Archive for October, 2014

ISIS Publishes Rape Magazine

October 31, 2014

From here: ISIS: Publishes a Violence on Women Magazine Posted by: Jon Dougherty October 29, 2014

  • The ‘religion of peace’ just published a digital magazine calling for the ‘sexual enslavement’ of ‘non-Muslim women’
  • ‘Sexual enslavement’ against one’s will is the textbook definition of rape
  • ‘Infidels’ are apparently fair game, Christians especially

Americans are told constantly by Islamo-Nazi apologists that Islam is really just a religion of peace, and that Allah means no harm to anyone. Nothing, of course, is further from the truth: As one militant Islamic group after another tries to out-brutalize each other, most thinking Americans who aren’t punch-drunk on the nectar of liberalism know that the “religion of peace” isn’t. The most recent example, as reported by Israel National News: “The brutal jihadist Islamic State (ISIS) terror group that has seized large portions of Iraq and Syria in recent months released the fourth edition of its English-language digital magazine “Dabiq” on Sunday, in which it encourages taking women as sex slaves as part of Islam.” Now, it appears, ISIS is publishing a rape magazine. INN reports that the article in question in the digital publication is entitled, “The revival (of) slavery before the Hour,” which is a reference to Judgment Day. In it, ISIS blatantly calls for the sex enslavement of non-Muslim women, those in particular from the Kurdish Yazidi ethnic minority. Non-Muslim women, it seems, are only good for one thing. “One should remember that enslaving the families of the kuffar – the infidels – and taking their women as concubines is a firmly established aspect of the Shariah, or Islamic law,” wrote ISIS in the article, reports CNN. In fact, there have been a number of agonizing, terrible reports of endless rape and torture of Yazidi women (and girls); many of them have opted for mass suicide after being brutalized by ISIS thugs. INN reported that the article just happens to coincide with the release of a Human Rights Watch report on crimes of the Islamic State against the Yazidi minority in Iraq, a report based on interviews with 76 displaced persons. “The Islamic State’s litany of horrific crimes against the Yazidis in Iraq only keeps growing,” said HRW special adviser Fred Abrahams. “We heard shocking stories of forced religious conversions, forced marriage, and even sexual assault and slavery – and some of the victims were children.” Children. Some religion of peace. The fact is, ISIS isn’t the only Islamo-Nazi extremist organization to employ sexual assault and sex slavery on its enemies. INN reports further:

Deputy to the Chief Mufti (Islamic scholar) of Syria, who is loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime that ISIS is fighting against, in early January gave Syrian soldiers religious permission to rape so as to take revenge on Syrian rebels. Speaking of the phenomenon of ISIS atrocities, Islam expert Prof. Rafi Israeli told Arutz Sheva last month that the acts are based on Islam having a basic disregard for human life: “For them it is not sacred, like it is for us.” He noted the Koran calls for terror against enemies, without specifying or limiting who those enemies are.

Rape of non-Muslim women. Torture of “infidels.” Beheading innocent journalists. Yeah, this Islam is some peaceful religion, alright. Too much of this kind of “peace” will kill you. Have you ever bought into the whole ‘religion of peace’ thing regarding Islam? What kind of ‘religion’ approves and advocates raping of women and girls? What do YOU think the U.S. involving in the war against ISIS ought to be? TELL us!


Today is Slave Market Day, Where is My Yazidi Girl?

Muslim columnist can’t understand islamic violence, fears “backlash”

October 31, 2014

More lies from the fifth-columnists in the fourth estate here in the nation’s capital, at the Ottawa Citizen:

Originally titled, in the print edition (Thursday, 30 October, 2014, P.#C6), as:


Mohammed Adam: How Muslims responded to last week’s shooting in Ottawa

From left, Royal Canadian Mounted Police D.T. Critchley and Wayne Rideout, sit beside BC Muslim Association members Aasim Rashid and Musa Ismail during a media conference on Friday, Oct. 24, 2014 at the Burnaby, British Columbia mosque where the gunman who carried out an attack in Ottawa had previously prayed.
From left, Royal Canadian Mounted Police D.T. Critchley and Wayne Rideout, sit beside BC Muslim Association members Aasim Rashid and Musa Ismail during a media conference on Friday, Oct. 24, 2014 at the Burnaby, British Columbia mosque where the gunman who carried out an attack in Ottawa had previously prayed.Rachel La Corte / CP

When the first reports of the shootings at the War Memorial and Parliament Hill began to filter in last Wednesday, my heart sank for the victims. And I was hoping against hope that the shooter, whoever he might be, was not a Muslim.

Few people realize that for many Muslims, any time there are reports of a mass shooting or killing of any kind, there is a particular additional stress in addition to the stress and sadness all people feel. Usually the first rule is to establish whether the perpetrator is “one of us,” and based on the answer, breathe easier or go into a deep funk.

If you belong to a group that has to wear the sins of some madmen who claim to share your faith, you are often on tenterhooks the moment something bad happens.


It was the same last Wednesday, and many of my friends and acquaintances would later acknowledge similar anxiety. Watching events unfold that dreadful day, I hoped the attackers (as initial reports suggested) would be caught to spare the city more bloodshed. At the same time, I was also hoping that whoever was involved would not be a Muslim. Alas, it was not to be. As soon as the first pictures of Michael Zehaf-Bibeau in a keffiye, (the Arab headscarf) appeared, we all knew. His middle name merely confirmed the obvious. Our worst nightmare had become reality, and Islam was back in the dock. Simply because an attacker is identified as a Muslim, we are all tied together, and as much in the dock as him – and there’s very little anyone can do about it.


Thankfully this time, the coverage in the Canadian media was measured as we all struggled to come to terms with the events, and understand what might have motivated this troubled shooter.



The problem for Muslims anytime someone claiming to belong to the faith picks up a gun or a bomb and kills, is not just the stain these mindless acts leaves on the religion. Or the suspicion cast on all Muslims, with women in particular facing harassment because their hijabs give them away. The real problem is the utter helplessness of their situation.


If you are a Muslim living in Ottawa, Edmonton, or for that matter Kuala Lumpur, and minding your own business, you are still expected to carry the burden of malcontents like Zehaf-Bibeau, a petty criminal, drug addict, and according to his mother, mentally ill. Many Muslims struggle to understand why the collective is often held responsible for the actions of individuals they have never heard of, or agree with. But there are never easy answers to these questions. THE BUSINESS OF MUSLIMS IS TERROR.


What we can all agree on however, is that the slaying of Cpl. Nathan Cirillo and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, and the storming of Parliament are an affront to all of us.


We need to find solutions together, and what Muslim leaders in particular can, and must constantly do, is what the imam at the Dar Assunnah mosque did in his sermon at the Friday prayer following the attacks.

Mohammed Mostefa, the imam for the day, delivered a ringing denunciation of the shootings and other forms of violence. He told the congregation that Canada is as much their country as anybody else’s, and they have a duty to keep it safe and secure. He quoted extensively from the Quran and the Hadith (the sayings and practices of the Prophet Mohammed) to drive home the point that violence of the kind we have been witnessing recently is not the way of Islam.


What happened at the War Memorial and the Hill is not Islam, he said, and no one should be in any doubt about that. It is a message that needs to be drilled in again and again.


Post script: As the media and parliamentarians shower praise on Sergeant-at-arms Kevin Vickers for killing Zehaf-Bibeau, somebody should spare a word for Samearn Son, the unarmed security officer who first confronted the shooter, tried to take his gun, and was shot in the foot. Methinks he is the original hero.

Leftist Ottawa Citizen Traitors Defend Terrorists

October 31, 2014

Reading this crap is what I have to put up with on a daily basis!

And it’s the most likely reason why low-information Canadian citizens still defend islam, like this:

(From: )…!

On Tursday, October 30, 2014, P.#C6, this commentary by the entire Board was originally titled


From here:

Editorial: Both theories about Zehaf-Bibeau could be right
Ottawa Citizen Editorial Board

Mug shot of Michael Zehaf-Bibeau (Vancouver Police Department mugshot)
Mug shot of Michael Zehaf-Bibeau (Vancouver Police Department mugshot)

Vancouver Police Department

In the aftermath of Michael Zehaf-Bibeau’s attacks at the National War Memorial and on Parliament Hill, there are two competing narratives: That he was a radicalized homegrown terrorist who lucidly planned his attacks in deference to a sick ideology, or that he was a mentally ill, drug-addicted man who couldn’t find the help he needed to turn his life around before it ended in one final, desperate act.

These two descriptions need not be mutually exclusive, however. If a mentally ill man latches on to a cause, it doesn’t make him any less mentally ill, or any less an adherent of the cause.

No. Islam was created, and its Qur’an written, by a mentally ill/immorally criminal man: Muhammad. SO all followers of islam, called “muslims,” embrace “mentally ill” behaviour. But “mental illness” itself doesn’t really exist, unless neurologically (brain-chemical hardware malfunction) based; otherwise, it’s just bad (software; programming) habits, reversing cause and effect, like all victim-blaming confirmed masochist criminals always do!

And to acknowledge the possibility of mental illness is not to absolve an individual of responsibility.

Actually, YES, IT IS – at least, that IS the most common, legally accepted point of view these days.

One could argue that Zehaf-Bibeau’s angry rant at a ServiceOntario outlet about soldiers killing civilians — as described by several witnesses to the Citizen’s Glen McGregor — was one sign among many that he was a budding terrorist.

One could also argue that ranting about global conflicts in a quiet office setting until being told to leave is a sign he wasn’t of sound mind.

Nonsense. Ranting about injustices to the very people who cause them, is never a sign of insanity, no matter how calmly deluded the criminals are, or their (therefore) peaceful quiet office setting surroundings. But ranting about the injustice of punishing criminals for their crimes, as you all do, IS.

One can be either a justly angry person accusing calm criminals, or an unjustly angry criminal ranting against calm and innocent civilized people. The exhibited behaviours are only circumstantial at most.

The truth, as usual, probably resides somewhere in the middle, and if we fail to look at it that way, we risk overreacting to one factor while failing to address other vulnerabilities.

In other words: “All criminals are victims, too! And if we fail to tolerate criminals AS victims, that lack of tolerance makes US the real criminals! Whee!”

It’s easy to say “Zehaf-Bibeau committed a terrorist act on Canadian soil, ergo we must significantly beef up anti-terrorist legislation — privacy rights be damned.”

It’s harder to admit that his final act, like many plane crashes, was not the result of one problem, but a tragic confluence of them.

So, to these liberals, deliberate islamic crime is only a “tragic accident, like a plane crash!” (But I’m willing to bet they didn’t mean “like a plane-crash CAUSED by muslim terrorists hijacking said plane”)!

It is indisputable that Zehaf-Bibeau embraced terrorism. He made contact with another radical, who is now believed to be fighting in Syria for ISIL. He made a video reportedly promising to act in God’s name in opposition to Canada’s foreign policy. He attacked civilians.

It is also indisputable, however, that Zehaf-Bibeau exhibited strange behaviour and was hooked on crack cocaine. He bounced around homeless shelters and correctional facilities, at one point asking to stay in jail so he could get clean.

But didn’t his islam prevent his drug addiction? Islam is against intoxication, so it’s not an excuse! And most islamic terrorists carry out criminal acts very similar to those this guy did, but without a drug excuse! Besides, most if not all “addictions” are habitual alibi-excuses embraced by masochists after the fact, to pretend to justify their chosen masochistic behaviours!

So while the shootings may fit into a broad definition of “terrorism,” it’s also important to remember that Zehaf-Bibeau’s spiral was a societal failure that needs to be discussed alongside any attempt to boost anti-terrorism legislation.

He was born a muslim, of a Libyan terrorist father and a complicit leftist mother; HOW is any of that a “FAILURE OF SOCIETY” as a whole?! Unless you mean “Civilized society shouldn’t fail any of its helpless citizens as children by letting their delusive parents indoctrinate them into islamic crime!”

Nah! Not a chance! You’re libertine “liberals” (criminals who always want to “progress” to “freedom” from self-restraint, always looking for the best idolatrous excuse to justify your masochistic and self-induced paranoid desire to attack everyone else first, before they can “inevitably” attack YOU first! Whee!)

In the end, it may be that getting help to vulnerable people, before ISIL trolls on the Internet ensnare them, would prevent many more potential strikes than weakening judicial oversight of police activities would.

So any and all of the islam-indoctrinated “holy” criminals are really only helpless, “vulnerable” people? If true, the solution is to BAN ISLAM!


It isn’t, it may never be, totally clear why Michael Zehaf-Bibeau turned into a killer, but that’s one more reason to tread carefully, and thoughtfully, when considering our reaction to his crimes.

In other words: “While we can’t be certain why the muslim committed his Qur’an-mandated crimes, one thing is for sure: that if we carelessly and unthoughtfully react to his crimes by calling them crimes, it will definitely be all our fault, being hateful racists!”

Dear Libtards: we don’t do any of these criminals any favors by pretending that they are not only not responsible for their crimes (because, as perpetual victims, they have no free will) and even worse, we actually do them a total dis-service by giving them endless lists of alibi-excuses for their criminal desires, too!

EXPOSED: ISIS Roared To Power Months After Secret Meeting With John McCain (PHOTOS)

October 30, 2014

From here:

McCain secretly met with ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in 2013 to discuss getting them weapons

“For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad.” Mark 4:22

Just the other day, US Senator John McCain said that “One of the key decisions the President is going to have to make is air power in Syria. We cannot give ISIS a base of operations.” McCain has been very outspoken against ISIS and that the president step up efforts to eradicate them. But this was not the case just one year ago.


On the same day that the above photo was taken, hours earlier the photo below was taken as well. John McCain is seen talking intently with Ibrahim al-Badri, otherwise known as  Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader and commander of the Islamic State in Iraq, otherwise known as ISIS.


ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, wearing the black shirt on the far left, is seen in deep discussions with John McCain. Within 12 short months of these photos being taken, al-Baghdadi would explode on the scene in 2014 as the leader of monstrous terror group ISIS. John McCain does not deny the existence of these photos, obviously, as he posted one to his own Twitter account. Click image to view this photo on his own Twitter page.


Enemedia: Qatari-bought Brookings Institution “think-tank” apologists for jihad terror

October 30, 2014

From here:

“The most influential, most quoted and most trusted think tank in the world” is bought and paid for by one of the world’s chief financiers of jihad terror.

This explains a great deal about why U.S. foreign policy and the mainstream media approach the jihad threat with so many disastrously wrongheaded assumptions.

The United States must designate Qatar a state sponsor of terrorism. Join our Stop Qatar Now coalition to call upon Western groups and individuals to stop aiding and abetting the world’s largest financier of jihad.

Sign the Petition

Facebook: Stop Qatar Now
Twitter: @stopqatarnow

The Stop Qatar Now coalition is identifying and contacting companies, organizations, and individuals with significant investments and activities with and in Qatar, notifying them about Qatar’s support for jihad terror.  These letters will be sent to press outlets around the world.

“IPT Exclusive: Qatar’s Insidious Influence on the Brookings Institution,” by Steven Emerson, John Rossomando and Dave Yonkman, IPT News, October 28, 2014:

The Brookings Institution bills itself as “the most influential, most quoted and most trusted think tank in the world,” but should it be?

Brookings’ long-term relationship with the Qatari government – a notorious supporter of terror in the Middle East – casts a dark cloud over such a lofty claim to credibility.

A September New York Times exposé revealed Qatar’s status as the single largest foreign donor to the Brookings Institution. Qatar gave Brookings $14.8 million in 2013, $100,000 in 2012 and $2.9 million in 2011. In 2002, Qatar started subsidizing the Brookings outreach program to the Muslim World which has continues today. Between 2002 and 2010, Brookings never disclosed the annual amount of funds provided by the Government of Qatar.

Sources of funding should not automatically discredit an organization, but critical facts and claims about Brookings should be examined in light of them, starting with a harsh indictment by a former scholar.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism has reviewed the proceedings of 12 annual conferences co-sponsored by Brookings and the government of Qatar comprising more than 125 speeches, interviews, lectures and symposia; a dozen Brookings-based programs that were linked to the Qatari financed outreach to the Muslim world; and analyzed 27 papers sponsored and issued by the Brookings Institution and scholars based in Washington and at the Brookings Doha Center since 2002. Our review, which will be detailed in a four-part series beginning with this story, finds an organization that routinely hosts Islamists who justify terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians and American troops, who advocate blasphemy laws which would criminalize criticism of Islam, and which never scrutinizes or criticizes the government of Qatar, its largest benefactor.

“[T]there was a no-go zone when it came to criticizing the Qatari government,” Saleem Ali, who served as a visiting fellow at the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar in 2009, told the New York Times.

“If a member of Congress is using the Brookings reports, they should be aware — they are not getting the full story. They may not be getting a false story, but they are not getting the full story.” Ali noted that he had been told during his job interview that taking positions critical of the Qatari government in papers would not be allowed, a claim Brookings vigorously denies.

“Our scholars, in Doha and elsewhere, have a long record of objective, independent analysis of regional affairs, including critical analysis of the policies of Qatar and other governments in the region,” Brookings President Strobe Talbott said in response to the Times story.

Unfortunately for Talbott, Qatar’s own Ministry of Foreign Affairs openly acknowledges that the partnership gives Qatar exactly what it wants: a public-relations outlet that projects “the bright image of Qatar in the international media, especially the American ones,” a statement announcing a 2012 memorandum of understanding with Brookings said.

Indeed, their close collaboration stretches back more than a decade.

After Islamist terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Shanksville, Pa. on September 11, 2001, the Brookings Institution looked to Qatar to answer the question, “Why do they hate us?”

Former Qatari emir, Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani answered Brookings’ call in 2002, providing the think tank with the necessary seed money and resources to initiate its engagement with the Islamic world.

The alliance culminated with the 2002 Doha Conference on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World, co-sponsored by the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution and Qatar. Qatar underwrote the conference’s cost.

Ambassador Martin Indyk, who headed the Saban Center at the time, and other Brookings leaders noted their desire to “build strong bridges of friendship” and avoid a “clash of civilizations.”

Indyk took a leave of absence from Brookings in 2013 and the first half of 2014 to serve as President Obama’s envoy for the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. Indyk placed excessive blame on Israel for their failure.

At an April 2013 Brookings forum in Washington, Indyk mentioned that he and then Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr al-Thani, a key player in Qatar’s engagement with Brookings, had remained friends for “two decades.” This relationship dates to when Indyk served as special assistant to President Clinton and senior director for Near East and South Asian affairs at the National Security Council.

Indyk noted that he approached the sheik after the 9/11 attacks, informing him that Brookings planned to launch a project focused on American engagement with the Islamic world.

“And he said immediately, ‘I will support it, but you have to do the conference in Doha.’ And I said, ‘Doha, well that sounds like an interesting idea,’” Indyk said at the 2013 forum. “Three years into that, he suddenly then told me we want to have a Brookings in Doha. And I said, ‘Well, okay, we’ll have a Brookings in Doha, too,’ and we ended up with the Brookings Doha Center” (BDC), in 2008.”

Brookings’ Qatar-based scholars see their host country with rosy spectacles, ignoring the emirate’s numerous terror ties.

Sultan Barakat, research director at the Brookings Doha Center (BDC), portrayed Qatar as an emerging peacemaker in the Muslim world and as a force for good in a 2012 report titled, “The Qatari Spring: Qatar’s Emerging Role In Peacemaking.”

“… [D]uring the Arab Spring, Qatar has emerged as a ‘reformer’; that is, as a vocal and progressive leader of modern Arab nations, with the willingness and the capacity to utilize a broad range of both hard- and soft-power initiatives to achieve its foreign policy goals,” Barakat wrote.

Highlighting Qatar as a regional peacemaker seems strange in the light of its longstanding support for Hamas and allegations that its leaders aided al-Qaida in the past. Cables released by Wikileaks and other U.S. government documents demonstrate these connections proved disturbing to American policymakers.

“Qatar’s overall level of [counter-terrorism] cooperation with the U.S. is considered the worst in the region,” a top level U.S. State Department official wrote in a secret Dec. 30, 2009 State Department cable. “Al-Qaida, the Taliban, UN-1267 listed LeT (Pakistan’s Lakshar- e-Taiba), and other terrorist groups exploit Qatar as a fundraising locale.”

The official also noted that Qatar’s security services fail to act against known terrorists because the Gulf state feared terrorist reprisals “out of concern for appearing to be aligned with the U.S.” Another 2008 State Department cable noted that Qatar’s government “has often been unwilling to cooperate on designations of certain terrorist financiers.”

Qatar’s royal family has a long history of harboring terrorists. Former Minister of Islamic Affairs Sheikh Abdallah bin Khalid bin Hamad al-Thani, a member of the royal family, personally invited 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to relocate his family from Pakistan to the emirate during the 1990s, according to the 9/11 Commission Report. Mohammed accepted a position as project engineer with the Qatari Ministry of Electricity and Water which he held until 1996, when he fled back to Pakistan to evade capture by the United States.

Mohammed dedicated much of his considerable travel while working for the ministry to terrorist activity.

Qatar Charity, formerly the Qatar Charitable Society and currently headed by Hamad bin Nasser al-Thani, a member of Qatari royal family, demonstrates a lingering link between Qatar and terror financing.

Russia’s interior minister accused Qatar Charitable Society of funneling money to Chechen jihadist groups in 1999. Al-Thani responded to the accusation in a 1999 interview with Al-Jazeera, saying his government would not interfere with the funding because the Russian actions in Chechnya were “painful for us as Qatari, Arab, or Muslim citizens.”

Qatar Charitable Society played a key role in financing the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, according to the U.S. government.

Recent reports suggest the charity’s connection with al-Qaida persists. Maliweb, a U.S.-based independent news source, accused Qatar Charity of significantly financing “the terrorists in northern Mali operations.” French military intelligence reports accused Qatar of funding Ansar Dine – a group that works closely with al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb – and MUJAO in Mali at the time of France’s January 2013 intervention.

U.S. court documents note additional ties between Qatar Charity and al-Qaida dating back to the 1990s. Osama bin Laden complained to an al-Qaida member following a failed 1995 assassination attempt against former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak that the then-Qatar Charitable Society funds had been spent in the operation. Consequently, the terror mastermind became concerned that his ability to exploit charities for al-Qaida’s ends would be compromised.

Qatar also funded the Ahfad al-Rasoul Brigade in Syria, which engaged in joint operations with Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaida’s Syrian affiliate.

Qatar played a similar role in Libya where it has openly funded and armed jihadists. IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly found that Qatar sent a C-17 cargo plane to provide arms to a militia loyal to Abdelhakim Belhadj, a Libyan warlord who fought alongside Osama bin Laden in Tora Bora in 2001 and was in touch with the leader of the 2004 Madrid train bombing.

Brookings scholar Bruce Reidel openly acknowledged in a Dec. 3, 2012 piece published in The Daily Beast that Syria’s al-Qaida branch benefitted from arms supplied by Qatar.

In a separate Aug. 28, 2013 column in Foreign Policy magazine titled, “The Qatar problem,” Brookings scholar Jeremy Shapiro observed that Qatar had undermined “U.S. efforts to isolate and delegitimize Hamas.” Shapiro laid blame for Qatar’s misbehavior at the feet of American policymakers. Yet he argued that the U.S. should not “oppose Qatar at every turn” and that it should “thus should seek to get the best deal on every transaction” with the emirate, which he classed as neither a friend nor a foe of the United States.

However, such observations have not translated into public criticism of Qatar or recommendations that the emirate alter its stances by Indyk, Talbott or other top people who been involved in managing Brookings’ partnership with Qatar. They also have not brought about any public talk of reassessing Brookings relationship with the emirate.

The think tank denies that Qatari money and the involvement of a senior member of the emirate’s royal family in its BDC translates into subservience to Qatar’s foreign policy objectives.

“Brookings is an independent research institution, none of whose funders are able to determine its research projects,” Indyk said after the New York Times story. “I hope nobody really believes that I cashed a check for $14.8 million dollars, which is what’s going around in right-wing Jewish circles. We should all take a deep breath about some of these lurid, scandalous stories.”

The figure Indyk cites stems from Brookings Foreign Government Disclosure. The nearby United Arab Emirates ranked a distant second among foreign government donors with a $3 million donation in 2010 and another $3 million in 2012.

Qatari involvement in Brookings goes beyond conventional donor relations, evidenced by Sheik Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr Thani’s appointment as chairman of the BDC’s board of advisers.

Even if Qatar exerts no overt control over Brookings’ activities and policy positions, partnering with Qatar to discuss bridge-building with the Islamic world following 9/11 appears peculiar considering the oil-rich emirate’s established ties with Islamic extremist groups and individuals at the time of the attacks.

Heritage Foundation scholar James Phillips slammed Brookings’ cooperation with Qatar in comments to the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

“Qatar finances foreign entities for a reason: to advance its own foreign policy goals, which entail working closely with Islamist ideologues to empower Sunni Arab movements, including Hamas,” Phillips said. “By accepting Qatar’s money, Brookings risks appearing to be a tool of Qatar and unfortunately could help to legitimize such Islamist groups in the West.

“The implicit quid pro quo inherent in accepting money from foreign governments is one reason that the Heritage Foundation does not accept funding from foreign governments, which often attach strings to their donations, or even from the U.S. government.”

Despite denials from both Talbott and Indyk, numerous examples illustrate how Brookings’ pro-Qatar bias manifests itself, not always in what its Qatar-based scholars say, but in what they omit. A review of Brookings studies mentioning Qatar finds a consistent description of the emirate as a force for peace; complimenting its commitment to democracy and human rights; and education.

Even worse, Brookings reports gloss over the harsh realities of jihad terror and Islamism, instead recommending that the U.S. reach out to and cooperate with Islamist and jihadist groups.

Brookings calls for U.S. rapprochement with al-Qaida-linked group

In a January Foreign Policy magazine piece, Brookings scholars Will McCants, Michael Doran and Clint Watts urged the Obama administration against classifying Ahrar al-Sham, an organization backed by Turkey and Qatar and linked to al-Qaida, as a terror organization. Ahrar al-Sham founder Mohamed Bahiaiah, aka Abu Khalid al-Suri, was a senior al-Qaida operative, and the group routinely fights alongside Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), both of which were affiliated with al-Qaida at the time.

Al-Qaida leaders mourned the Islamic State’s killing of Ahrar al-Sham’s top leadership in September on their Twitter accounts.

“The al Qaeda of yesterday is gone. What is left is a collection of many different splinter organizations, some of which have their own – and profoundly local – agendas. The U.S. response to each should be, as Obama put it, ‘defined and specific enough that it doesn’t lead us to think that any horrible actions that take place around the world that are motivated in part by an extremist Islamic ideology are a direct threat to us or something that we have to wade into,’” the Brookings scholars wrote.

They argued that U.S. policymakers required “flexibility” in dealing with Ahrar al-Sham because it stood as a lesser of two evils when compared to the greater threat posed by ISIS.

“The Islamic Front, including Ahrar al-Sham, represents the best hope in Syria for defeating ISIS,” the article said. “[D]esignating Ahrar al-Sham as a terrorist group would destroy what little chance the United States has of building relationships with the other militias in the Islamic Front.”

Thus far, the Obama administration has not designated Ahrar al-Sham as a terrorist group despite its intimate ties to al-Qaida.

An October 2013 report by Human Rights Watch (HRW) accused Ahrar al-Sham of war crimes….

FacebookTwitterLinkedInDeliciousDiggBlogger PostBookmark/FavoritesEmailPinterestRedditTumblrStumbleUponPrint

There Are 13 Comments

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. john spielman

    our oil money at work for us- NOT!
    just more academic WHORES the likes John Esposito!

  2. CogitoErgoSum

    “After Islamist terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Shanksville, Pa. on September 11, 2001, the Brookings Institution looked to Qatar to answer the question, “Why do they hate us?””

    They looked to Qatar for the answer? Why didn’t they look to the Quran? The answer’s there to see, same as it’s always been, same as it will always be … for those who wish to see it. How much does a copy of the Quran cost?

  3. Jaladhi

    It is not just the Brookings Institution but several of the prestigious universities that have departments of Islamic or ME studies and are funded by Saudi Arabia, or Qatar an other ME oil-gas flush countries are also guilty of being Islamic apologists. These institutions are just whores for Muslim/Islamic countries. They can never tell the truth about Islam and Muslims and always are in the forefront of defending Islami/Muslims terror acts by saying those doing such acts are not acting according Islam and therefore not Muslims. In other words they deny what is written in Quran – just like those so called “moderate Muslims!! Liars are all of the!!

    This is just laughable, even a six year old can tell their lies that is how ridiculous they are. And they think they are the elite of the country which they maybe but they have no morals – they are just in the business of prostitution foir Islam!! After all they get a fat check from them to support themselves!!

  4. Wellington

    The problem is even larger than with a liberal think tank like the Brookings Institution. Just yesterday I was paging through a copy of Forbes Magazine, hardly a publication identified with the Left, and there within it was a full page add for Qatari Airlines, with a very beautiful stewardess in the photograph accompanying the advertisement (taqiyya in “babe form” perhaps?).

    My first thought when I came across it was this is an airline of a country which is tied-at-the hip with al-Jazeera and is a major funder of ISIS to boot. My second thought, which almost immediately followed upon my first one, was does Forbes Magazine understand what they have done? Well, if Forbes doesn’t, then shame on it. If Forbes does, then far deeper shame on it.

    Ah yes, the rot and penetration of Islam in the West is extensive—–at Brookings, at Forbes, at Georgetown University, in the Obama Administration, at or in…, at or in…, at or in…. Yes, indeed, the Age of Nonsense shows no signs of abatement. It’s still definitely in full throttle mode. Time for a Yuengling Porter (bet they don’t serve this fine brew on Qatari airlines).

  5. duh_swami

    It’s all mass cognitive dissonance…What you hear from the clever, and what you see for yourself, are antagonistic to each other. Someone is lying. It’s either your eye’s or the clever.
    If you are a seer, the clever have little effect except maybe to earn your disgust. But if you are a looker and not a seer, the clever have you cornered with word magick, and word trickery…In other words intense taqiyya. Don’t be a looker, become a seer, your own eyes are worth more than the false testimony of hundreds of the clever…Seeing is believing…

  6. “The United States must designate Qatar a state sponsor of terrorism.”

    We, the free peoples of the West, must first designate our respective governments and elites, who sold us out for a few Qatari dollars, TRAITORS. Then we’ll be able to take care of Qatar, Turkey, jihad, Islam etc.

  7. Dave J

    These self-described “scholars” are actually intellectual whores and traitors to this country. They have no moral backbone and will evidently sell themselves to the highest bidder.

    The financing of universities and institutions by Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other Islamic terror sponsors should be made ILLEGAL.

    • Wellington

      Actually, Dave J, I would keep it legal but require full, regular, unremitting disclosure of such funding. We need to keep freedom alive, which means allowing malevolence (no greater example of which is Islam) to distribute its rot, but not in any kind of undercover or unknown or subterfuge way.

      Liberty does not need to be shut down in order to preserve liberty. Besides, this is oxymoronic and counter-productive. Rather, sunlight needs to be shined upon those who abuse liberty or would even use liberty to end liberty. This, I would argue, is the best way to deal with the totalitarianism which is Islam. Allow it, just like secular fascism and Marxism, to advertise its nonsense, but just make certain that it is widely understood that it is nonsense, parasitical to the max and, in general, the stuff that fools and worse believe in.

  8. Albert Shanker

    Create a North American Federation for ALL our energy resources. This problem exists solely because of dependence on foreign oil. 100 years ago , the Mid East was the same as a thousand years ago. Then oil discovery,by the west. If the situation was reversed, the middle east countries would have killed off western civilization by now.

  9. Thomas Wells

    A New York whore with syphilis is more trustworthy than these suit swine”non profit” NGOs that exist to excrete lies and “independent ” views flashed to their teleprompter by their big brother . Since they pay no income taxes, they are your tax money at work.

  10. Emma Barnes

    The same is happening in the UK. All Cameron is doing is telling off the Emir of Qatar….

  11. Criminally negligent TREASON.

    Indict Indyk.



October 29, 2014

From here:

Harry Richardson is a long-time student of Islam and author of best seller, “the Story Of Mohammed – Islam Unveiled’. He is hoping  that former Muslims will show their Imams and religious leaders the same respect which the Italians showed Mussolini at the end of WW2.

Posted on Pickering Post:



… the truth about his death

For thousands of years now, people have studied the Bible and argued over whether or not it contains the truth. Although parts of it do require a leap of faith, I have to say, it has stood up pretty well and no-one has been able to prove conclusively whether it is true or not. At the end of the day, it comes down to the individual, you either believe it or you don’t.

Up until the last decade or so however, Islamic Doctrine has never faced any such scrutiny, even by Muslims themselves. Critical evaluation of Islam or of Mohammed’s life is known as “Itjihad” and is forbidden in Islamic Law and is indeed regarded as blasphemy (which carries severe penalties).

Due to the complex and seemingly illogical way in which Islamic Doctrine is recorded, not to mention an Islamic ban on infidels even touching a Koran, it is even harder for non-Muslims to understand Islamic Doctrine.

Since the horrors of 9/11 however, things have changed drastically.

Western scholars have now decoded these books and their work is available on the internet for anyone with a laptop and a modem to see. My own investigations suggest that these books will not stand up to scrutiny anything like as well as the Bible.

I believe that these books will soon be openly revealed and discussed in mainstream outlets such as TV channels, journals and newspapers, rather than just niche books (such as my own) and internet sites as they are today.

When this happens, the Islamic Holy Books will finally face the kind of scrutiny which other religious texts have always been open to.

An example of the kind of things that Muslims will soon find themselves grappling with is the story of the death of their Prophet, Mohammed. Like everything else which is written about Mohammed, all the information we have comes from the Islamic Holy Books.

These books were written by the early Muslims and form the basis of the Islamic religion itself. We can’t assume that these books contain bias against Mohammed, any more than we can assume that the Bible is biased against Jesus and the Jews. If anything, we would expect any bias to be favorable.

According to these books, Mohammed died at home, attended by his favorite wife, Aisha. He was complaining of headaches and according to a number of accounts he linked this illness to an event which happened some four years prior.

At that time, Mohammed had marched his army to a Jewish settlement called Khaybar and proceeded to attack it. Mohammed had never had a previous quarrel with the Jews of Khaybar and his raid was motivated purely by greed.

Khaybar’s Jewish residents were wealthy and successful farmers who were believed to have a good stash of treasure saved up from their hard work. This was an act of outright banditry.

Mohammed rode into Khaybar with his army, slaughtering any who stood in his way. When he had conquered all the forts in the settlement, he tortured one of the Jewish leaders in the hope of finding more treasure.

When the poor soul refused to divulge his secrets, Mohammed had his head cut off and took his wife as a sex slave.

That evening, the women of the town were ordered to cook dinner for the victors. A Jewess named Zaynab asked what Mohammed’s favourite cut of meat was. When she learned that it was the foreleg, she poisoned the leg of a lamb (some accounts say goat) and served it to Mohammed and his companions.

Mohammed and a man named Bishr began to eat the meat. Bishr thought there was something wrong with it but was reluctant to spit it out in the presence of the Prophet as it may have disgusted him while he was eating.

Shortly afterwards however, Mohammed also realised there was something wrong and spat out his mouthful declaring that the taste had warned him. Alas, it was too late for poor Bishr who turned a deathly shade of green and died right there and then.

What happened next is something that must surely cast doubt into the heart of even the most devout of Muslims about the authenticity of their Prophet’s claims.

Mohammed sent for the woman who poisoned the meat and asked her why she had done this. She replied, “If you were a prophet, it would not harm you; but if you were a king, [Ed: in other words, not a Prophet] I should rid the people of you”.

Since the unfortunate Bishr had already figured out that there was something wrong with the meat due to its taste, Mohammed’s belated claim that the meat had spoken to him seems shaky at best. If he really were a prophet then surely he would have known that the meat was poisoned before either he or his companion began to eat it.

When our mainstream media finally ponies up the courage to begin examining and discussing these issues (and I believe we are not far from that point) Muslims will be forced to confront the following, deeply disturbing facts which are recorded quite clearly in their own Holy Books.

1. Mohammed was a bandit who killed, raped and tortured people for no reason other than his own greed and self-gratification.

2. Mohammed’s claim to be a Prophet of Allah is totally undermined by his inability to know that the food he was about to eat had been poisoned by his enemies as a test of his Prophethood and which would ultimately kill him.

During the next four years he would suffer a long and terribly painful illness. Muslims believe that everything happens exactly as Allah wills it. What possible reason would Allah have for torturing and ultimately killing his own Prophet?

Be aware that Mohammed is THE central figure in the Islamic religion. Any claims that other Prophets (such as Abraham, Moses or Jesus) were Muslims and made up a part of the Islamic faith, are related to us only through Mohammed and are not confirmed by any other source.

Once Muslims finally see their doctrine exposed and debated, I believe they will begin to desert it in droves. Since leaving Islam (apostasy as it is called) carries the death penalty under Islamic Law, many are so far reluctant to take that step.

I believe however, when it does happen, it will be like sheep being herded through a gate. At first they all eye it with suspicion until one of them makes a bolt for it.This one is followed by two or three, then four or five until finally, the rest all rush through en masse.

When this does finally happen, I suspect that former Muslims will show their Imams and religious leaders the same respect which the Italians showed Mussolini at the end of WW2.

The following quotes relating to Mohammed’s death are taken from Islamic Sacred Texts:

(Please note: When reading these books it is important to understand that some of them are considered more authentic than others. The Koran is the most highly regarded of Islam’s sources but contains no information about Mohammed’s death. Next down are the hadith (biographies) by Bukhari and Muslim and Sirat Rasull Allah, by Ibn Ishaq. Next below these is the hadith of Abu Dawud. The most detailed accounts of Mohammed’s death are recorded in Ibn Saad’s “Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir” which was written around the same time as these other hadith and is highly regarded being “the earliest surviving biographical dictionary, [of Mohammed’s life] and later a staple of the Sunni tradition.”)

… When the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, conquered Khaybar and he had peace of mind, Zaynab Bint al-Harith, the brother of Marhab, who was the spouse of Sallam Ibn Mishkam, inquired: Which part of the goat is liked by Muhammad? They said: The foreleg. Then she slaughtered one from her goats and roasted it (the meat). Then she wanted a poison which could not fail… The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, took the foreleg, a piece of which he put into his mouth. Bishr Ibn al-Barra took another bone and put it into his mouth. When the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, ate one morsel of it Bishr ate his and other people also ate from it. Then the Apostle of Allah…

Who Killed Muhammad?

Through the centuries, thousands of people have claimed to be prophets. Only one, however, rested his claims on the fact that his aorta hadn’t been cut. Ironically, as this man lay dying, he confessed that he could feel his aorta being severed. (Click here for a much shorter version of the argument.)

For those who want to keep track of the Muslim sources related to this issue, here they are. (Note: I didn’t use all of these in the video. Note also: I typed these in by hand, so let me know if you spot any typos.)


Qur’an 69:44-46—And if he (Muhammad) had forged a false saying concerning Us We surely should have seized him by his right hand (or with power and might), and then certainly should have cut off his life artery (Aorta). (Hilali-Khan)

Qur’an 69:44-46—And if he had invented false sayings concerning Us, We assuredly had taken him by the right hand and then severed his life-artery. (Pickthall)

Qur’an 69:44-46—Had he invented lies concerning Us, We would have seized him by the right hand and severed his heart’s vein. (Dawood)

Qur’an 69:44-46—And if he had fabricated against Us some of the sayings, We would certainly have seized him by the right hand, then We would certainly have cut off his aorta. (Shakir)


Tafsir Ibn Abbas on Qur’an 69:44-46—(And if he had invented) and had Muhammad invented (false sayings concerning Us) lies against Us and attributed to Us that which We did not say, (We assuredly had taken him) We assuredly had taken revenge against him (by the right hand) by means of truth and proofs; it is also said this means: We assuredly had vehemently taken him. (And then severed his life artery) the life artery of Muhammad (pbuh).

Tafsir Jalalayn on Qur’an 69:44-46—And had he, namely, the Prophet (s), fabricated any lies against Us, by communicating from Us that which We have not said, We would have assuredly seized him, We would have exacted vengeance [against him], as punishment, by the Right Hand, by [Our] strength and power; then We would have assuredly severed his life-artery, the aorta of the heart, a vein that connects with it, and which if severed results in that person’s death.

Tafsir Ibn Kathir on Qur’an 69:46—(And then We certainly would have cut off Al-Watin from him,) Ibn ‘Abbas said, “It (Al-Watin) refers to the artery of the heart, and it is the vein that is attached to the heart.” This has also been said by ‘Ikrimah, Sa’id bin Jubayr, Al-Hakim, Qatadah, Ad-Dahhak, Muslim Al-Batin and Abu Sakhr Humayd bin Ziyad.


Sahih al-Bukhari 2588—Aisha said, “When the Prophet became sick and his condition became serious, he requested his wives to allow him to be treated in my house, and they allowed him. He came out leaning on two men while his feet were dragging on the ground.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 2617—A Jewess brought a poisoned (cooked) sheep for the Prophet who ate from it. She was brought to the Prophet and was asked, “Shall we kill her?” He said, “No.” Anas added: “I continued to see the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of Allah’s Messenger.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 2797—The Prophet said, . . . “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is! I would love to be martyred in Allah’s Cause and then come back to life and then get martyred, and then come back to life again and then get martyred and then come back to life again and then get martyred.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 4428—The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, “O Aishah! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison.”

Sahih Muslim 5430—A Jewess came to Allah’s Messenger with poisoned mutton and he took of what had been brought to him. (When the effects of this poison were felt by him) he called for her and asked her about that, whereupon she said: I had determined to kill you. Thereupon he said: Allah will never give you the power to do it.

Sunan Abu Dawud 4498—A Jewess presented [Muhammad] at Khaibar a roasted sheep which she had poisoned. The Apostle of Allah ate of it and the people also ate. He then said: Lift your hands (from eating), for it has informed me that it is poisoned. Bishr b. al-Bara b. Ma’rur al-Ansari died. So he (the Prophet) sent for the Jewess (and said to her): What motivated you to do the work you have done? She said: If you were a prophet, it would not harm you; but if you were a king, I would rid the people of you. The Apostle of Allah then ordered regarding her and she was killed. He then said about the pain of which he died: I continued to feel pain from the morsel which I had eaten at Khaibar. This is the time when it has cut off my aorta.

Sunan Abu Dawud 4449—Umm Bishr said to the Prophet during the sickness of which he died: What do you think about your illness, Apostle of Allah? I do not think about the illness of my son except the poisoned sheep of which he had eaten with you at Khaibar. The Prophet said: And I do not think about my illness except that. This is the time when it cut off my aorta.

Sunan Ibn Majah 1622—Aishah said: “I never saw anyone suffer more pain than the Messenger of Allah.”


Ibn Ishaq, p. 516—When the apostle had rested, Zaynab d. al-Harith, the wife of Sallam b. Mishkam prepared for him a roast lamb, having first inquired what joint he preferred. When she learned that it was the shoulder she put a lot of poison in it and poisoned the whole lamb. Then she brought it in and placed it before him. He took hold of the shoulder and chewed a morsel of it, but he did not swallow it. Bishr b. al-Bara b. Ma’rur who was with him took some of it as the apostle had done, but he swallowed it, while the apostle spat it out, saying, ‘This bone tells me that it is poisoned.’ Then he called for the woman and she confessed, and when he asked her what had induced her to do this she answered: ‘You know what you have done to my people. I said to myself, If he is a king I shall ease myself of him and if he is a prophet he will be informed (of what I have done).’ So the apostle let her off. Bishr died from what he had eaten.

Ibn Ishaq, p. 516—Marwan b. Uthman b. Abu Sa’id b. al-Mu’alla told me: The apostle had said in his illness of which he was to die when Umm Bishr d. al-Bara came to visit him, ‘O Umm Bishr, this is the time in which I feel a deadly pain from what I ate with your brother at Khaybar.’

At-Tabari, Volume 8, p. 124—The Messenger of God said during the illness from which he died—the mother of Bishr b. al-Bara had come in to visit him—“Umm Bishr, at this very moment I feel my aorta being severed because of the food I ate with your son at Khaybar.”

Ibn Sa’d, Volume 2, pp. 251-252—When the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, conquered Khaybar and he had peace of mind, Zaynab Bint al-Harith, the brother of Marhab, who was the spouse of Sallam Ibn Mishkam, inquired: Which part of the goat is liked by Muhammad? They said: The foreleg. Then she slaughtered one from her goats and roasted it (the meat). Then she wanted a poison which could not fail. The Jews discussed about poisons and became united on one poison. She poisoned the she-goat putting more poison on the forelegs, and shoulder. When the sun had set and the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, returned after leading the people in Maghrib (sun-set) prayers, she sat by his feet. He asked her about her. She said: O Abu al-Qasim! Here is a present which I wish to offer to you. The Prophet, may Allah bless him, ordered it to be taken. It was served to him and to his Companions who were present and among those who were present was Bishr Ibn al-Bara Ibn Ma’rur. Then the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, said: Come closer and have night meal. The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, took the foreleg, a piece of which he put into his mouth. Bishr Ibn al-Bara took another bone and put it into his mouth. When the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, ate one morsel of it Bishr ate his and other people also ate from it. Then the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, said: Hold back your hands! Because this foreleg; and according to another version, the shoulder of the goat, has informed me that it is poisoned. Thereupon Bishr said: By Him Who hath made you great! I discovered it from the morsel I took. Nothing prevented me from emitting it out, but the idea that I did not like to make your food unrelishing. When you had eaten what was in your mouth, I did not like to save my life after yours, and I also thought you would not have eaten it if there was something wrong. Bishr did not rise from his seat but his color changed to that of taylsan (a green cloth). For a year the pain did not permit him to change his sides but with the help of others and then he expired. According to another version, he died before leaving his seat. He (Ibn Sa’d) said: A peace of it was dropped before a dog who ate it and died (instantaneously) without being able to move its foreleg. The Apostle of Allah sent for Zaynab Bint al-Harith and said to her: What induced you to do what you have done? She replied: You have done to my people what you have done. You have killed my father, my uncle, and my husband, so I said to myself. If you are a prophet, the foreleg will inform you; and others have said: If you are a king we will get rid of you. The Jewess returned as she had come. He (Ibn Sa’d) said: The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, handed her over to the heirs of Bishr Ibn al-Bara who put her to death.

For further study on this topic, see the following articles:

Sam Shamoun, “How Allah Killed His Prophet”
Silas, “The Death of Muhammad”

Germany: Silencing the Critics of Munich’s Mega-Mosque

October 28, 2014

From Gatestone:

Munich Mayor Dieter Reiter said that if the public referendum were permitted to proceed, it would give the anti-mosque campaign “a democratic veneer, which we want to avoid.”

In late 2013, the proposed mosque was given a new name, the Munich Forum for Islam, apparently in an effort to dispel growing public unease about the mosque’s broader ambitions.

Anti-mosque activists say that the enforcers of multiculturalism in Bavaria have determined that the mosque project will proceed, even if it requires bypassing the democratic process.

“By stopping the vote from going ahead, the City Council is preventing your opinion from being abused by the anti-democratic goals of extremists.” — The Munich Forum for Islam.

A court in Bavaria, the largest state in Germany, has reaffirmed that it is lawful for the government to spy on citizens who are opposed to the construction of a controversial mega-mosque in Munich.

The ruling effectively quashes a lawsuit filed by anti-mosque activists who argue that state surveillance is an intimidation tactic aimed at silencing public opposition to the mosque.

The ruling comes just days after another court in Bavaria ordered a leading anti-mosque campaigner to pay a hefty fine for “defaming” Islam after he repeatedly warned that Islam is incompatible with democracy.

Meanwhile, Munich city officials have announced that a public referendum on the mosque—now known as the Munich Forum for Islam—will not be allowed to take place, even though anti-mosque activists have gathered twice the number of signatures needed to allow local citizens to determine if the mosque should be built.

Anti-mosque activists say the recent actions show that the enforcers of multiculturalism in Bavaria have determined that the mosque project will proceed, even if it requires bypassing the democratic process, and that public opposition to the project will be silenced, even it if entails trampling on the constitutional right to free speech.

On October 18, the Munich-based Administrative Court of Bavaria (Verwaltungsgericht) ruled that it is lawful for the Bavarian branch of Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV), to continue spying on anti-mosque activists.

The spying was first revealed in April 2013, when Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann said that anti-mosque activists were engaging in potentially anti-constitutional activities.

Herrmann singled out a populist party called Freedom Bavaria (Die Freiheit Bayern), as well as the Munich branch of a highly popular free speech blog known as Politically Incorrect [PI], which focuses on topics related to immigration, multiculturalism and Islam in Germany.

Both groups have been drawing public attention to plans to build the 6,000 m² (65,000 ft²) mosque, which they argue will become a strategic platform for spreading Islam throughout Germany and the rest of Europe.

Speculation is rife that the 40-million-euro ($51 million) mosque will be financed by the oil-rich Persian Gulf emirate of Qatar, which is building Wahhabi mega-mosques at a breakneck pace across Europe.

According to Herrmann, members of Freedom Bavaria and PI (roughly analogous to American Tea Party activists) are “right-wing extremists, who, under the guise of civil involvement, are increasingly establishing citizen’s initiatives to attract the attention of German voters.” In this way, Herrmann claims, they are “using the discussion about the construction of mosques, for example, to arouse, in an anti-constitutional way, prejudices against Muslims and Islam.”

Herrmann told the court that the BfV serves as an “early warning system” by tracking potential threats to the constitutional order. He accused the leader of Freedom Bavaria, Michael Stürzenberger, of engaging in potentially anti-constitutional activities by repeatedly referring to Islam as a “fascist political religious system.” By failing to make a clear distinction between Islam and Islamism, Herrmann argued, Stürzenberger was guilty of trampling on the constitutional rights of Muslims.

Michael Stürzenberger, leader of Freedom Bavaria, at an anti-mega-mosque event in Munich.

Defending himself against the accusations, Stürzenberger told the court that he has said nothing against individual Muslims and thus he cannot be guilty of acting in an anti-constitutional manner. On the other hand, he argued, Islam and Islamism are two sides of the same coin, and therefore Islam poses an inherent threat to German democracy.

In its verdict, the court ruled that the government may continue monitoring the anti-mosque activists. However, the court also ordered the BfV to redact certain paragraphs from its 2013 annual report, in which Freedom Bavaria was accused of engaging in anti-constitutional activities.

The court said the annual report presented the accusations against Freedom Bavaria as facts when in reality they are merely speculations because the group has never been found of actually violating the constitution.

In a separate but related case, the District Court of Munich (Landgericht München) on October 7 ruled that Stürzenberger was guilty of offending Islam in a blog post and ordered him to pay a fine of 2,500 euros ($3,200).

The case dates back to early 2013, when Stürzenberger wrote a post for the PI blog in which he addressed the topic of verses in the Koran that encourage violence against non-Muslims. The article documented the experiences of Christians and members of other religious groups that have been persecuted by Muslims.

Stürzenberger included a quote from an Iranian exile whose brother was publicly lynched for converting to Christianity. “Islam is going to destroy Germany just as it has destroyed Persia,” the Iranian warned.

Concluding his blog post, Stürzenberger wrote: “Islam is like a cancer, which decomposes the (still) free peoples of this planet and gradually infects them with the poison of this extremely dangerous, intolerant, misogynistic, violent and power-hungry ideology.”

The Munich public prosecutor, Judith Henkel, told the court that Stürzenberger was guilty of insulting and belittling Muslims and Islam, and that it would disturb the public peace. According to Article 166 of the Penal Code, she said, Stürzenberger was guilty of a criminal offense punishable by a substantial fine or imprisonment of up to three years.

Stürzenberger defended himself by arguing that the blog post referred to the ideology behind Islam, and that his words were not directed at Muslims as individuals. He added that he has a duty to warn fellow citizens about the danger of the rise of Islam in Germany. He said that women’s rights, democracy and peaceful coexistence are being threatened by the spread of Islamic Sharia law in Germany.

In its verdict, the court ruled that by comparing Islam with a cancer, Stürzenberger was guilty of “insulting” and “defaming” Islam and ordered him to pay a fine of 50 daily rates of 50 euros. Stürzenberger said he would appeal the ruling.

Meanwhile, the Munich City Council on October 1 announced that a public referendum on the mosque will not be allowed to proceed, even though Freedom Bavaria has collected more than 65,000 signatures, twice the 30,000 needed to force a vote.

City officials accused Stürzenberger of deceiving the public by falsely saying that the Macedonian imam behind the mosque project, Benjamin Idriz, was being monitored by German intelligence due to his links to radical Islamic elements.

In fact, Bavarian intelligence, in its annual reports from 2007 to 2010, revealed that a mosque led by Idriz, the Islamic Community Penzberg (now renamed Islamic Forum Penzberg), was being monitored due to its contacts with Islamist groups.

Moreover, a December 2007 diplomatic cable from the American consulate in Munich revealed that the former Bavarian State Secretary, Georg Schmid, had warned about an internal concept paper for the mosque that proposed a more fundamentalist goal than the one announced publicly. The paper reportedly referred to the need for children to be educated in “pure Islam,” and also criticized the way European Muslims were being “to a certain extent compelled” to co-exist with a non-Muslim majority in society.

The cable also shows that then Bavarian interior minister, Günther Beckstein, confided to American diplomats that “Idriz plays two different pianos.” He was referring to Idriz’s practice of portraying himself as a moderate to some audiences and as a radical to others.

Munich city officials also accuse Stürzenberger of falsely claiming that the new mosque would be a center for Muslims throughout Europe.

In fact, for many years the mosque was called the Center for Islam in Europe-Munich (ZIE-M). But in late 2013, it was given a new name, the Munich Forum for Islam, apparently in an effort to dispel growing public unease about the mosque’s broader ambitions.

Munich Mayor Dieter Reiter, from Germany’s center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), said that if the public referendum were permitted to proceed, it would give Stürzenberger’s anti-mosque campaign “a democratic veneer, which we want to avoid.”

The Munich Forum for Islam advised those who signed the referendum petition to accept the city’s decision because municipal officials know best:

“To all those Munich citizens who supported the referendum with their signatures, we would like to encourage you to familiarize yourself with the City Council resolution and its extensive legal justification. Then you will realize that the referendum is not a legitimate right conferred by a democratic institution, and that by stopping the vote from going ahead, the City Council is preventing your opinion from being abused by the anti-democratic goals of extremists.”

Stürzenberger says the Munich city council’s efforts to silence dissent are similar to the tactics used by the former Communist dictatorship in East Germany. He has vowed to fight the city council in court.

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

Related Topics:  Germany  |  Soeren Kern

Obama Releases 167,000 Criminal Illegal Aliens Back Unto The Streets

October 28, 2014
An Obama Amnesty Decree Is Imminent… Obama Caught Covertly Planning To ‘Legalize’ Up To 34 Million Illegal Aliens!

Jessica Vaughan, a former State Department officer, who is now an immigration expert at the Center for Immigration Studies, blew the lid off of Barack Obama’s covert Amnesty scheme when she exposed an October 6, 2014 bid solicitation, issued by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), seeking a vendor who can produce up to 34 million blank green cards and work permits.

Congressman Lou Barletta (R—PA) is accusing the Obama Regime of “covert actions to prepare for tens of millions of amnesty cases” and says this bid solicitation is “proof that the groundwork is already being laid to grant amnesty post-election to millions upon millions of people who have broken our laws to enter this country.”

Senator Jeff Sessions agrees: “This revelation provides startling confirmation of the crisis facing our Republic,” and he added that this covert amnesty scheme “will reduce your pay, increase your tax bill, and squeeze millions of Americans out of the middle class… We need to help struggling Americans find good jobs and rising pay — not import more low-wage workers to replace them… This is where we draw the line. This is where we make our stand.”

And Senator Sessions issued the following clarion call: “You have the power to send a bolt of lightning that will send shock waves through Washington DC. You have the power to tell Obama and his open borders extremists: NO.” But time is short. Unless you take action now, you can be sure that Barack Obama will attempt to pull the trigger on his massive covert amnesty scheme after next week’s election.

Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent Blast Faxes to every Member of the Republican Leadership. Or alternatively, send your urgent Blast Faxes to each and every Republican Member of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.

Send My Blast Faxes

It’s No Secret… The Implementation Of A Large-Scale Executive Amnesty Has Already Begun.

The announcement is imminent and the Obama Regime is already laying the groundwork behind the scenes. Jonathan Strong with issued the following report after Vaughan let the cat out of the bag:

“Unnoticed until now, a draft solicitation for bids issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Oct. 6 says potential vendors must be capable of handling a ‘surge’ scenario of 9 million id cards in one year ‘to support possible future immigration reform initiative requirements.’ … The guaranteed minimum for each ordering period is 4,000,000 cards. The estimated maximum for the entire contract is 34,000,000 cards.”

Of course, the Obama Regime is already trying to tell us that 34 million blank green cards does not necessarily translate to legalizing 34 million illegal aliens… and they’re right. History teaches us that legalizing millions of illegal aliens will only give the green light to an even greater number who will follow. It’s likely that Barack Obama actually wants to encourage MILLIONS of additional illegal aliens, beyond the 34 million, to come into the United States.

We already know that legalizing illegal aliens only encourages exponentially more illegal border crossings. Back in 2006, The Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector issued a report that said, in part: “The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 granted amnesty to 2.7 million illegal aliens… the act did nothing to stem the tide of illegal entry. The number of illegal aliens entering the country increased fivefold… It seems plausible that the prospect of future amnesty and citizenship served as a magnet to draw even more illegal immigrants into the country.”

So here are some legitimate questions: If the illegal alien population increased from 2.7 million to 10-12 million after we enacted the last amnesty, what will happen if Barack Obama is permitted — against the will of Congress and the American people — to legalize up to 34 million illegal aliens now? How many tens of millions more will follow in anticipation of the next amnesty?

Do not deceive yourself, if we allow Barack Obama to get away with this covert amnesty scheme, the floodgates will open. We can’t let him get away with it. We must fight.

Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent Blast Faxes to every Member of the Republican Leadership. Or alternatively, send your urgent Blast Faxes to each and every Republican Member of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.

Send My Blast Faxes

Did You Know…?

Did you know that almost 900,000 illegal aliens who are facing final deportation orders are still in the United States? Did you know that approximately 167,000 of them are convicted criminals who were released by ICE and are presently roaming our streets? again:

“The [Center for Immigration Studies] CIS report released Wednesday and authored by the group’s director of policy studies, Jessica Vaughan, details the decline in immigration enforcement and reveals that there remain nearly 167,000 convicted criminal immigrants with final orders of removal still in the United States and ‘currently at large.’

“‘Prosecutorial discretion as practiced by the Obama administration has transformed immigration enforcement into a massive catch-and-release program that makes a joke of the law, fails to deter illegal settlement, and allows even illegal aliens who commit crimes to remain here,’ Vaughan said Wednesday.

“‘As of the end of the 2013 fiscal year, the total number of post-final-order aliens remaining in the country was 872,504,’ Vaughn wrote in her report, noting that the number of post-final-order aliens as of Sept. 20, 2014 is now 897,572.”

And understand, Vaughan is not saying that 167,000 of the illegal aliens in this country are convicted criminals. Oh no… she’s saying that ICE had custody of 167,000 convicted criminals who were simply released back into our cities and towns even though the federal government had every legal right to immediately deport them.

So, here’s a question: How many convicted criminals will be roaming our streets once Barack Obama opens the floodgates with his covert Amnesty scheme?

One thing is certain, we don’t know the answer and we certainly don’t want to find out.

Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent Blast Faxes to every Member of the Republican Leadership. Or alternatively, send your urgent Blast Faxes to each and every Republican Member of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.

Send My Blast Faxes

The Open Secret That No One In Washington Dares To Acknowledge… At Least Not Publicly.

Barack Obama’s covert amnesty plan has NOTHING to do with immigration. … Just as ObamaCare — which, as even the unwashed masses are starting to figure out — had nothing to do with making health care more affordable and available.

It’s really all about control. It’s about growing the scope, size and power of the federal government. It’s all about overwhelming our already overburdened social welfare system. And it’s about driving down wages, increasing taxes and growing the number of people dependent on the federal government.

As Senator Jeff Sessions said, Barack Obama’s covert amnesty scheme “will reduce your pay, increase your tax bill, and squeeze millions of Americans out of the middle class.”

The above is not the unfortunate consequence of a massive amnesty… it’s the purpose.

And the problem with enacting massive amnesty — and thereby encouraging millions more to come into the country illegally as they wait for the next amnesty — is NOT only that large numbers of those who come here illegally will be dependent on a large federal government. …

… The problem is your children and grandchildren will become overly dependent upon the largess of a federal government that is too big and too intrusive as well.

This covert Amnesty scheme must be stopped and only patriotic Americans like you have the power to stop it.

Inform The World About Islamic Terrorism

October 28, 2014

25 slides showing the ayat which mandate and exemplify terrorism. 8.67 is followed by an image of Allah. Two ahadith which exemplify terrorism follow the ayat. The final slide shows where to find the source texts.  Each slide is shown for about 15 seconds.  Most can be read in that time. As usual please give proper accredition to Dajjal for his hard work researching the holy mobsters’ crime-gang!


Free Ebola: Obama Demands End to State Ebola Quarantines

October 28, 2014

I just posted the PROOF OF OBAMA’S PLANS TO USE EBOLA TO GENOCIDE AMERICA, from Tom Fitton’s JUDICIAL WATCH, here, and now this additional proof of wilful criminal negligence, from here:

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


It’s bad enough that Obama rejects an Ebola travel ban because he thinks we need more Ebola,  but he’s attacking Democrats and Republicans who are doing the responsible thing by enacting quarantines.

The Obama administration has been pushing the governors of New York and New Jersey to reverse their decision ordering all medical workers returning from West Africa who had contact with Ebola patients to be quarantined, an administration official said on Sunday.

But both governors, Andrew M. Cuomo of New York and Chris Christie of New Jersey, stood by their decision, saying that the federal guidelines did not go far enough.

“It’s too serious a situation to leave it to the honor system of compliance,” Cuomo said of the decision.

Ever since Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, and Mr. Christie, a Republican, announced the plan at a hastily called news conference on Friday evening, top administration officials have been speaking with Mr. Cuomo daily and have also been in touch with Mr. Christie, trying to get them to rescind the order.

But in that time, two more states – Illinois and Florida – announced that they were instituting similar policies.

A senior administration official, who did not want to be identified in order to discuss private conversations with state officials on the issue, called the decision by the governors “uncoordinated, very hurried, an immediate reaction to the New York City case that doesn’t comport with science.”

What exactly is that anonymous official’s background in science? Same as Joe Biden’s Chief of Staff/Obama’s Ebola Czar?

Quarantining people who are potentially infected doesn’t comport with science? Please tell me more, Guy Who Got This Job Because He’s the Brother in Law of a Campaign Donor.

The decision to institute a mandatory quarantine came after a New York doctor, Craig Spencer, received a diagnosis of Ebola on Thursday, having contracted the virus while working in Guinea for Doctors Without Borders. He is being treated at Bellevue Hospital Center, where his condition has worsened, an expected development as the virus replicates and spreads through his body.

But it wouldn’t be a media pile on without the usual idiot showing up to fight a travel ban.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Disease, said it was vital not to do anything that might interfere with the flow of health workers to West Africa.

“The harm is that it is totally disruptive of their life. We want them to go because they are helping us to protect America to be over there,” Dr. Fauci said on CNN.

No they’re not. They’re helping Africa. And that may be a noble thing, but it’s endangering America.

Obama doesn’t prioritize America over Africa. American leaders should.