Obama's Department of Sharia in action again -- and note that no one batted an eye over the calls to limit the freedom of speech and to stop telling the truth about Islam and jihad. "Progressives, Islamists huddle at Justice Department," by Neil Munro at the Daily Caller, October 21:
Top Justice Department officials convened a meeting Wednesday where invited Islamist advocates lobbied them for cutbacks in anti-terror funding, changes in agents’ training manuals, additional curbs on investigators and a legal declaration that U.S. citizens’ criticism of Islam constitutes racial discrimination.The department’s “civil rights lawyers are top of the line — I say this with utter honesty — I know they can come up with a way” to redefine criticism as discrimination, said Sahar Aziz, a female, Egyptian-American lawyer.
“I’d be willing to give a shot at it,” said Aziz, who is a fellow at the Michigan-based Muslim advocacy group, the Institute for Social Policy & Understanding.
The audience of Islamist advocates and department officials included Tom Perez, who heads the department’s division of civil rights.
“We must continue to have the open and honest and critical dialogue that you saw in the robust debate,” Perez responded in an enthusiastic closing speech a few minutes after Aziz made her demands at the event....
Progressives ally with the Islamic lobby because “they think it will be a political voting bloc that will be reliably Democratic,” said Robert Spencer, an author and expert on Islam.
None of the Islamist advocates of civil rights officials in attendance, including Perez, objected to Aziz’s call for free-speech restrictions....
The word “Muslim,” she said, “has become racialized. … I don’t accept this formalistic cop-out that this is all about religion.”
Aziz did not offer any evidence for her claim, which she said justifies the use of Title VI anti-discrimination laws against institutions and individuals who argue that Islamic texts spur Islamic violence.
This legal redefinition, she said, would also “take [federal] money away from local police departments and fusion centers who are spying on all of us.”
Aziz also argued against the commonplace police practice of informally talking with people in communities, including Muslim communities. “This has been a real problem with this outreach stuff,” she said. Muslims “are acting in good faith, and then they find their imams, who were going to outreach meetings, were being spied on,” she complained. “Some have been deported. Some have been prosecuted.”...
“People are going in good faith” to talk with police, Aziz said. “They’re being very honest about what their grievances are. They’re telling the government, ‘This what we want you to do … [and] we want you not to spy on our community.’”...
Aziz’s advocacy was supported by a second Islamist advocate, [the Hamas-linked] Islamic Society of North America president Mohamed Magid. He argued that “teaching people that all Muslims are a threat to the country… is against the law and the Constitution.”
Magid asked Perez to change the federal government’s rules governing terror investigations, for more private meetings with top justice department officials, for the reeducation of FBI agents, and for more people to oppose criticism of Islam, which he labelled “religious bigotry and hate.”
In 2009 the federal government named Magid’s organization an unindicted co-conspirator in the successful 2009 trial of three Muslims who smuggled $12 million to the Islamist terror group Hamas. Two of the smugglers received life sentences....
Progressives, including Holton and Perez, choose to ignore the Islamists’ stated goals, Spencer said. “They assume — and force us to assume on pain of charges of ‘Islamophobia’ — that all Muslims are moderate, peaceful and have no intentions of bringing Sharia [Islamic law] here,” said Spencer. “No amount of evidence to the contrary, no amount of jihadi plots, and no number of demands for accommodation of Sharia’s provisions, ever disabuses them of this dogma.”
Justice Department officials declined to comment to The Daily Caller.
When the session ended, Perez — a Maryland resident, a progressive and a former staffer to Sen. Ted Kennedy — climbed the stage to embrace Imam Magid, who was born in Sudan and trained at a Saudi fundamentalist seminary.
'Aziz, however, used her invitation to argue that Americans’ fear of Islamists’ bombs has evolved into racism towards dark-skinned men.
The word “Muslim,” she said, “has become racialized. … I don’t accept this formalistic cop-out that this is all about religion.”
Aziz did not offer any evidence for her claim, which she said justifies the use of Title VI anti-discrimination laws against institutions and individuals who argue that Islamic texts spur Islamic violence.' Playing the race card yet again... http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/muslims-playing-race-card-islam-is-not.html
Fools, bloody fools, jihadis and dhimmi enablers.
Onward Christian Soldiers! (Always my favorite hymn since childhood.)
We've got in Eric the Red as our chief law enforcement officer, so it was hardly a surprise when dropped an in-the-bag prosecution against racist globo-socialists intimidating people at polling places with open threats of violence (not just the one in Philly, but many of them).
But Eric the Red has more than just a dark side: he can be whimsical too, as we saw when he filed a federal lawsuit against Arizona for having the nerve to enforce the law, and in so doing making Orwell's fantastic predictions look optimistic.
If, to be against violent jihad as outlined in Al Qur'an makes you anti-Muslim, then to be pro Muslim must make you pro violent jihad as outlined in the Qur'an!
So, all these 'liberal' left apologists for Islam are supporting violent jihad because they claim to be pro Islam, aka terrorism.
Clowns!
I am working on new national anthem for USA. Last part will end up like " over the land of Islam and the land of Dhimmis"
Sorry correction:I am working on new national anthem for USA. Last part will end up like " over the land of Islam and the HOME of Dhimmis"
Ominous but oh so predictable. Only the foolish or the complicit will reject the contention that Islam and liberty are incompatible. Unfortunately, there are a great many fools out there as well as enablers aplenty of the world's worst religion.
Islam is a dagger pointed at First Amendment freedoms here in America and whatever ruse is necessary to gut these freedoms, as here related in the article above that criticism of Islam is racist, will be invoked by Muslims and their dhimmi supporters. Disgusting, as is Islam itself and those who keep making excuses for it. And there can be no doubt about it that, long term, either Islam recedes or freedom does. Both can't prosper side by side indefinitely.
I will continue to speak the truth about Mohammed the demon possessed pedophile pseudoprophet of the religion of death(Islam) no matter if I'm prosecuted for hate speech or not. Jesus says we are to be light and salt in this evil world and that there will be a price for doing/ being it. So let it begin with me!
Aziz also argued against the commonplace police practice of informally talking with people in communities, including Muslim communities. “This has been a real problem with this outreach stuff,” she said. Muslims “are acting in good faith, and then they find their imams, who were going to outreach meetings, were being spied on,” she complained. “Some have been deported. Some have been prosecuted.” -- from the article.
Not nearly enough, though.
Sahar Aziz is obviously an ambitious female lawyer keen to take advantage of her somewhat unique qualifications. She is a foreign-born female Muslim lawyer, an almost perfect poster child for Liberal multiculturism and diversity hiring.
Why doesn't Sahar Aziz, good lawyer that I am sure she is, take her education and qualifications back to her native land, Egypt, where I am sure she would be welcomed with open arms. Her services are much more in need there than here.
"That damned Constitution."
"It gets in the way of everything!"
Mohamed Magid.... argued that “teaching people that all Muslims are a threat to the country… is against the law and the Constitution.”
That's true! But arguing that the ideology of Islam is a threat to the free world is not against the law or the Constitution.
Ideologies cannot be discriminated against. Their relative merits or demerits are up for discussion. And it's discussion about Islam's 'merits' that worries these clowns!
"Why doesn't Sahar Aziz, good lawyer that I am sure she is, take her education and qualifications back to her native land, Egypt, where I am sure she would be welcomed with open arms."
Because she's a front-line jihadi in the Dar al Harb, of course.
"Justice Dept."......whose "Justice Dept."? Certainly not mine! Increasingly: I am convinced that the federal government is largely the enemy of the people which it supposedly serves. How could this ever have happened to the greatest nation that has ever existed?
You quoted and wrote:
"Mohamed Magid.... argued that “teaching people that all Muslims are a threat to the country… is against the law and the Constitution.”
That's true!"
_____________
I'm no constitutional scholar, but since when is it illegal to "teach" or "tell" someone that one believes that Muslims are a threat to the country?
_____________
Nonsense! We can believe anything we want, as long as we don't force it on anyone else!
This article angers me to the extreme.
America! WAKE UP!
We MUST NOT RE-ELECT OBAMA.
We MUST NOT RE-ELECT OBAMA.
We MUST NOT RE-ELECT OBAMA.
NUMBER OF TERRORIST WEBSITES HAS EXPLODED (pun intended)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66401.html
dear david,
precisely my feelings!
i would like to think that in a small way i have contributed to help re-elect stephen harper with my vote...
next year, i shall exercise my civic duty and vote at the u.s. embassy for ANYONE, **BUT** hussein....
i often wonder, how could soooo many people be misguided to the nth degree?
do they REALLY not see what is so obvious to us?
"Perez did not promise to meet any of the demands made by the Islamists, but he repeatedly promised extensive consultations and flattered the attendees, while speaking in a style that blended the cadences of an academic lecturer and a rural preacher."
I suppose so. It is obvious that pandering to the islamist lobby somehow furthers the aims of the Hussein administration and his leftist progressive base. Since islam as taught in the koran and hadith is undeniably barbaric by western standards, the intellectual playing field is being 'leveled' by legally preventing its criticism. Orwellian. Constitutional liberties dangled over the altar of political expedience. I guess we shouldn't be surprised.
For certain Americans do not know enough about their Constitution.
But one thing they do know - which is odd since they are so unfamiliar with its overarching thesis of limiting the created government and the mechanisms used to achieve that end (if they were obeyed!!!) - they do not want the Constitution meddled with.
So it remains for us to remedy this situation by educating each other on the Constitution and limiting, limiting, limiting the government.
Limited government is the exact opposite of what the left wants. Look at this foolish #Occupy movement. These sniveling fools cry for government to help them from the very problems which government created, and created without constitutional authority.
Fifth Columnists across the board.
The only logical statement of fact was Robert's profession that progressives see Muslims as future Pavlovian Democrats.
I don't suppose any of these arrogant muslim supremacists offered any explanation for the consistent islamic terror plots that are thwarted in the nick of time by the FBI. Why are only muslims involved in these horrific schemes to mass murder their fellow American citizens in the country they profess to 'love' so much?
The liberals are idiots if they think muslims can make a dent in national elections so there must be another reason for the pandering. I will continue to expose the truth about islam to anyone who will listen, and I will continue to warn everyone about the dangers of muslim immigration, sharia, and the islamic agenda. The bitch Aziz considers truth 'hate speech' and these muslim traitors will relentlessly work to beat us down until we give up. I won't give up. Islam does not belong in AMerica or anywhere in the West. More and more Americans are waking up to that reality and they can't silence all of us.
If I say prophet Mohammad was a terrorist and a murderer, what has that to do with race? If I say the religion he founded persecutes non-Muslims, what has that to do with race?
The Muslim brothers have NO counter argument to the pedophile (65:4) mass murderer Muhammad --- they can only make censorship to freedom of seech ... like in any dictatorship
http://schnellmann.org/sharia-law-in-action.html
Here is a reporting of two Somali Muslim women found guilty of aiding a Somali terror group. Do we see any mention of their being a Muslim or Islam in the story or the terror group being an Islamic terror group? No, as if state department is telling these PC morons at NYTimes not to ever mention it. Only the names of these women and their photos in the story give them away. Two "non-descript" women were convicted - yeah, maybe they were Amish or Evangelicals or Hindu or Buddhists!!! These morons at NYT try so hard to hide the facts when Muslim terrorists and criminals are involved anywhere in the world let alone in USA. The identification of being a Muslim or reference Islam will only come out as a last resort - it's like extracting the tooth. These liers at NYT continue to brainwash the public by their lies. Period!! When will they start telling the truths about Islam and Muslims??
NATIONAL BRIEFING | MIDWEST
Minnesota: 2 Women Guilty of Aiding Terrorist Group
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: October 20, 2011
Connect With Us on Twitter
Follow @NYTimesNational for breaking news and headlines.
"Two women were convicted Thursday of conspiring to funnel money to a terrorist group in Somalia. The two, Amina Farah Ali, 35, and Hawo Mohamed Hassan, 64, Americans of Somali descent, were charged in federal court with conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization. The women were among 20 people charged in Minnesota’s long-running federal investigations into recruiting and financing for the Shabab, which the United States considers a terrorist group with ties to Al Qaeda."
If they can get away with the 1984 scenario and they redefine "criticism of Islam constitutes racial discrimination", then you certainly will have such racists as Ayaan Hirsi Ali (she's black in case you don't know her and she certainly criticizes Islam aplenty).
unbelievable, words cease to mean anything.
"That damned Constitution.... It gets in the way of everything!
Not really. If one sat down and entered the enumerated powers into a spreadsheet (that's 17 rows) and then inserted a column for every gubmint program, law, action, and inaction (as in non-enforcement of the law), a guy would run out of memory space to keep adding the columns before he ran out of violations to record.
*** 33:21 ***
The fact is that the federal gubmint is the biggest law violator of all. So it's hardly a surprise the elites running it are naturally aligned to another form of massive criminality: Moslemism.
"a guy would" . . .
Are you originally from southern MN? Those are the only people I know who say "a guy could" or "a guy would"!
... influential critics, such as McCarthy and Spencer, who argue that Islamist terror attacks are partly motivated by Islamic texts.
To get away with this statement, it's incumbent upon Munro to enumerate what parts of Jihad war terror are not motivated by Islamic texts.
*** 33:21 ***
But so little is incumbent upon our "journalists" nowadays.
Are you originally from southern MN?
Southern Indiana. But I've noticed a fair bit of Hoosierism in the southern two tiers of Minnesota counties, so you've got a point.
*** 47:24 ***
Do they not understand the Qur'an? Nay, on the hearts there are locks preventing them from understanding.
But the slogan up here isn't very Hoosieristic: Minnesota - Land of 10,000 Fake Voters.
I recently received this email from a Jihad Watch reader in Canada:
A conversation with several friends on Facebook erupted into something quite extraordinary. An 18 year old Muslim student, from Western University and born in Mississauga had this to say about the distinction between Islam and Islamism:
".....Furthermore, I really wouldnt use the term islamist or Islamism. Many muslims, including myself, find the term deeply offensive."
_________________________________________________________
"Progressives, Islamists huddle at Justice Department," by Neil Munro at the Daily Caller, October 21:
Top Justice Department officials convened a meeting Wednesday where invited Islamist advocates lobbied them for cutbacks in anti-terror funding, changes in agents’ training manuals, additional curbs on investigators and a legal declaration that U.S. citizens’ criticism...." etc.
"I'm no constitutional scholar, but since when is it illegal to "teach" or "tell" someone that one believes that Muslims are a threat to the country? " - David Dowse
Right. Unlike some countries which have very problematic hate speech laws under which a person can get in big trouble for criticizing groups, the USA (thank goodness) has none and we are free, as far as state & federal government is concerned, to fiercely criticize any group of people, Muslims, Christians, blacks, whites, Catholics, Mormons, Baptists, etc. as long as there is no incitement to imminent violence.
Geert Wilders, for instance, has to say he has nothing against Muslims, just Islam - which is a bit absurd when you think about it - becasue of the hate speech laws in his country. But in the USA, at least, I think all non-Muslims ought to say that they have a big problem with both Islam and Muslims if they believe and follow the extremely intolerant, militant and absurd Koran.
Just WHEN did "progressive" become code for "head-up-one's arse"?
hweee-no kneed now Stay-king budjisss!, heh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXhRz3S4qio
Apparently these marvelous people from the middle east whose letter begins with "I", do not truely understand the West and the US and our thinking. By not appreciating the conscientiousness of our law enforcement agencies and our watchful eyes against enemies in our country, they do not realize that by politly getting the sceptor extended to them by the Justice Department and begging for us not to bother them or talk to them or communicate or watch them, the do not understand that this actually makes us think maybe, just maybe they are up to no-good. So, just like my teenagers want to be left alone or shut their doors, I am all the more interested and curious as to what they are up to? Ya think? You see, by being so terribly bothered that we are treating them "separately" or "differently" perhaps they are the poor poor innocent victims beause they arn't doing anything. It's all in our minds. Do we have STUPID written on our foreheads?? I don't think so. They better watch out because now we have all the more reason to talk about them, critize them and suspect them than we had before. If they weren't up to no-good - well, why all the commotion. Then, factor in their prelude to even entering our country - hello - we are the big Satan and they want to rule the USA? They want the "I" flag over the capitol? They have already made it abundantly clear what they want - I truly believe we don't have to refer to them as Islam or Islamists or Islam anything. Why don't we just take the "I" and have it stand for IGNORANT. Then, whenever we use the word "Ignorant" we all will know without a doubt who in America we are referring to? OK?
Want to make the criticism of Islam a crime? Simple. Create a law which says that the criticism of Islam is actually racist in intent. That doesn’t mean that the prosecutors need to simply assume that counter-jihadists are racist as well as being against Islam. No. It’s that the criticism of Islam is in itself, despite intent, racist. This way the people who criticise Islam, in any way, can be prosecuted for racism and then suitably punished.
This is actually what's being lobbied for at the U.S Justice Department by various... yes, you guessed it, Islamists; along with some obedient dhimmying in the background from what Americans call ‘progressives’ (i.e., Leftists.) More precisely, these Islamist ‘advocates’ are stating that
‘US citizens’ criticism of Islam constitute racial discrimination’.
So there’s another political buzzword cooped by Islamists - ‘discrimination’. This means that Muslims are being discriminated against when someone - no matter who - says something - no matter what - critical about Islam or Muslims AS Muslims. Of course, racism neatly coalesces with discrimination. Or, in this case, criticism of Islam neatly coalesces with both racism and discrimination.
This isn’t just my personal interpretation of what’s been going on at the Justice Department recently. The Islamists, along with their lawyers and legal representatives, are candid about what they want and how they see things. For example, Sahar Aziz, a female, Egyptian-American lawyer, said that she knows that
‘civil rights lawyers [can] come up with a way to redefine criticism as discrimination’.
That’s from the horses’s mouth, so to speak. Aziz goes on to say that the word
‘Muslim... has become racialized... I don’t accept this formalistic cop-out that this is all about religion’.
She’s right about that! The word ‘Muslim’ has become racialised BY PEOPLE LIKE HER AND HER LEFTIST FRIENDS! They themselves fuse criticism of Islam with racism and then they have the nerve to say that critics of Islam are racist. However, it’s THEIR ideology and political definitions which will make critics of Islam turn out to also be racists. Thus the statement
‘Criticism of Islam is racist.’
become an analytic proposition - true by definition. (If you accept the definitions, that is.)
I mentioned American ‘progressives’ earlier. What is it about Islamism, and Muslims generally, that appeals to these people. I’ll let a PROGRESSIVE (non-Islamist) Muslim, Zudhi Jasser answer that:
‘The Islamist groups’ victimology feeds into the left’s propaganda that the Right is anti-minority and anti-Muslim, so there’s a mutual political benefit there.’
In other words, the progressives are using the Islamists and the Islamists are using the progressives. A case of mutual use, in other words. It is also cynical and profoundly wrong.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/English-Defence-League-Extra-EDL-page-blog/244958915534991
"Progressive" here means willing to truck with a 7th-century ideology that restricts freedom of speech, rights for women, gays, and religious and ethnic minorities.
If the term were not already rendered meaningless given their propensity for getting in bed with tyrannical communists, you'd think their allying with Jihadists would give the heads-up to anyone paying the slightest attention...