Lies of ‘People for the American Way’ Exposed

Mark Tapson, a Hollywood-based writer and screenwriter, is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He focuses on the politics of popular culture.


Pages: 1 2

And yet the PFAW “playbook” repeatedly hammers away at the lie that the Right is simply targeting all Muslim-Americans. “With sweeping and cutting rhetoric,” the report asserts, “anti-Muslim activists claim that all or nearly all Muslim-Americans support terrorism, violence, the abuse of women and the abrogation of American law and ideals.” This complete falsehood is typical of the “sweeping and cutting rhetoric” the PFAW itself uses throughout its imaginary “playbook.” There is no conspiratorial movement afoot to curtail the rights of law-abiding Americans who simply happen to be Muslim; what’s at issue is identifying the demonstrable threat of Islamic terrorism, radicalization, and the stealth jihad in this country and eradicating it, for the safety of all Americans.

But this report does not take seriously the notion that any such threat exists. There is no discussion of Islamic terror attacks carried out or thwarted, no discussion of the Muslim Brotherhood’s subversive presence here (except when dismissed as conservative fear-mongering), no acknowledgment of the radical Wahhabi lobby and its funding of the majority of the mosques in America (except, again, when dismissed out of hand). The stealth jihad likewise is treated as a loony conspiracy concocted in the fevered imagination of Islamophobes – even though it is straight out of the “playbook” of the Muslim Brotherhood (which actually refers to it as “civilizational jihad”).

And thus, despite the mounting numbers of terrorist recruits among American Islamic youth, the “playbook” attacks Peter King’s congressional hearings on Islamic radicalization: “King and his allies claim that Muslim-Americans are using both peaceful and violent means to destroy America and curtail the nation’s freedoms, and argue that Americans must curtail Muslims’ liberties and freedoms in order to stop them.” Again, no authoritative critic of jihad, including King, labels all Muslim-Americans as a threat or claims that those innocents are not allowed to enjoy the liberties that other Americans enjoy. The “playbook” simply pretends that Islamic extremism in its various forms, violent and otherwise, does not exist here, and instead presents the Right as the real subversive threat to freedom in America.

Muslims themselves are the most numerous victims of Islamic supremacists. In turning a blind eye to the threat of worldwide jihad, it is actually the Left, not the Right, that is endangering all Muslim-Americans. If the PFAW were truly committed to protecting the religious freedoms of all and to “promoting the American Way and defending it from attack,” as its mission statement claims, it would turn its spotlight on the clear and present danger of jihad in America, and cease smearing as racists, bigots and purveyors of hate speech the courageous figures on the Right who are truly working to protect the American way.

Pages: 1 2

  • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

    Norman Lear & Co. may well go to hell. Notwithstanding what he and his cohorts really think, the patriots must not shun of the "8 point agenda" presented as though something compromising. Some things in it are true, but deliberately presented as though worth ridiculing.

    1. Frame Muslim-Americans as dangerous to America – TRUE!

    2. Twist statistics and use fake research to “prove” the Muslim threat

    ISLAMIC THREAT IS A VERY REAL EXISTENTIAL DANGER FOR THE CIVILIZATION: http://www.resonoelusono.com/Imminent.htm

    3. Invent the danger of “creeping Sharia”

    THE CREEPING SHARIA IS VERY REAL

    4. “Defend liberty” by taking freedoms away from Muslims

    MOSLEMS DO NOT BELONG HERE. MUST BE ENCOURAGED TO LEAVE.

    5. Claim that Islam is not a religion

    WHICHEVER IT IS, IT DOES NOT BELONG TO AMERICA

    6. Maintain that Muslims have no First Amendment rights under the Constitution

    THIS IS TRUE. THE 1ST AMENDMENT HAD NEVER MEANT ISLAM.

    7. Link anti-Muslim prejudice to anti-Obama rhetoric

    DISREGARDING CRIMINALITY AND ILLEGITIMACY OF OBAMA, ISLAM DOES NOT AND WILL NOT BELONG TO AMERICA

    8. Claim an “unholy alliance” exists that includes Muslims and other groups targeted by the Right Wing

    THE UNHOLY ALLIANCE DOES EXIST AS PROVED BY D. HOROWITZ AND OTHER AUTHORS

    • yekhow
    • Damien

      Alexander Gofen,

      The first amendment was meant to apply to everyone including Muslims. Also Islam is clearly a religion, regardless of any malevolent teachings that happen to be a part of traditional Islamic thought. It requires a belief in a god after all. If Allah was not real, Muhammad couldn't have even been a prophet. Its also nonsensical to think that religion is inherently benign. When they Aztecs sacrificed people, even children to their gods, was it benign?

      Now, should we encourage Muslims to leave the country? Well, those Muslims who want to replace our constitution with Sharia Law, should most certainly certainly be encouraged to leave. However, I have no problem with liberal (in the classical enlightenment sense of the word) Muslims who don't want Sharia to be incorporated into US Law and regard themselves as Americans first.

      Once we are determined to enforce the first amendments freedom of speech and establishment clause, regardless of death threats from Muslim fanatics, and put strict limits on immigration from Muslim countries where the majority has been shown to support Sharia, we'll be fine. We don't have to ban a religion or violate the rights of peaceful Americans who happen to be non literalist Muslims. Most of the horrible things that Islamic scripture calls for, already violate the U.S constitution in one way or another. Sharia law violates the U.S constitution, and anyone who understands the two can easily tell you why.

      • Damien

        Actually, come to think of it, "secular Muslims" might have been better than "non literalist Muslims", as a description.

    • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

      Damien, It is just your unproved opinion as though the 1st Amendment in the US Constitution applied to any religion on Earth! Prove it! And I doubt that you can.

      1) There are plenty of explanations from those days what the 1st Amen. really meant: the Federals cannot legislate in favor of a particular branch of Christianity. (The States can). That's it. All the future rhetoric about "Seperation of Church and State" (borrowed from Bolsheviks), or as though "religion" means anything in the world – are just liberast efforts to erode the Constitution.

      2) The American Colonies in the 1700s were refuge of European Christians (and some Jews) only. Those days there was perhaps not one moslem or any other worshipper here. In American parlance of those days "Religion" could not mean anything else but Christianity (or Judaism).

      3) Moreover, nobody could even think then about a nation founded on all religions of the world. On the contrary: every nation is defined by its national identity which includes its religion. The founding fathers would turn in the grave if they heard that "Religion" in America in the future will be interpreted as Islam. In fact, those days they fought islam (islamic pirates).

      4) "Muslims who don't want Sharia and regard themselves as Americans first" are not Muslims in any sense. You are fooling yourself and others.

      • Damien

        Alexander Gofen,

        Go find some unbiased sources. Read exactly what the founding fathers had to say on the subject. Go find the unedited historical documents the founding fathers wrote themselves. They supported the idea of the separation of Church and State, (Which could be more aptly called the separation of religious institutions and State, because it was meant to apply to religions other than Christianity as well. The first amendment was meant to apply to more than just Christianity. That is absurd. Read it, and tell me if it sounds like its only applying to Christianity or Judaism. If it was meant to apply only to Christianity or even Christianity and Judaism, than why doesn't specifically mention either of those two faiths? The United States constitution is a purely secular document. It makes no mention of the Judea Christian god, or any other god for that matter.

        Also the term separation of Church and state, it was coined by Thomas Jefferson, long before Karl Marx was even born, so the concept existed long before communism. Look it up, and don't just go to websites run by religious right ideologues. Do not blindly trust anyone on the right or the left. Also, even if they have a quote, it maybe quote mined, meaning that it was taken out of context to make it sound like the person who said it, said something they didn't really say.

        What ever made you think that I believed that America was founded on all religions. Either you seriously misunderstood what I was saying or you are straw manning my argument. As for the founding fathers fighting Muslim pirates, who were motivated by their religion, that is a historical fact. They were also critical of Islam, but none of them called for banning it out right. Oh and about America's secular character, you can look up and read the exact text from the Treaty of Triply, which basically states that America was in no sense founded on Christianity. Here's an exact quote, and you can google it, if you don't believe me.

        "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

        As for your last point, so what? Muslims who don't want sharia and regard themselves as Americans first are inconsistent. Again, so what? Am I to believe that every single person who calls themselves a Muslim actually follows the teachings of Islam one hundred percent of the time? Do I really need to point out to you all the people who call themselves Christians who don't follow the teachings of Christianity. Also look at all the wildly differing opinions as to what the Bible says. Regardless of weather or not one of them is correct, they are overwhelming. Not to mention the debate over weather or not the bible should have been taken literally.

        • Damien

          Sorry, when I'm tired I tend to make mistakes, so I have to fix something.

          In my first paragraph I wrote,
          "The first amendment was meant to apply to more than just Christianity. That is absurd."

          But what I meant to say was,
          "The first amendment was meant to apply to more than just Christianity. That is the truth, to say otherwise is absurd."

          Sorry, I left some words out by accident.

    • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

      Damien, You are wrong. The expressions "Separation of Church and State" appears in 1918 in Lenin's slogans – definitely not borrowed from the American Constitution or the Founding documents. This expression was later picked up by American liberasts to promote their goals, and they have succeeded so much in repetition of this lie that they made almost everybody believe as though it were true.

      In the correspondence of the politicians of early 1800s a little different expression was used "the wall of separation" between Church and state. Yet it meant only that the State does not intervene into the religious matters and does not make laws for the religion.

      The opposite was true: the human-made laws ought to be in accordance with the Judeo-Christian principles. The existence of this nation depended on the adherence to those principles.
      http://www.lc.org/media/9980/attachments/flyer_fo

      More on that – in the two specialized issues of Whistleblower magazine, Vol. 12, 2003, ##7 and 11: #11 appropriately titled "The Myth of Church-State separation".

      If you truly acknowledge that America WAS in fact founded by Christians as a nation of Christians, then it is ludicrous to claim as though a 99% Christian nation envisaged its future dissolved with other religions. No nation in the world wished to lose its religious and cultural identity. It is only the liberast infested West of the last 60 years is obsessed with its death wish.

    • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

      You Damien perhaps cannot even see how unintelligent your statement sounds:

      "America was not founded by Christians as a nation for Christians."

      Which nation of people X had ever been founded to "embrace" people other than X: So much other than X that they have not yet even come there?!

      It had to wait some 200 years more until emergence of such an idiocy as that of Jens Orback, Democracy Minister in Swedish government, who said: "We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us."

      By the way, just to clear the air: I highly respect exactly RELIGIOUS RIGHT ORGANIZATIONS.

      You are attempting to twist the meaning of the Founding Documents not even noticing the violation of common sense: Just like liberasts attempting to extract the desired outcome from the document where it just could not be (say "homosexual civil rights").

      And finally: Even if the Founding Documents explicitly allowed and encouraged things like islam (and everything thinkable and unthinkable on Earth, like Communism), those days islam was a weak drawback of civilization. Much later it took the genius of Churchill in 1899 to realize what islam was in its nature
      http://www.resonoelusono.com/Imminent.htm

      and it took trillions of oil money to empower islam in the 20th century. Even if islam were allowed then, it must be prohibited now – just to survive (if this matter).

      • Damien

        Alexander Gofen,

        No where did I say, that I thought that Islam was a benign religion. I agree with Winston Churchill, but even he pointed out that individual Muslims can still be good people, in spite of their religion.

        Also, no where did I suggest that freedom of religion means you have a right to do anything. You only have a right to practice your religion when doing so does not violate the rights of others. Muslims living in America have a right to practice their religion, so long as they don't violate people's rights, or try to merge their religion with the state.

        Even if you respect those religious right organizations, you should attempt to verify what they say, instead of just blindly believing them. You shouldn't blindly trust people on the left either, since they sometimes lie to for political reasons, just look at this story about People for the American Way that we are posting comments under. But does not mean that conservative groups never lie, or are never wrong. Did Ronald Reagan once say the words, "trust but verify" you haven't even attempted to verify.

        You haven't really been responding to my arguments. You have been ignoring every single one of my links. Basically treating them as if they weren't there. You have not been able to show that America was founded on Christianity. It was founded on enlightenment ideals. To some degree the founders may have been Influenced by Christian thought, but that does not mean that America was founded on Christianity.

        • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

          If you sincerely believe as though

          "… the founders may have been Influenced by Christian thought, but that does not mean that America was founded on Christianity."

          we are in disagreement on the foundation. According to all textbooks and articles that I have read, America has always been a Christian nation with reverence to Judaism. Even now, when a lot of things has eroded completely, the fact that America is a Judeo-Christian nation is still remembered and objected only by a few mad-dog atheists …

          They promote the myth of "Separation of Church and state" (Item 28 in the Commie's agenda http://www.resonoelusono.com/TheNakedCommunistAge…). And they promote a grotesque claim as though "religion" in the America of 1700s could mean also islam. But even the Impostor-in-Chief said that only "now" (not then!) America became "islamic also" – thank to efforts of multi-culti liberasts.

          I am with the authors who prove that survival of America totally depends on adherence to the Judeo-Christian spirit. For me the superiority of the Judeo-Christian civilization and its unique success is obvious – as a consequence of adherence to the Judeo-Christian spirit.

          I looked your links, but I cannot analyze them here (in particular due to the character limit).

          • Damien

            Alexander Gofen,

            You're entire conspiracy theory is baseless, because you can't back up the claim that America was founded as a Christian instead of a secularism in the first place. I was able to at least in some cases give you access to the original sources on what the founding fathers actually said, and no where did they say that America was to be a Christian nation, or governed by Christian principals.

            Even if communists had these two goals, as Resonoelusono claims,

            27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."
            28, Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

            It wouldn't change America's secular origin. It wouldn't change the fact that the constitution itself never mentions Christianity or any other religion specifically. It wouldn't change the fact that nothing in the constitution could reasonably be interpreted by anyone as giving special favor to Christianity or any other religion. It wouldn't change the fact that Thomas Jefferson coined the term Separation Of Church and State, in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, which you can view the entire text of right here.

            Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

            It also wouldn't change the fact that the treaty of Tripoli, which was ratified by President John Adams specifically said that America was not founded on Christianity or any other faith.

            Until you can prove me wrong, you can't claim that communists or multiculturalists are responsible for the concept.

  • tanstaafl

    Islam is not a religion, it is a political party, just like the Nazi Party.

    • Questions

      Utterly absurd. Of course, Islam is a religion. It's simply an ugly one. But by calling it something other than a religion, fanatics within Christianity and Judaism more easily can avoid accountability. After all, in their eyes religion can do no wrong.

      • nightspore

        Of course, you're right. I wish people would stop this silliness. It just serves to isolate those who are willing to look critically at Islam and Islamism.

        • Damien

          Nightspore,

          I agree.

    • tekow
  • WilliamJamesWard

    If you are a Muslim and you believe and act on the Koran you are anti-American
    and it is that simple. The fact of their so called religion begets criminal conduct
    under American Law. Murder, rape, pedophilia lead off in delienating Muslim
    activities within their communities, insane conduct as a group and subversion
    of host Nation's government and law are their aim to bring all under Sharia law
    and subserviency to Islam. America needs that, I don't think so and the left
    reveals itself as poisonous as ever…………………………………..William

    • http://higgsboson.info Brook Sanabria

      Hey! This post could not be written any better! Reading through this post reminds me of my old room mate! He always kept talking about this. I will forward this page to him. Pretty sure he will have a good read. Many thanks for sharing!

  • jacob

    I challenge Mr. LEAR and his cohorts to prove to me, a regular JOHN DOE with
    barely a high school diploma and not the straw sciences diplomas all of these
    pseudointellectuals claim, I repeat, to prove to me with a KORAN and FATWAS
    translation WHICH MUSLIMS MUST ABIDE AND OBEY BLINDLY, THAT WHAT
    IS SAID ABOUT ISLAM ARE LIES and I stick to what YOSHIRO SAGAMORI once
    wrote in the JERUSALEM POST :

    "EVERY PRACTICING MUSLIM IS A TERRORIST…
    IT IS WHAT HAS BEEN HAMMERED INTO HIS HEAD FROM CRADDLE TO
    GRAVE AND IT IS WHAT HIS RELIGION EXPECTS FROM HIM"

    And I dare him and his morons to prove her wrong….

  • StephenD

    Why give voice to these dolts? Shouting vile lies at you and calling you a vile liar will never change the facts. What is almost heartening is that should they prevail on the American Psyche, they will be among the first stifled and subdued by their new found cause de celebre. Wouldn’t you like to be a fly on the wall when THAT happens?!?

  • Angel

    My Rage! Part-1
    One needs to understand the Left agenda to understand their, by now, predictable narrative. Anyone who follows this site knows about David Horowitz, Jamie Glazov, Robert Spencer, Stanley Kurtz and many other conservatives and quite probably read their books, I have read most of them. I have done my own research–to be fair in my conclusion– and coupled that with my personal experience with the Left since I was a child. The only term that fits is delusional sociopaths. Why? Because these people care about nothing except the end game, which is their idea of paradise on earth. A paradise that is achieved thru a scorch earth policy and from the ashes of the old a new utopian dream. Except for the fact that they have not worked out exactly how they are going to implement this great paradise of theirs.

  • Angel

    My Rage! Part-2
    To that end they will hide, lie and otherwise do anything to tear our system down as the precursor to their dream or should I say nightmare. The ones who claim equality for all are nothing more harbingers of misery and destruction. This is why all major communist style form of government always end the same. Mass murders of their own, poverty and misery at a large scale. I guess that is a preview of things to come.

    David said best "The only thing the Left is liberal about is drug and sex, everything else they want to control". Lies, murder, theft, hypocrisy and anything that achieves or moves along their struggle is permissible because they are morally corrupt and anything goes. These SOB's would kill their own if they felt it would be useful. Even "People For the American Way" is a deceptive euphemism for socialism and communism. These thugs hide behind good sounding names and good causes to infiltrate and destroy from within.

  • Angel

    My Rage! Part-3
    As I write this my temper is flaring and anger swelling in me. I wonder if these clowns realize that the only thing that keeps them from being killed in the street is the very thing that they are trying to destroy. That is our Republic, Constitution and faith in God, without these thing, my restraints would be off and I would go ballistic on these bastards. I am sure, in fact, I know many feel the same way. To you I say, our first allegiance should be to God and then our Constitution. Keep your head and we will win.

    • Maxie

      " To you I say, our first allegiance should be to God and then our Constitution."
      You've just named two of the arch enemies of the atheist, totalitarian-collectivist Left. The third is our national sovereignty.

  • mrbean

    Islam enjoys a large and influential ally among non-Muslims: A new generation of “Useful Idiots,” that Lenin identified living in liberal democracies who furthered the work of communism. This new generation of Useful Idiots also live in liberal democracies, but serves the cause of Islamofascism—another virulent form of totalitarian ideology. Useful Idiots are naïve, they are foolish, they are ignorant of facts, they are unrealistically idealistic, they are dreamers and they are willfully in denial or deceptive. They hail from the ranks of the chronically unhappy. The Useful Idiot may even engage in willful misinformation and deception when it suits him. Terms such as “Political Islam,” or “Radical Islam,” for instance, are contributions of the Useful Idiot. These terms do not even exist in the native parlance of Islam, simply because they are redundant. Islam, by its very nature and according to its charter—the Quran—is a radical political movement.

  • patroitwork

    People for the American Way,S-O-S for them. Typical lib-left-progressive method. Distortion. Demonization. Muddy the water. Attack the truth with lies.

    The other bloggers have already spoken for me.

    Good job, Mark. But don't stop now.

  • cpmondello

    OMG….u people are crazy. Christianity has caused more bloodshed then all religions combined….Hitler used Christianity for his purpose, even had little Christian symbols put on the belt buckles of Nazis. Constantine used his sword to kill all those who would not convert, and anyone who claims Islam is trying to take over the USA, should actually pay attention to who has the most power in congress, on many school boards, the military and throughout all areas of the USA that effect us all. It wasn't a Muslim that called Thomas Jefferson anti-god when he was alive, it wasnt Muslims that hunted down and killed Quakers and Mormons, it wasn't Muslims who said lynching black people was "God's will" and it wasn't Muslims who used American taxpayers money to go to Uganda to convince their president that gay people should be sentenced to death and used the USA as a selling point to prove to him what happens if you give gay people any rights. The USA is not a "Christian County" and only religious conservative Christian wack-jobs like Virginia Foxx, Michelle Bachmann and alike, that believe the USA should follow the bible, making their "version" of the USA as theocratic as Iran or any other country that uses Religion to control the laws. Too bad all those "liberals" who believed all people should have equal rights had to taint the world….that is your selling point?! Okay than, can you PLEASE ask your god to let you go back in time and kill all the "liberals" who got the Romans to stop tossing Christians into lion pits for whole communities to watch, as entertainment. Could you please take away a woman's right to get an education, work outside the home, and be able to leave her husband if he is raping and beating her and their kids….I could go on, but you get my point. Wrapping up; If there were no "liberals" centuries ago, Christianity would of eventually been snuffed out. Just remember that people, and be thankful anti-Christians are still not in power to kill you all off!

    • StephenD

      Dude, time to adjust the meds!

      • mrbean

        He's gotta quit skipping his Aripiprazole and the rest of his antipsychotic medications.

    • tagalog

      Do you have any photos of those "little Christian symbols" on Nazi belt buckles? Surely you're not referring to the "Gott Mit Uns" motto that appears on them are you? "Gott Mit Uns" is pretty generic, don't you think, and certainly not specifically Christian, right? Maybe there's some other "little Christian symbol" you're talking about. Besides, the "Gott Mit Uns" belt buckles were a product of the pre-Nazi era, not a creation of the Nazis.

      The Emperor Constantine most certainly did NOT threaten pagans and other non-Christians with the choice of conversion to Christianity or the sword. He legalized Christianity, that's all. One of this successors was a bit stricter, that's true. And since Constantine was a secular and not a religious leader, I don't precisely understand why Christianity has to answer for any such conduct.

      • tagalog

        The only people who say that Thomas Jefferson was anti-God when he was alive are the people who feel threatened by those who say our Founding Fathers were religious people, i.e., the atheists and anti-Christian types.

        Who used U.S. taxpayer money to go to Uganda to try to persuade Idi Amin to persecute homosexuals? I would have thought Amin had plenty of anti-gay views without needing U.S. people to lobby him.

        Actually the U.S.A. is about 80% or 90% populated by believing Christians, so if it's any kind of religious country, that religion is Christianity.

        • tagalog

          Equality before the law finds its main root in Western thought in Christianity, which has held since its earliest days that all men are alike and equal before God, who judges all of us. Of course, male/female equality finds no voice in the intellectual history of any other region of the Earth than the West. It's true that SOME of the pagan philosophers also taught the equality of men, but neither Socrates, Plato, nor Aristotle believe anything like that, and neither did the Roman philosophers. Equality was preached by St. Augustine and St. Thomas Acquinas, though, long before it appeared in political thought.

          Before, the pagan Romans thought that women were inferior to man as a matter of law (the law of pater familias) and culture.

          Should the U.S. "follow the Bible?" I don't know, but I think things would be more hopeful if we did that rather than follow Marxist social thinking or Keynesian economic thinking.

          I doubt that the Romans who managed to stop throwing Christians into the Coliseum to fight the lions would qualify as liberals by today's American standards (or, for that matter, as conservatives by any current definition).

          Education in the sense that we understand it was a creation of the Christian Church, particularly the Roman Catholic Church, and they taught pagan philosophy right along with Christian principles when they established the universities in the 12th Century in Europe.

          • tagalog

            When women started getting an education, they were able to do so because the educational institutions were brought into existence by the Christians. The oppressive treatment of women by men in any legal or cultural sense is a direct result of the pagan Roman law (the law of pater familias), not the Christian Church.

            I'd need to have a definition of the term "liberal" as you use it in talking about things that happened centuries ago. Please do that. After you take your meds.

  • beaniebob

    I agree Stephen. And too bad it will take another 9/ll or worse to make many foolish Americans see Islam for what it truly is & what they're intentions towards America really are.

  • mlcblog

    I am so glad you exposed this List. That is how they think! if you can call it thinking. To me, it's more of a continuation of their close-minded reactivity. Very predictable….and, I might add, totally devoid of logic.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Damn Mr. Tapson who elected you the spokesperson for the anti-jihad movement? I can assure you that you are not. Indeed, after reading your latest article above, it has become more apparent to me now why you responded the other day to my post the way you did when you said, “to say that terrorism is carried out by jihadists is not the same as conflating the two.” It’s because your understanding of Islam and the threat it represents to freedom in the world, relative to most anti-jihadists, at this point, is still very naïve to put it politely. In fact, your knowledge of Islam at this point is no more or no less astute than GWB, Dick Cheney, John McCain, and Peter King, all of which are exceedingly naïve and incredibly oblivious. Indeed, you have quite a long way to go to catch up and thus you are not the spokesperson for the anti-jihad movement. Maybe the spokesperson for the RINO-Neo-Con movement, but not for the anti-jihad movement!

    “anti-Muslim activists claim that all or nearly all Muslim-Americans support terrorism, violence, the abuse of women and the abrogation of American law and ideals.”

    Actually, most Muslims do denounce terrorism, as terrorism and jihad are two entirely different things altogether that are usually conflated together by people who aren’t paying close attention. Nonetheless, at the same time ALL mainstream orthodox Muslim immigrants living in America not only support jihad, but they are also in fact jihadists. Indeed, Muslim immigrants are stealth non-violent jihadists living in America as a fifth column for the purpose of demographic conquest, as Muslims never migrate to the West or anywhere else outside the Islamic world, for that matter, to assimilate and integrate, but instead to eventually subjugate and dominate in order to make Islam supreme via demographic conquest.

    Anyway, if Mr. Tapson or anyone else for that matter doubts me, then let them point to all the non-Muslim countries in the world where mass Muslim immigration has already occurred and where the vast overwhelming majority of the Muslim immigrants actually assimilated and integrated instead of forming segregated Muslim no-go zones ruled by Sharia as parallel societies within societies and in direct contravention to the laws of the states in which they reside.

    In addition, remember I said that ALL mainstream orthodox Muslim immigrants living in America not only support jihad, they are in fact jihadists, as the ones that don’t support jihad aren’t Muslims. They are instead blasphemous apostates that should be executed according to the dictates of Islam.

    Indeed, the issue the Bush administration and the lamestream lapdog media always avoided like the plague post 9/11 is the fact that without millions of Muslim stealth jihadists with their thousands of mosques and madrassas already living in America as a fifth column, the 9/11 jihadist attacks would have been completely impossible.

    With respect to supporting violence, Muslims only support violence in furtherance of the cause of Islam, and the oppression of women and the abrogation of American law and ideals are intrinsic to Islam. Indeed, you can’t import Muslims into your country without also importing Sharia and Jihad, as Sharia and Jihad are intrinsic to Islam. In fact, Sharia is the will of Allah and Jihad is the sixth and most important pillar of Islam, and Islam can’t exist without either one of them.

    Finally, if anyone believes that most Muslims in the world are peaceful and moderate, as I’m sure Mr. Tapson believes, then why are Christians and other non-Muslim unbelievers living inside every Muslim majority country in the world without exception violently oppressed and systematically persecuted when not outright slaughtered altogether?

    • scum

      Dude, take your medication!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • ObamaYoMoma

        I will if you buy a brain.

  • Clare

    Remember that in Nazi Germany not all German citizens were pulling the trigger. Ordinary citizens got on board the Nazi ideology who were not the SS. Many people were aware of the brutal agendas of Hitler but did not participate in hurting and killing others. Nevertheless they were supporters. There were others who later regretted their actions because by saying nothing they were complicit.
    The smart ones left Germany early on, when Hitler began to rise in government positions. If I remember correctly, many Jewish scholars were among the first to leave Germany. Here, Geert Weilders points out the sameness between Hitler's book and the Koran book – they both state exactly what they want to do, and will do if given the chance.
    So the Germans that stayed participated but in varying degrees. The same could be said of Muslims. Hence, Robert Spencer, in my opinion, was giving a balanced view of Muslims when he said that some Muslims are good and lead OK lives notwithstanding their being adherents of Islam. Some Germans were good Germans even while in Nazi Germany.
    The ones with little regret, though, must be the ones who resisted in various ways or who spoke out. Remember the soldiers who were murdered by fellow Nazi soldiers because they refused to follow orders to kill innocent people even through Hitler commanded it.

  • Jim

    Mr Lear has given a whole new meaning to tolerance . He is on the side of any one who hates the American people.

    He probably thinks George Bush personally flew one plane into the WTC.

    And Archie Bunker into the other.

    Blaming Osama is just being anti Islamic.

    • scum

      No, Bush didn't fly a plane into the WTC. He ignored all warnings, and failed to connect the dots. Of course, the Right continues to extoll the height of his ignorance, for reasons that are unclear.

  • MaoYing

    In the United States, whenever anybody says something good about the muslims, they are lying through their teeth because they know what the muslims are all about. They are just grossly afraid of getting their heads cut-off by OFFENDED muslims if they were to tell the truth. These people are the "Muslim Paranoids", and, if they were to tell the truth about the muslims, they would be afraid to leave their homes.

  • MaoYing

    These people that are afraid to leave their homes for fear of getting their heads cut-off are the people of the United States that are basically afraid of all minorities, due to the fact the minorities in the United States have the green light to become OFFENDED at any time and at any place and for any reason. These scared people are really afraid when any of the minorities in the United States become OFFENDED, because when minorities in the United States become OFFENDED, Obama gives the "evil-eye" and the Jesse Jacksons and the Al Sharptons of the world come out of the woodwork and scream racism into the waiting microphones of the "government-media complex". Therefore, as all muslims living in the United States qualify as being a minority in the United States, these scared people are really afraid of the muslims, too. However, as muslims cut-off heads when they become OFFENDED, these people are SUPER-SCARED of the muslims

  • Stephen_Brady

    One of the funniest stories about Norman Lear is when a poll was taken about the program "All in the Family". You see, it was Lear's opinion that this program would make America more "liberal".

    The poll concluded that most Americans agreed with Archie Bunker, rather than the Meathead. Also, it was by a large margin.

    When confronted with the poll, a surly Lear stated, "Well, the program will make America more liberal, someday."

    Funny …

    • scum

      Shows which side you're on. The bigoted side.

      • Stephen_Brady

        Have you ever watched that show? I seriously doubt it, given the level of your comment.

        Yes, Archie was supposed to be the bigoted one, and the Meathead was supposed to be open-minded, intellectual liberal. However, Mike the Meathead, would have neatly fit into the bigoted Obama Administration. Google the word "bigot", so that you understand what it means, before responding.

        The fact is, the American people identified with Archie because he loved his country, his wife, and his daughter … later, his grandchild. He might not have understood all the ramifications of his beliefs, but he held them honestly.

        Like most liberals, Mike haed people simply because they wouldn't accept his propaganda … Marxist garbage.

        Which side I was on? Do you realize how juvenile that sounds?

  • Damien

    Mark Tapson,

    I think that the people for the American way ought to be ashamed of themselves here. There have been large numbers of terrorist attacks committed by Muslim fundamentalists in the name of their religion, and there are clearly large numbers of fanatical Muslims who would love nothing more than to turn the world into an Islamic theocracy. Yet people for the American way, act as if the only people who point out the threat are bigots.

  • scum

    So now you attack the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has done more than any other entity to neutralize the KKK? Hmmmmmmmmm, seems you're showing your true colors in defending the hooded empire.

    • Damien

      Scum,

      The Southern Poverty Law Center may have done a great job when it came to fighting the Klan, however, that does not excuse their behavior in this instance. People like Robert Spencer, Pamella Geller, Geert Wilders, and Brigitte Gabriel​, do not deserve to be associated with the Klan.

  • Benjamin

    PFAW is actually not unique.The jewish agenda in america has always been to attack christianity and conservative christian values and to bring americans into line with the liberal jewish ideology which teaches that everyone is the same,that nationalism is "evil"(unless its jewish)and that all forms of sexual deviance should be encouraged and tolerated.Are jews really so sweet and tolerant? No.They are making acceptance of all the policies and behaviors which are killing america the norm because it serves their interests.Only in an america which accepts a wide range of peoples,cultures,religions and practices can the jews stay under the radar and continue to engage in the destructive and corruptive behaviors they have always engaged in without opposition.In a homogeneous white christian america with racially-conscious conservative citizens,this cannot happen as "anti-semitism" will prevent it from happening.

  • Joe Rogowski

    Norman Lear’s career has been one of deceit. All in the Family, was his cartoonish vision of America. Its relevancy is equivalent to a comic book. You may argue the merits of a “Green Lantern” as easily as you can argue the merits of a “ALL in the Family” but when all is said and done, you are arguing a caricature of an imagination.

  • Regular Person

    It looks like other media outlets, like HGTV, take this organization’s drivel seriously, so it is causing actual harm to people. But what is the solution?

  • Questions

    I take no issue with the fact that Mohammed was repulsive. But a lot of religious "visionaries" in many faiths have answered to that description as well. A little doubt (i.e., freethought) goes a long way.

  • scum

    Of course it's a religion. That's not to say that political power is not a characteristic of Islam. The notion that one can even separate the two is simply a recent construct of the separation of Church and State (which the Right, revealingly, opposes). Religion was always about power.