CAIR, Brotherhood’s (U.S.) Propaganda Arm, Exhorts:Shut The Hell Up Re “Islamists”! Oh, Really?Commentary By Adina Kutnicki
LIKE the committed ISLAMIST that he is, CAIR’s Director, Ibrahim ‘Dougie’…Shmoogie…Hooper, has a set of brass balls, pardon the descriptor. Shmoogie, how dare you? Chutzpah galore.
AS the major (communications) mouthpiece of the Brotherhood’s terror Mafia, his main mission is (among other supportive acts of jihad) to squelch ALL criticism of Islam, come what may.
AGREED, many have heard about CAIR and its association with Muslim “advocacy.” Hmm. But what CAIR couldn’t care less about is that their jihadi brand of “advocacy” involves the anti-democratic (antithesis) principle of closing down free and protected speech, including the absolute right to “insult” their pedophile “prophet” Muhammed. Yup. Ain’t that the truth.
In aBUT never mind the First Amendment and all that nonsense…Shmoogie is above the laws of the land, as is HUSSEIN Obama and his gang of anti-American ISLAMISTS. Indeed, both crews are less than six degrees separated…like pigs to shit….as the ISLAMIST-in-Chief refused to label the Muslim Brotherhood (CAIR’s parent) a terrorist organization! Yet, the fact remains that Egypt’s gov’t has done so, and begged HUSSEIN Obama to do the same, still….you get the picture.
AND while we are on the subject of truth and advocacy, here are some further proofs, relative to CAIR’s designs for America:
DESIGNS GALORE:
ASK yourselves: if CAIR really cared
about democracy and all that jazz, how come they continuously (and
assiduously) advocate and agitate to submit America to Islam’s
dictates? SERIOUSLY, between submitting Minnesota; its hammer-blows via the Brotherhood’s student arm, the Muslim Student Association; its war chest; its inextricable ties to ISIS; its deep penetration/infiltration into U.S. law enforcement; its targeted bullying and so on….around and around the ISLAMIST terror tree they go.
EVEN so, it’s not all bad news, and three of the main reasons include the following shout outs: mega heavy lifting done by 2 close counter terror contacts of this site, Dave Gaubatz, as well as Tom Trento via the United West.
Brooke Goldstein’s efforts ala her (legal) megaphone rate too.
YET, bullies always revert to form, and ISLAMIST ones are especially dangerous. Therefore, exposing CAIR, whether via Shmoogie or another surrogate, is not gonna stop. Never and never.
CAIR The Associated Press (AP) added the term “Islamist” to its influential Stylebook in 2012. That entry read: “Islamist — Supporter of government in accord with the laws of Islam. Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.”
That same year, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) approached AP about modifying the reference, suggesting that AP change its Stylebook to incorporate language similar to that used in the reference to “fundamentalist,” which states that the label should not be used unless a group applies the term to itself.
CAIR urged media outlets to drop the term because it has become journalistic shorthand for “Muslims we don’t like” and because it is used in an almost exclusively pejorative context and is often coupled with the term “extremist,” giving it an even more negative slant. (But ONLY the AP complied)
Phony Islamophobes routinely use the term to disingenuously claim they only hate “political” Islam, not the faith itself. Yet they, and the media, fail to explain how a practicing Muslim can be active in the political or social arena without attracting the label “Islamist.” (Not true, lots of people and organizations use “Islamist” to refer to all kinds of abhorrent Muslims)
In a 2013 update emailed to online Stylebook subscribers, dhimmi AP modified the “Islamist” reference to:
While CAIR welcomed AP’s move as a step in the right direction, concerns about the use of the term remained. In a statement, CAIR said: “The key issue with the term ‘Islamist’ is not its continued use; the issue is its use almost exclusively as an ill-defined pejorative.”“An advocate or supporter of a political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam. Do not use as a synonym for Islamic fighters, militants, extremists or radicals, who may or may not be Islamists. Where possible, be specific and use the name of militant affiliations: al-Qaeda-linked, Hezbollah, Taliban, etc. Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.”
There are few, if any, positive references to “Islamist” by the media and few attempts to actually define the term or outline what criteria are used when applying the label. (Nothing about it IS positive)
The unremitting linkage of the term “Islamist” to violence and denial of religious and human rights harms interfaith relations worldwide, unjustifiably links the entire faith of Islam to the violence of a tiny minority minority of extremists and some Muslim governments (10% of Muslims are considered “extreme” which equals approx 150 million Muslims. Tiny?) and serves to alienate the vast majority of Muslims who know their faith does not endorse violence and resent being tarred with the same brush as terrorists. (If the label fits…)
When the term “Islamist” is used to describe both those engaged in wanton acts of violence and those engaged in peaceful political participation, the line between the two is blurred and peaceful faith-based activism is stigmatized and made the subject of suspicion. And the media’s use of “Islamist” is not equivalent to its use in academic circles, in which depth of analysis offers a less subjective definition.
By not dropping use of the term, the media are making a political and religious value judgment each time it is used. The bottom line: Every journalist must determine whether there is such a thing as a “good” Islamist. If they answer is “no,” then the term is clearly a pejorative and should be dropped. (When pigs fly, Dougie)
ON the upside, it is great to see that a victory for free
speech was won against CAIR…see below. Indeed, a shock. Significantly,
even their deep thrust into Philly couldn’t smack down the First
Amendment, at least as far as one judge was concerned.
AS an aside, this investigative journalist is not in the
good graces – to say the least – with CAIR’s Director in the “city of
brotherly love.” But there is a (Jewish) twist to this tragic saga. It
can be found, if curious, at “Is This Kosher?”
“FREE SPEECH VICTORY”
PHILADELPHIA…jump to the 8:24 point and listen….
BESIDES, it will be a cold day in hell before this “infidel” bends over for his dictates – or anyone else’s – for that matter. Rest assured, he would do well to shut his trap and understand some facts: even tolerant Americans have their limits. Yes, they do.
NOW, couple said limits with a well-armed (Second Amendment) citizenry, and it would seem to me that a goodly segment of Americans will never bow down and “shut the hell up”, as Shmoogie dictates. Besides, who died and made him/CAIR the “language Czar” ? Good grief.
ALAS, just because CAIR and the Brotherhood apparatus (HUSSEIN Obama & surrogates included…Holder, are you listening?) demand this and that, it doesn’t mean patriotic Americans will obey. Agreed?
First-Class Islam: Eric Holder Puts Muslims Above Terror Suspicion
No more instruction about jihad, and Islam is to be considered a race.
From 2008 to 2011, I was a guest lecturer at the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center (the primary DHS training facility, located
in coastal Georgia) and at Joint Special Operations University (which
brings foreign officers to learn of U.S. irregular warfare, located in
Tampa). At both venues I was asked to lecture on the history of
terrorism.
I did so in an even-handed and comprehensive manner, exploring the
issue across place (Europe to East Asia), time (ancient Assyria to
al-Qaeda), and ideology (religious: pagan, Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and
Muslim; and political: right-wing, left-wing, anarchist,
environmentalist, etc.). Only 14 of the 44 PowerPoint screens in my
presentation dealt with Islamic terrorism, although several of those
actually mitigated against the concept.
JSOU continued to utilize me until late 2011, when I was told by the
course instructor that Muslim student officers had complained that “I
talked too much about Islamic terrorism.”
I was actually surprised that I had not been yanked the year before,when references to Islam and jihad were stricken from Obama’s kinder, gentler National Security Strategy document. That same year, noted Islamic studies expert Eric Holder told the House Judiciary Committee that foiled Islamic suicide bombers in the U.S. were motivated by “Islam that is not consistent with” that religion’s “true teachings.”
Now, the Obama administration — led by Holder — has decided that Islam is a “race,” and therefore to examine or even to adduce a Muslim’s Islamic beliefs about jihad, beheading, violence against kuffar (“infidels”), or re-establishing a caliphate is tantamount to racism. This administration behavior is rationalized because “federal authorities have in particular singled out Muslims in counter terrorism investigations and Latinos for immigration investigations.”
It is difficult to express just how willfully ignorant of reality these statements and accompanying policies are.
Per the immigration example: as over 80% of “undocumented aliens” are from Mexico or another Latin American country, it would be foolish, indeed delusionary, to ignore that fact. The same logic applies to directing extra scrutiny towards individuals who hold a set of beliefs that may predispose them to violence against others not of that belief system.
And that is the primary point: Islam is a belief system. Not a race.
Muslims can be of any skin, Bosnian or Turkish, Nigerian, Saudi, Chinese. If American, Muslims can perhaps be of several nationalities. This is equally if not more true of Christians, who can be white Finns, black Ethiopians, brown Lebanese, or Koreans, to name but a few examples. It is not possible to look at someone (sans distinctive clothing) and ascertain whether he or she is Muslim or Christian — or secularist, for that matter.
Advocacy groups and willing dupes in the media and Democrat Party — like Senator Dick Durbin — have foolishly yet successfully conflated race and ideology in the case of only one religion, Islam. They have made examining the latter tantamount to discrimination against the former. No one ever argues that singling out Christians for repression because they hold politically incorrect views about gay marriage or abortion amounts to “racism.”
Beyond the obvious fact that beliefs do not constitute a race, Holder et al. are massively wrong to deny the clear link between certain Islamic beliefs and terrorism.
AMERICANS, you must understand that Shmoogie (and the
Brotherhood Mafia) wouldn’t be demanding an omerta, if he didn’t know
that Obama Inc. has CAIR’s back in toto. The ONLY open question is: do
you, or not, agree to submit??
Nonetheless,
in June 2009 I was told that I could no longer lecture at FLETC,
because the edict had come down from the new Obama administration that
“no trainer who uses the term ‘jihad’ shall henceforth be used.” (This
was over two years before the Obama administration was openly hostile to realistic training about Islam.)
I was actually surprised that I had not been yanked the year before,when references to Islam and jihad were stricken from Obama’s kinder, gentler National Security Strategy document. That same year, noted Islamic studies expert Eric Holder told the House Judiciary Committee that foiled Islamic suicide bombers in the U.S. were motivated by “Islam that is not consistent with” that religion’s “true teachings.”
Now, the Obama administration — led by Holder — has decided that Islam is a “race,” and therefore to examine or even to adduce a Muslim’s Islamic beliefs about jihad, beheading, violence against kuffar (“infidels”), or re-establishing a caliphate is tantamount to racism. This administration behavior is rationalized because “federal authorities have in particular singled out Muslims in counter terrorism investigations and Latinos for immigration investigations.”
It is difficult to express just how willfully ignorant of reality these statements and accompanying policies are.
Per the immigration example: as over 80% of “undocumented aliens” are from Mexico or another Latin American country, it would be foolish, indeed delusionary, to ignore that fact. The same logic applies to directing extra scrutiny towards individuals who hold a set of beliefs that may predispose them to violence against others not of that belief system.
And that is the primary point: Islam is a belief system. Not a race.
Muslims can be of any skin, Bosnian or Turkish, Nigerian, Saudi, Chinese. If American, Muslims can perhaps be of several nationalities. This is equally if not more true of Christians, who can be white Finns, black Ethiopians, brown Lebanese, or Koreans, to name but a few examples. It is not possible to look at someone (sans distinctive clothing) and ascertain whether he or she is Muslim or Christian — or secularist, for that matter.
Advocacy groups and willing dupes in the media and Democrat Party — like Senator Dick Durbin — have foolishly yet successfully conflated race and ideology in the case of only one religion, Islam. They have made examining the latter tantamount to discrimination against the former. No one ever argues that singling out Christians for repression because they hold politically incorrect views about gay marriage or abortion amounts to “racism.”
Beyond the obvious fact that beliefs do not constitute a race, Holder et al. are massively wrong to deny the clear link between certain Islamic beliefs and terrorism.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment