• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

“The American Conservative” submits to violent jihadist intimidation

May 20, 2015 7:51 am By Robert Spencer

The American Conservative (TAC) has previously shown a tendency to downplay the jihad threat — as many paleocons do. I am no fan of Wilsonian interventionism and never have been, but TAC is veering toward active support of the Islamic supremacist agenda. Preposterous? Read on.

“Pamela Geller’s Free-Speech Hypocrisy,” by Kelley Vlahos, The American Conservative, May 15, 2015:

For those of us following Pamela Geller’s bombastic career over the course of the past decade, one of the most illuminating aspects of the aftermath of her otherwise tragic Texas Muhammad caricature contest, and its accompanying road show of anti-Muslim provocateurs, was how it revealed a fault line–however thin–over just how far the right should go in provoking Islamic fundamentalism.

Good question. How far should the Right, or the Left, or anyone go in “provoking Islamic fundamentalism”? The immediate answer would seem to be that we should do nothing to provoke violent jihadis, that the prudent thing to do would be to avoid doing things that anger them. If we did that, would they stop coming at us? Would there then be peace? Many people appear to think so. Kelley Vlahos and The American Conservative may not know that the Islamic State has a detailed plan to sow bloodshed and mayhem in Europe and the U.S. — one that was issued before our event and had nothing to do with it. Last September, an Islamic State spokesman boasted: “We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women, by the permission of Allah, the Exalted. This is His promise to us; He is glorified and He does not fail in His promise. If we do not reach that time, then our children and grandchildren will reach it, and they will sell your sons as slaves at the slave market.”

In light of that, what is the point of asking whether or not we should provoke them? They’re already provoked. A more useful question now is whether it is really productive and helpful to signal to them that we will acquiesce to their threats of violence and change our behavior accordingly, or whether we will instead signal to them that their violent threats are not going to frighten us into submission. That’s why we held the event. But in framing it as she does here, Vlahos signals her readiness to say, Yes, violent intimidation works. To bend us to your will, just threaten us with death. Then we will do anything you want, and refrain from any behaviors that offend you. It is the posture of surrender and submission.

Geller’s event was planned after 11 people at the magazine Charlie Hebdo were killed in January by Islamist attackers because of the magazine’s regular depictions of Muhammad and Islam. Two Muslim converts, Elton Simpson, 31, and Nadir Soofi, 34, whom police say have been communicating with ISIS over social media, attempted to storm the May 3 contest with assault rifles. They were killed when they exchanged fire with the two men providing security outside the event and a SWAT team that responded.

The SWAT team didn’t “respond.” It was already there. It was there from before the beginning of the event, because we hired it. We hired it because we knew that Islamic jihadists might target such an event, and we wanted to ensure that attendees were protected. And it worked. The SWAT team that we hired prevented Simpson and Soofi from committing mass murder at the event.

Such violence could have been expected, which was almost certainly the point.

Not really. We allowed for the possibility that there would be violence, which is why we hired the SWAT team as well as took other security measures, but violence was not inevitable. People who might take offense at something still control their own reactions to that offense. There is absolutely nothing that someone can do to someone else that will make a violent response absolutely necessary, expected, and inevitable. Whatever someone may say or do to me, how I choose to respond is up to me and only I am responsible for the choice I make. And a variety of choices are available to me. In a pluralistic society, we all have to put up with being offended by others who do not share our core beliefs, and we all must not respond with violence to being offended. Our single point was that, in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo jihad massacre, we would not submit to violent intimidation. The violent response of Simpson and Soofi was their own choice and their own responsibility. They could have picketed instead, or written a letter to the editor, or called on Hamas-linked CAIR to issue a broadside castigating us as “Islamophobes,” or any number of other things. They chose instead to try to kill. That was up to them, and them only.

Geller and her associates “have the right to go there, but again, it’s stupid, it accomplishes nothing,” said Bill O’Reilly, whose brand of pop-conservative opinionating has kept him in the top seed of prime-time cable talk shows since he joined Fox News in 1996. “You don’t fish for [terrorists] by putting people in danger.”

No one was forced to be at this event. Every last person there was there voluntarily. We spent well over $20,000 on security to make sure that people were not in danger. And it worked. The problem with O’Reilly’s critique — and everyone else’s, for that matter — is that saying that Yes, you have the right to do it, but you shouldn’t exercise it because they will kill you is essentially ceding the right. And that will only encourage the killers to issue more threats and endeavor to curtail more of our behavior.

O’Reilly was chatting with Laura Ingraham, the sharp-tongued doyenne of right-wing talk radio. Ingraham is the pillar of truth or a priestess of hate, depending on the eye of the beholder, but numbers don’t lie—she has successfully made a name for herself in a male-dominated field in which hosts generally hew to the hard-line orthodoxy on immigration, terrorism, and religion.

But when it comes to Geller’s stunt in Garland, Ingraham seemed to be calling for a time out: “The idea that this is going to be beneficial to us—and I come to it from a Catholic Christian conservative perspective—to rile an entire faith this way … to do what was done at this (contest) … it not only doesn’t accomplish anything, but I think it could actually make things worse for us.”

Muhammad Atta on September 11, 2001 told the passengers on the plane he had hijacked: “Stay quiet and you’ll be OK.” The passengers complied, thinking that if they did anything, it could actually make things worse for them. So they went quietly to their deaths. As for riling an entire faith, there are so many things that rile Muslims, if we start curtailing our behavior on that basis, when will we stop? Muslims in Pakistan recently warned a Christian leader that if he continued to build churches, they would kill him. You might say, “Ah, but building churches isn’t the same as mocking their prophet,” and yet to those who are issuing these threats, building churches is indeed just as bad as mocking their prophet. Both, in fact, are forbidden in Islamic law — in other words, both “rile an entire faith.”

“Us” in this case means those who have made it their agenda to expose radical Islam as a tool of oppression and terror against non-believers. Taunting large numbers of Muslims over their belief that depictions Muhammad are tantamount to idolatry doesn’t help move “moderates” over to the side against extremism, she suggested.

The point was not in the slightest to taunt “large numbers of Muslims over their belief that depictions Muhammad are tantamount to idolatry.” The point was to stand up against those who believe that drawing Muhammad is justifiable grounds to commit mass murder. “Moderates” who disagree with the idea that Muhammad cartoonists should be killed in cold blood should have been standing with us, on the principle (long forgotten now) of “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Speaking strictly for myself, I didn’t particularly like a lot of what was in Charlie Hebdo, but I stood with them (not that they returned the favor, but they have surrendered now), because I understood what was at stake.

“There is a line that is crossed if you attack someone’s religion,” offered Mike Lofgren, a retired Republican congressional staffer who in 2012 wrote, The Party Is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless and the Middle Class Got Shafted.

One wonders if Lofgren spoke this way about “Piss Christ” and the dung-encrusted painting of the Virgin Mary — or was he running on about free speech in those days, as were the New York Times and CNN and all the other media outlets that are castigating us now?

One of the first interviews granted by Geller after the May 3 incident was with Martha MacCallum at Fox. It did not go well. Kelleher flat-out asked Geller whether the conference was an appropriate way to combat extremism, citing criticism from billionaire gadfly Donald Trump and conservative Catholic ramrod Bill Donahue, both of whom said Geller’s event was “taunting” extremists and insulting all of Islam.

“When you embolden people, when you empower people, the haters, you’re going to get violence,” Donohue said in an earlier interview with Fox. “And so why would anybody who’s morally responsible want to intentionally incite other people? …We live in a sick society that some people think it’s good to taunt other people.”

Donahue, like many others, is allowing the jihadis to dictate the parameters of the discourse. We didn’t incite anyone. We neither called for nor condoned any violence. The Muslims who called for violence over drawing cartoons — they were the ones doing the inciting, and they are the ones who are responsible for the violence. Donahue has already ceded the field to the jihadis by allowing them to confuse his mind over this issue. As a Catholic, he should realize that the only one morally responsible for an act is the one who freely chose to perform the act.

Trump, who is no stranger to flamboyant publicity stunts, seemed scandalized by Geller’s tactics. “It looks like she’s actually taunting people,” Trump said. “It’s disgusting that [the shooting] happened and everything else, but what are they doing drawing Muhammad? Isn’t there something else they can draw?”

Sure. We could have drawn Bugs Bunny, or Donald Trump, or any other cartoonish figure. But we had to draw Muhammad, because violent thugs are threatening to kill people for drawing Muhammad –not Bugs or Donald. If a group of terrorists starts to say that anyone who draws Donald Trump will be summarily murdered, then it will become the duty of free people everywhere to start drawing Donald Trump, or else stop being free people.

Fox’s MacCallum pointed to Pope Francis, who went into a Turkish mosque to pray for the end of the wars. “I understand where you are coming from, but I’m not sure you went about the right way,” she charged.

“You’re looking to restrict my speech,” shot back Geller, who has spent the last 10 years trying to shut down places of worship and keep al-Jazeera off the air. She retreated to her favorite defensive position, behind the 1st Amendment, where Geller knows no constitutionally minded conservatives or liberals will go.

Click on the links Vlahos provides. Her link on “shut down places of worship” goes to our press release, “AFDI/SIOA Calls for Closure of Mosques That Breed Jihad Terror.” I’m for shutting down churches that are plotting violence and sedition as well. The First Amendment is not and never was some kind of blanket protection against investigation and prosecution for criminal activity. AFDI has never called for shutting down mosques in general, but only the three mosques named in that press release, all of which have numerous links to jihad terrorists. As for al-Jazeera, it is likewise not a First Amendment issue. As Geller abundantly documents in the articles on the page to which Vlahos links, al-Jazeera has numerous ties to jihad terror, and its editorial stance is pro-jihad. We should no more have al-Jazeera broadcasting in the U.S. today than we would have given Josef Goebbels a platform on the American airwaves during World War II.

“You’re asking me to abridge my speech so as not to offend savages,” she said, a line that was oft-repeated in the days after. “I’m not looking to denigrate anybody. I’m looking to rise everybody up.” She then compared herself to Rosa Parks, the black woman who sparked the end of the Jim Crow south by refusing to give up her seat on the bus to a white man in 1960.

A better comparison might be Sen. Joe McCarthy, who spent several years investigating, blacklisting, and destroying careers of citizens under the mantle of anti-Communism.

How ironic. I never heard of Kelley Vlahos until she began attacking Pamela Geller and me — this is (unless I missed any) her fourth article doing so. I never would have written a word about her had she not made it her mission to investigate, blacklist, and destroy the careers of Pamela Geller and me under the mantle of “conservatism.” If anyone deserves comparison to Joe McCarthy (at least as he is caricatured), it is people like Kelley Vlahos and Cathy Young, not Pamela Geller and me.

Geller may be talking cartoons right now, but just a few years ago she was demanding loyalty tests and warning an audience at her unofficial 2010 CPAC event that Islamists had infiltrated every level of the U.S. government.

Yes, that’s completely implausible, right? Anyone who thinks that the Obama Administration could possibly be infiltrated by Islamic supremacists must be crazy, right? Vlahos, and those who believe her, should consult this 2013 article by Andrew C. McCarthy, detailing how the direction of Obama’s State Department raises legitimate questions about infiltration.

At the same event, her Defense Initiative co-founder, Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch proceeded to snicker at the prospect of Muslim women shrinking away from full-body airport security scanners because their faith demands modesty. Any move to accommodate them would be a “perversity,” he said, because Muslims “made [full-body scanners] necessary.”

Vlahos, as I documented here, is an extremely sloppy, careless writer. Our organization is the American Freedom Defense Initiative, not the Defense Initiative. The SIOA project is Stop Islamization of America, not, as she has it below, Stop Islamicization of America. Likewise, it is now over five years since I corrected Vlahos in this post (which she knows about, as she commented upon it at the time): I didn’t say “perversity,” I said “absurdity.” In any case, does Vlahos really think that the scanners were put in place for any reason other than Islamic jihad terror, even though no one would say that publicly?

And as I also wrote then, “I was not expressing scorn for the modesty of Muslim women, as Kelley Beaucar Vlahos suggests, but for the idea that Muslims should be exempt from these scanners when it was the actions of jihadis that made them necessary.” I still believe that. I oppose such scanners, but if they’re in place, I don’t believe Muslims should be exempt from them, any more than anyone else should be.

This was just one in a string of several statements and innuendo showing how he and Geller really feel about Muslims, despite their flimsy public exhortations to the contrary. “Everyone knows Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a tiny minority,” Spencer said acidly to a room of knowing guffaws. Like people who “believe in Santa Claus, though no one has ever seen it.”

So apparently The American Conservative believes that Islam is a Religion of Peace. Well, I hope Santa brings Kelly Vlahos everything she wants this Christmas.

Just two months later, Geller started the group Stop Islamicization [sic] of America and led a rally through the streets of downtown Manhattan in order to shut down the construction of an Islamic center she declared to be an affront to the victims of 9/11.

Here is more of Vlahos’ carelessness with the facts. We didn’t hold a rally through the streets. It was not a march or a procession. It was in one place. And it wasn’t to shut down construction of the mosque. Construction had not begun. It was to protest against the construction of what would certainly have been viewed around the Islamic world as a triumphal mosque on the site of a jihad victory, a la the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount, the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, etc.

The only connection between the center and the dead 9/11 hijackers, of course, was that they shared the same faith. Just like Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, a Christian, shared his religion with 173 million adult Americans. Nevertheless, the center became synonymous with terror, and the project appears forever on hold. That is how Geller and Spencer operate.

Hardly anything in these sentences is true. We never claimed that the Ground Zero Mosque was “synonymous with terror.” The closest connection anyone involved with it had with terror was the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s connections to the Muslim Brotherhood — Muslim Brotherhood organizations financed the publication of one of his books. Our objections to the Ground Zero Mosque centered wholly on its being a triumphal mosque (as it would inevitably have been viewed, whatever the intentions of its developers may have been) and that it was indeed an insult to the victims, just as a Shinto shrine at Pearl Harbor would be. McVeigh was not a Christian at the time of his bombing, and did not bomb the building in Oklahoma City because of Christian principles — in stark contrast to the declared motives of the perpetrators of 9/11.

It is difficult for Geller, 58, not to tip her anti-Muslim hand.

Geller is 56. This is not something that is hard to find on the Internet, and shows yet again that Kelley Vlahos simply doesn’t care about being accurate.

A wealthy socialite who loves the spotlight and the camera, she often lapses into her real feelings during press interviews, such as this one with The Times of Israel. After calling herself a “human rights activist,” Geller all but declares that the only path for a Muslim to become moderate is to stop being so Muslim.

Vlahos’ tendentious paraphrase here only reveals that she herself is completely ignorant of and/or indifferent to the ways that jihad terrorists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism, and to make recruits among peaceful Muslims. At this point, there is so much evidence of this that it demonstrates virulent moral blindness to pretend that it isn’t so.

Later on in the interview, she declared that “all of the major Muslim organizations in the U.S. are linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. That is not a conspiracy theory, that is conspiracy fact.” Since Geller and her friends believe that members of the Muslim Brotherhood are terrorists-in-waiting, is she not saying all major Islamic organizations in the U.S. (representing more than 5 million Muslim-Americans today) are linked to terrorism and should therefore be investigated and/or shuttered?

The Muslim Brotherhood, according to a captured internal document, “must understand that their work in America 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.” — Mohamed Akram, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” May 22, 1991, Government Exhibit 003-0085, U.S. vs. HLF, et al. P. 7 (21). Recently the relevance and importance of this document has been called into question; Patrick Poole ably answers here.

This same document listed all the major Muslim organizations in the U.S. as Brotherhood organizations. Does the fact that they represent a lot of Muslims mean they shouldn’t be investigated, and shut down if necessary? The National Socialists once had a huge following in Germany. Did that fact mean they should not have been fought against?

Then there is her association with Geert Wilders, who joined her event in Texas. The Dutch parliamentarian and frequent guest on the Geller train is known for calling for a ban on the Koran and for staunching the flow of Muslims into Europe.

Actually, Wilders has called for a European First Amendment, i.e., protection of the freedom of speech in Europe. His call to ban the Qur’an was actually only a call for consistency in the application of laws banning books that preach hatred and violence. He wants those laws repealed.

He told Fox’s Sean Hannity on Tuesday that he wanted to plan a Muhammad cartoon expo in the parliament to show that they weren’t intimidated. When asked if he was “anti-Islam,” Wilders said simply, “Well, I’m certainly not anti-Muslim, but indeed I believe Islam is a threat to our civilization.”

Kelley Vlahos apparently hasn’t noticed all the recent jihad plots, and the threats and murder coming from the Islamic State.

Geller’s approach has gotten her into trouble with conservatives before. There is a reason her group is never allowed an official presence at CPAC, which is one of the biggest grassroots right-wing convocations of the year.

Yes, and the reason is called Grover Norquist, whose own associations with Islamic supremacists are well documented.

Some of its attendees might agree with much of what Jihad Watch and Geller’s longtime blog, Atlas Shrugs, dish out, but organizers apparently won’t take any chances with having what the Anti-Defamation League has called Geller’s “anti-Muslim bigotry” bringing a lot of unwelcome press onto their annual confab.

It doesn’t help that Geller, Spencer, and their pal Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy have accused CPAC of treating with terrorists, particularly targeting organizer Suhail Kahn [sic] and long-time conservative power-broker and CPAC board member Grover Norquist. Not only have all three attacked Norquist for allegedly hanging out with “radicals” and accused Kahn [sic] of being one but they have also charged the popular Americans for Tax Reform president with bringing jihadists into the Bush White House, and they have repeatedly assailed Norquist’s wife.

Re Suhail Khan, see here.

“Grover Norquist’s ties to Islamic supremacists and jihadists have been known for years. He and his Palestinian wife, Samah Alrayyes—who was director of communications for his Islamic Free Market Institute until they married in 2005—are very active in ‘Muslim Outreach,’” Geller wrote in 2010. She goes on to elaborately connect-the-dots between the “silver tongued jihadists” he supposedly introduced to President Bush with card-carrying terrorist sympathizers, saying Norquist “had given Muslims with jihad terror links access to the highest levels of the U.S. government.”

Even Joe McCarthy could hardly make such guilt-by-association charges and call it a fight for America’s freedom.

Norquist accepted money from Abdurrahman Alamoudi, who is in prison for financing al-Qaeda. That is hardly some flimsy guilt-by-association charge.

When the same tactics are turned on Geller, however, she calls it an affront to her own freedom of speech, such as when intrepid writers pointed out that Norwegian white nationalist, Islamophobe, and mass murderer Anders Breivik was a big fan of Geller and Spencer, calling her, in his 5,000-page manifesto, one of the “decent human beings” under attack for speaking truth to power. He went on to cite her blog 12 times and Spencer’s Jihad Watch 116 times.

It is worth noting that these numbers always change. Whenever someone is smearing us, they bring up this Norwegian killer, but the numbers of times he cited us are always different in every smear piece. No one can seem to settle on how many times he actually did cite us, and Kelley Vlahos is so careless with the facts that her numbers certainly can’t be trusted.

From Slate, shortly after the killings:

He cited [Geller’s] blog, Atlas Shrugs, and the writings of her friends, allies, and collaborators—Robert Spencer, Jihad Watch, Islam Watch, and Front Page magazine—more than 250 times. And he echoed their tactics, tarring peaceful Muslims with the crimes of violent Muslims.

When do we ever really do that? Never, of course.

He wrote that all Muslims sought to impose “sharia laws” and that “there are no important theological differences between jihadists and so-called ‘peaceful’ or ‘moderate’ Muslims.”

Kelley Vlahos isn’t honest enough to tell you that Breivik wrote this about me and others: “If these authors are to [sic] scared to propagate a conservative revolution and armed resistance then other authors will have to.” (Breivik, 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, p. 743) In other words, the very thing Vlahos is accusing Geller and me of doing — inciting Breivik to violence — is ruled out by the killer himself, who explained that it was actually al-Qaeda that inspired him to kill.

Still right-wing writers like NRO’s Rich Lowry and the daddy of the radio demagogues, Rush Limbaugh, defend her, mostly against her liberal detractors. They know their audience: the same sort of people who supported ill-fated presidential candidate Herman Cain, who said he would institute loyalty tests for all incoming staff at the White House, and Newt Gingrich, who likened the fight against Sharia in the U.S. to the American Revolution.

What was Vlahos saying about guilt by association?

Perhaps, however, the comments by Ingraham, O’Reilly, and other conservatives indicate Geller can no longer take their tolerance of her for granted. Does she care? Never. As she told Breitbart.com, her conservatives critics are weak sisters, “desperately afraid that the leftist media will smear them by association with me,” she said. “It is an act of sheer cowardice.”

Indeed. As is Vlahos’ piece.

Everyone–even neoconservative critics who call her “shameful”–insists that Geller’s free speech is sacrosanct. But what makes some conservatives especially uneasy is that her rigid stance against Islam raises implications for their own religious freedom movement, not to mention that it’s unclear whether her “free speech” is primarily about denying someone else’s. She is also drawing fire, literally. Even the mayor of the unfortunate town where the attack happened said she invited the attack.

“That’s the price we pay for living in a relatively free society,” said Mike Lofgren. “But if someone ends up getting killed as a result of her shenanigans, she really might want to rethink this stuff.”

In other words, surrender, do what the Islamic jihadists tell you to do, and maybe they’ll go easy on us.

The American Conservative is a disgrace. One of its foremost writers is Rod Dreher, who once seemed to have some grasp of the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat. Ironically, Dreher recently wrote a piece about how living as a Christian in the West was going to become increasingly difficult and dangerous in the coming years.

Dreher was talking about persecution by aggressive secularists. He didn’t mention the Islamic State’s vow to murder “the worshippers of the cross” — not just in the Middle East, but in the United States as well. If they get a chance to do so on a large scale, it will be thanks in part to the efforts of Dreher’s colleague Kelley Vlahos to defame and discredit those who tried to sound the alarm.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: Featured, free speech, journalistic bias, Useful idiots, willful ignorance Tagged With: Kelley Vlahos


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. sheik yer'mami says

    May 20, 2015 at 8:10 am

    Its horrible to see that so many among the journallie are throwaways without any firm convictions or a fundamental concept of what’s at stake here.

    Anyhow, here’s the latest nonsense from your fav clown Reza A$$lan:

    Reza Aslan Likens American “Anti-Muslim Fervor” To Nazism:

    ASLAN: The good news is that everything that is said about Muslims today — that they are not American, that they are fearful, that they don’t belong here. Everything that was said about Muslims today were said about the Jews in the ’40s and ’50s. Was said about Catholics at the end of the 19th century.

    And those two religions through the passage of time, through the slow-building of relationships and the integration of story became very much part of the religious fabric. The same thing is going to happen to Muslims. The bad news is then we will find somebody else to hate.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/05/14/reza_aslan_likens_american_anti-muslim_fervor_to_nazism_a_news_channel_hus_spun_it_into_ratings_gold.html

    • Cecilia Ellis says

      May 20, 2015 at 11:03 am

      Thank you for the latest Reza Azlan declaration. I could not help but notice that Azlan failed to mention that neither the “Jews in the 40s and 50s” nor the “Catholics at the end of the 19th century” were busy beheading in the name of YHWH or Jesus. Must have been an inadvertant omission . . .

    • jihad3tracker says

      May 20, 2015 at 11:24 am

      This screed by Vlahos is so preening, self-righteous, and ignorant that I urge every reader here to find a reliable contact path to her — and send Robert Spencer’s lengthy response — posted directly above.

      She is yet another of many “conservatives” who obviously lack the courage to learn facts about Islam.

      http://www.kelleyvlahos.com/ Check out that small picture of her — taken before she got a visual-media-mandatory blonde beauty makeover ! ! !

      DON’T WASTE YOUR TIME USING THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE COMMENT SECTION — BECAUSE YOU CAN BE BLOCKED OR EDITED OUT.

      Even her twitter account can be filled up with dozens + dozens of insignificant dribble from other people . . . search for a better way to reach her.

  2. Theodoric says

    May 20, 2015 at 8:13 am

    “Prophet” Muhammad’s Shariamonster, also known as “Islam,” wants to decapitate our freedom of speech. Muhammad himself began assassinating his critics soon after winning his first victory, at the Battle of Badr – and Muhammad’s Shariamonster has never ceased to follow his murderous “Excellent Example.”

    Will Americans stand with the Founding Fathers, who wrote the Bill of Rights for the Land of the Free – or will they stand with the vile Shariamonster which brings oppression and violence wherever it goes?

    Stand with the Founding Fathers, and stand with Geller and Spencer – and not with the cowardly idiots who would have us discard our most precious freedom.

    Say “NO” To Muhammad’s Shariamonster, and say “NO” to Islam!

    https://drawthevileprophet.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/say-no-to-muhammad-s-shariamonster/

    • Dr John says

      May 20, 2015 at 11:50 am

      Indeed my friend. The US now needs “soldiers” like our English Defence League HERE IN THE UK, who Robert was banned from seeing by our own UK “conservative” idiots, to march through American cities to show militant opposition to Islam.

      Someone needs to organise this in the US and have virtually the same Mission Statement below:

      EDL Mission Statement

      The world is a dangerous place to live in; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it. – Albert Einstein, refugee from Nazi Germany
      People have been asking what the EDL is all about, what does it want to achieve, how will it achieve those things?

      Well now the English Defence League has a Mission Statement……

      (1) HUMAN RIGHTS: Protecting And Promoting Human Rights

      The English Defence League (EDL) is a human rights organisation that was founded in the wake of the shocking actions of a small group of Muslim extremists who, at a homecoming parade in Luton, openly mocked the sacrifices of our service personnel without any fear of censure. Although these actions were certainly those of a minority, we believe that they reflect other forms of religiously-inspired intolerance and barbarity that are thriving amongst certain sections of the Muslim population in Britain: including, but not limited to, the denigration and oppression of women, the molestation of young children, the committing of so-called honour killings, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and continued support for those responsible for terrorist atrocities.
      Whilst we must always protect against the unjust assumption that all Muslims are complicit in or somehow responsible for these crimes, we must not be afraid to speak freely about these issues. This is why the EDL will continue to work to protect the inalienable rights of all people to protest against radical Islam’s encroachment into the lives of non-Muslims.
      We also recognise that Muslims themselves are frequently the main victims of some Islamic traditions and practices. The Government should protect the human rights of individual British Muslims. It should ensure that they can openly criticise Islamic orthodoxy, challenge Islamic leaders without fear of retribution, receive full equality before the law (including equal rights for Muslim women), and leave Islam if they see fit, without fear of censure.
      British Muslims should be able to safely demand reform of their religion, in order to make it more relevant to the needs of the modern world and more respectful of other groups in society. It is important that they completely reject the views of those who believe that Islam should be taken in its ‘original’, 7th century form, because these interpretations are the antithesis of Western democracy. The onus should be on British Muslims to overcome the problems that blight their religion and achieve nothing short of an Islamic reformation. In line with this, we should do all that we can to empower those who are willing to take this path. We must also ensure that they do not fear reprisals from those who, in line with these 7th century interpretations, would force sharia law upon them.
      The EDL calls upon the Government to repeal legislation that prevents effective freedom of speech, for freedom of speech is essential if the human rights abuses that sometimes manifest themselves around Islam are to be stopped. We believe that the proponents of radical Islam have a stranglehold on British Muslims. These radicals dominate Muslim organisations, remain key figures in British mosques, and are steadily increasing their influence. Radical Islam keeps British Muslims fearful and isolated, especially the women that it encases in the Burqa. It misrepresents their views, stifles freedom of expression, and indoctrinates their children, whilst continually doing a discredit to those who do wish to peacefully co-exist with their fellow Britons.

      (2) DEMOCRACY AND THE RULE OF LAW: Promoting Democracy And The Rule Of Law By Opposing Sharia

      The European Court of Human Rights has declared that ‘sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy’. Despite this, there are still those who are more than willing to accommodate sharia norms, and who believe that sharia can operate in partnership with our existing traditions and customs. In reality, sharia cannot operate fully as anything other than a complete alternative to our existing legal, political, and social systems. It is a revolution that this country does not want, and one that it must resist. Sharia is most definitely a threat to our democracy.
      The operation of Islamic courts, the often unreasonable demand that Islam is given more respect than it is due, and the stealthy incursion of halal meat into the food industry, all demonstrate that sharia is already creeping into our lives. Resentment is already beginning to grow, and could create dangerous divisions if nothing is done. The primacy of British courts must be maintained and defended, fair criticism of religious and political ideologies must be permitted, and consumers must be provided with the information necessary to avoid halal produce should they wish.
      Restaurants and fast food chains that do offer halal options should offer non-halal alternatives as well, in order to show respect for other people’s religions, customs, and possible concerns about animal welfare issues (surrounding ritual slaughter). No one should be made to consume halal produce unwittingly, so it must always be labeled – in supermarkets, in restaurants, in schools, and in hospitals – wherever it is available. Free choice in these matters is, after all, a fundamental human right for everybody, not just the Muslim community.
      Sharia law makes a fundamental distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims, and the EDL will never allow this sort of iniquitous apartheid to take root in our country. The EDL will therefore oppose sharia appeasement in all its forms, and will actively work to eradicate the sharia-compliant behaviours that are already being adopted, and enforced, in our society.

      (3) PUBLIC EDUCATION: Ensuring That The Public Get A Balanced Picture Of Islam

      A central part of the EDL’s mission is public education. The British political and media establishment have, for a long time, been presenting a very sanitised and therefore inaccurate view of Islam, shaped by the needs of policy-makers rather than the needs of the public. This has acted as a barrier to informed policy-making and made finding the solution to real problems impossible. In pursuing this self-defeating and destructive policy, the Government has effectively been acting as the propaganda arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. Whether or not is aware of the predicament that it has put itself in, it has so far failed to honestly admit its failures.
      We are committed to a campaign of public education to ensure that all aspects of Islam that impact on our society can debated in an open and honest way. Demonisation of Muslims, or of Islam’s critics, adds nothing to the debate. We believe that only by looking at all the facts can society be most effectively and humanly governed. If there are aspects of Muslim tradition that encourage the activities of Islamic radicals and criminals then these need to be properly addressed without fear of accusations of racism, xenophobia, or the even the disingenuous term ‘Islamophobia’.
      The public must be provided with a more realistic and less sanitised view of Islam that allows it to ensure that decision-makers are held to account for their policy-making choices, choices that affect the harmony and security of the nation.
      The EDL promotes the understanding of Islam and the implications for non-Muslims forced to live alongside it. Islam is not just a religious system, but a political and social ideology that seeks to dominate all non-believers and impose a harsh legal system that rejects democratic accountability and human rights. It runs counter to all that we hold dear within our British liberal democracy, and it must be prepared to change, to conform to secular, liberal ideals and laws, and to contribute to social harmony, rather than causing divisions.

      (4) RESPECTING TRADITION: Promoting The Traditions And Culture Of England While At The Same Time Being Open To Embrace The Best That Other Cultures Can Offer

      The EDL believes that English Culture has the right to exist and prosper in England. We recognise that culture is not static, that over time changes take place naturally, and that other cultures make contributions that make our shared culture stronger and more vibrant. However, this does not give license to policy-makers to deliberately undermine our culture and impose non-English cultures on the English people in their own land.
      If people migrate to this country then they should be expected to respect our culture, its laws, and its traditions, and not expect their own cultures to be promoted by agencies of the state. The best of their cultures will be absorbed naturally and we will all be united by the enhanced culture that results. The onus should always be on foreign cultures to adapt and integrate. If said cultures promote anti-democratic ideas and refuse to accept the authority of our nation’s laws, then the host nation should not be bowing to these ideas in the name of ’cultural sensitivity’. Law enforcement personnel must be able to enforce the rule of law thoroughly without prejudice or fear. Everyone, after all, is supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law.
      The EDL is therefore keen to draw its support from people of all races, all faiths, all political persuasions, and all lifestyle choices. Under its umbrella, all people in England, whatever their background, or origin, can stand united in a desire to stop the imposition of the rules of Islam on non-believers. In order to ensure the continuity of our culture and its institutions, the EDL stands opposed to the creeping Islamisation of our country, because intimately related to the spread of Islamic religion is the political desire to implement an undemocratic alternative to our cherished way of life: the sharia.
      Our armed forces stand up and risk their lives every day in order to protect our culture and democratic way of life. They are also reflective of England’s diversity, and are a shining example of what a people can achieve when united together. The EDL is therefore committed to opposing any and all abuse that our men and women in uniform are subjected to, and will campaign for legal remedies to ensure that those working within these important institutions are not exposed to abuse or aggression from within our country.

      (5) INTERNATIONAL OUTLOOK: Working In Solidarity With Others Around The World

      The EDL is keen to join with others who share our values, wherever they are in the world, and from whatever cultural background they derive. We believe that the demand for sharia is global and therefore needs to be tackled at a global as well as national level, so that this demand will never be succumbed to. The EDL will therefore have an international outlook to enhance and strengthen our domestic efforts, whilst at the same time contributing to the global struggle against Islamic intolerance of Western cultures, customs, religions, politics, and laws. The time for tolerating intolerance has come to an end: it is time for the whole world to unite against a truly Global Jihad.

      Just change “English” and “British” to American.

      Who among you will take up the challenge?

      May the true God of Love Bless you all and remember:

      NO SHARIA
      NO JEHAD
      NO ISLAM
      NO SURRENDER

  3. Manuel Paleologus says

    May 20, 2015 at 8:24 am

    All these words are nonsense in a world which has to be prepared for islam advance and eventually being nuked soon. We talk and our politicians are selling us pervert Muhammad. Too bad are still good Muslims who should not be labeled as the other nuts.
    The Muslim immigration has to be stopped for the reason of national security. Look what is happing now in Europe: UK, France, Spain, Italy, the Scandinavian countries are almost Islamized.
    These what we want? Of course nope.

  4. Kasey says

    May 20, 2015 at 8:32 am

    Wake up America and the World, no one is provoking Islamic fundamentalism. It’s the violent and lethal activities of Islamists that provoke a defensive reaction from all in the West who are fully aware of its threat and speak out against it.

    That then gets termed Islamophobia to deflect all criticism of Islamic doctrine dogma and violent actions, from what in fact is Islamoreality in all its hideous forms.

  5. KrazyKafir says

    May 20, 2015 at 8:34 am

    A “thin” fault line? How about a grand canyon gap? So many gutless dhimmi coward so-called conservatives at every turn willing to prostrate themselves so quickly in the face of the enemy. They make me vomit and I have less respect for them then I do the Jihadists.

  6. Sergio says

    May 20, 2015 at 8:39 am

    It is amazing how these pseudo-journalists promptly forfeit the freedoms that cost their ancestors so dearly. Hopefully, they will be remembered as the traitors and cowards they are. People need to wake up and stop believing that the Jihad threat is something that will never reach them or their children. Isn’t it obvious that the Jihad threat is already here? The sad attack that they are discussing about plainly shows it.

  7. Renee says

    May 20, 2015 at 8:55 am

    Is calling ISIS “The Dash” instead of caliphate crossing a line in the eyes of the muslims that were shot in Texas?

  8. Renee says

    May 20, 2015 at 8:57 am

    Is calling ISIS “The Daesh” instead of “The Caliphate”, crossing a line in the eyes of the muslims that were shot in Texas?

  9. William says

    May 20, 2015 at 8:59 am

    I wouldn’t have noticed a difference if they had called themselves The American Liberal. It just goes to show that you can’t judge a book by its cover. Be wary of many calling themselves conservative. They could be wolves in sheep’s clothing. I believe I would be correct to say that conservatism has been infiltrated by the same forces that have possession of the left.

  10. Alex says

    May 20, 2015 at 9:00 am

    The problem is that fundamental christians are partly on the same side of the table as the muslims.

    Yes, muslims persecute christians but they also try to shut down chritisism of religions which is beneficial for fundie christians that do not want to have their faith questioned.

    That’s why we end up with a situation where chirstians want to “understand” the muslims hurt feelings and applaude their attempt to curtail free speech. Hence the strong christian critisism of Geller & Co.

    This christian position is of course very short sighted. Once the muslims have their way and free speech get’s restricted, the christians are among the first in the line of fire when it comes to muslim dominance. Christians are in a sense giving away their freedom piecemeal to the muslims in order to protect their own religion from critisism.

  11. Gamaliel says

    May 20, 2015 at 9:18 am

    Fear of provoking Muslims leads to concessions to the Muslims that reward angry Muslim behavior.

  12. Alarmed Pig Farmer says

    May 20, 2015 at 10:18 am

    … to rile an entire faith this way … to do what was done at this (contest) … it not only doesn’t accomplish anything, but I think it could actually make things worse for us.
    – Laura Ingraham

    The flaw in conservatism, especially its libertarian wing, is that its operates under the assumption of rationale self-interest by all participants in transactions. But Moslems aren’t rational people because their belief system is not. The final proof of this is that the central belief of Islam that if one dies in an attack on freedom done for whatever reason, he is rewarded with an everlasting life of pleasure.

    Igraham, O’Reilly, Trump and all the rest give themselves the luxury of not having to account for the facts of Islam. Sure, in a vacuum the cartoon contest invited violence, but the point is that the violence was already there, it’s everywhere, and the way to not be stupid and to accomplish something is to not do anything, in other words, to self-censor.

    I’ve said this before: Moslems are the first group in history to fly into a mass homicidal rage upon the mirror of truth being held up in front of them. So, according to Ingraham, the smart and productive thing to do is nothing, to self-censor, to operate under the assumption that Islam is rational, if a bit touchy, and by not challenging the world takeover system will cause it to… not take over the world.

    The idea is put your head in the sand and the problem will die down and go away. Smart. That technique has been tried for 1,400 years and has always backfired. Now we have “conservatives” counseling voluntary retirement of the First Amendment on behalf of the same. Smart.

    • Brian Hoff says

      May 20, 2015 at 11:40 am

      It you have read the Koran you would know terrorist and people who blow thenself up donot enter heave , acturality nobody will enter heave ecpet by Allah mercy. Muslim who are murder by unbeliever are marty of Islam will enter heave as they are already got Allah mercy.

      • Mirren10 says

        May 20, 2015 at 12:17 pm

        ”It you have read the Koran you would know terrorist and people who blow thenself up donot enter heave , acturality nobody will enter heave ecpet by Allah mercy. ”

        Crap.

        Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”

        It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Sa’id Khudri that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said (to him): Abu Sa’id, whoever cheerfully accepts Allah as his Lord, Islam as his religion and Mubammad as his Apostle is necessarily entitled to enter Paradise. He (Abu Sa’id) wondered at it and said: Messenger of Allah, repeat it for me. He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa’id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!
        Sahih Muslim 20:4645

        And lots more.

        ” … terrorist and people who blow thenself up donot enter heave …”

        mohammed didn’t know about explosives, so that’s why he didn’t mention suicide vests in his koran. 🙂

      • Western Canadian says

        May 20, 2015 at 5:24 pm

        Again I must thank Brain Off for continuing to add ever more to his already massive collection of posts that demonstrate, beyond any shadow of a doubt and for any and all to see, that:

        As a devout muslim, he confirms with his every post of gibberish and drivel, that 1400 years of inbreeding as per islam (RTC), produces only the most ignorant as well as most dishonest, and above all, the most unspeakably vicious criminals in all of human history.

        islam: a 1400 year and continuing crime against humanity.

  13. Alarmed Pig Farmer says

    May 20, 2015 at 10:34 am

    Even the mayor of the unfortunate town where the attack happened said she invited the attack.

    But when the Moslems held their own event in the same building a couple of weeks earlier, they did *not* invite an attack. The ostensible reason for this is that the event was not about caricatures of the Savior Jesus, it was just a meeting to celebrate a faith. But the real reason is that Judeo-Christians are tolerant, not violent, towards a belief system, a faith, that openly calls for their destruction. There can be no argument on this last point, Moslems in the name of Allah and the Holy Prophet have murdered and enslaved Infidels for 1,400 years now.

    But, holding the reserve status of a religion, this critical half of the equation is left out of the question. So for them holding world takeover events is ok, but for use holding a cartoon contest to challenge them that we will resist such a takeover is stupid and doesn’t accomplish anything.

  14. mortimer says

    May 20, 2015 at 10:52 am

    “bombastic career” ?

    Isn’t it the jihadists who are ‘bombastic’?

    How do you defend Western civilization without attracting the attention and gaining the sympathy of the decent people who seemingly want to ignore the jihad threat?

    Will Americans need weekly and daily Islamic atrocities in their peaceful neighborhoods before they inform themselves?

    ‘NO!’ they say, ‘LET ME SLEEP. LET ME IGNORE. LET SOMEONE ELSE DEAL WITH IT.’

    This is exactly how WWII developed. No one wanted to stop the aggressors before they were globally tyrants invading country after country.

  15. vlparker says

    May 20, 2015 at 11:07 am

    I didn’t know that Mr. Spencer was a zoologist. It seems the he and Ms. Geller have discovered a new species of skunk. Instead of being black with a white stripe down its back, this skunk is white with a yellow stripe down its back. Perhaps they could name it the Mephitis appeasementus or maybe Mephitis cowardicus.

  16. zulu says

    May 20, 2015 at 11:13 am

    OT

    Bin Laden’s bookshelf: How al Qaeda leader had 9/11 conspiracy theories, books on the illuminati and by left-wing radical Noam Chomsky

    The 9/11 mastermind had works by left-wing liberals Noam Chomsky and Michael Scheuer along with the Oxford History of Modern War

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3089486/Bin-Laden-s-bookshelf-al-Qaeda-leader-9-11-conspiracy-theories-books-left-wing-radical-Noam-Chomsky.html#ixzz3agxmPCqn

    • Mirren10 says

      May 20, 2015 at 6:45 pm

      That settles it !

      Noam Chomsky and Michael Scheuer are to blame for 9/11.

      They have blood on their hands !

  17. mortimer says

    May 20, 2015 at 11:34 am

    “Chamberlainus somnolens” !

    Vlahos denies the clearly articulated agenda of ISIS to ‘enslave your women’, just as Neville Chamberlain denied Hitler’s clearly enunciated agenda in Mein Kampf and his Munich speeches.

  18. Alarmed Pig Farmer says

    May 20, 2015 at 11:34 am

    Conservatism is supposed to be above all about law, as in a nation of laws. The ruling law is in the U.S. Constitution, a single law with which all federal and state laws must comply. But conservatism as it really is avoids that rule by dropping into the adjectival realm where values such as intelligence (stupid) and productivity (no purpose) prevail. This has been the staple of globo-socialists (liberals) for decades, and is no becoming the same for conservatives. The impelling purpose of liberal adjectives is the desire to pass control to the central government, which brings with it the level of control needed to attain ideal objectives, but at the expense of surrendered freedom. The purpose of conservative adjectives is more practical, to avert an attack on a conservative elite’s person or family, or that of the average citizen, again at the expense of surrendered freedom.

    Islam a nasty dangerous subject liberals and conservatives alike would like to avoid. Avoidance is done by elision, cutting out facts damning to an argument by simply not accounting for them. For example:

    The only connection between the center and the dead 9/11 hijackers, of course, was that they shared the same faith. Just like Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, a Christian, shared his religion with 173 million adult Americans. Nevertheless, the center became synonymous with terror, and the project appears forever on hold. That is how Geller and Spencer operate.

    Left out of this argument is that McVeigh was a cutaway used by Moslems involved in the McMurrah operation, a fact that cannot be denied out of hand without at least bringing it up and attempting to debunk it. But that McVeigh was witnessed with Moslems in the days leading up to the mass murder operation is not even mentioned, leaving one reading Vlahos’ piece with the impression that McVeigh was an activist who had taken Christianity to its extreme. Maybe, but he did so with the financing and logistical assistance of a group of Moslems in Oklahoma City who acted on behalf of Islam, which has a 1,400 year old history of bad acts that can’t even be called extreme because the acts (murder, violence, threats, repression, subjugation) are normative to Islam as defined in the Holy Ko-Ran, the Hah-Deaths, the Sira, the Sharia and millions of public statements made by the Ulema.

    Elision is intellectual circumcision; it is done for hygiene, but leaves an insensitivity to the act of thinking.

  19. Antikythera says

    May 20, 2015 at 11:38 am

    Going by her surname, if this journalist is of Greek descent then , as a fellow Greek, I am deeply disappointed in her ignorance of the suffering of her own Greek Ancestors both in Greece and Anatolia under Islam.
    To avoid offending Jihadists in order not to also offend the “Good peace loving” Muslims is like like being nice to Mr Hyde to avoid offending Dr Jekyll.

  20. Larry A. Singleton says

    May 20, 2015 at 11:39 am

    I guess another name for Conservative is “bend over”

    “An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile hoping it will eat him last. Victory will never be found by taking the line of least resistance.” Winston Churchill

    “What the horn is to the rhinoceros, what the sting is to the wasp, the Mohammedan faith is to the Arabs of the Sudan-a faculty of offence. All the warlike operations of Mohammedan peoples are characterised by fanatacism” Winston Churchill

    “While Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsees and Jews, along with several million adherents of an animistic religion, all coexisted in relative harmony, one religion that would not accept compromise stood out from the rest: Islam.” Mahatma Gandhi

    • Alarmed Pig Farmer says

      May 20, 2015 at 12:08 pm

      Good quotes. Why is it we don’t hear such quotes from our elites nowadays? What has changed? To find the answer to that, one might look at a high school and college curriculum booklet and then take a look at what’s on the TV set. If any doubt remains about why things have changed, take a look at certain legal decisions, especially those made in U.S. federal court, although you can find the same in the UK, France, the FGR, any of the Scandinavian countries, Oz, or any other place there is a modern court.

  21. vlparker says

    May 20, 2015 at 11:54 am

    It is inexcusable that journalists and commentators have so little knowledge on the subjects about which they write. Especially about a subject of life and death. The amount of effort Ms. Vlahos put into writing this drivel could have been much better spent learning the truth about islam. She had to work really hard to get so many things wrong. Too bad facts and reality matter so little to these people.

    • voegelinian says

      May 20, 2015 at 2:25 pm

      ” She had to work really hard to get so many things wrong.”

      Not really. All she had to do was plug in the PC MC template — the dominant and mainstream point of view on this issue. Indeed, she doesn’t even need to plug it in — it’s a microchip app already implanted in her brain (so to speak — her brain, that is…).

  22. Rob Crawford says

    May 20, 2015 at 12:26 pm

    For a conservative, Vlahos doesn’t appear to like many actual conservatives. I sense a David Brock in the making.

  23. Mirren10 says

    May 20, 2015 at 12:29 pm

    ”Just like Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, a Christian, shared his religion with 173 million adult Americans.”

    If McVeigh *was* a Christian, which I sincerely doubt – he didn’t make any reference to Christianity in his last statement, or at his execution, he acted in **defiance** of the tenets of Christianity.

    The attempted murderers who attacked Garland, were, on the other hand, acting in *exactly* the way the tenets of islam ordered them to.

    This woman is a fool.

    • voegelinian says

      May 20, 2015 at 2:34 pm

      Correct. And for McVeigh’s last statement on earth before being executed — surely one of the most important last statements he was ever going to make, and one which he knew would be broadcast to the world — he chose a poem whose purport is decidedly agnostic and devoid of Christian symbolisms or rhetoric.

      As I wrote in a Jihad Watch comment in 2009:

      …consider that McVeigh made no final statement before his execution other than copying out the poem Invictus by W.E. Henley. If he were the Christian equivalent of the hundreds of Muslim Jihadists we’ve seen (and all those martyrdom videos), his final statement would have included quotes from the Bible, copious references to Jesus Christ and God, and defense of the Nicene Creed. Instead, all McVeigh provided was an agnostic poem which has nothing remotely religious save for one line — “I thank whatever gods may be” — a decidedly skeptical and agnostic statement concerning divinity, and certainly utterly devoid of Christian fanaticism, let alone Christian anything.

      My comment then (under the nickname “Hesperado”) also provides evidence & argumentation for the claim that McVeigh was in fact a bleeding-heart Leftist.

      http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/10/ex-muslim-receives-death-threats-after-publishing-article-critical-of-islam-in-tulsa/comment-page-0#comment-606154

  24. Debbie says

    May 20, 2015 at 1:51 pm

    Here’s my post that didn’t pass moderation on the AC site:

    There are about 1.5 billion Muslims who ostensibly think Mohammed should be revered and respected. I say “ostensibly” because I have no doubt that a good portion of that number are people who outwardly self-identify as Muslim, but secretly loath the oppressive Islamic ideology of societies in which they live — women living almost as property under the veil who cannot safely say out loud what they really think about the misogynistic, rabidly puritanical, bigoted and violent ideology that Mohammed invented, for example.

    On the the other hand, there are about 6.5 billion non-Muslims in this world, and a good portion of us see Islam and its inventor for what they are. There is no good argument that we should refrain from saying what we think about Islam or its inventor, or that we shouldn’t defy violent jihadis attempts to impose Islamic blasphemy rules on non-Muslims through fear.

    It sickens me that this publication has attempted such an argument. Don’t we get enough of this nonsense from those who call themselves “progressives?”

    • vlparker says

      May 20, 2015 at 5:26 pm

      Welcome to the club. My 2 posts didn’t make it past the censors of these paragons of liberty either. So much for their anemic defense of free speech.

      Here is one of my posts:

      Dear Ms. Vlahos,

      Why don’t you go live in Iran or Saudi Arabia for a year and then come back and tell us how wonderful islam is? While you’re living there dress the same as you do here in America and wear the same makeup you normally do. If you feel like walking down the street unescorted by a male chaperone feel free to do so. If you feel like having a cocktail go on down to the local underground pub and have a couple of martinis. Go down to the local park and hold a sign saying “Equal Rights for Gays and Women”.

      A year from now you can come back and write an article about your wonderful experience.

  25. vlparker says

    May 20, 2015 at 1:58 pm

    I left a comment on said article at TAC. It didn’t stay up very long. From reading the comments left by other people you would think it was The American Progressive. I don’t see how so many people can be so blind to what is right in front of them.

    • voegelinian says

      May 20, 2015 at 2:45 pm

      That — and a thousand other pieces of similar evidence over the years — is why nearly ten years ago I realized we need a new term to denote the myopia to the problem of Islam that massive, dominant, mainstream and fashionable. I realized it is wildly inaccurate to characterize that myopia as “liberal” or “Leftist”. Whatever the precise nature of it is, and how it developed historically, we need a new descriptor that does not imply that vast swaths of conservatives somehow must be stalwart, robust, no-nonsense critics of Islam who get it like we do. It has become massively evident to me over the years that, unfortunately, they don’t get it.

      And it would be silly and cranky to redefine them (as some cranky gnostic conservatives do) as “neo con liberals”. It’s not the conservatives who need to be redefined — it’s the surrounding sociopolitical cultural matrix that has shifted under all of our feet, over the past half century, paving the way for the mainstream dominance of a point-of-view that hitherto existed, but only marginally so.

  26. duh_swami says

    May 20, 2015 at 2:02 pm

    It seems like ‘mostly’ women write these poison pen articles. This woman Vlahos, Kathy Young, Reza Azlan, treat Pam like Razali treats posters Champ and Gravenimage. The claws come out, fangs are exposed, and lies, distortions and hatred rolls off the tongue, or keyboard which acts like a tongue…a forked one.. There is something ‘devilish’ about these people.
    The girly men Trivial Trump, and abuser Bill, are in the same boat, rowing across the River Styx, with Lucifer at the helm.
    Karma is a btch…

    • voegelinian says

      May 20, 2015 at 2:47 pm

      You’re right — Reza Aslan is another in a long line of PMSing women…

    • abad says

      May 20, 2015 at 7:00 pm

      You’re absolutely right. It’s because they have this truly sick romantic view of Islam and especially of Muslim men – UGH.

    • cs says

      May 20, 2015 at 7:06 pm

      You are right, REza Azlan is like a girl. He is so full of shit, he is a proper wXnker.

  27. Wellington says

    May 20, 2015 at 2:03 pm

    Shame on you, Kelley Vlahos. You are sloppy with the facts and your reasoning capacity says far more about you than you realize.

    Meanwhile, the only religion on earth that calls for war to be made upon the unbeliever is coming for us all, including those like Vlahos who keep making excuses for it all the while remaining massively ignorant of it. Much trouble ahead, courtesy of Islam AND courtesy too of all the Vlahoses, O’Reillys, Trumps and Ingrahams out there who just don’t get it.

    • Angemon says

      May 20, 2015 at 6:18 pm

      I believe it goes beyond sloppiness alone, Wellington. The sheer number of misrepresentations, faulty info and character assassination make me believe she’s doing all those things willingly.

      • Wellington says

        May 20, 2015 at 11:07 pm

        Assuming you’re correct, Angemon, what would be the motive for a person like Vlahos to do “those things willingly?” For the record, I personally would associate sloppiness as exhibited by Vlahos as tied at the hip with ignorance and laziness, but I would be interested in your further take on this all. Hope you’re doing well.

        • Angemon says

          May 21, 2015 at 1:18 pm

          I can’t substantiate anything – like I said, it’s my belief, and this is, according to Robert, the fourth article where Vlahos attacks him and Pamela. I find extremely unlikely that she managed to write four articles worth of attacks on Robert and Pamela and still get so many things wrong, not to mention the unwarranted comparisons to McCarthyism.

          I can think of several possibilities to why she would attack them. Maybe she’s the product of the mindset that tells kids not to keep score in games because everyone is a winner. The mindset that makes one say “that guy over there with the green shirt AND blue shoes, not the one with the green shirt and red shoes or the one with the blur shirt and green shoes” rather than simply “that black guy over there”. Maybe she fears guilt by association and therefore goes above and beyond line of duty to distance herself from anyone deemed “unfit” or “toxic”. Maybe she’s been hit with the hammer of PC MC narrative enough to have her defend it to some point – kinda like the Persians hate the arab conquerors but worship the ideology that lead the arabs to conquer them. Or maybe she just hates Robert and Pamela because they stand for what she should be standing for and she knows it. Like I said, it’s just my belief, and ultimately Vahlo’s reasons – whether she has an agenda or she’s actually that sloppy and daft – are hers alone.

  28. I Iat says

    May 20, 2015 at 2:31 pm

    Kelley Vlahos suggests it is Pamela Geller’s fault the Garland officer got shot in the ankle. Obviously it is Mayor Douglas Athas’s fault. He should have told Ms. Geller she can’t have it here because he can’t protect his town against jihadis instead of whining about it afterwards. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/douglas-athas-garland-pam-geller-shooting

    If he does not want to acknowledge he (and the US government) lost the battle for free speech he should have stood up to islam and provided adequate protection for the public at the exhibition.

    He did not do his job; he should have anticipated a jihadi attack and not have an lightly armed traffic officer be at that place. He also failed by allowing Pamela Geller to pay for police protection. This draws jihadis to his town because the islamic weapon of threatening violence works as long as they make good on it from time to time. It’s the same as paying to free hostages; islam will take more hostages. In the case of hostages there is a dilemma of course but in the case of the Garland exhibition there is not. The mayor allowed the enemy the use of one of it’s weapons.

    It is the responsibility of the government to uphold the law (including the constitution), not the task of citizens like Pamela Geller, journalists, artists etc. They don’t have the means to do that. The police and the army are allowed to open fire on someone in the public domain when they expect an attack and when ordered by the government to do so. Citizens are not allowed to do that.

    To my surprise the American media seem to be confused after the Garland attack. Instead of waking up and taking a united stand against the islamic attack on their first amendment rights they are at each others throats. A victory for the islamic propaganda machine because it is happy with the status quo: a divided electorate.

    http://members.ziggo.nl/iiat/

  29. somehistory says

    May 20, 2015 at 3:18 pm

    From the mouth of the ignorant: “aspects of the aftermath of her otherwise tragic Texas Muhammad caricature contest…”
    ****************************************
    What was *tragic* about the event? The two would-be-wanna-be-murderers were killed before they could kill, even though they wore body armor.
    If you don’t want to *provoke* other wanna-be murderers, the only thing you can do is just offer your neck. They won’t be happy if one just dies because that would deprive them of a victim to help them reach their evil goals. So, lady, if you don’t wish to provoke those who worship by means of the evil beast, islam, then offer your neck to their sword. They will lust anyway and are provoked by your breathing whether or not you acknowledge it.

    • Shane says

      May 21, 2015 at 9:39 am

      Some conservatives, notably the Bushes, have been bought off by rich Saudi Muslims. Bush allowed the Saudis to leave the country after 9/11 before their involvement in the attack was investigated.

  30. The Other Jim says

    May 20, 2015 at 3:21 pm

    Talk about getting the dregs of ‘Conservatism’ to write a missive about Geller. This is what happens when you go trawling though the Alt-Right crowd. I also notice she’s written for the Unz Review, another Alt-Right website where people like Steve Sailer obsess about race & Zionist Jews at the exclusion of everything else.

    ps, and Rod Dreher is a serious ninny.

  31. Smart Guy says

    May 20, 2015 at 4:46 pm

    Right wingers such as the Birchers are just as useless. They support political correctness just like all
    the other cowardly Conservatives. Multiculturalism is the communist aenda.

  32. Edward says

    May 20, 2015 at 5:41 pm

    Kelley Vlahos has succumbed to Satan’s tentacles…..this pragmatic entity, called the father of lies, whose sole purpose, as an Evil being, is to deceive you to think that [ITS] way is a better path to take. Bottom line is [IT] wants you to fully lose your faith by ignoring God’s doctrines.

    Pam Geller’s advocacy of standing firm about against Islam is her right to do so, Biblically by God’s word…..for it is righteous to tell the TRUTH.

    “I put on righteousness, and it clothed me”- Job 29:14.

    Kelley Vlahos affirms her thought about Pam Geller’s advocacy of standing firm about against Islam is causing violence.

    The US Constitution’s Amendment 2 allows you to bear arms for your defense and Amendment 1 allows you to invoke God’s name, ratified July 4, 1776, to REPEL Satan’s intentions and our enemies!

    “Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you”- James 4:7, “God’s Word is never returned void” – Isaiah 55:11

    • EYESOPEN says

      May 20, 2015 at 8:45 pm

      AMEN!

  33. VRWC member77 says

    May 20, 2015 at 5:45 pm

    This makes my blood boil. I’m glad ihad3tracker mentioned the editing of the comment section on that piece. I thought it was unusually loaded from the left side. Who is this dhimi BINT?

    VanSutran??..Ingrham??….oREILLY???…..REALLY???!

    What a tremendous example of individuals who are scholarly giants with regard to Ibn Kathir’s take on Al Taubah I.e. the Verse of the Sword.

    Why don’t you have a debate with Pamela Geller on any left wing outlet of your choosing kelleeY? Because you know you wouldn’t last 30 seconds. Pamela would have you in a stuttering fetal ball before the second phrase came from your foolish mouth.

    I’m glad Robert mentioned The Explanatory Memorandum. I think it should be mentioned much more than it is. I’m going to post page 7 of 18 for good measure:

    4- “Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America: The process of settlement is a “Civilization-JihadistP rocess” with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America 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 God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal.”

    Everyone in America should read this!

  34. EYESOPEN says

    May 20, 2015 at 6:45 pm

    “A better comparison might be Sen. Joe McCarthy, who spent several years investigating, blacklisting, and destroying careers of citizens under the mantle of anti-Communism.”

    Yeah, well history – and indeed the current state of affairs within our own country – show that Joseph McCarthy was RIGHT! (But it is oh, so “politically correct” to STILL badmouth Joe McCarthy, when all he was was an American patriot.)

  35. nacazo says

    May 20, 2015 at 6:57 pm

    Vlahos said:

    “Two Muslim converts, Elton Simpson, 31, and Nadir Soofi, 34,”

    Nadir Soofi was not a convert. Sloppy journalism.

  36. profitsbeard says

    May 20, 2015 at 9:39 pm

    The TAC weasels have rolled the coward dice and come up snake eyes.

    What next?

    “Damn those Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and assorted political malcontents for provoking Hitler!”

  37. mortimer says

    May 20, 2015 at 11:24 pm

    ‘PROVOKE’ is the wrong word to use here, unless your meaning is ‘THOUGHT-PROVOKING’. We want to provoke the slumbering masses to THINK about murderous Sharia law.

    ‘DEFY’ is the right word to use about the cartoon contest. We want to DEFY unjust, discriminatory Sharia laws. We want to bring the injustice of Sharia to the attention of the world.

    We DEFY Sharia law to PROVOKE thought.

  38. George Grant says

    May 21, 2015 at 1:41 am

    The only connection between the center and the dead 9/11 hijackers, of course, was that they shared the same faith. Just like Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, a Christian, shared his religion with 173 million adult Americans. Nevertheless, the center became synonymous with terror, and the project appears forever on hold. That is how Geller and Spencer operate.

    Kelley Vlahos the next time you call someone a Christian read Paul’s message to the brethren.Stop, Pause to think,Repent if you think Timothy McVeigh is a moral equivalent to this:

    Romans 12
    12 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

    2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

    3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

    4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:

    5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

    6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;

    7 Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;

    8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.

    9 Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.

    10 Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another;

    11 Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord;

    12 Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer;

    13 Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality.

    14 Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not.

    15 Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep.

    16 Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.

    17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.

    18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

    19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

    20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

    21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

    Or Peter’s message does it Harmonize with Evil?

    8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:

    9 Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.

    10 For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile:

    11 Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it.

    12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.

    13 And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?

    14 But and if ye suffer for righteousness’ sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;

    15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

    16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

    17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

    18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

    Here Jesus taught the multitudes what was expected of Christians.

    Matthew 5

    2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

    3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

    4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

    5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

    6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

    7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

    8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

    9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

    10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

    11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

    12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

    13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

    14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

    15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

    16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

  39. Felix Quigley says

    May 21, 2015 at 4:40 am

    …to rile an entire faith this way

    says Laura Ingraham

    No don’t have to do that Laura. This particular ideology of Islam has “all riled up” right at its centre. That is the great advance that we have made over the past 200 years. Especially the past 20. We understand more deeply the problem.

    I feel this understanding which is that Islam is murderous and has potential in our modern era to morph into Fascism (as proved actually in that Hajj Amin el Husseini allied with the Nazis) is being undercut from two direction.

    From capitalist ideologues such as here – this very conservative and anti-communist wing

    From what is misnamed the “left” who themselves have become subjective idealists and opposed to the struggle for objectivity and objective truth

    The event of Garland has exposed that there is an alliance which has went on under our very noses but few have noticed the actual alliance.

    We are at a moment of change and need a party which can articulate these truths.

    People like Laura Ingraham want us to lie down and all be steamrollered over. Remember also if it will not be on this issue (of Islam) it will be on another issue. So a deadly precedent would be set.

    • Felix Quigley says

      May 21, 2015 at 6:04 am

      http://trotsky.us/2015/05/21/now-is-the-time-conclude-agreement-with-saudis-to-use-a-base-and-attack-now/

      There is no better time than now. Article provides a map which shows why a temporary deal with Iran to destroy Iran’s Nuclear Bomb is essential

      Israel must regain the ability to act as it did in 1967 and in 1973

      There is a time and place for everything. It was the time to hold that cartoon competition in Garland.

      It is necessary to ACT. Talk is always good but talk by itself is a sign of weakness and your enemy knows.

      Israel by doing a deal with the Saudis and eliminating by whatever means is necessary the Iran Nuclear Bomb will give a great ímpetus to freedom and in fact is the best answer to these bitter enemies of freedom as in American Thinker and their allies on the pro-Iran so-called left (such as Chomsky). It will also give a great ímpetus to the Iranian youth and women in their struggle for freedom against the Fascist Mullahs.

  40. Jack Gordon says

    May 21, 2015 at 7:41 am

    Isn’t The American Conservative also the home of Patrick Buchanan who once famously pronounced Treblinka a ”transfer station” rather than a death camp?

  41. JohnnyAngel Advocacy (@johnnyangel10) says

    May 21, 2015 at 8:03 am

    In three sentences, the word Conservative is being perverted by many today as compared to what it once meant. Perceptions are being skewed purposely to deceive. One such good example is The American Conservative !

  42. rcourtemanche says

    May 21, 2015 at 8:19 am

    Keep feeding the alligators in the hope they’ll eat you last

  43. Edward Cline says

    May 21, 2015 at 10:20 am

    The whole “provocation” argument is bogus and invalid. If Pamela or anyone else (Is there anyone else anymore in this country courageous enough?) wishes to put on another Draw Mohammad contest and event, is she doing it to unnecessarily “provoke” Islamic thugs? No. She’s doing it to exercise her freedom of speech. If Muslims with dense enough gray matter are “provoked,” that’s their problem. They’ll just get their slates cleaned permanently by marksmen. They hate life anyway, so they shouldn’t mind being nailed by an expertly fired bullet, and good riddance.

  44. fido says

    May 21, 2015 at 12:21 pm

    Vlahos and those who think like her are more threatening to me than the muslim cancer!! Vlahos and other professed conservatives are simply enabling satan’s march around the world. Islamo-satanism is a cancer that feeds not only on the jihadis and islamists following their guidebook for dominance (the qur’an) but also on the ignorance of “infidels” who, out of what is either fear and/or cowardice, willfully misinterpret the islamic ideology with its thin cloak of “religion” obfuscating its true nature.

    Big bloodshed is coming…it is inevitable in the face of such blind capitulation.

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • gravenimage on Erdogan: ‘Turks must defend the rights of Jerusalem, even with their lives’ for ‘the honor of the Islamic nation’
  • gravenimage on Erdogan: ‘Turks must defend the rights of Jerusalem, even with their lives’ for ‘the honor of the Islamic nation’
  • Walter Sieruk on Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship
  • gravenimage on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • James Lincoln on Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.