| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
During the recent Tyson Chicken controversy, I published an article at FrontPage in which I argued that Tyson and the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU) should not have agreed to make Eid al-Fitr a paid day off for employees at the Tyson plant in Shelbyville, Tennessee, on the grounds that it set a bad precedent for accommodation of Islamic practices at a time when the Muslim Brotherhood is pressing forward a stealth jihad agenda of trying to impose Islamic Sharia law bit by bit and make American businesses and individuals grow used to the idea that Muslims must have special accommodation.
In that piece I quoted the Hot Air blogger "Allahpundit":
The popular blogger “Allahpundit” noted at Hot Air.com that “according to Tyson, fully 80 percent of the union’s 1,000 members agreed to the new holiday arrangement. If a workforce with a huge Muslim contingent wants to make a deal with management to have their biggest religious holiday off, who cares? And why are there rumblings about boycotting Tyson when it’s the union that’s driving this?…What am I missing? Is there an anti-Eid exception to freedom of contract?”
In a follow-up post, "Allahpundit" suggested that the whole controversy was about religious one-upmanship. "What the debate is really about," he said, could be found in a piece to which he linked, in which the spokesman for a group called Christians Reviving America's Values (CRAVE) said: "What makes Tyson think they have the right to replace our American holidays by substituting a Religious Muslim holiday in its place? This nation was founded by Christians and we are still the majority, not the Muslims."
Since my objection to Tyson's new holiday had nothing to do with whether or not "this nation was founded by Christians," and everything to do with the stealth jihad, I wrote this in the comments field at Hot Air:
It has to do with a great deal more than simply freedom of contract, and the opponents of Tyson on this issue are not simply “This Is A Christian Nation” hysterics, as Allahpundit disappointingly implies with his last link above.There is a perfectly justifiable reason to oppose the union’s action here — one that has nothing to do with religious cheerleading or chauvinism. It has to do with the fact that avowedly Islamic supremacist groups are pursuing an agenda in the U.S. that involves compelling American groups to accommodate Islamic practices and beliefs, bit by bit, until the “miserable house” of “Western civilization” is “destroyed.” This is not hysterical or hearsay. It is by the own words of a Muslim Brotherhood operative in a strategic plan for America enunciated in 1991.
Given that such an initiative exists, and is being put advanced today by Brotherhood-linked groups in the U.S., it is foolish for American companies to adopt a posture of accommodation — even when such accommodation might be entirely reasonable and in keeping with American pluralism in other contexts, when requested by groups that do not have this supremacist agenda.
In response to an email asking him why he didn't even consider that angle and portrayed all the opposition to Tyson's decision as based on religious chauvinism, "Allahpundit" wrote this, and he has allowed me to reprint it here:
I forgot about your Frontpage article, but now that you mention it I wasn't sure what to make of it after I read it. I said in my original post that opponents of the Tyson agreement seem to be suggesting there should be an anti-Eid (read: anti-Islam) exception to civil liberties like freedom of contract. I took your piece to be suggesting essentially the same thing -- that Islam's simply too dangerous because of its supremacist tendencies to allow Muslims the same free exercise rights as everyone else (at least in cases where they choose to observe an Islamic custom instead of an American one), no matter how lawful they might be and how innocuous the Islamic custom is. Frankly, the idea that we need to draw the line at letting some union -- which also approved paid holidays for Christmas and Independence Day -- choose to take a paid day off on Eid instead of Labor Day lest it send us down the path to the "complete Islamization of American society" strikes me as less persuasive than the Christian press release. But we'll agree to disagree.
It's a fair question. Do I believe that there should be an "anti-Eid (read: anti-Islam) exception to civil liberties like freedom of contract"? No. It is imperative that we do not surrender our values and liberties in the process of defending them, or the defense would have been for naught. If a Jewish bakery has all Jewish employees and wants to close on Yom Kippur, that's just great. If a Muslim business in the United States closes on Eid al-Fitr, no one can legitimately object. And if Tyson's Shelbyville plant employs such an overwhelming majority of Muslims (which is disputed in some reports) that it seems reasonable to close the plant on Eid al-Fitr, that's an entirely private matter.
The main problem -- and I didn't make this fully clear in my FrontPage article, as I thought it was too obvious to mention -- is that Labor Day is an American holiday. Dropping an American holiday that we all share in favor of an Islamic holiday that only Muslims celebrate is just the opposite of what we should be doing for immigrants -- any and all immigrants. We should be expecting that if immigrants come here, they will become American. Not only does the taking away of Labor Day make that assimilation less likely, but it also prevents any Americans who may work at the Shelbyville Tyson plant from observing this American holiday if they wish to do so.
Tyson has now reinstated Labor Day in Shelbyville, and that's all to the good. But the precedent has been set, and will certainly be followed in the future.
And why will it be followed in the future? Because of the Muslim Brotherhood agenda. That agenda, again, in their own words, is "a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions."
That's from "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America," a 1991 presentation by Muslim Brotherhood operative Mohamed Akram.
It is a genuine initiative, and it encompasses many of the most influential Islamic groups in the U.S. -- many of which are named in the same memorandum, including the Muslim American Society, the Muslim Students Association, the Islamic Society of North America, and many others. It is proceeding not by terrorist attacks, but through a stealth jihad that has up to now consisted primarily of trying to compel American businesses and other institutions to make special accommodation for Islamic practices: workplaces have had to change their schedules to allow time for Islamic prayer, airports and universities have installed footbaths to accommodate Islamic ablutions, etc.
All of these are small things. About every one it would be reasonable to say, What's the big deal? Let them have their footbaths, or their prayer breaks, or their hijabs at McDonald's, or their publicly-funded Islamic school. The sky isn't falling. Acting as if all this was sending us, as Allahpundit put it, "down the path to the 'complete Islamization of American society'" is just hysterical. Isn't it?
Well, if one were viewing each of these incidents and others like them in isolation, then sure. But what is the effect of each of these isolated incidents? Each one reinforces the idea that Muslims are not in the U.S. to assimilate into American society, but are determined to force accommodation of their customs. Each one reinforces the idea that such accommodation is only good and proper, and should be pursued by American entities in an exercise in multiculturalism.
These initiatives, in other words, are all supremacist in intent. In every case, they're asking non-Muslims not just to allow for or tolerate Islamic practices in a live-and-let-live spirit, but to change our own practices and accept inconveniences in order to accommodate those Islamic practices. We'll have to use the gym at different hours to allow for Muslimahs-Only gym time. And work our work breaks around the times for Islamic prayer. And give up the Labor Day cookout so that Muslims can celebrate Eid al-Fitr. Or find some other way home so that the Muslim cabbie doesn't incur Allah's curse by carrying someone who's holding a bottle of whiskey.
The idea that non-Muslims must be inconvenienced in order to accommodate Muslims is precisely the problem. And the fact is that there is an organized effort to build on such accommodations in order to create a privileged status for Muslims and Islam in the U.S. The Brotherhood memorandum speaks of the Islamization of the U.S. as happening slowly and incrementally. Obviously they don't announce their overall goal with each initiative, but the Brotherhood has turned out to be behind many of these incidents -- notably the refusal of cab drivers at the Minneapolis airport to carry passengers with alcohol, and the charter school that was teaching Islam while receiving public funds. In light of its involvement with such incidents, can they really be viewed as isolated? Can the Brotherhood's own stated overall goals safely be discounted as having nothing to do with these initiatives? Is it not possible that their goal of Islamization might be being pursued incrementally, in small steps?
I don't think that possibility can safely be discounted, and that's why I am wary of the Tyson incident and other initiatives aimed at accommodating Islamic practices. Each may be in itself utterly innocuous -- but that Brotherhood plan is real, and I believe we ignore it at our own risk.
Remember: Islam means "submission." That's what it's all about.
Posted by Robert at August 13, 2008 1:11 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
First a little, thence to more...
Posted by: Hugh![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 13, 2008 1:14 PM
Greetings"
"Rewarded behavior tends to be repeated."
B.F. Skinner said that.
Posted by: 11B40 at August 13, 2008 1:42 PM
"Remember: Islam means "submission." That's what it's all about."
But, but, but...it means submission to GOD. Don't you know that?
(rolls @@ eyes)
That's what the Mohammedans and their PC panderers try to convince us of, anyway.
Posted by: Madame Vengier at August 13, 2008 1:46 PM
Very well argued, Mr. Spencer, and indicative of the fact tha Islam will use democracy and freedom to destroy democracy and freedom-----bit by bit.
Posted by: Wellington at August 13, 2008 1:49 PM
@Robert
Everything you said makes perfect sense to someone who is educated about the tenets, the foundation, the "atmospherics" of Islam.
It all comes down to understanding that Islam is not just "a religion" but a complete way of life, an ideology that seeks to impose itself by force on the rest of humanity.
Once an infidel becomes educated about Islam, there is not a word, not a letter in your postings that that infidel would not wholeheartedly agree with.
But to those still ignorant kaffirs that believe Islam is just another "Abrahamic" faith, well...it won't sit well.
We are involved in a grand pedagogical effort to educate ourselves and our compatriots about the real essence of Islam which is malignant and malevolent. It cannot be treated as just another religion because it's no more a religion than National Socialism was socialism.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl at August 13, 2008 1:50 PM
"Each one reinforces the idea that Muslims are not in the U.S. to assimilate into American society, qbut are determined to force accommodation of their customs."
You hit this right on the spot Robert. If we turn back all the way to Theodore Roosevelt's letter to the American Defense Society in 1919 on what an Immigrant is we see similarities. Back in the early 1900's when there was LOTS of immigration to the U.S.A, the president at the time- Theodore Roosevelt- wanted to assure that, "The immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else..But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American."
And referring back to your quote above, we can see that Muslims coming to this country are not assimilating and slowly trying to change the values of what America stands for through stealth jihad.
Heres the full quote by Roosevelt:
“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also (note from Scott: take for instance African-American, Asian-American…) isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”
Posted by: MusalMan at August 13, 2008 1:51 PM
Bravo, Robert.
Besides the odd discrepency in the religious demographic make-up at the plant, and the obvious stupidity in accomodating a minority religious holiday at the expense of a hundred plus year old federal holiday, is the fact that after all the negative blog attention, Tyson asked the union to re-open the vote.
Why would Tyson care about the vote? They didn't instigate it. What is also strange is that in the re-vote, the union members voted "overwhelmingly" in favor of restoring Labor Day. Were these not the same people that voted in favor of Eid in the first place?
Yeah, sure.
This stinks of the stealth Jihad all the way. I understand that basic human nature is to not expect the worst in people, but when it comes to accomodation of Islam, one should seriously reconsider that position.
Posted by: awake at August 13, 2008 1:55 PM
It doesn't bother me that Muslim employees would lobby to get their own holiday observed. It bothers the HECK out of me that there are so many immigrants in Shelbyville, Tennessee that it became an issue at all.
Shelbyville is smalltown America. Think Mayberry.
Posted by: S. Weasel at August 13, 2008 2:02 PM
All of these are small things. About every one it would be reasonable to say, What's the big deal? Let them have their footbaths, or their prayer breaks, or their hijabs at McDonald's, or their publicly-funded Islamic school. The sky isn't falling. Acting as if all this was sending us, as Allahpundit put it, "down the path to the 'complete Islamization of American society'" is just hysterical. Isn't it?And also, how about looking at the cumulative effect of all of these? Just because we would have footbaths everywhere, prayer breaks like KSA, hijabs on identity photos, have schoolkids - Mohammedan or Infidel - role-play Mohammedan rites from Salat to Jihad, replace some holiday with Id, have the Shanksville Memorial face Mecca, have hijabettes frisk us at airports, ban names containing 'Allah' like Callahan from e-mail addresses (Allahpundit too would be in trouble here), have shariah compliant investments like Caribou Coffee, have people wash their feet in washroom sinks, have Mohammedan only days at Six Flags, to name a few, does not mean that we are down the path to the 'complete Islamization of American society'. Stop being so hysterical.Well, if one were viewing each of these incidents and others like them in isolation, then sure. But what is the effect of each of these isolated incidents?
Camel. Nose. Tent.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 13, 2008 2:02 PM
That was good.
Are there historical precedents for the use of similar tactics by Muslims?
Posted by: Janus at August 13, 2008 2:07 PM
"Islam means 'submission.'"
I thought Islam meant "peace?"
Learn something every day, I do.
Posted by: Haid Dasalami at August 13, 2008 2:54 PM
Wonderful help the anti-jihad/shari'ah cause seems to be getting from the "conservative" blogosphere, no?
What is a moral-equivalence-prone atheist "conservative" like Allahpundit conservative of, exactly?
Posted by: PRCalDude at August 13, 2008 2:56 PM
Like Europe, slow suicide from within.
Buy yourself a prayer rug.
at August 13, 2008 3:50 PM
Very well and timely said.
AP's worldview often leads into oversights like this one.
"All religions are false and should be opposed" is dangerously close to "All cultures are equal and deserve the same treatment" kind of equivocation that will lead to an crippling of American and indeed Western ideology that could have otherwise freed many oppressed people in dogmatically controlled parts of the world.
To which I would expect AP to reply "Like the Bible belt?". An attitude that solely prevents HA from being my favorite blog.
$.02
-G
at August 13, 2008 4:00 PM
"Wonderful help the anti-jihad/shari'ah cause seems to be getting from the "conservative" blogosphere, no?"
Spencer's "Obama is maybe an Islamic apostate under a death sentence (okay, really not, sorry guys!)" headlines seem to have poleaxed his credibility outside of blogs that have crying eagle clipart.
Posted by: Not Telling at August 13, 2008 5:05 PM
Not Telling:
Why not just tell the truth?
That's a Lot of Hooey
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/03/20/a-word-with-barack-obama/
I.e., the "Obama is a Muslim" rumors are hooey.
Robert Spencer, on record, March 2007.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at August 13, 2008 5:39 PM
There is a significant matter here of context -- the context in which these events are happening.
There happens to be a war going on.
AllahPundit would be right in a peacetime context, without the jihad threat hanging over our heads (whether by arms or stealth, no difference).
Sure, why agitate against peaceful peacetime practices of otherwise innocuous people in peacetime? That would be mere gang-minded unfairness, an injustice.
But in wartime? Friendly acceptance is too likely to give the appearance of surrender.
It would also be different, even in a wartime context, if America's mohammedans were loudly vocal, passionate flag-waving, anti-sharia, anti-jihad American patriots.
But they aren't.
It is very notable to me that around where I live there are MANY stores and restaurants run by immigrants selling foreign goods and cuisine. The majority, the norm is for them to be festooned with flags and other displays of American loyalty and love of country. (Much more so than businesses run by obvious nth generation natives and mixed groups). The mohammedan businesses are the blatant and obvious exception. They almost never even have a single flag in evidence. They don't even bother with minimal lip-service to America, such is their feeling on the subject.
But I digress.
If America's mohammedans were visibly and meaningfully carrying the resistance forward in a way that rated our trust, then it might be appropriate for the rest of us to accept their cultural whatnot as part of the American scene.
But they aren't. Quite the contrary they insist loudly on what an exception they are to the norm and whine whenever called upon to distinguish themselves from the enemy.
In fact, they seem to feel entitled to the benefit of every doubt, in a way that implies a real contempt for their non-mohammedan neighbors and their neighbors' very realistic fears and anger. A contempt I will add, that they share with the enemy himself.
And that's giving them the most benefit of the doubt that I am prepared to grant.
No. Given the context I think a little unfair exception making is completely appropriate here.
Posted by: joeblough at August 13, 2008 6:01 PM
Robert: I understand that you were a voice of reason during the "secret Muslim" kerfluffle, and I respect that.
Posted by: Not Telling at August 13, 2008 6:44 PM
Since Islam is a counter-human rights, intolerant, misogynistic, anti-Constitutional subversive imperialistic movement to establish a global theocratic tyranny, honoring any of its "holidays" is a mistake.
Posted by: profitsbeard at August 13, 2008 6:51 PM
THERE can be no doubt...Stealth Jihad.
Posted by: pulsar182 at August 13, 2008 8:41 PM
it's a problem, isn't it? to refuse to accommodate seemingly anodyne customs on the basis of a likely pattern of future behavior.
this inter-blog debate is a good one.
at August 13, 2008 8:50 PM
Janus asks: "Are there historical precedents for the use of similar tactics by Muslims?"
A great book that examines such precedents is "Global Jihad" by Dr Patrick Sookhdeo
Infidel Pride - "hijabettes". Sending that one in to dictionary.com for immediate listing.
Robert's post advances the best argument I have ever read in opposition to the threat of sharia creep by way of the stealth jihad. It should be saved by one and all for handy future use whenever we read of a next mosque being built, or a foot basin being installed in a local school or airport. I have always found the " but its only a small religious accommodation" argument a very difficult point to overcome. Robert lays out the case against any such accommodation beautifully. That argument should be augmented with the point made by Ynkedoodl "It all comes down to understanding that Islam is not just "a religion" but a complete way of life, an ideology that seeks to impose itself by force on the rest of humanity".
Islam is 10% religious/spiritual, and 90% political ideology.
As long as Islam as viewed as just another religion, the view taken by Allahpundit will be repeated by other conservatives.
Posted by: USorThem at August 13, 2008 9:10 PM
Posted by: USorThem at August 13, 2008 9:10 PM
Agreed 100%.
Posted by: awake at August 13, 2008 9:15 PM
The eight paid holidays for Tyson workers before all this brouhaha were: the employee's birthday, New Year's Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas, and a Personal Day.
They are now: the employee's birthday, New Year's Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas, and Eid al-Fitr or a Personal Day.
What has changed? Essentially, nothing. Muslim employees could always take off Eid al-Fitr as a Personal Day. But that isn't what they demanded. They wanted something different. They wanted not only official recognition by the union and the company of a strictly Muslim holiday-- the only strictly religious holiday named in union contracts (Christmas is now a national holidy, with many secular characteristics, and atheists and non-Christians can, and do, join in)-- but they wanted that Muslim holiday to replace a national secular holiday, Labor Day. If they could, they would not observe any of the holidays listed, for Muslims are taught not to observe any Infidel holidays, not even to recognize them or to greet Infidels or wish them well, on such days (or, indeed, on other days: it is Infidels who must always initiate an exchange of greetings with Muslims).
In this list of holidays, not one was strictly religious. There are so many things about Christmas as celebrated in modern America -- Santa Claus, the tree, the present-giving, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, Tiny Tim and Scrooge -- that the day may be observed devoutly by devout Christians, or with various degrees of devoutness, or simply participated in, with no degree of devoutness, by a great many. The lighting of the Christmas Tree on the White House lawn survives constitutional challenge precisely because Christmas is not seen only or purely as a religious holiday. The Easter egg hunt on the White House lawn would survive such a challenge, I suspect, because it is merely the Presidential family observing Easter, as private citizens.
But Eid al-Fitr is different from Christmas. It is not a national holiday. There is noting secular about it. Non-Muslims do not, in any Muslim country, participate in Eid al-Fitr. When the Somali workers -- 250 of them, not 700 -- demanded this, or some in the union did (and who were the instigators of this?), they were attempting to have recognized the only purely religious holiday among all those observed in the union contract...and the religion was, and is, Islam.
Posted by: Hugh at August 13, 2008 9:19 PM
Posted by: Hugh at August 13, 2008 9:19 PM
Bingo, to echo Robert's sentiment in the original article.
Overreaction is the charge by the Islamists for anyone who objects to the attempted ruse by the Tyson union. Underreaction is what the Islamists, thoroughly committed to the stealth jihad, are counting on.
It's only the second quarter in this current contest, but they are for sure, a bit ahead in the game at the moment.
The only difference, Hugh, is that Tyson, in their insatiable quest to accomodate Muslims, they did so at their sole expense and not at the expense of non-Muslims and American traditions.
Now non-Muslims get another lay on the couch, scratch you ass,and flip the bird at Tyson day.
All with pay of course.
Posted by: awake at August 13, 2008 9:37 PM
I was actually wavering on this one, thinking Western Civilization needed to pick its battles rather than just scattershoot against anything that had an Islamic tint.
But, the indispensible Mr. Spencer has helped me put things into perspective. The assimilation-integration-Americanization of Islamic immigrants is really the key issue. For all the noise about Mexican immigrants not assimilating, they seem as American as applie pie when you compare them to Muslim immigrants, here, and in Europe, Africa, Asia, and everywhere, throughout history.
at August 13, 2008 9:40 PM
I counted myself among "the sky isn't falling" crowd. And I fully understand what you are saying Robert but we still have a major barrier to get past:
- Anti-discrimination laws that are being used by Muslims to force the imposition of sharia
You can't blame corporations for trying to keep the government, as well as Muslim pressure groups, off their back. What has the government done in each of the prior incidents except facilitate Islamic demands? What corporation wants to get hit by the Justice Department for some civil rights violation? They had to be thinking: better safe than sorry. Diversity is king. Multiculturalism rules.
Posted by: PMK at August 13, 2008 10:16 PM
Janus asks: "Are there historical precedents for the use of similar tactics by Muslims?"
Only 1400 years worth.
Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at August 14, 2008 8:05 AM
"The Brotherhood memorandum speaks of the Islamization of the U.S. as happening slowly and incrementally."
I would be inclined to substitute the word "excrementally" for "incrementally."
Posted by: MadAggie at August 14, 2008 9:28 AM
I no longer trust Tyson Foods. One day the Jihadists at Tyson might deliberately poison all the chickend for Allah's sake. They believe that if they do this, they will all go to Paradise for killing us.
How do we know that other chicken packers are not using Jihadists from the same cespool of Jihadists?
Could Tyson be the only chicken packer infested with Jihadists?
Can someone list a clean brand not infested with Jihadists?
Any one please list any brand that is safe or I can no longer eat chicken if I do not trust that it is clean.
Posted by: American at August 14, 2008 9:53 AM
Do I understand you correctly? You don't so much object to the ability of the workers to take off on a Muslim holiday as you do the fact that they will be working on Labor Day? Can I infer from this that you object to the common practice of shopping malls being open on Labor Day, causing their employees (some of whom must be immigrants) to miss out on the assimilation into American society?
Posted by: rsdavis at August 14, 2008 1:15 PM
Who ever agrees with changing a holiday here in America for any other nations holiday as a replacement is a trader and has no right to do so.
Posted by: sudsman at August 14, 2008 3:15 PM
Do I understand you correctly?
Posted by: rsdavis at August 14, 2008 1:15 PM
Actuaslly, no. You missed the point entirely.
Posted by: awake at August 14, 2008 3:16 PM
'American' - do you live in a place where it would be permissible for you to keep a small flock of chickens in your backyard?
You'd KNOW that they were OK, then.
If you live in an apartment, or some other location where the local regulations forbid chickens, you could investigate 'Community Supported Agriculture' or find a Farmer's Market: both options would permit you to buy your chooks and eggs directly from the source (i.e. from a non-Muslim farmer).
Here in Australia, many people still keep their own chooks, even in the suburbs.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at August 14, 2008 5:24 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)