Some People

“Some people did something,” says Rep Ilhan Omar. Then came her victim tweet:

Some people were radical Islamist Muslims. Something was the 9/ll Attacks — killing over 3000 with over 16,000 Ground Zero responders, to date.

Resulting in the Memorial of Something, I guess. A crying shame.

And she is a victim accusing us of incitement? Condemn our remarks?

On the other hand, Cair was labeled as an unindicted co-conspirator group.

Victim card revoked.

“Something”…..like an act of war.

*Ref: https://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/423.pdf

Media double standards: unfair on CAIR

The CAIR-pandering media does not want to cover something as divisive as say moderate Muslims talking about radical Islamists. Who cares about that?

C-SPAN Accused of ‘Mainstreaming Islamist Organizations While Willfully Marginalizing’ Reformists

By Patrick Goodenough | December 23, 2015 | CNS News

(CNSNews.com) – The leader of an umbrella group of moderate Islamic organizations is troubled by C-SPAN’s decision not to cover its launch event at the National Press Club earlier this month, when on Monday the public affairs network provided live coverage to another Muslim event – highlighting “Islamophobia” – at the same venue.

Attempts to get C-SPAN to cover the launch of the Muslim Reform Movement on December 4 were unsuccessful, said M. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and a key figure in the establishment of the MRM.

On Monday, C-SPAN covered a press conference by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its allies in the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO) at which 2016 political candidates were warned that anti-Muslim sentiment would carry a cost at the ballot box.

“They are mainstreaming Islamist organizations while willfully marginalizing us,” Jasser said. “At least show both!”

Read more at CNC News

 

CAIR and Co. Warn 2016 Candidates: Spew ‘Islamophobia’ at Your Political Peril

By Patrick Goodenough | December 21, 2015 | CNS News

(CNSNews.com) – Leaders of several American Muslim organizations warned Donald Trump and other presidential candidates Monday that if they engage in bigotry and “Islamophobia” they will pay a political price because Muslim voters – in the words of one – will mobilize and “make sure you are out of there.”

“Let it be heard, and clear, to all political candidates, be it Donald Trump or whoever else, that indeed, if you engage in Islamophobia, if you engage in demagoguery and bigotry, you will pay a political price,” American Muslim Alliance director Mahdi Bray said at the National Press Club.

“Because we’re going to register our people and we’re going to use our ballot and we’re going to ‘take our souls to the polls’ and make sure you are out of there,” he continued.

Read more at CNS News

They don’t even attempt to hide their bias. I guess CAIR has them wrapped around their little finger, for safe keeping. C-SPAN should be ashamed.

Obama and Cair hit same note on Kassig

Obama offered a statement on the beheading of aid worker, Peter Kassig:

Obama and Cair condemn evil act

Tech Times | November 17, 2014

“While ISIL revels in the slaughter of innocents, including Muslims, and is bent only on sowing death and destruction, Abdul-Rahman was a humanitarian who worked to save the lives of Syrians injured and dispossessed by the Syrian conflict,” Obama says. “While ISIL exploits the tragedy in Syria to advance their own selfish aims, Abdul-Rahman was so moved by the anguish and suffering of Syrian civilians that he traveled to Lebanon to work in a hospital treating refugees.”

And Cair issued a statement:

“Just as we have denounced previous killings of innocent civilians by the ISIS terrorist group, we condemn the barbaric murder of Peter Kassig and once again repudiate the anti-Islamic ideology that produces such brutality,” says CAIR in a statement. “We also offer our sincere condolences to Mr. Kassig’s family and loved ones.”

Read more: http://www.techtimes.com/articles/20352/20141117/isis-beheads-hostage-peter-kassig-obama-cair-condemn-evil-act.htm

That was a wonderful statement. Obama unwittingly outed his own political strategy. He said “ISIL exploits the tragedy in Syria to advance their own selfish aims,” and Obama exploits tragedy to advance his own selfish aims. It’s his M/O, even if creating tragedy.

I must have missed where ISIS has an “anti-Islamic ideology” which is causing this barbarism. That would require the willing suspension of disbelief. When did ISIS ever renounce or criticize Islam? Cair has the credibility of a skunk in the middle of the road.

RightRing | Bullright

Activists Are US: Liberals in rabid political mode

(at a new high even for them)

There are a plethora of areas which tie into the rabid nature of today’s “progressives”.

The latest on Obama’s ‘phoney scandal’ list is the VA and poor treatment of vets, which is an example. There were calls for Shinseki to step down, rejected out of hand.

There is a deeper issue here and its personal with Libs. Do you think the Libs really care about the VA or veterans? They are proving which is more important by defending Shinseki over the widespread mismanagement in the VA.

But first Shinseki’s history. All you hear is he is a four star general served in the military. If you remember Iraq he was a steady voice in the Liberals’ criticism of the war. He was wildly cited by Liberals in their anti-war campaign. Because he disagreed with Rumsfeld on the number of troops in an surge, he was hailed for his disagreement.

Now at the VA, Democrats’ knee-jerk reaction is to defend him, and since he was their VA pick. No doubt past-disagreement politics factor into the administration’s defense of Shinseki. Had he not been useful to them, he probably wouldn’t be there now, nor entitled to Dems defense. That’s my guess. That aside, he became a default ally of the Left. His post military career includes positions at corporations, also contractors to the military.

But the people frustrated with the VA don’t care about that. It matters to Liberals since politics trumps reality. Were it not for Obama being in the White House, and his man Shinseki at VA, Dems would have no problem politicizing the VA situation for political gain. (as if they are out there by their lonesome defending the military – the way they frame every other group they pander to.) It’s what they do.

The White House says they have full confidence in him, and he says he serves at the pleasure of the president. He said he has no plans of resigning. Veteran organizations have called for his resignation for over a year. He might have been wrong there, he serves the Vets in that capacity. Wouldn’t you think he would have said as much instead of just at the pleasure of the president? What is going on in the VA is symptomatic of what happens in Government, and the Left’s mindset. They instinctively protect government bureaucracy. Backlog? Alter the books, fixing the books not patients.

Another issue, in no particular order, is Liberal activism in media on business. The CEO is forced from his office at Mozilla for his past support of “prop 8” in CA. Not that he was against anyone, just supported traditional marriage. He wasn’t out there with a megaphone. But the left went at him like a pack of wolves for it. So he’s out. It’s all part of the culture that tolerates what is politically convenient — even if it is the mismanagement or abuse in government.

Along the same lines is liberal activists supporting same-sex marriage. And you have the LGBT movement/agenda lashing out at anyone who stands up for traditional marriage. Chick-fil-A anyone? Phil Robertson, Duck Dynasty? Oppose their agenda and look out. Standing for tradition is taboo.

On the stimulus, same thing, opposition was hatred of Obama. They distorted and extorted Mitch McConnell’s quote that “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president” into ‘hatred of Obama’. Then came the mythical “War on women”.

Then you have their defense of ObamaCare despite roll out problems. The defense of ObamaCare stretched from accusations of extreme right-wing politics and branded opponents unreasonable. They did anything to ram it through. Anyone who disagreed was driven by hatred, bigotry or racism toward Obama. The strategy was to demonize any opposition and question their motives.

You have the environmental Nazis in a tizzy defending global warming and Michael Mann, their super hero. (remember the hockey stick) Enter Mark Steyn who said as much in his columns and suffered their attacks, along with National Review, for it. Mann sued both for defamation of character for criticizing his work. Rule number I , tho shalt not criticize or insult Leftisit academia. Buck that and the collective come at you. (by design) But now even defending yourself against their intimidation and attacks can cause defense attorneys to cringe. Possibly even dropping their client.

Along those lines the Keystone Pipeline. The Left channeled all its environmental strength and money to oppose the pipeline for five years. Obama being a creature of the radical Left himself has handed off and stalled the process multiple times. The Left is willing to do anything to “save the earth”. (while destroying civilization as we know it) The lizards’ welfare trumps human interests. Stuck on Steyer; all who oppose them feels their global-warming wrath.

Then we have campuses, universities, and collective academia. This is on various levels on the left’s hot button issues. But gone are the sit-ins, today its about controlling and wielding the strings of government in the most radical ways they can. A pox on anyone or thing that disagrees. It’s called progressive, and so loud and paramount is it that it repels anything in its wake. And the proofs, or fruits, of it are demonstrated across campuses. That’s an entire subject but consider just some of their main bullet points. (Issues coincide with the radical Left, MoveOn and the LGBT movement et al) Not to leave out class warfare — always a popular favorite.

The anti-war left, the anti-Israel left, the pro-appeasement, pro-abortion left, multicultural left, and the big government left, with their ever-present pro amnesty, pro-illegal alien, social justice, pro-LGBT agenda in tow. However, they demand not just in kind support but their full agenda. No a la carte.

What’s new is not just their grievance list or their lobbying power, for their cause, the new tactic is singling out anyone disagreeing with any part of their long laundry list. That is one big difference. It attacks anyone or anything that disagrees. It demands synergy from everyone, despite your own views. And the means is their way, exclusively. No lone cowboys. It plays out in social media, which apparently was bequeathed to them alone.

Start with a few honorable mentions on their menu: Israel boycott, pushing boycotts of Jews on campuses, summer camps on anti-Semitism, and their anti-military lockstep. (they love everything about big government except robust defense?) But factor in the cadre of other issues above and you have a volatile cocktail.

Along comes  Condoleezza Rice and their wrath pours out. Not like she’s Ann Coulter but the same treatment applies. That was only on the heels of Ayaan Hirsi Ali being dis-invited to speak at Brandeis because she did not represent their values. Cair protests and the University of Michigan shuts out the film “Honor Diaries” – calling it hate Anyone speaking to them has to meet their ideological criteria or they get the banner of protest. (that alone rallies their support) Now they won’t tolerate anyone out of lockstep. It sends a powerful, albeit chilling, message to others. If you marginally disagree, you might as well be in full disagreement. Well, not quite your Aunt Nelly’s bra-burning liberals.

Then we have the old standard of the Left, racism. Used to maintain control and intimidation on their enemies, it is their accusation of choice, freely applied. The way it plays out though is the best case against the left. It’s not only militant, it is radical to the core. So the rabid way it treats others is particularly aggressive on campuses where it strives to set the culture precedent for the rest of us. Going after anything perceived racist, or related to Israel, and believing UN and the human rights campaign are its personal tools inspires their activism and emboldens their radical posturing.

I’ve concluded it is now more a culture of intolerance. We’ve had political correctness for decades. Now it is full ‘offense’. More like pc swat teams, pc paratroopers, pc snipers, and a whole armament assembling to deal with their perceived grievances. I’d say they managed to bring all the issues to bear, unified, to make their case. Breaching one pet grievance is to breach their entire code of conduct. If only one side, theirs, sees it as an all out war, then we have a problem. One should no sooner dismiss this open assault than dismiss the Islamic extremists’ and terrorists’ agenda.

In fact, progressives, Democrats, ‘Liberals’, Marxists, and multiculturalists can see bigotry just about everywhere: from the Internet, to reality TV, to board rooms, to talk radio and sports. Everywhere it seems except where blatantly obvious to anyone not blinded by progressive orthodoxy; institutionalized in Universities, on campuses, in the administration, bureaucracy, in the Left, the grievance industry, the LGBT movement, the environmental movement, in Party politics and their conventions, or Islamic radicals. Those are just some highlights of what passes for the progressive left’s politics today — which usurps almost every facet of culture.

RightRing | Bullright

Going to get ya, Islamic speech police

Brandeis Flap Marks Another Win for Islamist Intimidation

IPT News
April 10, 2014

We’re only 10 days into April, but 2014 already is shaping up to be a banner year for those who consider any criticism of Islam, radical or otherwise, to be something unfit for public consideration.

The decision by Brandeis University to withdraw its plans to bestow an honorary degree on Ayaan Hirsi Ali came after one day of protests from groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Students Association. Both groups have documented roots in the Muslim Brotherhood, which seeks global Islamic dominance, a reality neither is willing to acknowledge.

Hirsi Ali, born and raised into a Muslim family, renounced her faith and chronicled her reasons why in two best-selling books. She has been targeted for death by radical Islamists, including in a note pinned onto the body of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh after he was shot and stabbed to death on an Amsterdam street.

The two collaborated on a short film, “Submission,” which was critical of the way women are treated in Islam. Hirsi Ali has made many statements critical of the religion, and her foundation works to protect women from physical abuse like honor violence, genital mutilation and forced marriage.

Such a life, such a dedication to improving women’s lives, is deserving of an honor like the one Brandeis planned. But the school reneged, issuing a statement which said it could not fulfill its promise due to “certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values.”

The move comes on the heels of ABC Family’s decision to scrub a new series about a teenage girl forced to live with extended family in Saudi Arabia. CAIR led the charge against “Alice in Arabia,” saying it “may engage in stereotyping that can lead to things like bullying of Muslim students.”

Never mind that something quite similar to the show’s premise actually happened. And never mind the show creator Brooke Eikmeier’s belief that “Alice in Arabia” could be “a step in the right direction for all cultures and all women, sparking greater tolerance, understanding and empathy.” CAIR squawked and ABC yielded.

And just last week, screenings of the documentary “Honor Diaries” were scrubbed at two University of Michigan campuses and at the University of Illinois-Chicago after CAIR and other Islamist groups protested.

“With this act of censorship,” wrote practicing Muslim physician Qanta Ahmed, a participant in the film, “the movie has become a metaphor for its message. Just like the women and girls it portrays, the movie has been silenced and its progenitors shamed.”

Criticism from Islamists has focused on the film’s producer and financers, not on its content. One Islamist critic, Linda Sarsour, honored as a White House “Champion of Change” in 2011, inadvertently made a point that shows the vacuous nature of the argument. If the finances were relevant, a Twitter poster suggested, perhaps the sources of CAIR operations warranted attention.

“CAIR,” Sarsour responded, “is not making domestic violence documentaries saving women.”

No one else is either. The one party who took up this legitimate issue has been pilloried for doing so.

In none of these cases has CAIR or other Islamist critics expressed willingness to debate the issue.

Instead, Brandeis is joined by a television network and two state universities in cutting off opportunities to challenge views on all sides of the issues involved. Isn’t that the kind of intellectual pursuit universities are supposed to foster and embrace?

Muslim reformist Irshad Manji thought so, too, commenting on Twitter that, “At too many universities, ‘respect me’ has come to mean ‘don’t challenge me.’

So the Islamists are on a roll.  […./more details]

More http://www.investigativeproject.org/4348/brandeis-flap-marks-another-win-for-islamist

So much hypocrisy it should make anyone sick, except Brandeis, but just like the Left they don’t care. (Cair doesn’t care) So one group can claim it speaks for Islam and all, and it is not challenged within. Then it steps up to become the speech police for the country.

When they start condemning their Mo-Bro brothers, they might have a microbe of credibility. That will happen on the first day of never. But people that haven’t progressed in centuries don’t show much promise. They make a strong case against evolution. But its just as hard to believe academia would empower them as the speech police. And progressives and the Left fall right in line with it.

They can honor Harry Belafonte, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Ted Koppel, Tom Brokaw, Walter Cronkite with degrees… but they have to draw the line at Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She’s over the top. Someone really should have tipped them off who she was before they invited her. Hope they don’t replicate that mistake.

They also honored Thurgood Marshall. One wonders what he would think of their erratic decision to reverse their invite? Perhaps one of their illustrious recipients will be prompted to return his/her degree in protest. I doubt it but if it happened to be a certain notable ‘progressive’ who was slighted, it would be a different story.

Now that is something everyone should be able to get behind: standing up for centuries old attitudes of inequality and discrimination of women. I’m glad that many of our youth are taking up that banner. There is hope for change after all. They should be more careful about such mistakes in the future. (pardon sarcasm)

Obama’s ‘open house’ for radicals

A Red Carpet for Radicals at the White House

by Steve Emerson and John Rossomando
IPT News
October 21, 2012

A year-long investigation by the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) has found that scores of known radical Islamists made hundreds of visits to the Obama White House, meeting with top administration officials.

Court documents and other records have identified many of these visitors as belonging to groups serving as fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and other Islamic militant organizations.

The IPT made the discovery combing through millions of White House visitor log entries. IPT compared the visitors’ names with lists of known radical Islamists. Among the visitors were officials representing groups which have:

  • Been designated by the Department of Justice as unindicted co-conspirators in terrorist trials; Extolled Islamic terrorist groups including Hamas and Hizballah;
  • Obstructed terrorist investigations by instructing their followers not to cooperate with law enforcement;
  • Promoted the incendiary conspiratorial allegation that the United States is engaged in a “war against Islam”— a leading tool in recruiting Muslims to carry out acts of terror;
  • Repeatedly claimed that many of the Islamic terrorists convicted since 9-11 were framed by the U.S government as part of an anti-Muslim profiling campaign
See: The Investigative Project on Terrorism