Robert Spencer

|

Pamela Geller

|

Bat Ye'or

|

Brigitte Gabriel

|

Daniel Pipes

|

Debbie Schlussel

|

Walid Shoebat

|

Joe Kaufman

|

Wafa Sultan

|

Geert Wilders

|

The Nuclear Card

Tag Archive | "Act! for America"

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ahavath Torah Congregation and Great Neck Synagogue Give Platform to Hate Group Leaders

Posted on 20 March 2013 by Emperor

Ahavath_Torah_Congregation

by Emperor

It is sad and dangerous when a religious institution actively allows itself to be used as a platform for hate-mongers who have inspired terrorists and incite hatred and prejudice against Muslims.

Ahavath Torah Synagogue, led by the Betraying Rabbi Jon Hausman has a long history of allowing itself to be used in such a way, for instance making the pulpit available to the likes of Geert “no religious freedom for Muslims” Wilders and Wafa “nuke ‘em” Sultan.

Both Ahavath Torah Synagogue and Great Neck Synagogue should be ashamed of themselves; real embarrassments to Judaism.

Lars Hedegaard, Robert Spencer, Andrew Bostom, Tiffany Gabbay to speak on panel discussion regarding “Sharia’s Assault on Free Speech.”

Lars Hedegaard
Robert Spencer
Tiffany Gabbay
Dr. Andrew Bostom
Moderated by Michael Graham*

Each of these individuals possess deep knowledge forged by years of involvement. No doubt this will prove to be an enlightening evening.

*This event is co-sponsored by Act for America and Michael Graham’s “New England Talk Network”.

When: Wednesday March 20, 2013
Time: 7:00PM
Address: Ahavath Torah Congregation, 1179 Central Street, Stoughton, MA
Price: $15 per person in advance, $20/$25 at the door, $10 for students with valid student ID.

Pamela “the looniest blogger ever” Geller will be speaking to Great Neck Synagogue:

On Sunday Morning, April 14, at 10:00am, the Great Neck Synagogue Men’s Club presents Pamela Geller, Founder of the influential “Atlas Shrugs” blog and Executive Director of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and Stop Islamization of America (SIOA).

Geller will be introduced by Greg Buckley, whose son, Lance Corporal Greg Buckley, Jr., was one of three Marines killed in a “Green on Blue” insider attack on his military base in the Helmand province, Afghanistan on Aug 10.

Related:
-ACT! For America is Better Known as Hate! For America

Comments (16)

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Virginia: Republican Women of Clifton to Hear That “hijab is a catalyst for Islamic terrorism”

Posted on 06 February 2013 by Emperor

19fe100a8b496ed0ad529fdaa2c3f20b-1

Stephanie Reis, a member of Brigitte Gabriel‘s ACT for America and a founding member of its Omaha chapter will be fearmongering about the headscarf, relating it to “terrorism.” I wonder if she will advocate castration as a measure to be dealt with the male relatives of women who wear the veil or headscarf.

Republican Women of Clifton to Discuss Sharia Law, the United Nations and the Virginia General Assembly

(Fairfax Patch)

The Republican Women of Clifton will welcome three distinguished individuals at its February meeting. Dr. Ileana Johnson, the bestselling author of “U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy” will be joined by Stephanie Reis, the founder of the Omaha ACT for America Chapter and property rights advocate Martha Boneta.

“To preserve freedom in America, we must keep informed about the forces working to destroy our liberty so we can combat them,” said RWC President Alice Butler-Short. “Two of those forces are U.N. Agenda 21 and Sharia Law, and our speakers will give us insights into how these are undermining our country.”

Johnson, who was born in Communist Romania, is expected to talk about “how billions of unsuspecting people around the world are being manipulated into compliance by a handful of powerful billionaires – the global governance – all in the name of sustainability, smart growth, and saving the environment,” according to a RWC release.

Reis is the founder and former leader of the Omaha ACT for America Chapter, and will discuss the treatment of women in Islamic society and how she believes the Hijab is a catalyst for Islamic terrorism.  

Boneta, the owner of Liberty Farms in the Northern Virginia village of Paris, was threatened with nearly $5,000 in fines for selling produce and crafts and throwing unlicensed events. Consequently, House Bill 1430, the “Boneta Bill,” was proposed in this session of the Virginia General Assembly, and Boneta will provide an update on its status.

The event will be held at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, Feb. 20, at the Fairview Elementary School, 5815 Ox Road, Fairfax Station.

Comments (8)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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

Posted on 13 November 2012 by Guest

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, 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.]

Comments (34)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Amusing Islamophobia Blog Wars: Logan’s Warning vs. Brigitte Gabriel

Posted on 28 August 2012 by Garibaldi

Brigitte Gabriel

by Garibaldi

Time for a history lesson on the anti-Muslim Islamophobia blog wars.

It has been a while since we reported on “intra-Counter Jihad blog wars,” which are really nothing more than pitiful, though amusing, little soap operas. Our first exposition of the phenomenon occurred several years ago when Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs repudiated Ned May of Gates of Vienna, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer in a very public way, for their associations with neo-Fascists and White Supremacists. In fact, there used to be a whole blog about it, Gates of Vienna vs.the World vs. LGF.

The invective and mudslinging got really nasty, but eventually Charles Johnson utterly abandoned the hate machine for greener, more sane pastures. Ever since that time Johnson has been a stalwart anti-bigot and has continuously exposed Spencer, Geller and other leading lights of the trans-Atlantic Islamophobia Movement.

There were also extremely amusing blog wars involving Spencer, Geller and Debbie Schlussel. Spencer at one time termed Schlussel a “freedom fighter” on par with his friend Pamela Geller. However, when Schlussel went after Geller, calling her a “charlatan” and “pseudo-warrior,” Spencer magically deleted any reference to Schlussel as a “freedom fighter.” Schlussel has also gone on the hunt against Walid Shoebat, Steven Emerson and Brigitte Gabriel, calling them “frauds” and “phonies” of the worst kind. We were happy to agree.

We also broke out the popcorn when bigot Andrew Bostom and Robert Spencer started viciously sniping at one another. Bostom called out Spencer as a “plagiarist,” and “swine.”

It might be too early to call it the end but it looks like ex-booze buddies Andrew Bostom and Robert Spencer are at each others throats. Bostom is accusing Spencer of plagiarism, and Spencer is replying that he is “miffed” by the accusation.

The sorry fact is that both of them plagiarize from Orientalists who have made the same arguments and presented the same research centuries ago.

The intra-fighting amongst the anti-Muslim Movement continues, perhaps a sign that this unstable movement is fracturing and will hopefully disintegrate under the weight of their own hate. The newest manifestation is the anti-Muslim website Logan’s Warning going after ACT! for America‘s Brigitte Gabriel, in a post titled, ACT!’s Brigitte Gabriel, $elling America a Bridge to Nowhere! Now that is a title that we can agree with! Whodathunkit, the truth from Islamophobes!

In something you don’t hear everyday, Christopher Logan, the “brains” behind “Logan’s Warning” criticizes Brigitte Gabriel for being too “moderate.” Really, according to Logan, Gabriel is too “moderate.” That’s like saying David Duke is a “moderate” anti-Semite.

Logan writes,

Well unfortunately the Queen of False Hope, Brigitte Gabriel, is back to doing her thing. Spreading false hope and censoring those who call her on her “moderate” Muslims are coming to the rescue nonsense.

Isn’t Brigitte the same bigot who said multiple times, “there is no moderate Muslim”? Isn’t she the same person who argued that a Muslim who practices or believes in the five pillars is a radical?

“a practising Muslim who goes to mosque every Friday, prays five times a day, and who believes that the Koran is the word of God, and who believes that Mohammed is the perfect man and (four inaudible words) is a radical Muslim.”–Brigitte Gabriel, Australian News

Logan goes on,

apparently the queen’s ego is too big, and or the money coming in from telling people what they want to hear is just too good to give up. Either way, her message of “moderates” coming the rescue is detrimental to America.

Logan also wants to point out,

I remember when I first took on this issue, there were plenty of Brits who did not want to lay the blame on Islam itself. They also were saying “radical Islam”. How did that work out?

Logan, don’t worry, in her heart of hearts Brigitte also doesn’t differentiate between something called “radical Islam” and “Islam.”

Logan continues to pile on,

Gabriel reminds me of a politician who will say anything to just to get through the moment…We are not going to win this war with your message. It is the equivalent of going to the doctor and being told you have a life threatening disease, but the problem will end up resolving itself…How much more time should be wasted in promoting that notion [moderate Islam]? How much longer until Gabriel, Daniel Pipes, Frank Gaffney, and Brooke Goldstein admit they need to change course? Five years, 10, 20?…Speaking of debate Brigitte. Instead of sending your two henchman or the naive and ignorant Chris Slick here, why don’t you come out of the shadows and debate me on this? Explain how Islam will reform. If you are being honest with America you will be able to back up your argument, right? (Emphasis mine)

This has to be one of the strangest and silliest debates in history. Bigots arguing amongst one another about who is more “moderate” in bashing Islam and Muslims. What Logan is pointing out however is Gabriel’s inconsistent and contradictory statements and positions, a common phenomenon with hatemongers. One we noted in a previous article on Gabriel,

So Brigitte, what is it? Are there any moderates or not? Brigitte seems to be telling us that the only acceptable Muslims are the ones who don’t practice Islam altogether? Or perhaps, she’s even implying that the only good Muslim is an ex-Muslim?

Logan should really be coming out and saying, why not be honest Brigitte and just admit, as you have a million times in the past that you hate Islam and want to see it destroyed. Either take back your bigoted statements that you believe “Arabs have no soul,” that there is no “moderate” Islam or “moderate” practicing Muslim or reaffirm those positions.

What I find as interesting as Logan’s blogpost slamming Gabriel are the comments. Take for instance Sarah Elkins comment, she thinks Arabs are no good unless they convert to Christianity,

Spoken like a true Brigitte Gabriel inspired Judeo-Christian Civilizational Crusader. Who can forget Brigitte’s “Arabs have no soul” comment,

“The difference, my friends, between Israel and the Arab world is the difference between civilization and barbarism. It’s the difference between good and evil [applause]…. this is what we’re witnessing in the Arabic world, They have no SOUL !, they are dead set on killing and destruction. And in the name of something they call “Allah” which is very different from the God we believe….[applause] because our God is the God of love.”–Brigitte Gabriel, CPAC

A commenter by the handle “Christ possession” rails, accusing some Islamophobes of slowing down the fight against the “beast” of “Islam,” and impeding the fight to stop “mosques” from being built and “sharia law” from replacing the Constitution.

Abdul Ameer posts about the “counter-Jihad” strategy and the usefulness of using “merry Muslims” like Zuhdi Jasser to stave off accusations that they are bigoted,

“eib” wants to focus on fighting Prophet Muhammad. Maybe he missed the memo, but Muhammad passed away over 1400 years ago,

Then we have “Brit is exile” who goes on about the Crusades, implying there needs to be a return to them,

These people are some of the most disturbingly deluded individuals of our time, and expose not only their bigotry but their own dissimulation and attack on basic freedoms and liberties. It is no surprise that with all these frankly ignorant and expansive egos competing that they would turn on each other. I say pass the popcorn and let me watch.

Comments (24)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Brigitte Gabriel: Multi-Cultural Jihad

Posted on 20 July 2012 by Haddock

Brigitte Gabriel

As most researchers of Islamophobia know, Brigitte Gabriel is a prominent figure within the Islamophobia Industry. She is the founder of the right-wing organization, ACT For America, author of two hateful books demonizing Muslims, and a regular speaker at anti-Islam/Arab conferences. While “native informants” like Tarek Fatah and Irshad Manji tend to placate the Center-Right with their “nuanced” commentary about the supposed backwardness of their own people, Brigitte Gabriel and her band of misfits are the extreme Right – the type that really believe Obama is a one person sleeper cell who is going to implement Shariah Law as soon as the Muslim Brotherhood activates him.

Gabriel recently did an interview with Roger Aronoff’s “Take AIM” (I’m sure that’s just a “metaphor”) program for (In)Accuracy in Media. Honestly, if you’ve heard one interview of hers, you have heard them all. But what she said in the very beginning of this interview was so full of anti-Muslim immigrant code-language, it would take a book to refute all of it. She begins her diatribe by telling her faux life-story of being attacked by Muslims because she was Christian, and that this is when she learned that all Muslims, every last one of them, is evil and will try to kill you for being an “infidel.”

As a child, I was born and raised in Lebanon, which used to be the majority Christian country in the Middle East—the only majority Christian country in the Middle East. We were open-minded. We were fair. We were tolerant. We were multi-cultural—we prided ourselves on our multi-culturalism. We had open border policy—we welcomed everyone to our country from the Arabic countries surrounding us because we wanted to share with them the Westernization which we had created in the heart of the Middle East. Muslims used to send their children to study in our universities from all the surrounding Arabic countries because we had built the best universities in the Middle East. We built the best economy—they graduated, then worked in our economy…

Unfortunately, Roger, all that began to change after 20, 30 years of our independence. By that time, the minority Islamic population in the country became the majority simply because of the way they multiplied, compared to people like us, who come from a Judeo-Christian background—they have multiple marriages, they have many children out of each wife. We had the situation contained until the 1970s, when Lebanon accepted a third wave of Palestinian refugees. The majority of them were Muslims, they put their heads together with the Muslims in Lebanon, declared war on the Christians— and that’s when my 9/11 happened to me, and my life turned upside-down.” (emphasis added)

Lets put aside the fact that this screed completely erases Muslim contribution to Lebanon and its culture, denying a historic Muslim and Arab presence dating back over a millennium. The whole point of this rant, in case it isn’t clear enough, is; “DON’T LET THE MUSLIMS IMMIGRATE TO YOUR COUNTRIES! BE VERY SCARED! THEY WILL OUT-BREED YOU! THEY WILL KILL YOU! THEY WILL OUT- SMART YOU! MULTI-CULTURALISM IS BAD! OPEN BORDERS ARE BAD! ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS MARCH!”

She also weds this ahistorical account with a bizarre but familiar type of pro-Israeli propaganda, claiming that “the Israelis” were so kind and compassionate to their enemies, and in return “the Palestinians” tried to drive the Jews into the sea. This is simply wrong. While there may be an occasional case of an Israeli soldier giving a Palestinian kid a candy bar once every ten years, there are many documented incidents of utter cruelty committed by various soldiers in the IDF. An occasional Butterfinger for one lone kid doesn’t make up for that. Going by Gabriel’s logic of the supposed cruelty of all Palestinians (whom she paints as being all Muslims even though there are also Palestinian Christians), then the following remark from an Israeli squad leader describing a sniper’s attitude toward killing a Palestinian mother and her children must be demonstrative of “all” Israeli soldiers?

… I don’t know how to describe it …. The lives of Palestinians, let’s say, is something very, very less important than the lives of our soldiers. So as far as they are concerned they can justify it that way…”

When asked about the “distinction” between Islam and the “Judeo-Christian” tradition, Gabriel did what all good Islamophobes do: she obfuscated. “Hey! That’s the Old Testament, man!”

There is a huge difference, because we Christians and Jews have reformed our religion. In the Old Testament we have violent verses—you know, “A tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye”—yet you do not see any Jews today strapping bombs on their bodies, going to mosques, and blowing themselves up in order to kill other human beings in revenge for suicide bombings in Israel, for example…

So we as Christians and Jews have reformed our religion. We know that we live in a different world today. We value human life. There is nothing in the Bible, in Christianity, that sanctions the killing of another human being…

So the “God of the Bible” doesn’t command Moses to commit genocide against the Canaanites and other nations already inhabiting historic Palestine; or that Jesus won’t return to earth and “destroy” the unbelievers?

If all Christians and Jews have “reformed” their religion, then why are there a growing number of American Christians who advocate replacing the Constitution with “Biblical Law?” Jason “Molotov” Mitchell, a “cool” right-wing Christian, teaches young people that Christianity is meant to be “masculine” and not “effeminate”, and that Christians who decry classical Shariah Law because it allows polygamy and executes adulterers should shut up because, “hey! It’s in the Bible!”

If the Bible doesn’t condemn something but you do, that’s not a biblical position, that’s man-made religion,

He’s not even one of the most well-known “Christian” bigots this country has to offer. Bryan Fischer, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, just to name a few, all believe that this country’s political structure should “return” to either “Biblical principles” or “Biblical Law” altogether. But of course it is “different” when the tables are turned. I’m positive that these Christians “don’t represent mainstream Christianity”, yet these are the same type of people who Brigitte Gabriel associates with! You can’t have it both ways.

Gabriel continues in true Orwellian fashion,

Under Islam, killing of infidels, or non-Muslims, not only justified, but encouraged, but praised under the Qur’an. A Muslim is only guaranteed an entrance into heaven when they commit to martyrdom fi sabilillah—in the cause of Allah. While Christians and Jews can do good deeds or good work and buy themselves forgiveness that will enable them to get into heaven, in Islam it does not exist…

This is a wonderful demonstration of inverted reality. “Doing good deeds” and “working for forgiveness” is one of the main themes of Islam. While many Evangelical Christians furiously deny that one can “work their way to Heaven”, many Muslims view performing good deeds and living a decent life as a prerequisite to entering Paradise, while also maintaining that God is the “Most Merciful” and can grant or withhold Paradise to anyone He wishes regardless of how many “good” or “bad” deeds they have committed.

One would think that such a “slip of the tongue” would get her into hot water with some of her Evangelical friends, because they are adamant in the belief that only through professing belief in Jesus Christ as one’s “Lord and Savior”, can a person be “guaranteed” a place in Heaven; and no amount of “good deeds” will grant an unbeliever Heaven, while no amount of “bad deeds” can damn a believer to Hell. Gabriel once again proves why Islampohobes are the chief dissemblers and practitioners of “double speak,” i.e. what they project onto Muslims as taqiyya.

Most importantly, the Qur’an categorically condemns the killing of innocent people; it is a blatant, enormous and dangerous falsity to claim that a Quran following Muslim has no recourse but to kill an “infidel” to enter Paradise. Such a warped statement is what feeds ignorance and hatred, increasing suspicion of the Muslim “other,” and reads like something out of a sultry, 19th century Orientalist screed about the “fanatical Mohammedans.”

Not even sparing “liberal” and “progressive Muslims,” Gabriel goes for the jugular,

This is why when we see the radicals come up against the moderates in a debate, when the moderates say, “Islam is a peaceful religion, Islam does not call for the killing of others,” the radicals begin quoting chapter after chapter and verse after verse—because the law is on their side. That’s why they leave the moderates silenced, unable to come back with a response: Islam in itself, as a religion, approves and encourages the killings of infidels.” (emphasis added.)

If there is any doubt left that Brigitte Gabriel is a militant Islamophobe, this one quotation from a quite lengthy interview should dispel any skepticism one might still have. She has proven herself to be a bigot of the worst kind, even surpassing Robert Spencer in some ways, for while Spencer (sometimes) tries to pass off his Pink Floyd and bong water induced drivel as the musings of a serious scholar, Gabriel just lets all of her hate pour through her like a perpetual well of hostility.

Managing to transform from a right-wing bigot to a stand-up comedian, Gabriel finally adds this bit of hilarity while describing the bias of the mainstream (codeword for liberal) media;

“…But at least with Fox News, you get fair and balanced debate…”

But doesn’t a Saudi Arabian Muslim dude own like 7% of News Corp., the parent company of Fox News? Sounds like Gabriel is practicing taqiyya.

Comments (23)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Journey Out of Islamophobic Darkness

Posted on 23 April 2012 by Ilisha

islamophobia-drfus

Leaving the Islamophobia nightmare

The Islamophobia propaganda machine has its roots in years of concerted online, media and marketing campaigns. This well oiled machine of hate has attracted many followers, and they can be broken up into several groups (there may be considerable overlap):

1.) Those who were ripe for the picking. These individuals already had a hate for Islam and Muslims or Arabs, they were already racist in one way or another, and easily attached themselves to Islamophobia.

2.) Opportunists. These individuals are always looking for a way to make a buck, to line their pockets. Real, honest work doesn’t suit their tastes and so they’ve devoted themselves to that centuries old money-maker, hate.

3.) True believers. They may come from various ends of the ideological spectrum, most of them are very afraid, fear courses through their every waking moment, they are made even more afraid by modern interpretations of say Biblical prophecies, or fears about the existential threat of the end of Western society.

4.) The gullible or the naive. These individuals read and believe the Islamophobic propaganda because they perceive the arguments as objective, factual, honest, and fitting with their worldview, or answering their confusion and incomprehension of world events or history.

There may be a few other groups not identified here, but those in the last category, the “gullible or the naive,” are usually individuals who later become enlightened and realize the true nature of Islamophobia. They start to question the poor “analysis,” the skewing of “facts,” the blindly subjective and hateful methodology employed by those they once respected as honest brokers on the issues of Islam and Muslims.

One such individual is Charles Johnson. Loonwatch documented his groundbreaking and public quarrel with his former allies, JihadWatch’s Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller of AtlasShrugs. For Johnson it was their too easy comfort and alliance with fascists like Geert Wilders that broke the proverbial camel’s back, and ever since, he has been outspoken in his criticism of Islamophobes.

Their have been many like Johnson, some who have changed their minds because of our site or their own introspection. One such individual is regular Loonwatch commenter and tipster CriticalDragon. CriticalDragon was quite involved with right-wing anti-Muslim sites, respected the leading lights of Islamophobia, and even commented (under a different screen name) on Jihad Watch amongst other blogs.

We asked CriticalDragon to tell us about how he at one time embraced Islamophobia, and how and why he eventually left the quagmire of hate:

LW: What first attracted you to the “counter-jihadists?”

CD: Prior to 9/11, I was naive and had an overly simplistic and overly positive view of my country and the world. It’s not that I thought that America had done no wrong, but I believed that in every war since World War II, its intentions were noble.

I always considered myself an anti-bigot, which was ironic since I would become a bigot myself. Although I wasn’t as bad as some of the Islamophobes out there, I said and supported some things that I’m now really ashamed of. One of the reasons why I fell for the “counter jihadists” may have been in part because prior to 9/11, I didn’t hear much about anti-Muslim bigotry.

I did however have a very black and white view of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I got most of my information on that from people like Rush Limbaugh. Although I wouldn’t call Rush an Islamophobe, he always portrayed the Palestinian side as evil. However, he did not make a connection between the conflict and Islam.

Right after 9/11 occurred, I wanted to find out why we were attacked. What had America done to deserve such an attack in their eyes, and why were they so willing to die to hurt us?

I knew about suicide bombers in Israel, but I really knew that I didn’t understand what motivated them either, but I didn’t think much about it, because I was not involved in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It didn’t affect me much, or anyone I knew, but now I felt that my country was in danger of being attacked again at any moment. I became aware shortly after the event of the fact that the 9/11 hijackers were Muslims, but I did not connect the two until later.

Searching for answers I came across the “counter Jihad blogs.” I can’t remember if the first one I came across was Jihad Watch or another one, but at some point I reached Jihad Watch. I read it and some other relatively moderate “Counter Jihad” blogs and basically believed everything I read without doing enough research to determine if they were true or not. For a while I assumed that what they were saying did not apply to most Muslims, and tried, but not hard enough, to find some peaceful liberal Muslims who denounced terrorism.

Even after visiting those sites I probably wouldn’t have bought into the Stealth Jihad or Population Jihad conspiracies if not for two events.

First, I assumed that after we overthrew the Taliban, the government in Afghanistan would be a genuine liberal democracy with religious freedom. At the time, and even though I believed people like Spencer in regards to what they presented as the “teachings of Islam” (death to the infidels, lying to the infidels, oppressive theocracy), I assumed most Muslims did not follow such “teachings.” But after the war was over, I remember an Afghan man who was set to be put to death for converting from Islam to Christianity, and it not only disappointed me, it kind of shocked me.

I literally believed what George W. Bush said about people wanting to live in freedom, and the Afghan people had chosen to install a government without freedom of religion, even after living under a brutal theocracy, and it seemed to me that we had even encouraged it to some degree.

Second was the cartoon riots, which really scared me, because it looked like large numbers of Muslims around the world spontaneously erupted over harmless cartoons, and I saw what looked like Western governments caving-in to their demands.

LW: Which Islamophobic blogs did you frequent?

CD: Mostly The Infidel Blogger’s Alliance, Bosch Fawstin, Citizen Warrior, FrontpageMag, Culturism, and Religion of Peace, which is the worst of them all. It literally scared me, every time I visited it.

They’re really deceptive in how they cherry pick news stories and post hundreds of terrifying stories about Islam and Muslims to support their agenda.

I might suggest that Loonwatch take the “Religion of Peace” website to task more often, except most of the stuff on there isn’t written by them. Most of it is just links to articles on other websites.

Although I read at least two of Robert Spencer’s books I did not spend a lot of time at Jihad Watch. I may have admired him at the time but I didn’t spend much time on his blog. The same is true for Pamela Geller and her Atlas Shrugs blog. One of the reasons why I didn’t realize how nuts she was may well have been because I didn’t spend much time there.

If you are going to take on one of the Islamophobic bloggers whose blog I used to follow I would recommend laying the smack down on Citizen Warrior. He’s kind of like Robert Spencer, but maybe a bit more sophisticated, although he hasn’t written any books that I’m aware of.  You might also want to take on John Kenneth Press (AKA Culturist John) who wrote the book Culturism, and runs the blog by the same name, and eviscerate some of his arguments, although he usually doesn’t deal with Islam or Muslims.

LW: You’ve mentioned in your comments that you truly believed in the threat of “stealth jihad.” Were there any other major themes that seemed to make sense to you at the time?

CD: I’m really embarrassed to say this, but after reading Marks Steyn‘s America Alone, I actually became convinced that Muslims in Europe were having far more children than non-Muslims, and given enough time, they would become the majority. I believed they would most likely turn those countries into Islamic theocracies, because at the time, that’s what I thought most of them wanted, or they wouldn’t be willing to resist when the fanatics started taking over.

I thought it might take centuries but still it scared me, the idea that these people with such an alien worldview might destroy Western culture and eventually replace it with Sharia’. I know its stupid, but I wasn’t thinking too hard at the time unfortunately.

Note that I never saw this in racial terms, always cultural terms. I was Islamophobic, but I was not a racist. I believed that Muslims in the West were raising their children in such a way that they would not share our values. It was not something genetic, but rather how I thought they were raising their children.

I also believed that the West was at war with Islam, yet simultaneously did not believe that all Muslims were evil, or even our enemies. I know that’s a contradiction, but I didn’t think about it too much at the time. On the occasions when other people would bring that up, I just rationalized it away. However, the fact that I realized that not all Muslims could be evil, would eventually help bring me out of the Islamophobic nightmare.

LW: For how long were you a regular visitor to the “counter-jihadist” blogs?

CD: Sadly, I was a follower and supporter of “counter jihad” blogs for about ten years following 9/11. I only really stopped being an Islamophobe some time in late September of 2011, and even then it would be another month or two before I completely rejected all their nonsense. For example I was still somewhat suspicious of CAIR until I realized that just about every blog that suspected them of being connected to terrorist groups like Hamas, recommended Jihad Watch and by that time I had come to see Robert Spencer as the bigot and liar that he really is.

LW: About Ten Years? Why did it take you so long to see the light?

CD: I got scared and I did not do a very good job of questioning what I was told. I was terrified, and I wanted to stop Jihadists from destroying our freedom. It seemed so obvious to me, because I was getting such a distorted picture of reality.

Early on when I joined the counter jihad movement, most of the information I was getting on what was going on in the world involving Islam and Muslims was incredibly biased to say the least, and I did not try very hard to critique it, because all the evidence seemed so overwhelming at the time. Most of the blogs I frequented outside of the “Counter Jihad Movement” rarely mentioned Islam or Muslims. I occasionally, though rarely, visited left wing political blogs.

One of the few exceptions was American United for the Separation Of Church and State, but I don’t even think they talked about Islam until people in the states started trying to pass anti-Shariah legislation. I spent the vast majority of my time on right-wing Islamophobic blogs, and my preferred news channel was Fox News, which rarely debunked Islamophobes. For those reasons, I almost always saw what left wing bloggers wrote refuting Islamophobic claims through the eyes of Islamophobes, and I rarely heard about Muslims protesting evil done in the name of their faith.

However, if I had been willing to do a bit more research to see what groups like Act For America really based their opposition on, outside of the Islamophobic blogs I frequented I would have seen just how wrong they were. In addition I was too quick to dismiss arguments against their positions.

There were some skeptical science blogs and YouTube channels that I really enjoyed, and they tended to be rather left wing, but they rarely mentioned Islam, that is until the idea of Everybody Draw Muhammad day and the issue of the “Ground Zero Mosque” came up, which was years after 9/11 and the cartoon riots.

Even then, too often, I tended to just dismiss them unless I already agreed with them. I got to the point where I really did not want to admit I was wrong. Maybe I didn’t want to admit I was being a bigot.

Case in point, when atheist YouTuber and foe of creationists everywhere, “Thunderf00t” came out in support for Everybody Draw Muhammad day, and made at least one anti “Ground Zero Mosque” video, I tended to dismiss the arguments that other, better, Youtuber skeptics made against him.

I admired “ThunderF00t,” for his strong stance for science and reason and against the “backwardness of Islam.” Ironically I would eventually come to respect and admire the people on YouTube who opposed him like Coughlin 666 (now Coughlin 616 and Coughlin 000) and Ujames1978 (now Ujames1978Forever and Pirus The God Slayer).

I was a horrible skeptic to say the least. For a long time I fell for just about every single prominent Loon.

I believed most of the things that they said, and it seemed like there were just so many “former Muslims” out there talking about how “evil” Islam is, and how the West was destined to be Islamized if we did not do anything to stop it, because there were just so many fanatical Muslims out there determined to force us to convert or submit. I used to really admire Wafa Sultan and, although I thought Walid Shoebat‘s fundamentalist Christian beliefs were a bit nonsensical to say the least, I never doubted that he really was a “former Muslim terrorist” until much later.

I had managed to entrap myself in my own nightmarish digital web of Islamophobia.

LW: What effect, if any did self-proclaimed Muslim supporters of Robert Spencer, such as Zuhdi Jasser have on you?

CD: They actually encouraged me to support the “counter jihad movement” early on and likely contributed to my own Islamophobia, but ironically and counter-intuitively they also were one of the factors that prevented me from seeing all Muslims as the enemy.

Let me explain.

By doing the things that he did, such as being the host of the Clarion Fund‘s anti-Muslim propaganda film, “The Third Jihad,”Jasser likely convinced a lot of people that there really was a conspiracy among American Muslims to “Islamize” the country. Some Islamophobic websites link to his organization, the “American Islamic Forum for Democracy,” and they use it as a way of claiming that they’re not really bigoted against Muslims because some Muslims support them and vice versa.

This certainly reinforced all of my fears, but at the same time, since I couldn’t come up with what I thought would be a good reason for him to be lying about this, it encouraged me to think that not all Muslims were bad. In fact, he was one of the few Muslims that I was certain was not lying to me.

Ironically, I didn’t lose respect for Jasser even while other anti-Muslim bigots tried to convince me that he was really a Stealth Jihadist as well. The only thing that made me completely lose respect for him was something he did after I left the “anti-jihad” movement, when he made a video defending Lowes at the moment they gave into intimidation and pressure from anti-Muslim bigots to drop support for the show “All American Muslim.” I was no longer an Islamophobe at that point and was in fact trying to fight anti-Muslim bigotry.

I’m not sure if Jasser is a “self hating Muslim” for lack of a better term, but he may be a useful idiot for Islamophobes. I have come across multiple instances where Islamophobes accused him of being a Stealth Jihadist as well, just because he’s a Muslim, they think he is lying to them and that he really supports groups like AlQaeda. What he and his organization are doing is perpetuating baseless conspiracy theories about Muslims, and he won’t convince Islamophobes who are already convinced that he’s the enemy that he’s a friend.

In fact, if he ever comes to see how baseless the Stealth Jihad conspiracy really is, and turns around and stops supporting “counter jihadists,” then a bunch of people who used to support him will become  convinced that he really was a stealth Jihadist all along.

LW: What changed your mind? Was it a single event or a process over time?

CD: It was a process, but there were some definite events.

I recall these events not in any particular order:

Even before 9/11, I considered myself a conservative, but I had some views that were not stereotypical of a conservative. For one thing I was a supporter of the separation of Church and State. I considered myself a secularist and a skeptic. I may have rightfully rejected things like scientific creationism, but a good skeptic would never have fallen for someone like Spencer or Geller, or if they had, they would have had too many doubts as soon as they started talking about things like the Stealth Jihad, or learned that they had their “scholarly” work published in the same series of books that promoted creationism and other forms of pseudoscience.

When I learned that Spencer’s, “the Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades,” had been published by the same people who published “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design,” it should have set off some red flags, but I had allowed myself to become too convinced that he was correct by then, and that he was a “real scholar.”

I was shocked when secularist groups like American’s United For the Separation of Church and State actually came out against the anti-Sharia’ legislation. I assumed they would support such laws, because in my mind it was fighting for secularism. The problem was that since I believed in those nonsensical anti-Muslim conspiracy theories, I actually believed that Muslim fanatics were a greater threat to our freedom than the religious right.

Like all bigots I was closed minded, but maybe not as closed minded as some. Part of the problem was that I was getting most of my information on Islam and Muslims from right-wing sources and they were incredibly biased. It made it look like there was a large number of Muslims out to take over the world. While I’m certain there are some blogs out there run by genuine right wing anti-loons, I didn’t come across too many. When I happened to come across a video debunking the claim that Muslims were likely to become the majority through immigration I began to doubt it for the first time.

Earlier, I came across another more “moderate critic” of Islam who went by the user name, “Klingschor.”  He started out as a supporter of Robert Spencer and at one time had favorited the ridiculous “Three Things You Probably Don’t Know About Islam” video on his YouTube channel.  However, as Klingschor got more educated, he eventually turned against Spencer. He created a video supporting the “Ground Zero Mosque,” and Imam Rauf, where he viciously attacked Spencer and Geller for being bigots.  (The video is no longer on his channel, although now I wish he’d repost the original or remake it).  I admired Spencer and Geller and I was convinced that Rauf was a “stealth jihadist,” so this shocked me, since I admired Klingschor as well and he didn’t seem pro-Islam to me. I wondered why he wasn’t convinced as I was that Rauf was up to no good and why he had suddenly turned on Spencer and Geller.  I had trouble explaining it.

In addition, I began to realize that if things did not change, a lot of innocent people were going to get hurt, and not by Muslim jihadists. I knew that not all Muslims were our enemies, and I would sometimes get into arguments with other people who held worse views than I did; people who wanted to nuke Mecca and kill every single Muslim on the planet.

Even when I pointed out to them how innocent people would be killed, it did not phase them. These nuke Mecca/kill all Muslims people were so bad that I saw them as anti-Muslim bigots even when I was an anti-Muslim bigot. That’s how bad they were.

Then something else happened, something that was somewhat of a watershed moment.

Most people in the “counter Jihad movement” assumed Anders Breivik was a Muslim when news of his rampage first came out. I was not really that shocked by the fact that he was not a Muslim, since I knew non-Muslim terrorists existed, but I was shocked by his motive.

He went on his rampage and murdered innocent people including many children, believing it was necessary to stop the Islamization of Europe. Of course excuses were made for Spencer and Geller not being responsible, and I bought into them at first, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized that their rhetoric did nothing to discourage a Breivik.

Even if Breivik got his beliefs from somewhere else, he idolized Spencer and Geller and was an avid supporter, not to mention other prominent figures in the “counter Jihad Movement.” If anything, they encouraged his behavior even if they did not specifically tell him to commit violent acts.

It was also about this time that I found out that a couple of the lesser known Islamophobes that I admired were racists.  No one you’ve probably heard of, just a couple of nobodies really, but I had admired them and thought they were smarter than they actually were. This was another shock to my system because I had really respected them, and I had always regarded racism as abhorrent and stupid. I instantly lost respect for them.

Plus I saw a video by Coughlin 616, called “Pamela Geller Busted.” Although at the time I thought he was wrong to oppose Geller and believed he was far too concerned with neo-Nazis as compared to Jihadists, I decided to watch the video. After watching it, and checking Coughlin’s sources, I realized that he had proven that Geller was a liar. What’s more she might have been covering for Breivik or someone like him. I suddenly had a lot more respect for Coughlin and a lot less respect for Geller.

In the meantime, I saw more videos by Klingscor, and another Youtube atheist critic of Islam, CEMBadmins, that actually debunked some common Islamophobic claims. One of them was taqiya, both of them made videos on the subject thoroughly debunking the claim that taqiya is lying for Islam and that Muslims are more likely to lie than non Muslims.

CEMBadmins really made it hard for me to continue to believe in the taqiya conspiracy since he was not only a critic of Islam, but an ex-Muslim. In his video, he talked about a poll taken of members of the Council of Ex-Muslims (his organization) and it turned out that most of them had never even heard of taqiya, and those that had regarded it as a defensive mechanism to protect themselves from persecution, not lying to promote Islam like I had been taught by others in the “counter jihad movement.”

I thought to myself, “Why would ex-Muslims lie for Islam?” It slowly began to hit me just how wrong people like Spencer were on the subject.

Soon, I saw a couple of videos on Muslims who helped save Jews during the Holocaust. At least one of them I came across on Loonwatch. Although I always knew there were at least some rare instances when Muslims helped non Muslims, I had no idea that so many Muslims had done so much at one time to help a large group of non-Muslims. I was slowly realizing just how much the evil done by Muslims to non Muslims like myself in the name of Islam was exaggerated by people in the “counter jihad movement,” and how much they ignored the good done by Muslims in the name of Islam.

The final nail in the coffin for my support for those “counter jihad” blogs and Spencer and Geller was when I realized that Islam has not traditionally endorsed terrorism.  When I found Loonwatch and looked at the actual statistics for the first time I realized that very few terrorists in the United States and Europe were even Muslims.

I came to realize just how wrong I was, and I felt an odd combination of happiness and relief as well as guilt and shame, simultaneously.

LW: Why do you spend so much time trying to help fight anti-Muslim bigotry now?

CD: For one thing, ever since I allowed myself to see the light, I have come to realize just how wrong I was. I’ve come to see that the people I once admired and supported like Geert Wilders are actually a greater threat to our freedom than the threat they claim to be fighting.

Since Stealth Jihad and Islamization are myths, there’s no need for any legislation to fight them. If anything, a lot of innocent people are going to be hurt by “counter jihadists” including innocent Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and for what? To fight imaginary conspiracy theories?

Also, the Christian religious right is more likely to turn America into a theocracy. With Muslims at less than one percent of the American population, they don’t have the numbers to do so, even if they all wanted to. In fact, I now understand that as someone who normally wouldn’t support the religious right, by trying so hard to fight the imaginary threat of Islamization, I made myself a useful idiot of the religious right. The same is true for any secularist who supports them out of fear of Jihadists taking over and turning the West into an Islamic theocracy.

Finally, I want to make up for the mistake of supporting the “counter jihadists.” The only way I can clear my conscious now is to actively oppose the people and organizations I once endorsed. I feel a lot of guilt, I did and said a lot of things that I regret now.

LW: Do you have any suggestions for those who still admire bloggers like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller?

CD: If you want to hear people criticize Islam, look for people who are not bigots, and do not believe in nonsensical conspiracy theories, like “the stealth Jihad.” Make sure they reject the idea that Islam teaches Muslims to lie to promote their faith and that Muslims are more likely to lie than non Muslims. Find people who are at least trying to be objective and who avoid making sweeping generalizations about Muslims.

Also listen to what Muslims have to say about themselves, their politics, their philosophy and their faith. In many cases it will be completely counter to the negative stereotypes. Let me use someone who appears on Loonwatch from time to time as an example.

When I first saw “Dawah Films”  respond to “Thunderf00t,” I saw it only through the eyes of “Thunderf00t.” I thought he was threatening to kill him for criticizing his religion, but when I actually watched other videos he made, and talked to him about it, years later, I realized how radically different his motives actually were. Contrary to the way “Thunderf00t” portrayed him, he supported free speech and he even defended another YouTuber, “ZOMGitscriss,” against death threats from genuine Muslim extremists, when she made some minor criticisms of Islam.

In addition to listening to Muslims and moderate, rational critics of Islam, you should also take an Islamic Studies course at an accredited university, if you have the time. I’m hoping to do that, since contrary to what I used to believe, I don’t know much about Islam, and if I’m going to fight anti-Muslim bigotry, I’m going to have to know more about Islam and its history. If you can’t do that, or even if you can do that, in addition, try to find a few books about Islam written by genuine scholars who studied Islam within academia.

LW: How did you find Loonwatch?

CD: I believe I first heard about Loonwatch on a conservative blog that I used to visit from time to time.

The person behind the blog wrote a story critiquing something you wrote, but I don’t remember if I read it or not, but either way, I didn’t check his sources, so I didn’t find out what Loonwatch was until much later, after I left the “counter Jihad” movement.

After I stopped being an Islamophobe, I wanted to fight anti-Muslim bigotry and I started looking around and I came across Loonwatch and its sister site, SpencerWatch. However, I did notice that “Dawah Films” recommends you guys on his channel, but I can’t remember if I clicked on his link before or after I did a Google search.

LW: Do you regularly visit any other anti-bigotry sites, and if so, which ones?

CD: I really think the Southern Poverty Law Center is an excellent resource, especially if you include their blog “HateWatch.” The anti-Defamation League is also generally a good anti-bigotry organization. I know the American Civil Liberties Union does not specialize in fighting bigotry, but they do a very good job of protecting civil liberties including the civil liberties of minorities. More recently I started exploring Sheila Musaji’s “The American Muslim,” which also does a good job debunking anti Muslim myths as well.

I’d also recommend more than a few Youtube channels that have done a lot to fight irrational hatred and bigotry. I’ve already mentioned Coughlan and Ujames1978Forever’s channels, and would like to add EvoGenVideos and HannibaltheVictor13. EvoGenVideos is a genetics student who sometimes uses his scientific knowledge to debunk racists. HannibaltheVictor13 is an anthropologist who has also debunked racists.

LW: Is there any meaning behind your nickname, Critical Dragon1177, that you’d like to share?

CD: When I realized how wrong I was to support the “counter Jihad” movement, I also realized that I had said some incredibly stupid and often bigoted things that I was ashamed of. Plus I wanted to disassociate from those bigoted anti-Muslim blogs that I used to visit.

In order to do what I wanted to do, I needed a new user name. I made a new years resolution to be a better skeptic.

I realized that the biggest reason that I fell for what Islamophobes were telling me, and continued to believe them for so long, despite the overwhelming evidence against what they were saying was my lack of critical thinking on the matter. My story is really about the danger of not thinking critically, and of giving into your emotions.

That’s where the first part of my user name comes from. I added ‘Dragon’ because I like fantasy, and I love fantasy creatures. The numbers were added just in case someone else had that name.

LW: In conclusion is there anything else you would like to share with the LW audience?

CD: I’ve read a book called A World Without Islam that I highly recommend. It’s by Graham E. Fuller.

According to his biography over at Amazon.com,

“Graham E. Fuller is a former vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council at the CIA, a former senior political scientist at RAND, and a current adjunct professor of history at Simon Fraser University. He is the author of numerous books about the Middle East, including The Future of Political Islam. He has lived and worked in the Muslim world for nearly two decades.”

In his book, “A World without Islam,” Fuller goes a long way to debunk the claim that we are at war with Islam, and that Islam is the cause of terrorism and our problems involving Muslims and Muslim majority societies.

I haven’t read any of his other books, but based on this one, he’s largely anti Robert Spencer, and he has far better credentials than him. In fact if I had read something like this book just after 9/11 instead of going to all those bigoted “counter jihad” sites, I don’t think I would have taken people like Spencer seriously at all.

It was recommended to me by my friend, Klingschor, along with another book by Tamim Ansary called “Destiny Disrupted: A History of the World Through Islamic Eyes,” which I’ve started reading as well.

I also have a friend on Youtube that I would like to introduce, he goes by the user name, Ramio1983. He’s made at least one video fighting anti-Muslim bigotry, and I think he’s working on another one, maybe someone here could help him.

LW: Thank you, CriticalDragon, for sharing your story here on Loonwatch, and for joining the fight against bigotry.

CD: You’re Welcome.  I’m pleased to be able to share my story.  My hope  is that it will help someone else to see the truth.

Comments (130)

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Brookfield Mosque Backers Parry Volley of Questions

Posted on 15 March 2012 by Emperor

Using zoning laws to try and undermine the construction of mosques:

Brookfield mosque backers parry volley of questions

By Annysa Johnson of the Journal Sentinel

Brookfield - A crowd gathered at the Brookfield Public Library raised questions Tuesday not just about a proposed mosque in the area, but about the faith and ideology of those who plan to use it.

“We’re not fighting against a religion, what we’re fighting against is a tyrannical ideology,” said Janet Spiewak of the conservative Eagle Forum, which hosted the discussion.

She urged residents to raise concerns about the mosque’s traffic impact and other zoning issues at the city’s upcoming meetings on the project, presumably as a way of stopping it from being built.

“We can, through public pressure, force the aldermen and the mayor to acknowledge where the majority of Brookfield stands,” she said.

The project was intended to be discussed inside the library, but more than 30 people showed up, so it was moved outside, while the regular Forum meeting continued inside.

Islamic Society of Milwaukee President Ahmed Quereshi and Executive Director Othman Atta answered a barrage of questions – at times hostile – on the size of the building, terrorism, sharia law, the role of women in Islam, and what is and isn’t in the Qur’an.

Their answers were at times met with derisive laughter and heckling. Some people focused on basics such as traffic; others threw out examples of violence and terrorism done by people claiming to act in concert with Islamic teaching.

Police officers watched from cars nearby.

“We are not advocating extremism,” said Atta, noting that as an attorney he has sworn an oath to uphold the laws of the United States. “We’re here as American citizens. Our goal here is just to provide a house of worship for the community who reside here.”

The Islamic Society is proposing to build a 12,950-square-foot mosque and community center on 4.25 acres east of N. Calhoun Road on Pheasant Drive.

The Society, which operates a 70,000-square-foot complex near S. 13th St. and W. Layton Ave. in Milwaukee, said it has about 100 families who live within a 4-mile radius of the Brookfield site.

Members of the Brookfield-Elm Grove Interfaith Network, which has endorsed the project, attended the gathering as a show of support.

“People were afraid of us, too, when we first moved here in 1961,” said the Rev. Suzelle Lynch of the Unitarian Universalist Church West in Brookfield.

Much of the rancor had abated by the end, with some residents inviting the Muslim leaders to host a local forum and asking that copies of the Qur’an be sent to local churches.

“My question is about what’s being taught there,” said Swannie Tess. “I’m 80 years old, and I’ll be dead in 10 years, but I have children and grandchildren growing up.”

Tess said she’d like to hear more in a different, less-charged setting.

“I thought it was a good exchange,” said Quereshi. “It started out a little bumpy, but by the end, people were having a good conversation.”

Comments (14)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Brigitte Gabriel’s ACT! for America Meets with British “Freedom” Party

Posted on 19 February 2012 by Emperor

Looks like Brigitte Gabriel‘s loony ACT! for America is seeking to cement ties with Islamophobes from across the pond, the trans-Atlantic Islamophobic Axis continues:

British Freedom Party links up with Brigitte Gabriel

On Thursday night, the Chairman of the newly formed British Freedom Party, Paul Weston, spoke to a group of New Yorkers at a meeting sponsored by Brigitte Gabriel’s Act For America organization. Weston also said he came to warn America that what is happening in Britain today could happen in America in the not too distant future.

This meeting is going to be preceded by a joint event between BFP chairman Paul Weston and the Jewish Defense League (JDL).

British Freedom Party leader to speak at Jewish Defense League meeting in Toronto

Security will be tight on Monday as a controversial leader of a far-right British Freedom Party (BFP) talks to supporters in Toronto about his tough stand against immigration and spread of radical Islam. Toronto Police officers will be on hand as Paul Weston is expected to draw a large crowd at the Toronto Zionist Centre, on Marlee Ave.

The BFP was formed in Oct. 2010 and features a 20-point platform with a priority to “stop immigration to Britain from countries that promote the Muslim brotherhood.” Other points of the platform include abolition of the human rights of foreign criminals and terrorists; deport dual nationality Islamists and illegal immigrants and stop or turn back all aspects of the Islamisation of Britain.

“We have witnessed the spread of fundamentalist Islam across Europe and are witnessing the same trend in North America,” Weston stated in party literature.

Meir Weinstein, of the Jewish Defense League, an organizer of the event, said security will be high when Weston takes to the stage to bash immigration and Muslims. “We are very excited to have him (Weston) here,” Weinstein said on Thursday. “His party wants more stringent rules for people coming from countries that promote the Muslim brotherhood.”

He said police have been notified of the event and private security will be on hand to prevent possible disruptions by protestors. “There has been some chatter on the Internet about protests,” Weinstein said. “We are not taking any chances.”

He said Weston is following in the footsteps of powerful anti-Muslim politician Geert Wilders, of the Freedom Party of the Netherlands, who holds similar views. “There has to be a change to our immigration policy,” Weinstein said on Thursday. “One of our goals is to stop the spread of Muslim fundamentalism.”

Officials of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) said Weston has no criminal convictions to bar him from entering the country.

Toronto Sun, 17 February 2012

Last year the JDL organised a meeting in solidarity with the English Defence League which was addressed by Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (“Tommy Robinson”) by video link.

Comments (13)

With Sue Myrick's departure in 2013, the 9th Congressional District seat will shift to another person for only the fifth time since Republican Charles Jonas went to Washington in 1953. DIEDRA LAIRD - 2008 CHARLOTTE OBSERVER FILE PHOTO

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Top Three Reasons we wont Miss Sue Myrick

Posted on 08 February 2012 by Amago

With Sue Myrick's departure in 2013, the 9th Congressional District seat will shift to another person for only the fifth time since Republican Charles Jonas went to Washington in 1953. DIEDRA LAIRD - 2008 CHARLOTTE OBSERVER FILE PHOTO

With Sue Myrick's departure in 2013, the 9th Congressional District seat will shift to another person for only the fifth time since Republican Charles Jonas went to Washington in 1953. DIEDRA LAIRD - 2008 CHARLOTTE OBSERVER FILE PHOTO

Here are the top three reasons why we are happy Sue Myrick will not seek another term:
  1. She wrote the forward to “Muslim Mafia”, a book that argues that Muslims crept into our government by an orchestrated network of spy interns.
  2. She partook in the Peter King hearings.
  3. She supports Bridgette Gabriel of ACT! for America, and other Islamophobes.

Rep. Sue Myrick will not Seek another Term in Congress

By Tim Funk and Jim Morrill
tfunk@charlotteobserver.com, jmorrill@charlotteobserver.com

U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick’s surprise announcement Tuesday that she’ll leave Washington after nine terms sparked a scramble by would-be successors that reached halfway around the world – literally.

Mecklenburg County commissioner Jim Pendergraph, a Republican and longtime Myrick ally, is expected to announce his candidacy this morning – apparently with Myrick’s blessing.

“Sue and I have been friends for 25 years and she’s very close,” said Pendergraph, a former Mecklenburg sheriff and one-time Democrat. “And I just would expect that she would (support me).”

Former GOP state Sen. Robert Pittenger, who is also among those mulling a run in the predominantly Republican 9th Congressional District, was notified by a reporter while on a mission trip in China.

“I … will discuss with my wife and family when I return,” he said in an email.

And Andy Dulin, a GOP Charlotte City Council member whose district overlaps with Myrick’s in southeast Charlotte, said he’ll make a decision on whether to run by week’s end.

Other Republicans mentioned: Mecklenburg Commissioner Bill James, who said he will decide soon; and Dan Barry, mayor pro tem of Weddington, who has been running in the crowded 8th District race but actually lives in the 9th.

Former Republican Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory would have been a sure candidate for the seat if – after years of waiting for it to become vacant – he had not decided to try instead for the N.C. governor’s mansion.

Mecklenburg County commissioner Jennifer Roberts, who’s a Democrat, also is considering a run. So may Jeff Doctor, a Democrat who challenged Myrick in 2010.

But the 9th District has historically been a safe GOP seat – and one that rarely changes occupants.

With Myrick’s departure in 2013, the office will shift to another person for only the fifth time since Republican Charles Jonas went to Washington in 1953. Since then, the seat was held by Jim Martin, Alex McMillan and Myrick.

Its boundaries have changed over the years, and it shifts shape again under the reapportionment map approved last year by the N.C. legislature. The Charlotte-centered district is even more Republican, with Mecklenburg County comprising a larger slice. It no longer includes Gaston County. Instead it takes in southern Iredell County and northern Union. Still, seven out of 10 district residents live in Mecklenburg County.

About 40 percent of the voters are registered Republicans, with Democrats comprising 32 percent and independents, 28 percent.

It’s also a predominantly white district (83 percent).

‘Grateful for the privilege’

Myrick, who will turn 71 this year, made her announcement on Facebook just days before Monday’s start of filing.

“After thoughtful discussion with my family, I have decided not to run for another term in Congress,” Myrick wrote. “I’m grateful for the privilege of serving. … We will spend the rest of the year working on the issues that are important to all of you – and I hope to be a positive influence.”

Myrick gave no reason for her decision. She and her staff did not return phone calls Tuesday.

Many GOP stalwarts expected her to run for a 10th term.

“I was quite surprised by her decision,” said state Sen. Bob Rucho, a Matthews Republican. “I talked to her the other day and never got an inkling about it. … I applaud her for her great job and wish her the very best as we move forward.”

Myrick’s road to Washington began in Charlotte, where she served on the City Council before defeating Democrat Harvey Gantt in the 1987 mayoral race. She served two terms, then ran unsuccessfully for her party’s U.S. Senate nomination in 1992.

Two years later, Myrick was elected to Congress as part of a GOP tidal wave that ended the Democrats’ 40-year control of the House. She won with 66 percent of the vote, becoming only the second woman to be elected to a full congressional term in North Carolina.

Her platform that year called for term limits for members of Congress. But Myrick never got around to limiting her own terms, going on to easily win eight more times.

A staunch conservative, Myrick also managed to move up the leadership ladder in the House. By 2004, she was both a member of the powerful Rules Committee, which decides which bills go to the floor, and chair of the Republican Study Committee, whose members are often to the right of the House’s GOP leaders.

Over the years, she emerged as a fiscal conservative, but one who favored federal money for road projects in her district. As a breast cancer survivor, she became a champion for increased coverage of mammograms. And, especially in recent years, Myrick waged high-profile, often controversial, campaigns against illegal immigration and radical Islam, which she charged had infiltrated the U.S. government.

On Tuesday, Republicans praised her record; some Democrats criticized it.

“Sue Myrick has been an incredibly effective leader,” said N.C. Republican Party Chairman Robin Hayes, a former congressman who served with Myrick. “Throughout her time in Congress, she earned the respect of the leadership by always being a strong voice for her district.”

But N.C. Democratic Party spokesman Walton Robinson said voters in her district will now “have the opportunity to elect a responsive, constituent-oriented representative who will take their concerns to Washington – not the other way around, as Sue Myrick has done for so many years.”

‘Not just NO, but HELL NO!’

Myrick was not the kind of House member to show up on national talk shows every Sunday.

But, in 2006, she did made national news – and seemed to speak for many around the country – when she sent a one-sentence letter to President George W. Bush, then had her office email a copy to reporters.

“In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates,” she wrote, “not just NO, but HELL NO!”

Myrick also demonstrated her toughness in a more personal way, by surviving breast cancer.

Diagnosed in 1999, she agonized over whether to make the news public.

“I have a very public job, so was concerned about what to tell the media about my surgery,” she wrote in a 2005 blog for the website Yahoo! Health. “My husband and I discussed it and decided that I had a ‘bully pulpit’ and should go public if it would help others. It was the best thing I did.”

She also served as a mentor for other GOP congressmen, including Cherryville’s Patrick McHenry, who was the youngest member of Congress when first elected to represent North Carolina’s 10th District in 2004.

“I have always been amazed by how hard Sue works,” McHenry said in a statement Tuesday. “Her leadership on health care and our national security will be sorely missed.”

Critics, foes welcome news

Myrick also had her share of foes, including Charlotte area Muslims and Hispanics who often criticized her outspokenness on issues relating to national security and immigration.

“We lost someone who worked tirelessly to fuel the flames of fear against the Muslim community and worked to make it hard for us to practice our faith openly,” said Jibril Hough, spokesman for the Islamic Center of Charlotte, who welcomed the news that Myrick was retiring.

Local Muslims criticized her for writing the foreword to a book – “Muslim Mafia” – whose researcher called Islam a disease. And in 2003, during remarks about domestic security threats, Myrick upset U.S. Arabs and Muslims by saying: “Look at who runs all the convenience stores across the country.”

She publicly faulted the U.S. intelligence community for failing to see a connection between al-Qaida and Samir Khan, a radical Charlotte blogger who left for Yemen to edit a magazine for the terrorist group and was later killed in a U.S. strike.

Last year, the congresswoman made headlines when she cancelled appearances at 9/11 memorial events because, she told the Observer, intelligence sources had alerted her that her name had turned up in a threatening Iranian news agency article.

Some criticized her, saying she was exaggerating the threat for political gain. But with the 2011 shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona, many members of Congress have been more concerned about their safety.

Appealed to GOP base

Some of the stands that upset Myrick’s critics delighted her Republican base.

She put getting tough on illegal immigration near the top of her agenda, for example.

In 2005, she managed to include her amendment to deport any illegal immigrant convicted of drunken driving in a bill that passed the House but died in the Senate.

She forged on, later reintroducing the “Scott Gardner Act” – named for a Mount Holly teacher killed in a 2005 wreck caused by an undocumented immigrant driving drunk – in the House.WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT FRANCO ORDONEZ AND STAFF WRITER DAVID PERLMUTT CONTRIBUTED.

 

Comments (3)

The Jacksonville community loves their team (and t-shirt cannons)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

NFL Team is on the Verge of Sharia Compliance!

Posted on 06 December 2011 by Amago

After people heard that the owner and coach were replaced by a Pakastini-born Muslim and an African American, there was an uproar of Islamophobic and racist comments. If we want this country to prosper once again, we need to grow up, but when we allow comments like this to filter in, my hope diminishes:

“I wonder if Khan has any friends who are terrorists?,” asks forgotten man on www.FreeRepublic.com. “Rush Limbaugh was not allowed to buy into the Rams, but a Muslim from Pakistan can buy the Jaguars. Go figure.”

Fanning The Flames: New Jacksonville Jaguars Owner’s Muslim Faith Stirs Stupidity

[Jacksonville, FL] Last week, it was announced that the Jacksonville Jaguars NFL team had been sold to super-successful Illinois businessman Shahid Khan. The deal was reported to be worth $760 million and includes a somewhat controversial first for the league.

Khan is a Pakistani-born Muslim, and will be the first of his faith to own a National Football League team. NFL team ownership is considered to be the ultimate trophy for American billionaires.

The sale is not 100% final, however, it still has to get approval from the league and the other owners, but Khan has had an ongoing relationship with the league for ten years so it seems a sure thing.

The Muslim-American community, which has been under attack since 9-11, no doubt sees Khan’s ownership as a sign that America is moving in the right direction, despite a vocal minority hell bent on demonizing all Muslims.

“He is the first … shows how American Muslims are integrating,” said Hassan Shibly, executive director of the Tampa chapter of the Council on American Islam Relations.

The Jacksonville Jaguars press release talking up the sale didn’t mention the fact that Khan was Muslim. That was probably a good thing – on the same day the sale was announced, it was also revealed that long-time head coach Jack Del Rio had been fired and assistant coach Mel Tucker – an African-American – would be taking over.

This year, the Jacksonville Jaguars have made a bigger impact in the news than on the field

This year, the Jacksonville Jaguars have made a bigger impact in the news than on the field

For redneck racist types – and in North Florida there are more than a few – the fact that the white owner and white coach of their hometown NFL franchise were replaced by a Pakistani-born Muslim and a black guy was just too much to take, especially in ONE DAY.

This Jaguars ownership change could be the final straw that sends Confederate flag flyers fleeing pro football for the warm, white blanket of NASCAR.

Just last year, members of the Jacksonville City Council jumped on the Muslim hate train in what was described as a huge embarrassment for the region. Parvez Ahmed – a University of North Florida professor, Fulbright Scholar and Muslim – had his Human Rights Commission nomination sent back to the Rules Committee because of “constituent concerns.”

It had already been approved, mind you. But that was before the Islamophobes in the ACT! For America organization made a bunch of noise and the spineless jellyfish on the city council caved to their concerns.

Almost on cue, conservative news sites were rife with ugly comments about Khan’s big play.

“I wonder if Khan has any friends who are terrorists?,” asks forgotten man on www.FreeRepublic.com. “Rush Limbaugh was not allowed to buy into the Rams, but a Muslim from Pakistan can buy the Jaguars. Go figure.”

Forgotten man must have forgotten that Limbaugh has made multiple controversial racist remarks about black athletes over the years and that many players indicated that they would not play for Limbaugh’s team if he was even a part owner.

Khan just happens to have a religion in common with some people who have committed terrorist acts in the name of their god. The same could be said about any of the major religions.

When CNN ran the story, the comments sections was literally boiling over with stupidity, hate and a bit of Star Trek movie related humor (1982′s Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan features Captain Kirk famously yelling “KHAAANNNN!,” a familiar refrain in the comments section).

The awful stuff was counteracted by some progressive Jags/NFL fans protective of their city/league and of the new owner.

On CNN, Terri surmised, “That is how the Pakistani’s will get even with the United States. They plan to buy the NFL, one team at a time, and move it to Pakistan.”

Also on CNN, someone calling themselves Pakastani [sic] wrote, “The name of the new team will be the Jacksonville Jihadis. Expect the cheerleaders to show some ankle during games!”

DisgustedNY was concerned that, “Now you have some guy who grew up in Pakistan dictating what happens with an American tradition.”

But they weren’t all an embarrassment to America’s melting pot philosophy. JaxFan noted the political ramifications of Khan’s ownership, saying that, “The level of religious ignorance and intolerance represented in some of the city’s supposed leaders will make it absolutely hilarious to see those same anti-gay, anti-Muslim religious righties having to kiss the butt of a Muslim who now holds the keys to the Jaguars and their possible relocation.”

The Jacksonville community loves their team (and t-shirt cannons)

The Jacksonville community loves their team (and t-shirt cannons)

“I think any comments challenging the prospective buyer’s ‘credentials’ as an American are immature,” offered Jeremy. “The guy has been here 40+ years, went to school for engineering here (actually did a degree that is USEFUL), worked for an American company, started his own American company (notice from the link posted above, that ALL the factories for his company are in the US?), and finally has had a dream of buying an NFL team.”

“America was founded based on principles of freedom of religion,” continued Jeremy. “I say let him take the team and see what he can do with it!”

Things were about the same on Yahoo! News … Mac offered: “A new way to launder money to the terrorists. Wonderful.” And from John: “Sold to Islamic Terrorist from Pakistan.”

Jake was downright racist in saying that, “schweet! sell them to a Sand Monkey.” And from Thomas: “I think he got the money to buy the team by tipping off where Bin Laden was hiding.”

DEF appeared to be a buoy of reason in a sea of hate and stupidity, analyzing that, “As a 20-year resident of Jacksonville, I can say that this is the most conservative bible belt town I have ever lived in. It has a huge redneck/conservative Christian base not to mention that many of them have their predisposed prejudices against Muslims.”

“This new owner … has a great opportunity to change Jacksonville for the better,” he said.

Although DEF cautions Khan – and he makes a good point in doing so that if Khan moves the team from Jacksonville (as has been widely speculated) that he, “could certainly see many in Jacksonville reacting by building a much deeper hatred for Muslims. … It could get ugly.”

I think you mean uglier.

By: Mark Christopher/Sunshine Slate

 

Comments (29)

Advertise Here
Advertise Here