and unelected government officials. Each defeat led the radicalized Democrats to relocate from more democratic to less democratic institutions.

This isn’t just hypocrisy. That’s a common political sin. Hypocrites maneuver within the system. The left has no allegiance to the system. It accepts no laws other than those dictated by its ideology.

Democrats have become radicalized by the left. This doesn’t just mean that they pursue all sorts of bad policies. It means that their first and foremost allegiance is to an ideology, not the Constitution, not our country or our system of government. All of those are only to be used as vehicles for their ideology.

That’s why compromise has become impossible.

Our system of government was designed to allow different groups to negotiate their differences. But those differences were supposed to be based around finding shared interests. The most profound of these shared interests was that of a common country based around certain civilizational values. The left has replaced these Founding ideas with radically different notions and principles. It has rejected the primary importance of the country. As a result it shares little in the way of interests or values.

Instead it has retreated to cultural urban and suburban enclaves where it has centralized tremendous amounts of power while disregarding the interests and values of most of the country. If it considers them at all, it is convinced that they will shortly disappear to be replaced by compliant immigrants and college indoctrinated leftists who will form a permanent demographic majority for its agenda.

But it couldn’t wait that long because it is animated by the conviction that enforcing its ideas is urgent and inevitable. And so it turned what had been a hidden transition into an open break.

In the hidden transition, its authority figures had hijacked the law and every political office they held to pursue their ideological agenda. The left had used its vast cultural power to manufacture a consensus that was slowly transitioning the country from American values to its values and agendas. The right had proven largely impotent in the face of a program which corrupted and subverted from within.

The left was enormously successful in this regard. It was so successful that it lost all sense of proportion and decided to be open about its views and to launch a political power struggle after losing an election.

The Democrats were no longer being slowly injected with leftist ideology. Instead the left openly took over and demanded allegiance to open borders, identity politics and environmental fanaticism. The exodus of voters wiped out the Democrats across much of what the left deemed flyover country.

The left responded to democratic defeats by retreating deeper into undemocratic institutions, whether it was the bureaucracy or the corporate media, while doubling down on its political radicalism. It is now openly defying the outcome of a national election using a coalition of bureaucrats, corporations, unelected officials, celebrities and reporters that are based out of its cultural and political enclaves.

It has responded to a lost election by constructing sanctuary cities and states thereby turning a cultural and ideological secession into a legal secession. But while secessionists want to be left alone authoritarians want everyone to follow their laws. The left is an authoritarian movement that wants total compliance with its dictates with severe punishments for those who disobey.

The left describes its actions as principled. But more accurately they are ideological. Officials at various levels of government have rejected the authority of the President of the United States, of Congress and of the Constitution because those are at odds with their radical ideology. Judges have cloaked this rejection in law. Mayors and governors are not even pretending that their actions are lawful.

The choices of this civil war are painfully clear.

We can have a system of government based around the Constitution with democratically elected representatives. Or we can have one based on the ideological principles of the left in which all laws and processes, including elections and the Constitution, are fig leaves for enforcing social justice.

But we cannot have both.

Some civil wars happen when a political conflict can’t be resolved at the political level. The really bad ones happen when an irresolvable political conflict combines with an irresolvable cultural conflict.

That is what we have now.

The left has made it clear that it will not accept the lawful authority of our system of government. It will not accept the outcome of elections. It will not accept these things because they are at odds with its ideology and because they represent the will of large portions of the country whom they despise.

The question is what comes next.

The last time around growing tensions began to explode in violent confrontations between extremists on both sides. These extremists were lauded by moderates who mainstreamed their views. The first Republican president was elected and rejected. The political tensions led to conflict and then civil war.

The left doesn’t believe in secession. It’s an authoritarian political movement that has lost democratic authority. There is now a political power struggle underway between the democratically elected officials and the undemocratic machinery of government aided by a handful of judges and local elected officials.

What this really means is that there are two competing governments; the legal government and a treasonous anti-government of the left. If this political conflict progresses, agencies and individuals at every level of government will be asked to demonstrate their allegiance to these two competing governments. And that can swiftly and explosively transform into an actual civil war.

There is no sign that the left understands or is troubled by the implications of the conflict it has initiated. And there are few signs that Democrats properly understand the dangerous road that the radical left is drawing them toward. The left assumes that the winners of a democratic election will back down rather than stand on their authority. It is unprepared for the possibility that democracy won’t die in darkness.

Civil wars end when one side is forced to accept the authority of the other. The left expects everyone to accept its ideological authority. Conservatives expect the left to accept Constitutional authority. The conflict is still political and cultural. It’s being fought in the media and within the government. But if neither side backs down, then it will go beyond words as both sides give contradictory orders.

The left is a treasonous movement. The Democrats became a treasonous organization when they fell under the sway of a movement that rejects our system of government, its laws and its elections. Now their treason is coming to a head. They are engaged in a struggle for power against the government. That’s not protest. It’s not activism. The old treason of the sixties has come of age. A civil war has begun.

This is a primal conflict between a totalitarian system and a democratic system. Its outcome will determine whether we will be a free nation or a nation of slaves.

Source : FRONTPAGE MAG


America at War

Follows Daniel Greenfield and FRONTPAGE MAG and hopes that you do too!!!

Companies That Might Build Trump’s Wall Threatened by California Politicians


The New American

Thursday, 23 March 2017
Written by 

 

“The state’s contracting and investment practices should reflect the values of our state,” California state Representative Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher (D-San Diego) declared in explaining her co-authorship of Assembly Bill 946, designed to punish any construction company that participates in the building of a wall between Mexico and the United States, as envisioned by President Donald Trump.

“It’s clear the people of California don’t want to invest in the hateful values that the Trump wall represents,” Fletcher added.

Fletcher’s bill would dictate that the state’s two large pension systems — the California Public Employee Retirement System and the California State Teachers Retirement System — liquidate in companies that help build the wall. The total investment of the two retirement funds is $312 billion and $202 billion, respectively.

The bill was introduced after the U.S. Customs and Border Protection asked for design proposals for the anticipated 2,000-mile-long wall.

Carter Financial Group

We will help achieve your financial goals and will give you sound guidance

http://carterfinancial.fixedincomecounsel.com

The bill’s co-author, Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), another Democrat member of the Assembly (the lower house in the California Legislature), argued, “Californians build bridges, not walls. This is a wall of shame and we don’t want any part of it. Immigrant stories are the history of America, and this is a nightmare.”

Eduardo Garcia (D-Coachella) is the third author of the bill.

Both retirement systems are presently in financial difficulty. The California Public Employees’ Retirement System has performed particularly poorly the past two years, earning a dismal 2.4 percent in 2014-15, and an even worse 0.6 percent in the last fiscal year. This has contributed to the ballooning fiscal problems of the nation’s largest pension system, leaving it with about $100 billion in unfunded liabilities.

The teachers’ retirement system is not much better. It earned a return of 4.8 percent in 2014-15, then fell off to only 1.4 percent in 2015-16. This has left it with unfunded liabilities of more than $70 billion.

Open borders advocates are active not only at the state capitol, but in many of the liberal cities of the state as well. Two San Francisco city supervisors are pushing a proposal to cut off investments in construction businesses that even bid for a federal contract to participate in the building of the wall. Hillary Ronen defended the proposal put forward by herself and fellow City Supervisor Aaron Peskin in a tweet, stating that her bill was not just some “symbolic protest.” She asserted that the proposed ordinance reflected San Francisco’s “deepest values.”

New York state legislator Nily Rozic has introduced a similar measure for the Empire State, and this is an effort that is expected to spread to other liberal-dominated states and municipalities.

It is too early to know whether many, if any, construction firms will choose to give up the chance for a lucrative government contract to build the wall, fearing divestiture legislation and ordinances. A French construction firm, Vinci, has already announced it is not interested in joining in the wall’s construction. Vinci CEO Xavier Huillard told French television that this is not intended as a “value judgment on the United States,” insisting that “we prefer not to touch this wall.”

If the city of San Francisco does pass an ordinance to divest from any company that either bids to help or actually builds the proposed wall, then it would indicate that the city’s political leaders are strongly committed to the concept of open borders. It was in San Francisco that an illegal alien murdered Kate Steinle near the San Francisco Pier. Her family sued the former sheriff of San Francisco, arguing that he failed to follow laws that would have kept her killer locked up. Yet, the open borders agenda is so popular with the left-wing California establishment that it continues unabated.

The San Diego Union-Tribune questioned the wisdom of using investment policies “for political posturing.” In an editorial, it argued that “the agencies should focus on strong returns, not virtue-signaling.”

But it appears that the authors of the divestment legislation care more about the maintenance of open borders than they do about either protecting American citizens and legal residents from criminals, or making sure California’s state employees and public school teachers enjoy well-funded retirement programs.

Source : The New American

Written by 


 

America at War

Liberals…………… You cannot get along with them, and you can’t shoot em!!!

In the America of today, where Washington has us all (and our children, and even their children) in DEBT……….. This seems like a wonderful use of public funds!!! Does it not???

Hopefully we’ll be seeing mad liberals for quite a while yet!!!

Get the wall built and shut up!!!

And once the wall is built ENFORCE OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS!!!

Nobody is doing anything that is unlawful here, with the exception of those refusing to enforce legally legislated LAWS!!! If you don’t like a law you have the right to VOTE for a representative who agrees with you and who will try to change the law.

You DO NOT have the right to pick and choose which laws you’ll enforce!!!

EVERY public official who refuses to enforce legally legislated laws should be prosecuted for “obstruction of justice”

By that I mean EVERY mayor of EVERY sanctuary city in America, and including any and ALL government employees who refuse to do their jobs!!! They should be FIRED and then PROSECUTED.

Today’s government employees seem to think they can decide which laws they’ll enforce, and which they won’t. That’s simply not how it works guys!!! And it’s time that someone puts them in check.

SUPPORT THE ENFORCEMENT OF AMERICA’S IMMIGRATION LAWS!!!

PLEASE do your part by signing petitions and by supporting organizations dedicated to immigration enforcement!!! Here are some great sites to sign up with :

1.) Numbers USA : https://www.numbersusa.com/

2.) FAIR : http://www.fairus.org/action/your_state

3.) Creeping Sharia : https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/

Set up an account to be sure you receive the latest immigration news. Be sure to sign petitions circulated by these groups, and SHARE THEM!!! The only person that can help America is YOU!!!

Conservative Thinker

 

The Obama Administration’s Parting Shot Towards Israel: A Multi-Million Dollar Giveaway to Terror

By Harry G. Hutchison1 month ago

Just when you think it couldn’t get more outrageous, we find out that mere hours before President Donald Trump took the oath of office, the Obama Administration brazenly released $221 million to the Palestinian Authority, one of the leading sponsors of terror in the Middle East.

Just weeks before this decision, President Obama’s Administration commenced its attacks on Israel and its democratically elected leaders. It did so by refusing to veto a United Nation Security Council (U.N.) resolution that preposterously claimed that Jewish settlements and the Jewish Quarter (in Jerusalem) are occupied territory. This betrayal was hidden behind a diaphanous fig leaf: the shaky claim that settlements are a barrier to peace rather than the Palestinians’ refusal to accept Israel’s right to exist as a profoundly Jewish State. This move served to embolden Israel’s enemies……………..

Read the Full Story and Sign the Petition at : ACLJ.org

Source : ACLJ.org


The ACLJ does good work. I suggest that everyone sign up today!!! Stay informed and help the ACLJ to  make the voices of Americans heard!!!

Canadian poll: Only 14% like anti-Islamophobia motion M-103

Hate in America

hate-horizontal

If you don’t read anything else this week, you should take the time to read this 3 part series on “hate”.

 

If someone went by the claims of “Black Lives Matter” and the “Southern Poverty Law Center” then they would believe that any minority person in America is in grave danger at all times.

They would believe that Churches across America are nothing more than places for racists to gather and think up ways to discriminate against people.

Since Obama became President in 2008 you can no longer disagree politically with ANY minority, especially Barrack Obama or you become a “racist”. The liberal media will proudly label you as a racist, and parade you on television for all to see.

They will tell their viewers that racism is to blame any time you disagree with any Democrat who happens to be a minority. And if you don’t believe the Federal government should pay for abortions then you “Hate women” and are labeled a sexist pig. Immediately they’ll throw out the phrase  “War on Women” that has become so popular to describe those who don’t believe the Federal Government should pay for abortions.

The liberal media loves to quote the “Southern Poverty Law Center” who will label anyone the Democratic Party dislikes a “Racist” or a “Hate Group”.

I’ve learned to ignore the liberal media. I’ve called for boycotts of their advertisers to try making them tell the truth. And I’ve exposed 1000’s of lies they have told to Americans on the evening news. But none of it helps because they still lie, and some Americans still believe them.

Under the Obama Administration the SPLC was even advising the Justice Department. I cannot stress to you enough that the people at the SPLC are nothing more than a political group that is used as a weapon against anyone who disagrees with the politics of the left.

I want to share with all of you a 3 part series of articles highlighting “Hate Groups in America which are supported and funded by the Left. Written by a much better writer than myself, John Perazzo over at FRONTPAGE MAG.

I hope you’ll take the time to read them all. There is a lot of information contained in these 3 articles. Information showing how the left supports and uses “Hate” as a tool against political rivals and anyone else who stands in their way. I’m sure glad that FRONTPAGE MAG  did this series to illustrate political use of hatred in America.

vd3a0jcp

 


The Hate Group That Tracks Down ‘Hate Groups’

The despicable Southern Poverty Law Center.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) was founded in 1971 by two Alabama attorneys, Morris Dees and Joseph Levin Jr. The latter served as the Center’s legal director from 1971-76, but it was Dees, who views the U.S. as an irredeemably racist nation, who would emerge as the long-term “face” of the organization.

Identifying itself as a “nonprofit civil rights organization” committed to “fighting hate and bigotry” while “seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society,” SPLC describes the United States as a country “seething with racial violence” and “intolerance against those who are different.” “Hate in America is a dreadful, daily constant,” says the Center, and violent crimes against members of minority groups like blacks, Latinos, homosexuals, and Arabs/Muslims “are not ‘isolated incidents,’” but rather, commonplace. To combat this ugly state of affairs, SPLC dedicates itself to “tracking and exposing the activities of “hate groups and other domestic extremists” throughout the United States. Specifically, the Center’s “Hate & Extremism” initiative publishes its findings in SPLC’s Hatewatch Blog and in its quarterly journal, the Intelligence Report.

SPLC first gained widespread national recognition in 1987, when it won a $7 million verdict in a high-profile civil lawsuit against the United Klans of America (UKA). By the time that lawsuit was filed, UKA was already a destitute, impotent, disintegrating entity that virtually all white Americans emphatically rejected; the SPLC lawsuit merely drove the final nail into the UKA coffin. SPLC boasts that it has likewise won “crushing jury verdicts” that effectively shut down groups like the White Aryan Resistance, the White Patriot Party militia, and the Aryan Nations.

This has been SPLC’s modus operandi since its inception: to initiate lawsuits against prominent hate groups for crimes that their individual members commit. In these suits, declares Morris Dees proudly: “We absolutely take no prisoners. When we get into a legal fight we go all the way.” The leftist writer Ken Silverstein, who in 2000 wrote a penetrating exposé of SPLC for Harper’s magazine, has noted that the targets of these lawsuits tend to be “mediagenic villains” who are “eager to show off their swastikas for the news cameras.” As Dees and SPLC well understand, such figures stand the best chance of triggering an emotional public response that translates, in turn, into financial contributions from donors eager to combat the perceived threat.

SPLC claims that there are currently 892 active “hate groups” in the U.S. Asserting that the vast majority of such organizations are “right wing,” the Center says they include “the Ku Klux Klan,” “the neo-Nazi movement,” “neo-Confederates,” “racist skinheads,” “antigovernment militias,” “Christian Identity adherents,” and a variety of “anti-immigrant,” “anti-LGBT,” “anti-Muslim,” and “alternative Right” organizations. While also identifying a tiny smattering of black separatist entities as hate groups, SPLC takes pains to point out that black organizations must be judged by a different standard than their white counterparts, because “much black racism in America is, at least in part, a response to centuries of white racism.”

SPLC contends that from 2000 to 2012, the number of hate groups in the U.S. increased by 67%—a surge allegedly “fueled by anger and fear over the nation’s ailing economy, an influx of non-white immigrants, and the diminishing white majority, as symbolized by the election of the nation’s first African-American president” (Barack Obama). And America’s racists, by SPLC’s calculus, are almost all conservatives—as evidenced by the caption featured in the “Hatewatch” section of SPLC’s website: “Hatewatch monitors and exposes the activities of the American radical right.” The radical left gets no mention at all.

SPLC’s “hate group” counts have been shown to be devoid of legitimacy a number of times. Laird Wilcox—a researcher specializing in the study of political fringe movements—reports that many SPLC-designated “hate groups” are untraceable, due either to their inactivity or nonexistence. After analyzing the SPLC Klanwatch Project’s list of 346 “white supremacist groups” in 1992, for instance, Wilcox concluded that in fact there were only “about 50” such groups “that are objectively significant, are actually functioning and have more than a handful of real numbers—not post office box ‘groups’ or two-man local chapters.”[1] In 2005, Wilcox reported: “Several years ago with minimal effort I went through a list of 800-plus ‘hate groups’ published by the SPLC and determined that over half of them were either non-existent, existed in name only, or were inactive.”

JoAnn Wypijewski, who writes for the far-left Nation magazine, once said: “No one has been more assiduous in inflating the profile of [hate] groups than [SPLC’s] millionaire huckster, Morris Dees, who in 1999 began a begging [i.e., fundraising] letter [by stating that] ‘the danger presented by the Klan is greater now than at any time in the past ten years.’” To put Dees’s claim in perspective, the Ku Klux Klan at that time consisted of no more than 3,000 people nationwide—a far cry from the 4 million members it had boasted in the 1920s. Nonetheless, noted Wypijewski, “Dees would have his donors believe” that cadres of “militia nuts” are “lurking around every corner.”

In a similar vein, the late left-wing journalist Alexander Cockburn in 2009 called Dees the “arch-salesman of hate-mongering,” a man who profited by “selling the notion there’s a right resurgence out there in the hinterland with massed legions of haters, ready to march down Main Street draped in Klan robes, a copy of Mein Kampf tucked under one arm and a Bible under the other.” “Ever since 1971,” added Cockburn, “U.S. Postal Service mailbags have bulged with [Dees’s] fundraising letters, scaring dollars out of the pockets of trembling liberals aghast at his lurid depictions of hate-sodden America.”

Regardless of how dramatically SPLC overstates their numbers, white racists like neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and skinheads indisputably deserve to be categorized as “hate groups.” But the Center irresponsibly extends that designation also to numerous conservative and libertarian organizations that harbor no ill will against any demographic group, but merely hold political positions contrary to those of SPLC. As syndicated columnist Don Feder writes: “What makes [SPLC] particularly odious is its habit of taking legitimate conservatives and jumbling them with genuine hate groups (the Klan, Aryan Nation, skinheads, etc.), to make it appear that there’s a logical relationship between, say, opposing affirmative action and lynching, or demands for an end to government services for illegal aliens and attacks on dark-skinned immigrants.”

For instance, one noteworthy organization that SPLC has placed in its cross hairs is the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), which the Center, in a 2003 report authored by researcher/writer Chip Berlet, identified as part of “an array of right-wing foundations and think tanks [that] support efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable.” Especially objectionable to SPLC was AEI fellow Dinesh D’Souza, an Indian-born scholar (and former Reagan Administration adviser) “whose views,” according to Berlet, “are seen by many as bigoted or even racist.” Specifically, D’Souza has written that affirmative action is an unjust, counterproductive policy; that “many liberals have been peculiarly blind about black racism”; that “virtually all contemporary liberal assumptions about the origin of racism … and what to do about it are wrong”; and that “the civil-rights industry … now has a vested interest in the persistence of the ghetto, because the miseries of poor blacks are the best advertisement for continuing programs of racial preference and set-asides.” “D’Souza has suggested,” wrote Berlet incredulously, “that civil rights activists actually help perpetuate racial tensions and division in the United States.” Such sentiments as D’Souza’s are—notwithstanding the repeatedly divisive rhetoric and actions of racial arsonists like Al SharptonJesse JacksonLouis Farrakhan, and the late Julian Bond—anathema to an organization whose income stream is largely dependent upon an ability to perpetuate public angst over black suffering.

Berlet’s 2003 report likewise denounced another AEI-sponsored scholar, Charles Murray—a Bradley Foundation research fellow who in 1994 co-authored The Bell Curve, which SPLC described as “a book that argues that blacks and Latinos are genetically inferior to whites and that most social welfare and affirmative action programs are doomed to failure as a result.” Addressing unfounded critiques such as this, Hoover Institution scholar Thomas Sowell wrote that widespread “demonization” by “demagogues” who were interested only in hearing “what they want to hear,” had rendered The Bell Curve “one of the most misrepresented books of our time.”

In SPLC’s 2003 report as well, Berlet charged that conservative author David Horowitz “has blamed slavery on ‘black Africans … abetted by dark-skinned Arabs’—a selective rewriting of history.” To this, Horowitz replied:

“I never in my life blamed slavery on black Africans … abetted by dark-skinned Arabs.’ What idiot would not know that white Europeans conducted the Atlantic Slave Trade, which trafficked in 11 million black African chattel? The sentence Berlet mangles is not a historical statement about slavery but a polemical response to the proponents of reparations who are demanding that only whites pay blacks for an institution—slavery—that has been eradicated in the western world (but not Arab and black Africa) for more than 100 years. It is intended to remind people that the slaves transported to America were bought from African and Arab slavers—not to blame Africans and Arabs for sole responsibility for slavery.”

Berlet also took issue with what he called Horowitz’s “false” claim that “there never was an anti-slavery movement until white Christians—Englishmen and Americans—created one.” “Critics note,” Berlet added, “that Horowitz is ignoring everything from the slave revolt led by Spartacus against the Romans and Moses’ rebellion against the Pharaoh to the role of American blacks in the abolition movement.” And yet, Horowitz had already anticipated and discredited these very charges two years earlier, in his 2001 book Uncivil Wars: The Controversy About Slavery, wherein he wrote:

“For thousands of years, until the end of the Eighteenth Century, slavery had been considered a normal institution of human societies. In all that time, no group had arisen to challenge its legitimacy. Of course, there were many slave revolts from the times of Moses and Spartacus, in which those who had been enslaved sought to gain their freedom. But that was not the point. The freedom they had sought was their own. They did not revolt against the institution of slavery as such. What had happened in the English-speaking countries at the dawn of the American Republican was entirely unique. Before then, no one had thought to form a movement dedicated to the belief that the institution of slavery was itself immoral. What was important in this historical fact was that it showed that white Europeans who were the target of the reparations indictment had played a pivotal role in the emancipation from slavery.”

Berlet’s gross misrepresentations of Horowitz’s work can only be understood in the context of Berlet’s own political and ideological track record. For instance, in the mid-1970s he volunteered to work on Counterspy magazine, an anti-CIA periodical founded by Philip Agee, the onetime intelligence officer who subsequently turned against the agency and spent years exposing the identity of undercover American spies who were stationed overseas. During the Cold War, Berlet was a supporter of Communist police states—most notably Albania, one of the most backward and repressive. Indeed, in 1983 Berlet was a founding member of the Chicago Area Friends of Albania, a Communist front group that supported the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania and the repressive political rule of the Marxist-Leninist dictator Enver Hoxha. And for the past 35 years Berlet has been a paralegal member of the National Lawyers Guild, which throughout the Cold War embraced pro-Soviet agendas while systematically opposing the foreign policies of the United States, and which continues to depict America as the principal wellspring of evil on earth.

In 2010 SPLC denounced the Tea Party, which advocated reductions in government spending and taxes, as a movement that was “shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories, and racism.”

Another of SPLC’s bedrock beliefs is its conviction that the U.S., in addition to being inherently racist, is also a homophobic nation that countenances all manner of injustice against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people—who, according to the Center, are “far more likely to be victims of a violent hate crime than any other minority group in the United States.” SPLC tars anyone objecting to transformative cultural changes involving homosexuals—such as gay marriage—as a “hate” monger whose opinions have no more legitimacy than those of an Aryan militia. Thus did the Center once list the conservative Family Research Council as a hate group, chiefly because of its opposition to same-sex marriage and its view that homosexuality is an “unnatural” condition “associated with negative physical and psychological health effects.” It should be noted that FRC expresses no malice at all toward homosexuals, as demonstrated not only by its professed “sympathy” for “those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attractions,” but also by its call for “every effort … to assist such persons to overcome those attractions.”

SPLC’s list of hate groups and extremist groups also includes the Traditional Values Coalition, a conservative organization that opposes homosexuality on religious grounds and rejects the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a bill that would designate transgendered people (cross-dressers) as a “protected class” whom employers would not be free to eliminate from job-applicant pools on that basis.

SPLC sees “Islamophobia”—hatred and fear based on religious faith—as yet another major defect in the American character. The June 2012 edition of Intelligence Report, for instance, featured a hit-piece titled “30 New Activists Heading Up the Radical Right,” which claimed that “an anti-Muslim movement, almost entirely ginned up by political opportunists and hard-line Islamophobes, has grown enormously since taking off in 2010, when reported anti-Muslim hate crimes went up by 50%.”

That seemingly ominous statistic seems less foreboding, however, when one considers that according to FBI data, the number of “reported anti-Muslim hate crimes” nationwide increased from 107 in 2009 to 160 in 2010—technically a 50% increase, but hardly what could be characterized as an epidemic in a nation of more than 300 million people. Further, SPLC’s report gives no indication that the anti-Muslim hate-crime count of 2010 was in fact consistent with the normal, slightly fluctuating incidence of such events in other years—e.g., 155 in 2002, 149 in 2003, and 156 in 2004. Equally noteworthy is the fact that when the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes had dropped from 156 in 2006 to 115 in 2007—and from 481 in 2001 (the year of the 9/11 attacks) to 155 in 2002—the Center never thought to suggest that bigotry against Muslims was steeply declining.

SPLC’s “30 New Activists” report dismisses, as purveyors of hate, a number of scholars, researchers, and journalists who have examined and discussed, in a thoughtful and responsible manner, the teachings, values, history, and objectives of militant Islamists. Among those smeared in the report are World Net Daily publisher Joseph Farah, American Center for Security Policy founder Frank Gaffney, blogger/activist Pamela Geller, and Accuracy in Media director Cliff Kincaid. In an effort to marginalize these individuals, SPLC lumps them together with Klansmen and neo-Nazis.

In October 2016, SPLC published a report titled Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists, a blacklist profiling 15 “Islam-bashing activists” whose “propaganda” was allegedly responsible for “fueling” acts of public “hatred” against “American Muslims,” who purportedly “have been under attack” in the U.S. “ever since the Al Qaeda massacre of Sept. 11, 2001.” The subjects of these profiles included:

  • Ann Corcoran, founder of the blog Refugee Resettlement Watch
  • Steven Emerson, director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism
  • Brigitte Gabriel, founder of ACT for America
  • Frank Gaffney, founder of the Center for Security Policy
  • Pamela Geller, co-founder of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (and Stop Islamization of America)
  • John Guandolo, founder of the consultation and training group, Understanding the Threat
  • Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born activist and author
  • David Horowitz, founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center
  • Ryan Mauro, a national security analyst with the Clarion Project
  • Robert Muise, co-founder of the American Freedom Law Center
  • Maajid Nawaz, a self-identified “proud Muslim” who opposes the radicalization of his faith
  • Daniel Pipes, founder of the Middle East Forum
  • Walid Shoebat, a Palestinian American activist who converted from Islam to Christianity
  • Robert Spencer, founder of Jihad Watch
  • David Yerushalmi, co-founder of the American Freedom Law Center

Each of these individuals seeks, in writings and speeches that are firmly rooted in factual information, to inform the American public about the beliefs, values, agendas, and activities of Islamic jihadists, and about the potential consequences of widespread Muslim immigration to the United States. But SPLC—rather than simply asserting that it views the arguments or conclusions of these authors as flawed—instead smears them as wild-eyed Islamophobes who, as in the case of Gaffney, are “gripped by paranoid fantasies about Muslims destroying the West from within.” Consider, for instance, some of the easily verifiable—or at least arguable—statements that SPLC has cited as evidence of unhinged bigotry:

  • Corcoran’s assertion that “we have made a grievous error in taking the Muslim refugees, Somalis in particular, who have no intention of becoming Americans”;
  • Emerson’s assertion that the Obama administration “extensively collaborates” with the Muslim Brotherhood, and that Europe has numerous “no-go zones” which non-Muslims cannot enter without great peril to their own safety;
  • Gabriel’s assertion that any “practicing Muslim who believes the word of the Koran to be the word of Allah” and embraces Sharia Law “cannot be a loyal citizen of the United States,” and that Islamists’ “ideology … forbids them to assimilate” to Western culture;
  • Gaffney’s assertion that “we’re witnessing not just the violent kind of jihad that these Islamists believe God compels them to engage in, but also, where they must for tactical reasons, a more stealthy kind, or civilizational jihad as the Muslim Brotherhood calls it”;
  • Geller’s assertion that Islam is “the most radical and extreme ideology on the face of the earth”;
  • Hirsi Ali’s assertion that Islamic schools in the West should be shut down, and that “violence is inherent in Islam”;
  • Horowitz’s 2008 ad campaign stating that the Muslim Students Association was “founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the godfather of Al Qaeda and Hamas, to bring jihad into the heart of American higher education” (SPLC had once dubbed Horowitz himself as “the godfather of the anti-Muslim movement”);
  • Muise’s assertion that “stealth jihadists … covertly seek to perpetuate sharia into American society,” and that “80% of the mosques in the United States distribute literature that promotes violence against nonbelievers”;
  • Pipes’s assertion that the infamous terrorist organization ISIS is “100 percent Islamic” and “profoundly Islamic”;
  • Spencer’s assertion that “traditional Islam itself is not moderate or peaceful,” and “is the only major world religion with a developed doctrine and tradition of warfare against unbelievers”; and
  • Yerushalmi’s assertion that “our greatest enemy today is Islam,” and that “the only Islam appearing in any formal way around the world is one that seeks a world Caliphate through murder, terror and fear.”

In a 2016 interview with the Tablet, the aforementioned Maajid Nawaz stated that the SPLC staffers who had collaborated on writing the Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists were “a bunch of first-world, comfortable liberal Americans who are not Muslims [and] have decided from their comfortable perch to label me, an activist who is working within his Muslim community to push back against extremism, an anti-Muslim extremist.” Emphasizing that because SPLC’s blacklist had “put a target on my head,” Nawaz said he believed that his own life was now in danger: “This is what putting people on lists does. When Theo Van Gogh was killed in the Netherlands, a list was stuck to his body that included Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s name. It was a hit list. When Bangladeshi reformers were hacked to death by jihadist terrorists, they were working off lists.” “The left is no longer about advancing progressive values,” Nawaz added. “For them, it’s now about tribal identities, and any internal critique is seen as treachery.”

It is worth noting the serious ramifications that had previously occurred when SPLC in 2012 listed the conservative Family Research Council (FRC) as a hate group. On the morning of August 15, 2012, a domestic terrorist named Floyd Corkins walked into FRC’s Washington, DC headquarters carrying a pistol and 100 rounds of ammunition with the intention of “kill[ing] people in the building.” His plan was thwarted by an operations manager who physically tackled him to the ground. When an FBI agent subsequently asked Corkins why he had chosen to target FRC, the would-be killer replied: “It was a, uh, Southern Poverty Law lists, uh, anti-gay groups. I found them online. I did a little bit of research, went to the website. Stuff like that.”

Adhering to the theme of a profoundly hateful United States, SPLC charges that Latin American immigrants, who “perform some of the hardest, most dangerous jobs in our economy—for the least amount of pay,” are routinely “cheated out of their wages”; “denied basic protections in the workplace”; “subjected to racial profiling and harassment by law enforcement”; and “targeted for violent hate crimes.” These trends, says SPLC, have been “encouraged” by “politicians and media figures” guilty of spreading “false propaganda that scapegoats immigrants for our nation’s problems and foments resentment and hate against them.” The growth of this “civil rights crisis,” as SPLC calls it, “has been driven almost entirely by the immigration debate.” Conspicuously absent from the foregoing assertions is any acknowledgment that it is illegal immigration that sits at the heart of that debate.

SPLC derides the American Legion’s opposition to illegal immigration and amnesty as “Legionnaires’ Disease”—even though the Legion fully supports opportunities for legal immigration. The Center similarly denounces the Minuteman Project—a nonviolent, volunteer effort initiated by private American citizens seeking to restrict the flow of illegal border-crossers—as an organization whose ideals and tactics are rooted in racism. The Arizona-based American Border Patrol, which monitors traffic across Southeastern Arizona’s border with Mexico—the heart of a major smuggling corridor—is classified by SPLC as a “hate group” dominated by “anti-immigrant ideologues.” And Americans for Immigration Control, which contends that illegal immigration is a “lawless” phenomenon that “puts the future of our country in jeopardy,” is branded an “anti-immigrant” hate group.

As is typical of organizations on the left, SPLC is ever-prepared to label its political and ideological adversaries as purveyors of “hate” and “intolerance.” But in reality, that is nothing more than psychological projection. Hatred and intolerance for the opinions and values of others are prime components in the very lifeblood of SPLC.

Yet another major component of that lifeblood is money. Although SPLC possesses reserve assets valued at more than a quarter of a billion dollars, it spends, in comparison to other nonprofit organizations, an unusually small percentage of its revenues on actual program services—and a great deal on salaries, overhead, and fundraising. As The Weekly Standard reports: “CharityWatch, an independent organization that monitors and rates leading nonprofits for their fundraising efficiency, has consistently given the SPLC its lowest grade of ‘F’ (i.e., ‘poor’) for its stockpiling of assets far beyond what CharityWatch deems a reasonable reserve … to tide it over during donation-lean years.”

More than any other organization in America, the Southern Poverty Law Center has turned hate-based identity politics and grievance mongering into a highly profitable scam.

NOTE:

[1] Laird Wilcox, The Watchdogs (Olathe, KS: Editorial Research Service, 1998), p. 55.

Source : FRONTPAGE MAG

 


Jew-Hatred Dressed up As ‘Justice’

A look at the hate group Students for Justice in Palestine.

Editor’s note: The following is the second in a series of articles highlighting the network of major hate groups in America that are supported and funded by the Left. For more information on Students for Justice in Palestine, visit the organization’s profile at DiscoverTheNetworks.org. For the previous profile on the Southern Poverty Law Center, click here

Founded at UC Berkeley in October of 2000, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) is a highly influential campus organization with chapters based at approximately 200 American colleges and universities, where it organizes and sponsors anti-Israel events and campaigns more actively than any other student group in the nation. SJP’s declared mission is to “promote the cause of justice,” “speak out against oppression,” and “educate members of our community specifically about the plight of the Palestinian people” at the hands of alleged Israeli abuses. The benign tenor of this mission statement stands in stark contrast, however, to the countless reams of SJP propaganda that echo much of what is said by the Hamas terrorists who seek to permanently end Israel’s existence as a sovereign Jewish state. The reason for this is simple: SJP was in essence formed to help spread anti-Semitism through the halls of American academia; to wage a campus war against Israel by providing rhetorical support for the Jew-hatred undergirding the Second Palestinian Intifada which Hamas and allied terrorists had recently launched in late September 2000.

SJP’s principal founder, Hatem Bazian, has quoted approvingly from a famous Islamic hadith which calls for the violent slaughter of Jews and which appears in Hamas’s founding charter. He once spoke at a fundraising dinner for a Hamas front group that the U.S. government later shut down due to the organization’s ties to Islamic terrorism. On another occasion, Bazian portrayed Hamas as “a classical anti-colonial nationalist and religious guerrilla movement.” And he described Hamas’s victory in the 2006 Gaza elections as “a monumental event.”

Notwithstanding Hamas’s calls for the mass murder and genocide of Jews, the website of SJP’s UC Berkeley chapter describes Hamas not as a terrorist group but rather as “a vast social organization” that “provides schools, medical care, and day care for a number of Palestinians who otherwise live difficult lives”; a group with a “clean record as far as domestic corruption in governance [is] concerned”; and an entity whose “officials have often stated that they are ready for a long-term truce with Israel during which time final status negotiations can occur.”

It is commonplace for SJP’s rank-and-file members to support, or to at least decline to condemn, Islamic terrorism. As a Columbia University SJP member said in 2002: “We support the right of Palestinians to resist occupation and do not dictate the methods of that struggle. There’s a difference between violence of the oppressed and violence of the oppressors.”

That same year, SJP’s national convention was sponsored by the Islamic Association for Palestine, a now-defunct, Illinois-based front group for Hamas. The conference featured keynote speaker Sami Al-Arian, a former University of South Florida professor who served as the North American leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a terrorist organization whose objectives include the destruction of Israel, the elimination of all Western influences in the Middle East by means of armed warfare, and the convergence of all Muslim countries into a single Islamic caliphate.

Routinely denouncing Israeli self-defense measures as assaults on the civil and human rights of Palestinians, SJP generally neglects to judge those measures in the context of Palestinian terror attacks. For example, in a September 2014 “vigil” at Binghamton University in honor of Palestinians who had been killed in Operation Protective Edge—Israel’s then-recent military incursion into Gaza—SJP member Victoria Brown told the campus newspaper that her group’s goal was to “commemorate” and “humanize” the Palestinian “children, women and innocent civilians who were massacred” by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). Yet she made no mention of the fact that the IDF’s actions were in response to a massive barrage of deadly rockets that Hamas terrorists had been firing indiscriminately into southern Israel.

On another occasion, New York City’s SJP created posters lauding the Palestinian terrorist Leila Khaled—who in September 1970 had participated in the multiple hijacking of five jetliners—for “committing her life to be a freedom fighter in the struggle for Palestinian liberation.”

In a similar spirit, a number of SJP chapters hold annual commemorations in honor of the late Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group which Islam expert Robert Spencer has described as “the parent organization of Hamas and al Qaeda.” Al-Banna was an inveterate Jew-hater who firmly opposed the creation of Israel in 1948 and strove to forge a formal alliance with Hitler and Mussolini when World War II broke out. Al-Banna was also the mentor of Haj Amin Al-Husseni, the pro-Hitler father of Palestinian nationalism.

In 2012, Cornell University’s SJP issued a publication featuring a logo of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a terrorist organization that embraces “a revolutionary understanding of Marxism” and views the “liberation” of Palestine as a key component of Communism’s worldwide ascendancy.

Promoting the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions Movement

SJP is America’s leading campus promoter of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, a Hamas-inspired initiative that aims to use various forms of public protest and economic pressure to advance the Hamas agenda of Israel’s destruction. While Hamas pursues this goal in its low-intensity war against Israel by means of terrorism and bloodshed, BDS supplements those efforts by pushing for three forms of nonviolent punitive action designed to cripple Israel’s economy and bring the nation to its knees politically: (1) coordinated boycotts that aim to intimidate and coerce corporations, universities, and individuals into breaking off their business relationships with Israel; (2) decisions by banks, pension funds, corporations, and other entities to withdraw any financial investments which they may have made in the state of Israel or in companies that operate there; and (3) targeted sanctions—such as trade penalties or bans, arms embargoes, and the severing of diplomatic ties—imposed by governments around the world against Israel specifically.

Using these tactics, SJP and its allies in the BDS movement seek to lay the psychological and rhetorical groundwork for: (a) creating the false impression that Israel has illegally and immorally usurped large swaths of land that rightfully belong to the Palestinians; (b) depicting Israel as a habitual human-rights violator guilty of subjecting its Palestinian neighbors to brutal campaigns of “apartheid,” “ethniccleansing,” “war crimes,” “crimes against humanity,” and “genocide”; (c) likening Israeli public officials and soldiers to “Nazis,” and Gaza to a “concentration camp” or “ghetto”; (d) delegitimizing, in the minds of people worldwide, Israel’s very right to exist as a sovereign state; and (e) promoting the idea that this illegitimate Jewish state should be replaced by an Arab-majority alternative. As NGO Monitor puts it, the effectiveness of BDS campaigns is rooted chiefly “in their ability to penetrate the public and political discourse and blur the lines between legitimate criticism of Israel and the complete delegitimization of Israel in the international arena.”

SJP’s Activities & Tactics

Condemning “the racism and discrimination underlying the policies and laws of the state of Israel,” SJP’s various chapters actively organize protests, memorials, educational forums, lectures, panel discussions, teach-ins, seminars, workshops, film screenings, and other events designed to “give a voice to the Palestinian narrative as well as highlight the plight of the Palestinian people under Israeli aggression.” Particularly notable is the fact that since 2005, a number of SJP chapters have designated one week of every academic year as “Palestine Awareness Week” or, alternatively, “Israel Apartheid Week.” These weeks feature an array of SJP-sponsored events where Israel is repeatedly denounced in incendiary language as an apartheid state that is guilty of human-rights abuses, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and even genocide.

SJP’s Chief Supporter

The most significant and influential supporter of SJP is American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), which was established in 2005 by none other than SJP co-founder Hatem Bazian. Writes Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD): “AMP provides speakers, training, printed materials, a so-called ‘Apartheid Wall,’ and [financial] grants to SJP activists. AMP even has a campus coordinator on staff whose job is to work directly with SJP and other pro-BDS campus groups across the country. According to an email it sent to subscribers, AMP spent $100,000 on campus activities in 2014 alone.” Further, AMP has co-sponsored events with various SJP chapters.

At least eight of AMP’s current board members, key officials, and close allies were previously members of now-defunct Islamic extremist groups that funded terrorist activities. Those groups included the Palestine Committee of the Muslim Brotherhood (which was established by the Brotherhood to advance Hamas’s agendas in the U.S.); the Islamic Association for Palestine (which served as the chief U.S. propaganda and recruitment arm of Hamas); the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (which from 1995-2001 contributed approximately $12.4 million in money, goods, and services to Hamas); and KindHearts for Charitable Humanitarian Development (a Hamas fundraising entity).

The Final Analysis

So you see, SJP’s name is highly misleading—not only to the American public, but also to the many useful idiots who constitute the organization’s devoted members and foot soldiers. As far as SJP is concerned, “Justice in Palestine” can best be achieved by advancing the agendas of this generation’s foremost Jew-haters.

Source : FRONTPAGE MAG


The New Black Panther Party: Black Racism Personified

Any “national conversation” on race must acknowledge the most taboo racism of all.

Editor’s note: Below is the third installment in a series of articles highlighting the network of major hate groups in America that are supported and funded by the Left. Click the following for the previous profile on the Souther Poverty Law Center and Students for Justice in Palestine

Founded in 1990, the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBPP) is a militant black separatist organization that promotes racial violence against Jews and whites. NBPP preaches a “Ten-Point Platform” similar to its that of its namesake – the murderous Black panther Party of the 1960s and ’70s – demanding such things as: “full employment for our [black] people,” in light of the fact that “the white man has … used every dirty trick in the book to stand in the way of our freedom and independence”; “the overdue debt of reparations” from “this wicked racist government [that] has robbed us”; exemption for blacks “from all taxation”; and “education for our people that exposes the true nature of this devilish and decadent American society.”

Khalid Abdul Muhammad, a onetime spokesman for Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, joined NBPP in the mid-1990s and by1998 had become NBPP’s chairman. He earned a reputation as an inveterate racist and anti-Semite by characterizing Jews as “slumlords in the black community” who were busy “sucking our [blacks’] blood on a daily and consistent basis”; asserting that Jews had provoked Adolf Hitler when they “went in there, in Germany, the way they do everywhere they go, and they supplanted, they usurped”; telling a San Francisco State University audience that “the white man is the Devil”; declaring that blacks, in retribution against South African whites of the apartheid era, should “kill them all”; and praising a black man who had shot some twenty white and Asian commuters in a racially motivated shooting spree aboard a New York commuter train as a hero who possessed the courage to “just kill every goddamn cracker that he saw.” Muhammad also advised blacks that “[t]here are no good crackers, and if you find one, kill him before he changes.”

When Muhammad died in February 2001, he was succeeded as NBPP chairman by his longtime protégé, Malik Zulu Shabazz. At a rally the previous summer, Shabazz had openly called for a race war in which black young people would unite against the “common enemy” so that “we will see caskets and funerals in the[ir] community.”

In the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, NBPP promoted numerous conspiracy theories alleging Jewish complicity. NBPP officer Amir Muhammad, for instance, suggested that Jews had been forewarned about the terror plot and thus had stayed away from the attack sites on 9/11: “There are reports that as many as 3,000 to 5,000 so-called Jews did not go to work [at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon] that day, and we need to take a serious look at that.”

In yet another false claim, NBPP has consistently maintained that Jews were “significantly and substantially” involved in the transatlantic slave trade.

In March 2012, NBPP weighed in on the explosive case of Trayvon Martin, a black teenager who had recently been shot and killed under disputed circumstances by a “white Hispanic” named George Zimmerman in Sanford, Florida. Declaring that “White America” would no longer be permitted to “kill black children and get away with it,” the Panthers initially offered a $10,000 bounty for the “capture” of Zimmerman, “DEAD or ALIVE.” Soon thereafter, the Panthers upped the ante to $1 million, a sum which they expected to collect in donations “from the black community.”

On April 6, 2012, three NBPP leaders conducted a group phone conference to discuss a scheduled rally that was to be held in memory of Trayvon Martin. During the course of that conversation, they called on black people to get “suited, booted, and armed up for this race war” against “these honkies, these crackers, these pigs, these people, these motherfu**er[s],” and they demanded “the destruction” of “that blonde-haired, blue-eyed, sometimes brown-eyed, Caucasian walkin’ around with a mindset, a demonistic mindset, and a nature to do evil and brutality.”

In May 2012, NBPP’s national field marshal, King Samir Shabazz, made a number of racially charged statements, including the following:

  • “I love white-on white-crime, because that is the best crime, and we‘re going say ‘black power’ to that.”
  • “I love black people, and I hate the g*ddamn white man, woman, and child, grandma, aunt, uncle, Pappa Billy Bob, and whoever else…. I hate the very look of white people. I hate the sound of white people. G*ddamnit, I hate the smell of white people.”
  • “You should be thankful we’re not running around here hanging crackers by nooses and all that kind of stuff, yet, yet, yet.”

In a June 2012 segment on NBPP Radio, an NBPP member known as “General TACO” (acronym for “Taking All Capitalists Out”) warned that his organization would “hunt” white people’s “pink asses down” and kill them because of their “history” of pushing “crack, AIDS and unemployment” on black people in order to “exterminate” them. “Once [white people] die,” he added, “we should dig ’em up, and kill ’em again, bury ’em, dig ’em up, and kill ’em again, and again, and again!”

In October 2013, Malik Zulu Shabazz announced that he was stepping down from his position as NBPP’s national chairman in order to focus on his career as an attorney with Black Lawyers for Justice, though he pledged to continue serving NBPP as a “spiritual guide.” His replacement as NBPP’s national chairman was Hashim Nzinga, who had previously served as the organization’s chief of staff.

It was a seamless transition from Shabazz to Nzinga, as the latter took the reins of NBPP with a well-established reputation as a race-baiting hate monger. Indeed, Nzinga proclaims that because America has “declared war on us,” NBPP members are “willing to die or kill to save our babies and to save a black nation that is dying before our eyes.” “So if we say we are at war,” adds Nzinga, “we should be applauded like George Washington. We should be applauded like Thomas Jefferson. We should be applauded like the Founding Fathers of the country.”

Nzinga and his NBPP comrades view themselves as the aspiring founders of a new nation rooted in identity politics and violent tribal hatred – the very antithesis of what Washington and Jefferson envisioned. If the Panthers have their way, American streets will run red with blood, and the values of tolerance and civility that grew out of the Enlightenment will be replaced by a vengeful barbarism no better than that of ISIS and its murderous butchers.

Source : FRONTPAGE MAG


America is at War

We are at War with the liberal media and their lies

We are at War with Hate Groups like those listed above

We are at War with Career Politicians

We are at War with Political Correctness

We are at War with Silence……..

 Because Silence is Consent!!!

Educate yourself and your family and anyone else who will listen!!!

Be silent for no one!!!

 

Staged “Hate Crimes” meant to give credibility to claims of “Islamaphobia”

CAIR and other groups have on more than one occasion “Staged” crimes to give the appearance of “anti-Muslim” sentiment across the U.S..

Why would they do that? Well because they love to get themselves on television where they make claims of “Islamaphobia” and of Americans committing horrible hate crimes against Muslims all across the country.

Since very few crimes are actually committed against the Muslim population in America they have to fabricate some, so they can continue to play “victims” while they victimize others.

It is all a part of the Jihad being fought to take control over this country. The liberal media will go on and on about these fake crimes, repeating these claims often so Americans will feel guilty, and not pay attention to what is taking place here. I’ve seen this many times in the past, and expect to see it many more.

Don’t buy into this nonsense, it is all part of their grand facade, to hide what is actually taking place. The Jihad is real. The dangers are real. These claims of “Islamaphobia” running rampant in the streets of the United States are FAKE!

 

 

 

Here is a story I read today on Jihad Watch :


Fake hate crime in Ohio: Muslim charged with painting anti-Arab graffiti

Hamas-linked CAIR and other Muslims have on many occasions not hesitated to stoop even to fabricating “hate crimes,” including attacks on mosques. A New Jersey Muslim was found guilty of murder that he tried to portray as an “Islamophobic” attack, and in 2014 in California, a Muslim was found guilty of killing his wife, after first blaming her murder on “Islamophobia.”

This kind of thing happens quite frequently. The New York Daily News reported that “a woman who told cops she was called a terrorist and slashed on her cheek in lower Manhattan on Thursday later admitted she made up the story, police said early Friday. The woman, who wore a headscarf, told authorities a blade-wielding wacko sliced open her face as she left a Manhattan cosmetology school, police sources said.”

We were told that a Muslim boy was attacked and beat up on his school bus in North Carolina — but a photo showed him without a scratch and no one on the bus corroborated his story. And recently in Britain, the murder of a popular imam was spread far and wide as another “Islamophobic hate crime” – until his killer also was found to be a Muslim. The Mirror reported that the imam “was targeted because he had made efforts to turn youngsters away from radical Islam.”

According to The Detroit News, a Muslim woman, Saida Chatti, was “charged with making a false police report after she allegedly fabricated a plot to blow up Dearborn Fordson High School to retaliate against the November terrorist attacks in Paris….Police say Chatti called Dearborn investigators Nov. 19, six days after Islamic extremists killed 130 people in Paris.”

And similarly in Britain, a Muslim woman was “fined for lying to police about being attacked for wearing a hijab. The 18-year-old student, known only as Miss Choudhury, said she was violently shoved from behind and punched in the face by a man in Birmingham city centre 10 days after the atrocities in the French capital on November 13.”

“Charges filed in connection to racially charged graffiti on Sylvania Twp. home,” by Christopher Burns, WNWO, February 15, 2017:

SYLVANIA TWP., Oh. (WNWO) — Authorities say charges have been filed in connection to a graffiti incident on the garage door of an Arab family in Lucas County.

Sylvania Township police say Osama Nazzal, 28, of Toledo, was charged with criminal damaging in connection to the incident.

On Jan. 10, the Sylvania Twp. home of Souheir Eltatawi had been spray-painted with a swastika and derogatory phrase that read, “Expletive Arabs.”…

Click the link below to view the original story by Robert Spencer posted on Jihad Watch

Source : Jihad Watch


Robert Spencer and

Jihad Watch

are excellent sources of news. You should subscribe today! Stay informed on the events affecting us all.