<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; Deborah Weiss</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/author/deborah-weiss/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 07:56:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>Shilling for Islamic Terrorists</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/shilling-for-islamic-terrorists/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=shilling-for-islamic-terrorists</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/shilling-for-islamic-terrorists/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2014 05:07:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Deborah Weiss]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hamas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Palestine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[panel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=246531</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lawyers front for Hamas sympathizers on college campuses.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/hamas-rocket.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-246534" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/hamas-rocket.jpg" alt="A Hamas supporter carries a mock Qassam rocket during a demonstration against Israel at al-Yarmouk Camp" width="325" height="226" /></a>In the immediate aftermath of the bloodbath perpetrated by Palestinian terrorists, the Institute for Palestine Studies showcased a star-studded cast of Palestinian terrorist sympathizers posing as scholars.  Without the slightest acknowledgement of the murder of Jewish innocents that hung in the shadow of the event, the panel lamented the “criminalization” of pro-Palestinian activism.</p>
<p>Prior to the seminar, a pleasant older woman initiated a conversation with me.  She is from “Palestine” and is in the U.S. visiting her children.  One of her sons moved to Lebanon years ago to join the PLO.  He’s been “missing” since the Lebanese civil war in 1976.  However, she and all her children are “very active” in the Palestinian cause.  Her “geography” and “religion” require it.</p>
<p>In an audience packed with pro-Palestinian activists, held at SEIU headquarters in Washington, DC, a panel on the “Legal Assault on Palestinian Rights Activism” began.  It was moderated by <span style="color: #222222;">Rashid Khalidi</span>, an activist of Palestinian descent, whose views are so skewed that the ADL accused him of manipulating history and distorting reality to the point where it is “unrecognizable.”  His views on Palestine go well beyond mere support for “oppressed” Palestinians.  In past talks, he identified with the PLO so strongly that he repeatedly included himself by stating “we” when discussing the PLO’s agenda.  But that didn’t stop Columbia University from making him the head of its Middle East studies division and giving him a professorship teaching classes to unwitting students.  Not surprisingly, <span style="color: #222222;">Khalidi</span> is also good friends with President Barack Obama.</p>
<p><span style="color: #222222;">Khalidi</span> started the two hour seminar by asserting that “those who oppose Palestinian rights have a hard time when the story gets out. No one wants to be an advocate of colonization, unequal rights and oppression.”  The pro-Palestinian view is exploding in churches, unions, and most of all, on college campuses.  According to <span style="color: #222222;">Khalidi</span>, it is only “ignorance”, “disinformation and misinformation” that leads Americans to hold a “Zionist viewpoint.”</p>
<p>Andrew Dalack, with the Palestine Subcommittee of the National Lawyer’s Guild, provides legal support for pro-Palestinian activists.  His most notorious client was Rasmea Odeh, who currently sits in jail awaiting sentencing on her conviction for immigration fraud.  Twice, she lied on her application for citizenship to the U.S., falsely claiming she had no criminal record.  In fact, she had been imprisoned in Israel on a terrorist conviction for blowing up a grocery store, killing numerous innocent civilians.  She also was active with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, though according to her attorney, she joined prior to its designation as a terrorist organization.  Dalack, a young, articulate attorney, had an excuse for every aspect of Odeh’s situation.  She misunderstood the application’s question, she really wasn’t guilty of the charge despite her conviction, she said the IDF personnel raped and tortured her, and the U.S. judge on her case was a “Zionist”.</p>
<p>When DHS arrested her at her home, she became the “face” of a national movement.  Dalak explained that “if you come after one Palestinian, you come after all of us.” To him, the real reason Odeh was indicted was her pro-Palestinian “activism”.  “Now”, he stated, “we are all under the government’s magnifying glass.” And, in a theme that would weave itself throughout the seminar, he insisted that prosecutions were “selective” due to political views and intended to intimidate.</p>
<p>Dima <span style="color: #222222;">Khalidi</span>, (<span style="color: #222222;">Rashid Khalidi</span>’s daughter) is an attorney who started an organization called “Palestine Solidarity Legal Support” (PSLS).  It works closely with the far-left Center for Constitutional Rights, largely funded by George Soros.  Her organization provides legal assistance, advocacy, and interventionism for pro-Palestinian activists, especially on college campuses. Their activities, sparked by Cast Lead’s “assault on Gaza” and the growth of the BDS movement, should all be protected by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment she explained.  Her presentation expressed two themes.  First, was that it’s the government’s intent to “silence, crush and criminalize” pro-Palestinian activity.  Second, “Zionist groups” pressure the U.S. government to repress activism and “the government follows suit.”  She claimed that the NSA and the NYPD visited “coffee shops, barbershops and everywhere a Muslim can be found” in order to collect information.  Pro-Palestinian activists are treated “disparately” from others, receiving “selective prosecutions.”  She insisted that the government “targets” Palestinians simply for fundraising.  She cited the freezing of Islamic charities like the Holy Land Foundation and the prosecution of Sami al-Arian, who sits in jail on a terrorism-related conviction.  <span style="color: #222222;">Khalidi </span>completely omitted that these charities funnel money to Hamas, a State-designated terrorist organization.</p>
<p><span style="color: #222222;">Khalidi</span> also complained of activities that “chill speech.”  Ironically, she cited as support for her claim, the arrest of eleven students at UC Irvine, who shouted down Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren, preventing him from speaking. The students, warned in advance of the consequences, were arrested for disrupting a public event.  To <span style="color: #222222;">Khalidi</span>, removing the silencers of speech constitutes the “chilling of speech”.</p>
<p>Additionally, she asserted that allegations by “Zionist organizations” that Palestinian groups are funneling money to Hamas are “inciting law enforcement investigations”.  Apparently, it’s irrelevant whether or not the allegations are true.  She is “heartened” to see how many people are “willing to stick their necks out and not be silenced.”</p>
<p>Yaman Salahi, an attorney who focuses on free speech issues, whined about the flood of civil rights complaints filed against pro-Palestinian activists on campuses, for creating a hostile environment for Jewish students.  For example, there were complaints at UC Berkeley when the Muslim Students Association and Students for Justice in Palestine made mock military checkpoints.  They held fake rifles to the students’ heads and demanded to know their religion before allowing them to pass.  Pretending that the IDF aims assault weapons at every Palestinian passing through, Salahi proclaimed that student civil rights charges are “exaggerated”.  “We’re not talking about bona-fide anti-Jewish hate speech.  It’s legitimate activism.”  What the IDF does to Palestinians in real life is “worse”.</p>
<p>He, and others on the panel repeatedly held up Jewish Voice for Peace, (another Soros-funded organization,) to support the notion that even some Jews agree with their anti-Israel sentiment.  He dismissed the argument that their activities disrupt campus life, because, he explained, that is the whole point of campus activism.  He also omitted the fact that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries largely fund U.S. Middle East Studies programs, giving them a pro-Arab bias. He wailed about calls to Congress demanding professors to provide “balanced” perspectives.  Though unequal funding of viewpoints is prohibited by Title VI of the Higher Education Act, the process has been “abused.”  Salahi failed to mention that the purpose of Title VI is to provide education that would best serve the national security interests of the U.S.  Despite this, almost all of UCLAS’s Middle East professors are pro-Palestinian, as are they are at most universities.</p>
<p>Steven Salaita is a former English professor at Virginia Tech, who claims he was recently “fired” from a tenured position at the University of Illinois for tweets he made in his private capacity.  He marveled at the “sophistication” and “intelligence” of pro-Palestinian activism on campuses, but lamented its “criminalization.”  According to Salaita, schools want their students to be “automatans” and “unthinking subjects”.  When “Zionist activists” are unable to make progress, they rely on punitive modes to prevent the conversation from showing both sides.  He claimed that “Zionists” cannot make the case to support Israel.  Instead, they merely oppose BDS efforts.  He criticized those who point out that Israel is singled out disproportionately in the UN, (where it suffers more resolutions for its human rights violations than all other countries combined).  It’s “annoying” and “stupid”, he stated.  “Israel singled itself out” when it said that “it’s a light unto the world” and has a “higher standard of morality”.  With venom in his voice he declared, “[N]othing makes a Zionist more compassionate than human rights violations in China.  That really tugs at their heartstrings.”</p>
<p>Omitting the fact that Hamas uses hospitals, schools and mosques as human shields, Salaita asserted that Israel admits it bombs children, but “blames Hamas” to avoid taking responsibility.</p>
<p>He also suggested that the issue should not be framed as pro-Palestinian activism, but as “another mode of American oppression”.  These “Zionist tactics” are part of a pattern around the country, demonstrating American imperialization, oppression, and criminalization. That’s why the pro-Palestinian groups are joining forces with labor unions and other “oppressed” groups.</p>
<p>In fact, Salaita was never made a firm offer for the job at the University of Illinois.  He went through the interviews but his name was withheld from the appointment process when the content of his tweets came to light.  During the seminar, he conveniently omitted the comments, but here are a few examples: “Zionism: transforming ‘anti-Semitism’ from something horrible to something honorable since 1948”,  “Zionists take responsibility: if your dream of an ethnocratic  Israel is worth the murder of children, just fucking own it already”, “Will you condemn Hamas? No.  Why not?  Because Hamas isn’t the one incinerating your children you disingenuous prick.” “If Netenyahu appeared on TV with a necklace made from the teeth from Palestinian children, would anybody be surprised?” “You may be too refined to say it, but I’m not:  I hope all the fucking West Bank settlers would go missing!”</p>
<p>Yet, now, Salaita presents himself as the champion of “free speech” and “academic freedom”.  Rather than the hate-filled, anti-Semite that he is, he has become a hero of the pro-Palestinian movement and claims that he is being penalized for nothing more than presenting an unpopular political point of view.</p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">The First Amendment prohibits laws that restrict freedom of speech.</span> Salaita and his pals are free to say whatever they want, but they don’t have the “right” to any particular job.  The University of Illinois stated that it was concerned he wouldn’t show respect for students of different viewpoints. His tweets prove their point.  His claim of “viewpoint discrimination” belies the fact that college campuses abound with pro-Palestinian professors and yet, it is only he who was singled out.</p>
<p>The actions that the panelists are defending under the pretext of “free speech” often constitute, in legal terms, harassment, intimidation and even battery.  Yet, the lawyers on this panel thought that campuses should be disrupted, and students should be upset, and that indeed, the college isn’t doing its job if the students “leave with the same viewpoints they came in with.” Not one of them made a distinction between actual intellectual viewpoint diversity provided in college classrooms and intimidation on college campuses, engaged in by “activists” who often include people not connected to the university. They made no distinction between spewing forth hatred and intellectual enlightenment.  They omitted at least half the story by failing to acknowledge terrorism coming from Hamas and other Palestinians, when criticizing Israel’s violent actions.  Panelists argued that Israel is not defending herself, but is an “apartheid” state, committing genocide on an oppressed people.</p>
<p>It was clear that every single panelist supports Hamas and does not consider it a terrorist organization.  The actions of Hamas and others like it constitute “pro-Palestinian activism.”  Every time a “charity” is frozen or a Palestinian is convicted on terrorism charges after trial, it is because the Judge or the prosecutor is a “Zionist”.  The word Zionist was thrown around as a broad term for anything and everything they disliked.  In some cases, like with Salaita, it was clearly code for “Jew” which of course is always evil.  If Palestinians commit crimes in the U.S., it is not really a crime, but is the fault of U.S. collaboration with Israel, “Zionist” groups “enciting” government action, or America’s Zionist government itself.  Anything short of contemplating that Palestinian sympathizers funding State-designated terrorist organizations, harassing students, shouting derogatory epithets or tweeting anti-“Zionist” hatred is less than virtuous was totally absent from this seminar.</p>
<p>The purpose of Title VI was to ensure that students would learn languages with which they were unfamiliar as well about various regions of the world, in order to secure American national security interests.  It has clearly gone awry.  This presentation was a skewed, hate-filled and one-sided seminar.  But it was only one seminar.  What is really frightening is that each panelist represents and works with numerous organizations that preach the same hatred.  Under the guise of free speech and human rights these “scholars” and pro-Palestinian lawyers” work to violate both.</p>
<p><i>Deborah Weiss, Esq. is a contributing author to “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network” and the author for “Council on American-Islamic Relations: It’s Use of Lawfare and Intimidation.”  Her work can be found at </i><a href="http://www.vigilancenow.org/"><span style="color: #0463c1;"><i>www.vigilancenow.org</i></span></a><i> </i></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/shilling-for-islamic-terrorists/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Tyranny of Silence</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/the-tyranny-of-silence/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-tyranny-of-silence</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/the-tyranny-of-silence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2014 05:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Deborah Weiss]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Flemming Rose]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islamist violence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tyranny of silence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=245555</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A target of Islamist violence explains that only America has real free speech.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/the.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-245559" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/the.jpg" alt="the" width="256" height="283" /></a>Even amidst death threats and Islamist violence, <a href="http://www.tyrannyofsilence.net/">Flemming Rose</a> remains a staunch advocate for freedom of speech.  In a Europe with ever-increasing speech restrictions, he argues for the equivalent of a global First Amendment.</p>
<p>On October 13, 2014, both the <a href="http://www.cato.org/events">Cato Institute</a> and the <a href="http://www.newseum.org/event/free-speech-cartoons-and-the-prophet/">Newseum</a> in Washington, DC, hosted Rose, author of the recently published book, <em>The Tyranny of Silence</em>. Rose and his paper maintain high security generally. But surprisingly, the only apparent security at these two events consisted of security guards from institutions holding them. Cato had approximately 75 people in attendance, including a young man from <a href="http://www.thefire.org/">FIRE</a>. The Newseum had a smaller audience, consisting of about 35 people, most of whom were older and likely Newseum members, as only members were sent prior notification. Both audiences were attentive, responsive and had numerous questions for the editor during Q&amp;A. Additionally, both events were taped for online viewing.</p>
<p>Rose is an editor of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten"><em>Jyllands-Posten</em></a>, a Danish newspaper, notorious for its 2005 publication of twelve cartoons of the Muslim Prophet Mohammad. Considered blasphemous, the drawings provided Islamists with an excuse to riot across the Muslim world and destroy Danish embassies, killing approximately 200 people.</p>
<p>Preceding these events, Danish author <a href="http://www.signandsight.com/features/588.html">Kåre Bluitgen</a>, wrote a children’s book on Islam’ s Prophet and wanted to include illustrations. Bluitgen sought to commission several illustrators for the Mohammad images. Two declined and one agreed on the condition of anonymity. The illustrators cited safety concerns stemming from death threats to <a href="http://www.salman-rushdie.com/">Salmon Rushdie</a> in the United Kingdom and the murder of <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3974179.stm">Theo van Gogh</a> in the Netherlands, both of whom allegedly “blasphemed” Islam. Questions arose as to whether fear caused the illustrators to engage in self-censorship concerning Islam, and whether individuals in the media should cater to a small minority that reacts violently to discussion deemed offensive.</p>
<p><em>Jyllands-Posten</em> asked members of the illustrator’s union to draw Mohammad as they saw him. The newspaper accepted submissions for seven to ten days. It subsequently published twelve illustrations along with an article addressing free speech and self-censorship. “No one could have anticipated” what would follow, Rose explained. The cartoons were the purported cause of violence that erupted throughout the Middle East, making Rose and his newspaper the center of a media storm. All context was lost.</p>
<p>Rose had sought a debate about ideas and a civil way to maintain a dialogue. Yet jihadists threatened to bomb the <em>Jyllands-Posten’s</em> offices and murder the cartoonists, forcing several of them into hiding. Both Rose and <em>Jyllands-Posten</em> have had to maintain heavy security ever since.</p>
<p>Several Muslim organizations filed a complaint against <em>Jyllands-Posten</em> accusing it of violating <a href="http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2006/8/article105.en.html">the Danish Criminal Code</a>. The statute prohibits public ridicule of religious dogma or public statements that cause a group to feel “threatened, scorned or degraded” due to race or religion. However, using a narrow legal interpretation of the statute, the Danish government decided not to pursue the case, stating that it did not meet the necessary pre-requisites for prosecution.</p>
<p>Rose stated that self-censorship in Europe has worsened since the <em>Jyllands-Posten</em>’s publication of the cartoons. Rose was confronted with numerous anti-free speech arguments. “Isn’t it hurting the religious feelings of people with deeply held beliefs?” “Isn&#8217;t it a smart business decision not to use language in newspapers that might offend readers?” “Isn’t is just good manners not to insult someone’s beliefs?”  <em>(paraphrasing)</em> But Rose, without missing a beat, had an articulate and persuasive answer for each point. He insisted that the omission of language regarding Islam did not constitute simply a business decision, as all readers occasionally face offense. Nor did it stem from good manners, as the motivation was not to be polite. Rather, it was self-censorship based on fear and intimidation.</p>
<p>Rose ardently advocated for the equivalent of a worldwide First Amendment, arguing for a free marketplace of ideas including religious doctrine. “Religious feelings cannot demand special treatment” he proclaimed, noting that people might have other deeply held beliefs where they could claim equivalent offense.</p>
<p>European laws balance freedom of expression against other rights such as the right to privacy and the right not to be offended. Therefore, European countries have various laws prohibiting hate speech, religious denigration, and racism. However, “almost absolute” freedom of speech, with exceptions for incitement to violence and defamation of individuals, “makes America unique.” Free speech is “not a balancing test” against the so-called right not to be offended. Offensive speech is constitutionally protected if it’s true or mere opinion.</p>
<p>Rose aptly noted that hate speech restrictions have not reduced violence. Indeed, riots have always erupted in countries where hate speech, blasphemy laws and other speech restrictions exist, but have been violated. Proponents of hate speech laws claim that hate speech leads to violent acts, but there is no evidence to support their claims. In countries where freedom flourishes, offensive expression incites minimal violence.</p>
<p>Rose also noted a seeming paradox: where immigration rises causing an increase in diversity of race and religion, there’s a decrease in the diversity of ideas allowed expression.</p>
<p>When asked if he thought there is a proper role for government censorship, Rose answered with a resounding “no!” Rose noted that while <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Westergaard">Kurt Westergaard</a>, cartoonist of Mohammad with a bomb in his turban, became victim of an assassination attempt, some believe he deserved his fate. And, the Netherlands’ Minister of Justice professed, “if we had hate speech laws, then Van Gogh would be alive today.” Rose thinks both of these positions are outrageous because they condemn speech while justifying the violence in response to it.</p>
<p>Rose explained that many people fail to distinguish between words and deeds. And, “America is becoming more isolated” as tyrannical countries tighten speech restrictions. While American laws allow freedom, increasingly the citizens are plagued with peer pressure and political correctness, pushing for self-censorship.</p>
<p>Yet, “the right not to be offended” is the only right Rose believes individuals should not have in a democracy. Freedom should be paramount.</p>
<p>Refusing to be silent in the face of Islamist intimidation, Rose exercises that freedom courageously and without qualms.</p>
<p><em>Andrew Harrod, JD, PhD, contributed to this report. Follow Andrew on Twitter at @AEHarrod.</em></p>
<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;</p>
<p>This article was commissioned by <a href="http://www.legal-project.org/">The Legal Project</a>, an activity of <a href="http://www.meforum.org/">The Middle East Forum</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.  </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><strong>Subscribe</strong></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <em>The Glazov Gang</em>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>Facebook.</strong></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/the-tyranny-of-silence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Council on American–Islamic Relations: Its Use of Lawfare and Intimidation</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/council-on-american-islamic-relations-its-use-of-lawfare-and-intimidation/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=council-on-american-islamic-relations-its-use-of-lawfare-and-intimidation</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/council-on-american-islamic-relations-its-use-of-lawfare-and-intimidation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2014 04:38:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Deborah Weiss]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAIR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Deborah Weiss]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intimidation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lawfare]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=239645</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A new book reveals the bullying tactics of an Islamist supremacist organization.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/cair.png"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-239714" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/cair.png" alt="cair" width="250" height="311" /></a>Frontpage Interview&#8217;s guest today is Deborah Weiss, an attorney, writer, public speaker, and a 9/11 survivor of the WTC attacks in NYC. She formerly served as a counsel for the Committee on House Oversight in Congress and for the Office of the Corporation Counsel under Mayor Giuliani. She currently works for Vigilance, Inc. and is considered an expert on OIC UN resolutions. She is the primary writer and researcher for a recently released book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Council-American-Islamic-Relations-Lawfare-Intimidation/dp/0615857051">Council on American-Islamic Relations: Its Use of Lawfare and Intimidation</a>, published by CFNS.</p>
<p><strong>FP:</strong> Deborah Weiss, welcome to Frontpage Interview.</p>
<p><strong>DW:</strong> Thank you for inviting me.</p>
<p><strong>FP:</strong> Tell us a little bit about CAIR and its background.</p>
<p><strong>DW:</strong> CAIR holds itself out as a Muslim Civil Rights organization, but in fact it’s an Islamist supremacist organization whose ultimate goal is the implementation of Sharia law. It has a network of chapters that are separately incorporated, but have similar goals, tactics and often overlapping or interchanging directors and staff. It’s based in America and Canada.</p>
<p>CAIR’s roots spawn out of Hamas and the Islamic Association of Palestine, both of which are State-designated terrorist organizations. It adheres to the same interpretation of Islam as the Muslim Brotherhood and serves as the propaganda wing of the so-called “Islamic Resistance Movement” in the West.</p>
<p>It has some funding from its membership, but also receives large contributions from donors in Saudi Arabia, Iran, the UAE and Kuwait.</p>
<p><strong>FP:</strong> What are CAIR’s goals in the United States?</p>
<p><strong>DW:</strong> CAIR appears to have three main goals. One is to silence all criticism of anything related to Islam including Islamic terrorism. Second, it seeks to Islamize the workplace, and third, it works actively to hamper American national security.</p>
<p><strong>FP:</strong> Can you give us some examples of how CAIR engages in each of these activities?</p>
<p><strong>DW:</strong> Sure. CAIR often files frivolous lawsuits against anyone who blows the whistle on CAIR in order to silence their speech. It also tries to smear reputations and shut down speakers, authors, and politicians who seek to inform the public about the dangers of Islamism, whether it’s regarding Islamic terrorism, Islamic persecution of religious minorities or human rights violations committed in the name of Islam. But it also tries to shut down individuals or companies that make jokes, cartoons or films that shed Islam or Muslims in a negative light.</p>
<p>Additionally, CAIR engages in strong-arm tactics to pressure corporations to comply with what amounts to Islamic blasphemy codes. For example, years ago Nike launched a sneaker, called “Nike Air.” Someone complained that the logo for the word “air” looked similar to the word “Allah” in Arabic. CAIR went on a campaign to force Nike to recall the product on a world-wide scale and change the logo design. Unfortunately, it was successful. It also demanded that Nike make a public apology to all Muslims, that it change its design procedures and consult with CAIR in the future, and donate tens of thousands of dollars to Islamic schools and playgrounds. CAIR also threatened a global boycott, not just of Nike Air sneakers but of all Nike products. Nike resisted at first but eventually capitulated, in part, because it has a large audience in the Middle East that buys its products, and it feared a boycott would put the company out of business in that region.</p>
<p>This is just one example of the numerous companies that have been pressured and subsequently caved into CAIR’s demands. Some of the others include Liz Claiborne, Burger King, Heinz, Disney, Bank of America, and more.  The list is rather long and spans a comprehensive range of types of organizations from greeting card companies to banks to publishing houses to food organizations to clothing designers to film producers and broadcast stations.</p>
<p>On the employment front, CAIR often files EEOC claims on behalf of its clients and makes demands to companies to provide special preferences to Muslims which are not afforded to employees of other religions. These include demands for prayer breaks, on-site prayer rooms, exemptions from company uniforms, and separate rules for Muslim employees which exempt them from various company policies. Often the EEOC claims do not proceed to trial. Yet, CAIR frequently issues press releases falsely implying that the EEOC found the company in question to be discriminatory, when the EEOC merely issued a ruling giving CAIR permission to file a lawsuit so that a jury may determine the facts. CAIR misleads the public to believe that a positive ruling from the EEOC concludes there is discrimination, when it often it just means there’s a question of fact which warrants a trial. However, the negative press can hurt a corporation and the cost of litigation is high. Most companies don’t want the PR headache caused by these threats, so they enter a pre-trial settlement to get CAIR off their backs. Needless to say, CAIR usually flaunts the settlement as a win and falsely indicates that it’s an admission of “anti-Islam” bias.</p>
<p>Regarding national security, CAIR is engaged in a number of activities. CAIR tries to silence speech regarding Islamic terrorism, ensuring that counter-terrorism experts, law enforcement and national security professionals won’t get the training needed to identify Islamic terrorist threats in their early stages. Partly because of CAIR, a few years ago the Obama Administration rewrote all the training material for federal national security agencies, purging them of all mention of anything to do with Islamist ideology. This was true even if the word had a qualifier like “radical Islam” or “radical Muslims” because CAIR is on a mission to disassociate any interpretation of Islam with terrorism. It is not telling terrorist organizations that Islam doesn’t support their terrorist activities. Instead, CAIR cries “Islamophobia” or “bigotry” whenever national security professionals, the public, the media, or anyone else makes an accurate observation about this connection, teaches this fact or reports on the terrorists’ self-proclaimed Islamic beliefs.</p>
<p>The agencies that have changed their training programs include DHS, the FBI, the National Counterterrorism Center, the State Department and the Department of Justice. Under Mayor DeBlasio in NYC, CAIR has also been successful in getting the NYPD’s terrific counterterrorism program partially dismantled. It is eliminating content regarding Islamist ideology in training, and reducing its surveillance programs. The NYPD had one of the best counterterrorism programs in the country. It is a totally false accusation by CAIR and other Islamist organizations that the NYPD surveilled the Muslim community simply for “practicing its faith”. The NYPD, like any credible counterterrorism organization, merely followed its leads and focused on the source of the threats. If it happened to focus on certain mosques, CAIR leadership or Muslim business owners, it’s because it had reason to believe these posed a national security threat. It was not because these organizations refused to recognize Jesus as Lord and Savior! That is the type of religious persecution that occurs in Islamist countries, where religious minorities are oppressed and denied the right to practice their faith. In America, so long as one follows the laws, he can pray and worship as his heart desires.</p>
<p>The other thing CAIR does is make numerous FOIA requests and other types of document requests. It also often demands “investigations” of national security investigators, including those who are investigating CAIR leadership. This serves two purposes. One, it informs CAIR of whom in its ranks has to watch their backs. And two, it ties up government resources. Instead of using money and personnel to investigate bad guys, the government is wasting time meeting CAIR’s bogus demands.</p>
<p><strong>FP:</strong> Does CAIR leadership have terrorist ties? How does CAIR evade prosecution for its activities?</p>
<p><strong>DW:</strong> Yes, Jamie. In additional to having its roots in Hamas, the IAP, and the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR was also an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terror-financing trial in the history of the United States. There were other unindicted co-conspirators as well. Many people think that CAIR and the other co-conspirators should be prosecuted, and it’s unclear why they haven’t been.</p>
<p>Additionally, many of CAIR’s current and former leadership has terrorist ties. CAIR’s founding members, Nihad Awad, and Omar Ahmad, and Rafeeq Jabur originally worked with the IAP as did Ibrihim Hooper, CAIR’s spokesperson. Abdurahman Alamoudi, a former CAIR Board member is sitting in jail as I speak, serving a 23 years sentence for terrorist-related activities. Randall “Ismail” Royer was indicted for conspiring with a foreign terrorist group and pled guilty. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison for assisting Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other terrorist organizations. Ghassan Elashi, a founding member of CAIR-Texas was convicted along with his brothers, for funneling money to Hamas and doing business with State-sponsors of terrorism. The list goes on and on. Virtually all the leadership openly supports Hamas, and is virulently anti-Israel. Though they sometimes claim that “one bad apple” doesn’t represent the whole organization, it’s quite evident that this is more than one bad apple. It’s a pattern that runs throughout the organization.</p>
<p><strong>FP:</strong> What are some of the other tactics CAIR employs in order to accomplish its goals?</p>
<p><strong>DW:</strong> CAIR has a wide range of intimidation and strong-arm tactics that it utilizes to pressure individuals, corporations and government agencies to capitulate to its demands. As I mentioned, it files frivolous lawsuits. It also demands that employers fire any employee that “defames Islam”; it engages in company-wide boycotts (rather than just boycotting the product in question), false name-calling such as “Islamophobe” or “bigot”, calls on its membership to flood companies with phone calls, emails and letters, amounting to harassment so companies cannot get work done, embarks on public campaigns maligning companies and individuals, lobbies in Congress against any legislation that would protect America from Islamic terrorism, and infiltrates governmental agencies, societal institutions, and school boards in order to advance its Islamist agenda. It provides disinformation, misinformation, and intentionally deceives the public about its true nature, its agenda, and the Islamist threat generally.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, its efforts have been rather successful, yet under-recognized and under-reported. It has succeeded in getting products off the market, getting companies to change their internal production procedures, getting national security training programs gutted, obtaining preferential treatment of Muslims in some circumstances, and in getting the cancellation of numerous speakers denying them a voice so that the public can form its own opinion on the issues. CAIR has also been excellent at training its members in marketing messages, perception management, and controlling the narrative regarding Islam-related issues in the main stream media and in academia. It also encourages its members to become politically active.</p>
<p><strong>FP:</strong> What can people do to fight against CAIR and its Islamist anti-freedom, anti-American influence?</p>
<p><strong>DW:</strong> I’m so glad you asked, Jamie. I would hate to end this interview on a depressing note. There are a lot of things that the average citizen can do to help defeat CAIR and its agenda. First, educate yourselves on the issues and try to raise the awareness of your friends, neighbors and family members. If you can only forward one article a week to people you know, it’s a start. Second, make sure that your church or synagogue does not engage in bogus “interfaith dialogues” that give CAIR a platform to spew forth its disinformation campaign under cover of legitimacy. Try to educate your pastor or rabbi on what CAIR really is. If they don’t listen, send a letter to your congregation members.</p>
<p>I’ve heard of at least one church which got its members together and threatened to move to a different church. That should make the pastor listen. Third, know what is in your children’s school books. Frighteningly, Islamist groups are influencing textbooks and virtually rewriting history to have a pro-Islam, anti-American and anti-Israel bias. If you can, become active and run for a seat on your local school board or in your local legislature. If you can’t do that, then hold those who do run accountable. Educate elected officials and make sure they know what CAIR is and that they won’t work with them or cave in to them. Ask politicians if they believe there’s such a thing as Islamic terrorism and if they believe in free speech. If they say no or are unclear, that’s your cue that perhaps you don’t want them as your representative. Become involved. There are groups that work on these issues and it’s helpful to find those who are like-minded and join forces.</p>
<p>Above all, make sure you don’t become complacent. America was originally an experiment in freedom. It ought not be taken for granted. If you want to pass on the freedoms you enjoy to future generations, become active. You must be vigilant to keep America free.</p>
<p><strong>FP:</strong> Deborah Weiss, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/council-on-american-islamic-relations-its-use-of-lawfare-and-intimidation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Israel: A Congenital Act of Aggression?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/israel-a-congenital-act-of-aggression/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=israel-a-congenital-act-of-aggression</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/israel-a-congenital-act-of-aggression/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2014 04:02:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Deborah Weiss]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hamas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international criminal court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[un security council]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=238948</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Amidst a rain of Hamas rockets, a symposium explains why the International Court of Justice condemns Israel’s security fence.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/icj.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-239244" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/icj-388x350.jpg" alt="icj" width="299" height="270" /></a>As rockets rained into Israel on the third day of the current Israel-Hamas conflict, the irony of the situation was not lost: Capitol Hill held a symposium on July 9, 2014, the tenth anniversary of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion denouncing the legality and necessity of Israel’s national security fence. The event was organized by Richard Heideman, Chief Counsel for American Victims of Terrorism, author of the Hague Odyssey and cofounder of the Israel Foundation. The high-profile speakers all spoke ardently in opposition to the ICJ’s opinion. No doubt, the unforeseen war currently in progress demonstrated the legitimacy of Israel’s security fence and the folly of the ICJ’s assertion to the contrary.</p>
<p><strong>The ICJ</strong></p>
<p>The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the UN, seated in The Hague, and established in 1945 by the UN Charter. It has the jurisdiction to settle legal disputes submitted by States when the parties agree to the Court’s jurisdiction. It also has the authority to issue advisory opinions on legal questions submitted by authorized UN bodies and specialized agencies. It consists of 15 judges elected by the UN General Assembly (GA) and the UN Security Council, each to serve out a term of 9 years.</p>
<p><strong>Background</strong></p>
<p>After the Palestinian Authority was unable to successfully pass its proposed resolution in the Security Council, it initiated a resolution in the UN GA, which regularly passes anti-Israel resolutions.</p>
<p>Thus, on December 8, 2003, the GA passed the resolution (in a special emergency session) to send the ICJ a question requesting an advisory opinion. The question read, “[W]hat are the legal consequences of the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the Occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory?”</p>
<p>Numerous other countries filed briefs with the ICJ, primarily asserting the Court’s lack of jurisdiction to entertain the question. First, the PA is not a state so it cannot submit a dispute for settlement. Second, Israel never agreed to accept the ICJ’s jurisdiction on this matter. Third, per prior legal agreements between Israel and Palestine, conflicts should be resolved through bi-lateral negotiations, not through a court. Fourth, the issue is really a political matter, not a legal matter. But even if the GA does have standing to request an advisory opinion, the court’s opinion does not constitute binding law.</p>
<p>None of this stopped the ICJ from rendering its opinion, however, which wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian position and rejected entirely Israel’s argument that the wall was needed for security purposes.</p>
<p>The ICJ issued a press release explaining that “the Court finds the construction of the wall being built by Israel’s Occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem and its associated regime, are contrary to international law.” It further stated that Israel has an obligation to cease construction of the wall, dismantle what has been erected, and make “reparations for all damage caused by the wall.”</p>
<p>The Court dismissed Israel’s argument that the wall was necessary to achieve its security objectives and that it was justified self-defense. Further, the ICJ suggested that the UN, and the GA in particular, “consider what further action is required to bring an end to the illegal situation…”</p>
<p>This opinion came one week subsequent to, and in disregard of, the Israeli Supreme Court’s ruling, ordering a section of the barrier outside Jerusalem to be re-routed to accommodate Palestinians and reduce the hardship they were experiencing as a result of the fence’s location, demonstrating Israel’s humanitarian values.</p>
<p><strong>The Symposium</strong></p>
<p>In his opening remarks, Richard Heideman noted that the fence has indisputably saved lives and is legitimate and necessary. He also pointed out that all countries have an obligation to defend their citizens and that the wall was erected for security reasons alone, that it is not an apartheid wall as some claim. Finally, he questioned the legality of the ICJ’s advisory opinion.</p>
<p>Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer explained what readers will not hear in the mainstream media: that ¾ of Israel’s population is threatened by Hamas rockets, that many have had to relocate, and that those who remain in their homes in the shelled areas are hearing alarms to run to shelters numerous times a day and throughout the night.</p>
<p>He emphasized that there is no moral equivalency between Israel and Hamas. Hamas is a terror organization which uses children as human shields, celebrates the deaths of Israelis and uses the deaths of Palestinians as PR fodder, while Israel considers the loss of any innocent life to be a tragedy.</p>
<p>He pointed out the double standard to which Israel is held: no other country in the world is held to the standard of perfection to which Israel is held. And, the only reason that hundreds of innocent Israelis have not died in this war is not for Hamas’ lack of effort, but due to Israel’s iron dome missile defense program.</p>
<p>Ambassador Dermer referred to Netanyahu’s concept of “the reversal of causality” where the press confuses cause with effect. It is false that the “occupied territory” is the cause of Palestinian hostility, when in fact it is their hostility that caused the need for the wall. Indeed, the PLO was fighting Israel three years prior to any so-called “occupation”, not to mention that the “occupied” land was acquired in response to a war started by hostile Arab states who want to see Israel obliterated.</p>
<p>The Palestinians would have had their own state by now, but for the fact that in 1947 Arab leaders rejected a two state resolution at the UN.</p>
<p>The Ambassador aptly pointed out that it was the stance of the Arabs which created the Palestinian refugee problem, and the wall was a response only to waves of terror. Palestinians are attempting to turn the wall into a grievance and falsely claim it is the cause of their hostility, when in fact it was the result.</p>
<p>Professor Irwin Cotler, former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Member of the Canadian Parliament, and human rights attorney, discussed “masking the delegitimization of Israel by cover of rule of law.” He argued that delegitimization is a buzz word to attack Israel’s right to exist and to defend herself. In order to avoid criticism for delegitimization, many are masking this goal with the pre-textual language of law, human rights and combatting genocide.</p>
<p>Though the conflict is political in nature, using legal or human rights language makes the Palestinian position seem more credible. The masking of delegitimization began with a UN resolution that asserted “Zionism is racism”, thus giving the appearance of international law to a politically motivated anti-Israel bias. Indeed, UN resolutions regularly make assertions without evidence and then these resolutions are used as evidence that Israel is violating human rights law. Still, the UN turns a blind eye to real human rights abusers.</p>
<p>Cotler noted that delegitimization is not new, but existed from the creation of Israel. Israel’s “original sin” was her establishment, and her mere existence was referred to as “a congenital act of aggression.”</p>
<p>Ken Marcus, President of the Louis D. Brandeis Center and former Staff Director for the US Commission on Civil Rights, discussed the proliferation of anti-Israel sentiment rampant on US college campuses. He argued that college campuses are no longer oases of tolerance as they once were. When universities are informed of discrimination, they address it promptly unless the discrimination is against those who are pro-Israel. Marcus refers to it as “the Israel exception.”</p>
<p>Marcus provided real life examples of college student who were called names such as “kike” or “dirty Jew.” Some were spit on or assaulted for wearing Jewish stars or supporting Israel. In California, one female student was trampled for holding up a sign that read, “Israel wants peace.” Yet, universities do nothing to provide protection in these circumstances. Instead, they proclaim that such hatred is “political expression” or “free expression.”</p>
<p>Additionally, Marcus pointed out that anti-Semitic discrimination was not considered discrimination against ethnicity by the US Commission on Civil Rights until ten years ago. Never-the-less, getting the Commission to enforce this policy is another matter, as to date the office insists that it has found not one instant of anti-Semitic discrimination despite the complaints that have been filed.</p>
<p>Colleges profess to value diversity, but as Marcus pointed out, that diversity does not include diversity of opinion when the subject is Israel.</p>
<p>Sarah Stern, President of Endowment for Middle East Truth, gave a moving speech in which she told the story of her aunt in Poland, who was ordered to strip naked and stand by the edge of a ditch. She and her twin baby girls were then gunned to death. Others were similarly murdered. What was their crime? They were Jewish.</p>
<p>Stern explained that the old anti-Semitism against Jewish individuals is now levied against the collective Jewish State of Israel. The Oslo Accords, she noted, were predicated on the notion that the Jews would relinquish land in exchange for peace. Yet, when Israel pulled out of Gaza, what they received was not peace, but the firing of 10,000 Kassam rockets into Israel proper.</p>
<p>Arab nations, Stern explained, always refused to recognize the state of Israel. Hamas’ stance is no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, and no recognition of Israel. College campuses and international organizations like the UN are replete with anti-Israel bigotry, despite the fact that Israel is one “tiny” state in the Middle East and the only state in the region that upholds values of freedom, human rights and equality. “Why is Israel so reviled?” Stern asked. “Because it is a Jewish State.”</p>
<p>There were other speakers at the symposium as well, all of whom passionately argued in favor of Israel’s terrorism prevention security fence and against the ICJ’s advisory opinion.</p>
<p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>
<p>The coincident and subsequent events to the symposium, that constitute the Israel-Hamas war, could not have been foreseen at the time the symposium was scheduled. Yet, the current war in that region makes the points articulated by the symposium’s speakers crystal clear.</p>
<p>After weeks of unprompted Hamas rockets shooting into Israel, followed by the brutal murder of three Israeli teenagers in the West Bank, Israel finally responded with a campaign to destroy the tunnels built by Hamas to smuggle in weapons. Despite the fact that Israel is the only nation in the world that calls, texts, and drops warning leaflets prior to bombing, she is still condemned for acts that constitute self-defense. The “disproportionate” number of Palestinian deaths (approximately 1800, half of which are Hamas or other militants) to that of the Israeli deaths (approximately 68 IDF soldiers and three civilians) does not indicate the nature of the parties’ intent. Israel goes out of its way to avoid civilian casualties, targeting only Hamas militants, their weapon storage areas and tunnels. It mourns the death of every innocent Palestinian. And yet, it is Hamas who should be held responsible for the deaths of both Israelis and Palestinians because it purposely puts them in harm’s way.</p>
<p>One cannot have peace without a partner for peace. This war, like those that preceded it, are not about land or territory. It is an existential issue for the Jewish State of Israel, against those who want her extinction simply because she’s Jewish. Some naively believe that Palestinians only want Israel to evacuate the “occupied territory.” But the rallying cries call out, “[P]alestine shall be free, from the river to the sea.” That constitutes ALL of Israel. The schoolbooks disseminated by Palestinians that refer to all of Israel as Palestine, the cartoons that teach children hatred, and the celebrations by Palestinian mothers of their sons’ martyrdom all bely the claim that most Palestinians want peace with Israel.</p>
<p>Hamas’ repeated declinations or violations of all truce offers and ceasefire agreements to date, prove the point made by the July 9<sup>th</sup> symposium. The security fence IS necessary to meet Israel’s national security objectives and the ICJ was wrong to dismiss Israel’s arguments. Israel is the only nation in the world expected to adhere to a standard of utter passivity in the face of war.</p>
<p>Regardless of her commitment to freedom and humanitarianism, Israel will always be demonized. As Professor Cotler noted, Israel’s real crime is her mere existence, “a congenital act of aggression.”</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.   </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><strong>Subscribe</strong></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <em>The Glazov Gang</em>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>Facebook.</strong></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/israel-a-congenital-act-of-aggression/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Throwing Off the Veil</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/throwing-off-the-veil/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=throwing-off-the-veil</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/throwing-off-the-veil/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2014 04:45:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Deborah Weiss]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[take off]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[veil]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=236073</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Facebook campaign demands fashion freedom for Iranian women.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/vl.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-236226" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/vl-450x270.jpg" alt="vl" width="303" height="182" /></a>Women in Iran are throwing off their veils, otherwise known as hijabs. Women in Iran have been forced by law to wear the hijab (headscarf) ever since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Indeed, going without the hijab is punishable by 70 lashes or 60 days in prison. Yet, led by a Facebook campaign titled “My Stealthy Freedom”, some Iranian women are daring to post public photographs of themselves veil-less with hair showing, in violation of Iran’s laws and in protest against Sharia law.</p>
<p>How are Muslim “feminists” in the West going to cope with this? They have worked so darn hard to fight for the right of Muslim women to be covered in America and Europe – and not just with hijabs, but with the full abaya and niqab as well, revealing only their eyes. After all, it’s “liberating” not to have men look at you with lust in their eyes, not to be objectified into a sexual object. True, one could refrain from romping the city streets in Madonna-like bra-shirts and mini-skirts that show too much, but why stop there? Muslim men are particularly alpha in nature and simply cannot control themselves around women who seduce them by merely exposing their hair. Nor should they have to. And for westerners to fail to understand this is just plain culturally insensitive.</p>
<p>In Islamic countries, the hijab is a political as well as religious statement. It is forced upon Muslim women by men, in order to let everyone know that, well, they are Muslim. Its significance is that under Sharia law, Muslims are superior to the rest of us infidels. That’s why even Jews and Christians are required to adhere to Islamic Sharia law. It’s the reason it’s forbidden to repair an old church or synagogue and the reason Christian and Jewish prayer is disallowed in public yet, Muslims can build as many mosques as they desire and ring Minaret bells 5 times a day in a call to Islamic prayer. It’s the reason that an infidel’s testimony is not permitted in Sharia courts, and the reason that acts of murder against infidels are not punishable by the Hudud criminal code. It’s the reason that infidels must walk on the side of the street, and strip naked to provide a Muslim his clothes if he is in need, free of charge, of course. And it’s the reason that Muslims are forbidden to befriend “people of the book”, those evil Jews and Christians who keep insisting on loving their neighbors and turning the other cheek. Dammit, don’t they understand that Allah wants martyrs who are willing to blow themselves up in the holy war to kill as many kuffar as they can?? How stupid can they be? Such is the fate of the infidel.</p>
<p>Islamic supremacism is the reason that it’s A-Ok for Muslims to loot the property of infidels and rape their women and children. Yup, it’s a grand old time for Islamists, especially if they are of the male variety. There’s just one problem. How are Muslim men to know whom to rape and whom not to rape? Enter the hijab and therein lies the answer. As the the Koran 33:59 states, “Oh Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks all over their bodies that they may thus be distinguished and not molested.“ Thus, the hijab is a political statement, letting men know who is and isn’t Muslim, so they know that the hijabbed women are off limits for raping purposes. What a bummer! Still, they usually have plenty of kaffir females to choose from and they’re probably not all that picky.</p>
<p>Now that Muslim women in Iran are throwing off the veil, it’s likely Muslim men could get confused. And if a non-hijabbed Muslim woman gets raped, well, obviously it’ll be her own fault for enticing her perpetrator with her long flowing hair. And that’s true even if her hair is short.</p>
<p>Besides, hijabs are cool. Oh, I don’t mean physically cool. In that case they are hot. Like in Saudi Arabia where the hijabs and abayas must be black and walking in the summers is sweltering hot underneath all that covering. But I mean that they look cool, and that’s what’s important. After all, in the US, women can buy hijabs that are red, orange, and all the colors of the rainbow. They can even put jewels on their hijabs and pretend that they are stylish.</p>
<p>After all the work that Muslim “feminists” in the west have endured to ensure that Muslim women have the choice to stay in tune with their Islamist supremacist misogynistic culture that treats men as superior to women in matters of inheritance, child-custody, court testimony and almost every other aspect of life, it’s pretty darn insensitive of those women in Iran to throw off their veils, seeking the freedom <em>not</em> to wear this political symbol in favor of being equal.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.   </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><strong>Subscribe</strong></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <em>The Glazov Gang</em>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>Facebook.</strong></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/throwing-off-the-veil/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>26</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Saba Ahmed Unveiled</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/saba-ahmed-unveiled/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=saba-ahmed-unveiled</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/saba-ahmed-unveiled/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2014 04:43:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Deborah Weiss]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brigitte Gabriel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Moderate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Muslim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saba Ahmed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taqiyya]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=235165</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The curious background of a "moderate" Muslim. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/saba-ahmed.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-235242" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/saba-ahmed-1024x537.jpg" alt="saba-ahmed" width="294" height="154" /></a>During a recent Heritage Foundation event on Benghazi’s unanswered questions, Brigitte Gabriel, President of Act! for America, proclaimed that the peaceful majority have been irrelevant to history’s outcome when tyrannists have had the power and motivation to destroy freedom. But a Muslim audience member whose question prompted Brigitte’s comments, insists she’s not irrelevant.</p>
<p>On June 16, 2014, The Benghazi Accountability Coalition, spearheaded by Ginni Thomas, held a half-day seminar with a series of speakers to raise issues regarding unanswered questions about the circumstances surrounding the deaths of four American patriots at Benghazi.</p>
<p>Brigitte Gabriel was one of three speakers on the first panel. During Q&amp;A, a hijabbed Muslim woman standing in back of a packed audience complained, “Salam Alechim, peace to you all. We portray Islam and all Muslims as bad, but there are 1.8 billion followers of Islam. We have 8 million plus Muslim Americans in this country and I don’t see them represented here.” She asked how the jihadist ideology can be fought with weapons and stressed the need to bring Muslims to the table in order to solve the problem.</p>
<p>After one panelist asserted that nobody on the panel thinks all Muslims are the problem, Brigitte responded to the question. She noted in her emphatic and dynamic voice how interesting it was that the panel had not discussed Islam or Muslims, but the murder of those at Benghazi and yet the questioner asked about Islam out of context. “Of course not all [Muslims] are radical, but it’s 15 &#8211; 25% according to all the world’s intelligence, which equals 180 – 300 million people dedicated to the destruction of western civilization.” Brigitte went on to explain that we should worry about the radicals because it is they who kill, behead and massacre. Throughout history it was the radicals that drove the agenda and “the peaceful majority were irrelevant”. This was true in Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, China, and pre-World War II Japan. Additionally, on September 11, 2001, it took only 19 hijackers out of 2.3 million Arab Muslims living in the U.S. to bring America to its knees and kill almost 3000 Americans. “I’m glad you are here” Brigitte said, “but where are the others speaking out?”</p>
<p>Additionally, Brigitte pointed out that instead of showing concern about Benghazi, the questioner took the limelight to make a point about peaceful, moderate Muslims. “It is time we take political correctness and throw it in the garbage where it belongs!” The woman replied “as a peaceful American Muslim, I would like to think I’m not that irrelevant.” Moderator Chris Plante, jokingly asked “[W]ho is head of the Muslim peace movement?” to which the woman replied “I guess it’s me right now” and the audience applauded.</p>
<p>So who is was the Muslim woman in the audience and is she irrelevant?</p>
<p>As it turns out, the woman’s name is Saba Ahmed and she was not just some innocuous audience member who happened to show up at a Heritage Foundation event.</p>
<p>Saba was born in Pakistan and moved to Portland Oregon at age 12. She has numerous academic degrees and a particular interest in protecting the Islamic Ummah from America’s “useless wars.” She feels so passionately about this that while in Portland, she became very active in Democrat politics for years, even making an unsuccessful bid for congress in 2012. As a candidate, her priority was to bring home all American troops and cut military spending. “There is no need for them to be in foreign countries”… “Drone attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan are hurting our long term national security and will come back to haunt us.”</p>
<p>After obtaining less than ½ percent of the vote, Saba switched her registration to Republican. But her ideology hadn’t changed. She marched in Occupy Portland, which had a large anti-Israel component, and was a featured speaker. She argued that the Muslim world hates America and therefore America should change her policies. She explained that Muslims in foreign countries are suffering as a result of U.S. policies and don’t have a voice. “We are their voice here in the United States”, she proclaimed.</p>
<p>Despite claiming to be Republican, she was banned from the Oregon Tea Party and the Washington County Republicans, not for her “Islamic views” as she claims, but for false accusations of death threats.</p>
<p>Saba made an appearance at Glenn Beck’s 9/12 meeting in Oregon, and while clinging onto a Koran, proclaimed that her faith is all she has. In TV interviews with Sean Hannity and others, she refuses to denounce any portion of Sharia law, arguing instead that “there are good and bad things everywhere.” She dodges, deflects and avoids addressing the human rights violations and tyranny committed in the name of Islam. When she’s unable to duck a question, she always has an excuse. Hannity, for example, asked Saba if she would denounce the law in Saudi Arabia that disallows women outside the home without being accompanied by a male relative. Saba replied, “I wouldn’t feel comfortable going outside alone in parts of Afghanistan. I wouldn’t want to.” Yet, she whines that, “especially in America, it’s a very harsh environment [for Muslims] due to the bias.”</p>
<p>Not surprisingly, Saba denies the right of Israel to have its current boundaries and argues that the boundaries for Israel after 1948 have caused “division among people all around the world.” And in an interview, when confronted with the fact that there’s nothing in Christianity comparable to Islamic terrorism, she replied, “[T]he United States Military and CIA are the most well-funded Christian organizations that regularly conduct crimes against humanity all around the world. Currently we are killing and murdering people in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq. etc. with our drones, missiles, bombs, etc. What is the practical difference between a soldier who kills and an Al-Qaida operative the kills??? Both in God’s eyes are taking sacred life…”</p>
<p>Yet, as someone who insists she is against all killing, Saba still has ties to Mohamed Mohamud, a Somali born Islamic terrorist who attempted to bomb a Christmas tree lighting in Portland, Oregon in 2010. She even showed up at his trial to provide him support. When a mosque was torched in response to the bomb attempt, Saba blamed the U.S. government for “inciting violence” and warned, “[W]e will take very serious action – politically and legally – against the government for this.”</p>
<p>It’s no wonder coming from a woman who has attended CAIR’s Iftar dinner and was a member of the Islamic Society of Greater Portland (an outgrowth of ISNA). Both CAIR and ISNA are Muslim Brotherhood affiliates, whose mission is to destroy western civilization from within. They were also unindicted co-conspirators in the largest terror financing trial in the history of the United States.</p>
<p>Saba claims that she was Co-Chair of the Oregon Muslims Citizens Alliance, which, if it exists, has no website and appears to have had no activities except one “cancelled” event, which research confirms was never planned to begin with.</p>
<p>Saba has interned for Democratic politicians including Governor Ted Kulongoski, Senator Leahy and Representative Earl Blumenauer. She currently has an LLC or at least a website which appears to represent an LLC. According to blogger Ernest Dell, originally the website indicated that Saba Ahmed, LLC represented a global investment and intellectual property research service, with its corporate office in Portland, Oregon and its research center in New Delhi, India. The site stated that the company had a high end financial research team comprised of experts on a variety of asset classes, and provided services to investment banks, equity firms, asset management firms, financial advisory firms, and additionally had an “intellectual property team” that serviced law firms, in intellectual property firms, in-house IP corporate counsels.</p>
<p>Now Saba states that her LLC is a firm from which she lobbies Congress to stop all wars, claiming “expertise” in national security matters, despite any objective training or experience. The current site indicates no employees other than Saba and lists no clients. And despite her Republican registration, she is seeking a political appointment with the Obama Administration. Though insisting that she’s in “discussions” toward this end, there is no evidence that the interest is mutual or that it is anything more than Saba expressing her self-aggrandizing desire to land a plumb political position.</p>
<p>Brigitte Gabriel never denounced the peaceful majority of any country when she asserted their irrelevance. Clearly, what she meant is that the focus needs to be on the problem. And the problem is always the radical minority who may have less numbers, but has the power to undermine freedom and security.</p>
<p>Saba appears to be worming her way into politics, not to represent Americans or U.S. interests, but to represent the Muslim world. She says she doesn’t want to be irrelevant, but given her pro-Sharia apologetics and her advocacy for peace at the cost of freedom, let’s hope that she is.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.   </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><strong>Subscribe</strong></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <em>The Glazov Gang</em>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>Facebook.</strong></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/saba-ahmed-unveiled/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>101</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Happy Birthday, Sir Nicholas Winton!</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/happy-birthday-sir-nicholas-winton/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=happy-birthday-sir-nicholas-winton</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/happy-birthday-sir-nicholas-winton/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2014 04:44:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Deborah Weiss]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hero]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nazis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[saved Jews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sir Nicholes Winton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=225808</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Holocaust hero turns 105 years old.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/winton.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-225810" alt="winton" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/winton.jpg" width="300" height="225" /></a>A holocaust hero, Sir Nicholas Winton, turns 105 years old today, May 19, 2014.</p>
<p>Nicholas Winton, (originally Nicholas Wertheim), was born on May 19, 1909, in London.  He was born to German-Jewish parents who moved to England in 1907.  They changed their last name in order to assimilate, and later converted to Christianity.  They also had Nicholas baptized.</p>
<p>Winton was a highly educated man and became a London stockbroker.  At age 29, in 1938, he was planning to take a skiing vacation in Switzerland during the Christmas holiday, when he received a call from his friend Martin Blake telling him to cancel.  “Come to Prague; I have an interesting assignment and need your help”, Blake pleaded [paraphrasing].  Winton cancelled his trip and went to visit his friend, who was working with Jewish refugees.</p>
<p>Winton was appalled at the terrible treatment of the Jews.  He was already convinced that war was inevitable after the Nazis had annexed Sudetenland in October, 1928, in accordance with the Munich Pact.  He was certain that the rest of the country would follow.</p>
<p>After the November Kristallnacht, Jewish agencies set up a Kindertransport, enabling German and Austrian children to obtain safe haven in the UK.  But there was no such program for the children in Czechoslovakia.</p>
<p>Although the British House of Commons passed a law allowing families to enter the UK, it required them to pay a guarantee of 50 pounds per person for the cost of anticipated repatriation.  The fee amounted to a small fortune for many of the families who were so poor that they struggled to eat.  Those who couldn’t afford to relocate their entire family desired to at least secure their children, but nobody in Prague would allow children to leave by themselves.</p>
<p>Winton decided to set up a rescue operation, called, “The British Committee for Refugees from Czechoslovakia, Children’s Section”.  Originally, his office consisted of a dining room table in his hotel.  Families rushed to his office, often waiting in long lines, pleading with Winton to place their children on his list.  Later he moved his office to central Prague, where the committee consisted of him, his mother, a secretary, and a few volunteers to help.  They raised money to pay the 50 pound fees and the costs of transportation. Winton stayed at the new office for only a few weeks before appointing others to carry out the day-to-day operations while he returned to London to find the children homes.  He placed advertisements in British newspapers, churches and synagogues, often displaying photos of the children in order to make a greater appeal.  He contacted numerous countries asking them to accept the children but only the UK and Sweden responded.  Then, the British Home Office dilly-dallied in providing visas, believing no harm would come to Europe’s shores. Therefore, Winton’s office falsified the documents to expedite the process, which also increased the risks.</p>
<p>Beginning March 14, 1939, Winton’s operations began transporting children to their new homes, primarily in the UK.  The first group left by plane, and seven trains followed.  The last train, the largest group, with 250 children, never made it to safety.  Hitler invaded Poland that day, and all borders controlled by Germany were closed.  The children were never seen or heard from again, a vision that haunts Winton to this day.</p>
<p>However, to his credit, immediately prior to the war’s outbreak, Winton managed to save 669 children from certain death.  Virtually none of the siblings or parents that these children left behind survived the Holocaust.  Most were murdered in the Auschwitz concentration camp.</p>
<p>For decades, Winton kept his humanitarian efforts to himself.  When he married, he didn’t even tell his wife!</p>
<p>Then, one day in 1988, his wife Grete, was rummaging through their attic.  There, she found a scrapbook listing all the children Winton had saved, along with the names of their parents and the names of the homes to which they were sent.  After sending out letters, 80 of the survivors responded, confirming the story.  They became known as “Winton’s children.”</p>
<p>For 50 years, Winton’s children did not know who saved them nor had the world heard of Nicholas Winton.  Then, BBC had a viewing of the TV show “That’s Life!”.  Winton was invited to attend in the audience.  During the event, the host revealed Winton’s scrapbook and extolled his altruistic efforts.  The host announced that Vera Gissing was one of the people on Winton’s list and pointed her out in the audience, noting that she was seated next to Winton.  They were thrilled to meet each other.  Then, the host asked if there was anyone else in the room who owed their lives to Winton.  One by one, approximately 24 people stood and gave him a standing ovation.  Winton became teary-eyed.  It was the first time he had seen them since they were children during the war.</p>
<p>Today, over 5000 surviving progeny are alive due to Winton’s sacrifices.</p>
<p>Winton was subsequently knighted by Queen Elizabeth, is an honorary citizen of Prague, was made a Member of the British Empire and awarded the Merit Cross by the Minister of Defense of Czechoslovakia.  He also had an elementary school named after him in Czechoslovakia, a small planet named after him by astronomers, and thanks to a petition signed by 32,000 Czechoslovakian children, he was nominated as a Nobel Peace Prize candidate in 2008.  Additionally, several plays were written about him, as were three films and two documentaries including, “The Power of Good: the case of Nicholas Winton”, which won an Emmy award.</p>
<p>September 1, 2009 marked the 70<sup>th</sup> anniversary of the final train of the Czechoslovakian Kindertransport.  During the anniversary, a special “Winton Train” left the Prague train station and headed toward London.  It consisted of the original locomotive and carriages from the Kindertransport and travelled the Kindertransport route.  After the train departed, a statue of Winton was unveiled in his honor.  Aboard the train were many that Winton had saved, as well as their children and grandchildren.  When they arrived in London, they were greeted by Winton.</p>
<p>A total of 1.5 million children during the Holocaust were murdered in gas chambers, ovens, starved to death, heaped into mass graves (sometimes alive), and subjected to torturous diabolical “experiments”.  Over 15,000 of them were Jewish Czechoslovakian children.  Winton saved as many as possible from this fate.</p>
<p>Still, Winton maintains that his actions were commonplace and that he just did was the situation called for.  He insists that he’s not a hero.  But the rest of the world knows better.  He is known in Europe as “the British Schindler”.</p>
<p>Winton’s scrapbook and other documents can be found at Yad Vashem in Israel.  Winton is still alive and wears a ring given to him by some of the Winton children.  It’s inscribed with a line from the Talmud, which reads: “Save one life; save the world”.  He turns 105 years old today.  Happy Birthday, Sir Nicholas Winton!  May HaShem bless you and all the Winton’s children!</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.   </b></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/happy-birthday-sir-nicholas-winton/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>9/11 Museum Refuses to Censor Al-Qaeda Film</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/911-museum-refuses-to-censor-al-qaeda-film/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=911-museum-refuses-to-censor-al-qaeda-film</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/911-museum-refuses-to-censor-al-qaeda-film/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2014 04:25:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Deborah Weiss]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=225420</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Officials stand firm amidst pressure from CAIR interference-runners for jihad. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/sr-2.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-225476" alt="sr-2" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/sr-2-450x274.jpg" width="315" height="192" /></a>Amidst a barrage of controversy and criticism, the 9/11 museum officials stand firm in their decision to air a documentary on Al-Qaeda without censorship of Islam-related language.</p>
<p>The 911 Museum will open to the public on May 21, 2014, with a preview period for 9/11 families and survivors from May 15, 2014 to May 20, 2014.</p>
<p>Included is a 7-minute documentary titled, “[T]he Rise of Al-Qaeda.” It shows footage of Al-Qaeda’s journey over the prior several years on the way to 9/11, from its training camps to a series of terrorist attacks.  The film will be adjacent to a room displaying photos of the 9/11 hijackers.</p>
<p>The film portrays the 9/11 hijackers as “Islamists” who viewed their mission as a “deadly jihad.” After all, in the words of the hijackers: “[M]any thanks to Allah for his kind gesture and choosing us to perform the act of jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims.”  So, it was the hijackers themselves that believed they were on a jihadi mission for the cause of Islam.</p>
<p>The film has been thoroughly vetted and its accuracy is not in dispute.  But an advisory panel of interfaith clergy who previewed the film is complaining about the use of the words “Islamist” and “jihad,” insisting that the jihadists should be shown in a greater “context” that portrays most Muslims as peaceful.</p>
<p>Reverend Chloe Breyer (Justice Breyer’s daughter), who preaches at Saint Philips Church in Harlem, wants the video to show Islam as a peace-loving religion where only a few outliers like the 9/11 hijackers are violent.  She believes that the word “jihad” is an Islamic struggle to do good and that the film in its current form may justify bigotry or violence unless accompanied by a disclaimer.</p>
<p>Sheikh Mostafa Elazabawy, the only Imam on the advisory panel, made a splash when he quit the panel in response to the film, stating that “unsophisticated visitors who don’t understand the difference between Al-Qaeda and Muslims may come away with a prejudiced view of Islam, leading toward antagonism and even confrontation toward Muslim believers near the site.”  He went on to say that “the screening of the film in its present state would greatly offend our local Muslim believers as well as any foreign Muslim visitor to the museum.”</p>
<p>Akbar Ahmed, Chair of Islamic Studies at American University, protested that most museum visitors will assume that the language refers to all Muslims. He argues that one shouldn’t associate the terrorists with their religion because doing so implicates 1.5 billion Muslims by association.</p>
<p>John Esposito, an apologist for Islam at the Saudi-funded Prince Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, generally prefers the phrase “Muslim terrorism” to “Islamic terrorism” in order to dissociate the motivating ideology from the terrorist behavior, and instead give the impression that the terrorist conduct is just coincidently committed by Muslims.</p>
<p>Others want the museum to go out of its way to show Muslims mourning over the 9/11 attacks to “balance out” images of Islam.  Ibrahim Hooper, spokesperson for CAIR, a group which holds itself out as a Muslim civil rights organization but which in reality has many terrorist ties of its own, insisted that the film will reinforce “stereotypes” of Muslims as terrorists.  He emphasized: “it’s very important how Islam is portrayed.”</p>
<p>But the film is not about Islam.  The purpose of the museum is to educate the public on the events of 9/11, including who committed it and what their motivation was.  The focus should be on the atrocity that murdered almost 3000 people in cold blood, not a PC version of feel-good Islam.</p>
<p>Joseph Daniels, the museum’s Executive Director, said that museum officials “stand by the scholarship that underlies the creation of this video.”  NBC News Anchor, Brian Williams, who narrates the film explained, “[w]e have a heavy responsibility to be true to the facts, to be objective.”  He asserted that the film in no way smears a whole religion, but instead talks about Al-Qaeda, a terrorist group.  And, the film clearly acknowledges that Muslims were among the 9/11 victims, mourners, and recovery workers.</p>
<p>So the issue is how the terrorists are characterized and whether the public can discern the difference between Al-Qaeda and those who identify themselves as Muslim but are peaceful and law-abiding.</p>
<p>First, it is a fact that Al-Qaeda’s interpretation of Islam motivated the 9/11 attacks.  To say that acknowledging Al-Qaeda’s motivational ideology indicts 1.5 billion Muslims is to say that all 1.5 billion Muslims agree with Al-Qaeda’s interpretation of Islam.  If they do, they should be indicted. If they don’t, they shouldn’t be offended because the statements don’t apply to them.</p>
<p>Second, it’s unlikely that the Imam on the advisory panel speaks for all local and foreign Muslims, whom he claims to know will all be offended.  If all Muslims should be painted with this broad brush, then the offense is deserved.  If they are not a monolith, they shouldn’t be offended. On the contrary, they should be insulted that some unknown Imam thinks they can’t handle the truth.</p>
<p>Third, to claim that 9/11 or any other Islamic terrorist attack was just terrorism that incidentally was committed by Muslims is just a lie.  It is the terrorists, not the reporters, who assert that they are motivated by their faith.  Those who disagree with the terrorists’ interpretation of their faith should take it up with the terrorists, not those observing and reporting the facts.  The same goes for terrorists who are members of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Boko Haram, Hezbollah and others.</p>
<p>Fourth, CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror financing trial in the history of the United States and has many terrorism ties.  It is on a mission to stamp out all criticism of anything Islam-related, even if it’s true.  Indeed, there’s nary a terrorist that CAIR doesn’t defend.  Asserting that the 9/11 hijackers were Islamic terrorists is factual reporting, not “stereotyping.”  But CAIR wants the public to believe that anybody <i>except </i>for Muslims can be terrorists.  Besides, CAIR has no credibility and should not be given legitimacy by accommodating its gripes.</p>
<p>Fifth, the film is not a theological documentary about Islam; it’s about the events of 9/11. The documentary needn’t endorse or oppose Islam, nor evaluate the theological accuracy of the hijackers’ beliefs.  It merely reports what their beliefs were; how the hijackers viewed themselves.</p>
<p>Sixth, it is not the museum’s job to soothe the feelings of hypersensitive Muslims. The museum should not go out of its way to portray a disproportionate number of Muslim mourners or recovery workers to “balance” things out.</p>
<p>Seventh, it’s ludicrous to believe that the general public is so stupid that it can’t distinguish between Al-Qaeda members and law-abiding Muslims.  There is no reason to believe that learning about Al-Qaeda will lead the general citizenry to become bigots.</p>
<p>But even if it did, it is a falsity to claim that this bigotry would necessarily lead to actual violence.  There is no evidence whatsoever that so-called anti-Islam sentiment leads to violence.  This argument is disingenuously used to stifle criticism of Islam and shut down the debate.  On the contrary, it is primarily in the Muslim world where offense leads to violence.  It is “blasphemy” or insults to Islam that Muslims use to justify their violence, blaming the victims and evading personal responsibility.  But in the West, one can have an emotion, even hatred, without acting on it.  When someone does act violently, it’s illegal.  So, there is no basis to conclude that Islam-hating infidels will assault and batter Muslims at the 9/11 memorial site, which will also be heavily policed.</p>
<p>Most importantly, it’s critical that the motivation of the hijackers be accurately conveyed.  Their ideology must not be whitewashed, for fear of deleting history altogether, depriving future generations of an education regarding the largest terrorist attack on US soil, and increasing the likelihood that history will repeat itself.</p>
<p>Some 9/11 families and survivors believe that the truth should take priority over “sensitivity.”  The museum officials should be saluted for standing firm under a storm of criticism and for holding to the facts.</p>
<p>After all, only the truth shall set us free.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/911-museum-refuses-to-censor-al-qaeda-film/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>92</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Yes, ICANN</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/yes-icann/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=yes-icann</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/yes-icann/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2014 04:17:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Deborah Weiss]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ICANN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oic]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=224893</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Obama’s surrender of internet oversight threatens free speech worldwide.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/hh.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-224942" alt="hh" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/hh.jpg" width="260" height="194" /></a>Recently, the Obama Administration announced that it would transfer its oversight of internet domain management to a yet-to-be-named international multi-stakeholder.  Many are concerned that this will lead to the suppression of speech in capitulation to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and other free speech tyrants.  And though some on the left insist that these concerns amount to nothing more than alarmist folly, the concessions have already begun.</p>
<p>The internet originated in America, initially launched as a government experiment in networks.  Over a period of two decades, it grew to include researchers and think tanks.  In 1992, the “network of networks” opened its doors to the commercial world, and the internet as we know it today was birthed.</p>
<p>A global system of domain management was needed.  Someone had to keep a list of domain names and assign them numbers for internet users worldwide.  This had to be done by a central body in order to prevent multiple individuals, organizations or other entities from winding up with duplicative domain names, causing confusion.</p>
<p>Initially, domain management was conducted informally. Then, in 1998, the Department of Commerce (DoC) recognized ICANN, a California-based non-profit organization, to perform this function.  In a cooperative arrangement, the DoC’s National Telecommunications Information Agency (NTIA) would retain some minor administrative tasks regarding internet management, but would also have a critical oversight function over ICANN to ensure that the internet is free, secure and stable.</p>
<p>NTIA’s contract with ICANN is set to expire in September of 2015.  On March 14, 2014, the Obama Administration announced that it would decline its option to renew the contract and instead allow ICANN oversight to transfer to the “global multi-stake holder community”.</p>
<p>Despite some alarm on the right that ICANN will fall into the hands of China, Russia or the UN, both ICANN and the NTIA have been clear that they will not agree to transfer oversight responsibilities to any government entity or to the United Nations.  What is not clear is what entity is qualified to assume this function or whether ICANN might wind up without an oversight body altogether.</p>
<p>Currently, there is bipartisan concern that US relinquishment of domain oversight will have negative consequences for freedom of speech.   The Wall Street Journal referred to it as “America’s internet surrender.”  Newt Gingrich warned that “every American should worry about Obama giving up control of the internet to an undefined group. This is very, very dangerous.”  Even former President Bill Clinton has been extremely vocal on the issue, proclaiming that “I just know that a lot of these so-called multi-stakeholders are really governments that want to gag people and restrict access to the Internet.”</p>
<p>Two legislative bills are now in the works to prevent the Obama Administration from moving oversight of ICANN out of US hands.  The first is a bill sponsored by Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, which would stall the transfer until the Government Accountability Office could do a study on the transfer’s impact.  The second bill, sponsored by Congressman Mike Kelly, would prohibit the administration from making the transfer without congressional approval.</p>
<p>Because ICANN has no control over website content, fraud or email spam, some on the left erroneously assume that this precludes the possibility of stifling free speech on the internet.</p>
<p>Others naively believe that if attempts at censorship through domain name assignments were to occur, it would be met by “stiff opposition” from domain registry operators and ISP’s…. as if this would be sufficient to stop the likes of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and other tyrannical free speech oppressors.</p>
<p>In truth, ICANN has already started to crack under the OIC’s pressure.</p>
<p>In January 2012, ICANN announced that it would expand its gTLD program (top level domain suffixes) allowing potential approval of numerous additional suffixes, for example, .IBM, .Canon, .sports, .health, .church, or .bible.</p>
<p>Subsequently, Asia Green IT System, LTC (“AGIT”), a Turkey-based company, applied for two gTLDs:  .Islam and .hahal.</p>
<p>The UAE, which sits on ICANN’s Government Advisory Committee (GAC), twice objected to AGIT’s applications and tried to prevent the sale of both domain names. Other countries including Egypt, Bahrain, Qatar, and Oman and Kuwait also protested.</p>
<p>After AGIT responded, determinations were made in AGIT’s favor.</p>
<p>Then, in October, the OIC joined ICANN with Observer status.  In November 2013 the OIC Secretary General wrote a letter to the GAC Chair demanding that AGIT’s application be denied.  The Chair refused.</p>
<p>After each objection to AGIT’s applications, objectors were told that there was insufficient evidence that the Muslim community supported their objection or that the application approval would hurt their community’s interests.</p>
<p>In response, the OIC gathered its Council on Foreign Ministers and unanimously adopted the “Resolution consolidating the OIC’s Position to Preserve gTLDs with Islamic Identity”,  on December 11, 2013.  The resolution:</p>
<ul>
<li>asserted that gTLDs with an “Islamic identity” are of such “sensitive nature” that they are a concern to the entire Islamic nation;</li>
<li>that OIC Member States plan to formulate a “unified position” regarding the management of gTLDs with Islamic identities to prevent their “misuse”;</li>
<li>that the registration of any domain names of gTLDs must ensure that no religion is “offended”;</li>
<li>that the sale of the .Islam and .halal domains should be preserved for Member States; and</li>
<li>that OIC Member States should become active in ICANN.</li>
</ul>
<p>Then-Secretary General of the OIC, Ekmelledin Ihsanoglu followed this up with a letter to the Chairman of the ICANN Board of Directors, Steve Crocker, noting that the OIC is the “sole official representative of the Muslim world” and that it supports the UAE’s objection to the sale of the domain names .Islam and .halal.  He argued that the resolution’s unanimous approval “nullifies” the GAC’s observation that the Muslim community doesn’t support the UAE’s objections and that the sale of these domain names won’t harm the Muslim community.</p>
<p>As a result, ICANN made a decision to “defer” action on the .Islam and .halal domain suffixes until AGIT resolves all conflicts with the objectors, namely the OIC and its member states. By requiring a private company to negotiate with speech-suppressing governments ICANN effectively punted on its responsibilities.  Its “deferral” is tantamount to a denial of the applicant’s request.</p>
<p>This is a free speech battle.  Though ICANN doesn’t directly control website content, it does control the sale of domain names, which consist of words that represent subjects.  The OIC should not be permitted to bully ICANN into reserving Islam-related domain names for OIC Member States only.</p>
<p>First, there is no right to be free from offense in the sale or ownership of domain names, nor should there be.  Second, the words Islam and halal are not inherently offensive to the Muslim community, therefore it’s obviously not the domain name itself to which the OIC objects. Rather, the OIC wants to ensure that these words are used with only positive connotations.  To ensure that the domains suffixes are confined to OIC-approved content, only OIC Members States are to be trusted.</p>
<p>Even assurances by AGIT that it would not “misuse” the suffixes, failed to appease the OIC. The OIC wants ownership of the words, not just in the form of domain strings, but in common parlance as well.</p>
<p>The OIC has been calling for the equivalent of blasphemy codes for over a decade in the form of UN resolutions to combat “defamation” of Islam.  It is on a perpetual quest to stifle criticism of Islam-related topics, ever seeking out new international legal instruments to achieve its goal.</p>
<p>Suppression of these suffixes is only the tip of the iceberg.  Free speech advocates who fear internet freedom is at risk should be taken seriously.  America has been doing an exceptional job of keeping the internet free, secure and stable, and should remain its trusted steward.  If internet oversight leaves her hands, further concessions to free speech tyrants like the OIC can be expected.</p>
<p>America should not relinquish ICANN oversight to the global community for the sake of “fairness” or political correctness.  As the saying goes, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”</p>
<p><i>Deborah Weiss, Esq. is a regular contributor to FrontPage Magazine and the Washington Times.  She is a contributing author to “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network” and the primary writer and researcher for “Council on American Islamic Relations: Its Use of Lawfare and Intimidation”.</i></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/yes-icann/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Holocaust Heroine Motivated by Islam?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/holocaust-heroine-motivated-by-islam/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=holocaust-heroine-motivated-by-islam</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/holocaust-heroine-motivated-by-islam/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2014 04:08:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Deborah Weiss]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[concentration camp]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Film]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Holocaust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nazi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Noor Inayat Khan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WWII]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=221407</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Propaganda film company misrepresents WWII figure. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Noor-Inayat-Khan.jpg"><img class=" wp-image-221408 alignleft" alt="Noor Inayat Khan" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Noor-Inayat-Khan-450x321.jpg" width="315" height="225" /></a>In a recently released film titled “Noor Inayat Khan:  Enemy of the Reich,” the heroine was touted as a devout Muslim, motivated by her Islamic faith to save Jews during the Holocaust.  But the truth is that Khan was not a practicing Muslim at all.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">In 1940, Khan joined the WAAF (Women’s Auxiliary Air Force) and became a wireless operator.  Subsequently, she attended bomber training school and eventually became Assistant Section Officer.  Finally, she was recruited to join the SOE (Special Operations Executive) in France, where she was posted to the Air Ministry and adopted the code name “Nora Baker.”</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">During the course of her service as a wireless operator in Nazi-occupied France, Khan assumed numerous identities, among which were “Madeline” and “Jeanne-Marie Renier.” </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The work of wireless operators was critical in assisting the Allied cause.  The possibility of detection and capture by the SS was always lurking in the background.  Khan knew the dangers prior to accepting her mission, but went forward anyway. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">After all the other operators in her unit were arrested by the SD (Sicherheistdienst; i.e. the Nazi intelligence agency), Khan was offered, but declined an opportunity to return to Britain.  As the sole remaining French operator, she was sought after by the SD which tried to track her down in common everyday places like subway stations.  However, she moved from place to place under various assumed identities, thus avoiding arrest and furthering the cause of freedom.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Eventually, someone who knew Khan betrayed her and turned her in to the SD.  She was arrested by the Gestapo on September 13, 1943 and was interrogated for over a month.  She refused to provide the SS with any information.  Unfortunately, she had kept notebooks with records regarding her wireless messages to Britain.  The SD eventually seized the notebooks and continued sending messages to Britain under Khan’s code name.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">On November 25, 1943, Khan made what constituted a second attempt to escape SD headquarters.  She was captured nearby.  The SD requested that she sign a declaration of refusal to make future escape attempts.  She declined and was therefore classified as “highly dangerous.” She was sent to Germany on November 27, 1943 where she was imprisoned at Pforzheim.  She was labelled as a “Nacht und Nebel” (Night and Fog), a designation for those who would disappear into the night. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">For ten months she sat in solitary confinement, with her hands and feet shackled.  A wire ran between her hands and feet, tying them together so she was curled up, unable to feed herself, clean herself or properly lie down.  Other prisoners were able to hear her cries at night, but in the presence of Nazis she remained stoic and refused to cooperate.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">On September 11, 1944, Khan and three other SOE agents were taken to Dachau concentration camp. There is some contention about whether or not Khan was singled out for overnight torture or beating.  Two days later, the SOE agents were fatally shot in the back of their heads and subsequently cremated.  Khan’s last recorded word was “[L]iberté!&#8221;</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">She was 30 years old when she was executed at the hands of the Nazis.  She was posthumously given numerous awards including the British George Cross and the French Croix de Guerre.  She was commemorated on a British stamp themed “remarkable lives.” And, on November 8, 2012, a bust of Khan was unveiled in London’s Garden Square.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">So what motivated Khan’s acts of bravery and courage? </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">According to Unity Production Foundation’s (UPF) Alex Kronemer, a Muslim convert and the co-founder of UPF, Khan’s courage, integrity, and zeal in her quest against Nazism was motivated by her Muslim faith.  Though “Enemy of the Reich” does not expressly make this assertion, the film, which consists primarily of interviews, is replete with this insinuation.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Additionally, in his opening statements at the film’s Washington, DC screening in February, 2014 at the Warner Theatre, Kronemer asks why Khan would risk her life and what would compel her to put herself in potential danger to save the Jews.  His answer was her faith.  “What compelled her was her great sense of humanity for other people, religions, other races, and Nazi ideology was opposed to her beliefs.”   Kronemer explained that in recent years, some stories had come to his attention of Muslims hiding Jews to save them during the Holocaust.  He wondered why he had never heard of any stories about the role of Muslims in World War II.  He claims that he produced this film, as well as other pro-Muslim and pro-Islam films to “tell the full story” of Muslims.  Enemy of the Reich is the tenth such film.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Many interviewed in the film asserted that Khan’s motivation was “idealism” and “her ideology.”  She believed that all life has value and she had a tolerant view of all religions.  Her nephew, who is Sufi, assumed “it must have been her faith.  Only that faith could have carried her….. Her message is that the human soul is of Divine Source, all humans must be free, and every human is sacrosanct.”  Indeed, prior to becoming a British spy, Khan built a career writing children’s stories, which taught that all conflict should be resolved through love and non-violence.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">However, there are numerous flaws with the film’s assertions.  While it is true that Khan appeared to be motivated by her belief system, as many people are, it is inaccurate to assume that only people of “faith” have virtue and courage.  And, research reveals that Khan was not a devout Muslim.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Khan grew up in a home with an Indian Sufi father and an American mother.  Her father’s brand of Islam was a far cry from traditional or authoritative Islam and indeed, it would be considered heretical by traditional Islamic standards. </span></p>
<p>Contrary to the film’s proclamation that “Sufis are first and foremost Muslim,” Khan’s father’s version of Sufism expressly disavows belonging to any particular religion including Islam.  He belonged to the Christi Order within the mystic tradition, which emphasizes love, tolerance and openness.  It is known for welcoming seekers of all faiths, and confines itself to no particular doctrine or ideology.  It emphasizes the universality of all faith traditions, not favoring one over another.  It seeks to spread the message of unity and the divinity in all living beings.  Her father believed that there is really only one universal religion and there are many paths to God and he was primarily concerned with inner soul.  So even if Khan were “religious” in the same sense that her father was, it would be inaccurate to conclude that her faith was “Islamic” in any true meaning of the word.</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The producer of the film could only conclude that Khan was Muslim by assuming that all Sufis are Muslim and then extrapolating that Khan’s father was Sufi and thus Muslim, so Khan must have been also.  However, according to Sharabani Basu, author of Khan’s biography titled “Spy Princess: the life of Noor Inayat Khan,” Khan was not a “practicing Muslim” despite the fact that she was influenced by her liberal Sufi upbringing. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Additionally, the film conspicuously omits the fact that Khan was engaged to a Jew prior to the outbreak of World War II.  It’s hard to believe that this was an accidental oversight on the part of UPF, rather than the intentional omission of information that would tip off the audience to the fact that Khan could not have been the devout Muslim that UPF claims she was.  Islamic doctrine dictates that while Muslim men are permitted to marry Jewish or Christian women, Muslim women are confined to marry Muslim men only.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">That Khan’s marriage to her fiancé never came to fruition is of no consequence.  What is important is the fact that Khan, while certainly motivated by a loving, virtuous ideology, was not motivated by Islam as UPF producers would have you think.  The film holds itself out as honoring this courageous Holocaust heroine.  But on some level, it stains her memory by attributing to her false motives, in a narrative that constitutes nothing more than an Islamist propaganda lie.</span></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/holocaust-heroine-motivated-by-islam/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>25</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Iran&#8217;s Outlaws of Love</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/irans-outlaws-of-love/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=irans-outlaws-of-love</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/irans-outlaws-of-love/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2014 05:40:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Deborah Weiss]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[celebration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rebels]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Valentine's Day]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=218694</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Brave citizens in the Islamic Republic defy the ban on Valentine’s Day.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/vd.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-218840" alt="vd" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/vd.jpg" width="260" height="194" /></a>Valentine&#8217;s Day is with us once again.</p>
<p>This special day of affection originally had Christian roots &#8212; honoring a Christian martyr named St. Valentine. But over time, this link has become increasingly attenuated. Valentine’s Day is now considered a secular holiday, celebrated throughout much of the world.  It is a day associated with romantic love, and a time to express it through the exchange of red roses, heart shaped candy, and mushy greeting cards.</p>
<p>Not so in the Islamic world, however, where the holiday’s long-forgotten Christian roots are often used as a justification to ban the holiday. Indeed, every year Islamic countries around the world either totally or partially ban aspects of Valentine’s Day, which they view as un-Islamic and as an invasion of Western culture.</p>
<p>The holiday didn’t used to be celebrated in Islamic countries, but it has gained increasing popularity over the last ten years, especially among young people who are both exposed to Western culture via the Internet and too young to remember the Islamic Revolution of 1979.</p>
<p>Iran, in particular, is one of the Muslim nations that forcefully cracks down on those who celebrate Valentine’s Day. While the actual celebration of Valentine’s Day is not officially illegal in Iran as it is in Saudi Arabia, Iranian hardliners have certainly gone out of their way to make it difficult for Iranian citizens to express their romantic feelings out in the open in general and on Valentine&#8217;s in particular. Of course, Iran&#8217;s Valentine’s Day-related bans are cloaked in the language of morality, but the crackdowns are just one additional way for the authoritarian regime to demonstrate its power over the citizens and suppress behavior that the Free World would consider normal.</p>
<p>It is interesting to note that the Iranian regime has been rather unsuccessful in its quest to suppress Valentine&#8217;s celebrations amongst its people.</p>
<p>In large measure, those Iranians who insist on celebrating this day of love constitute the same population as those who protested in the Green Movement in 2009.  After President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared a win in the presidential election and announced his intent to serve a second term in what many perceived as a rigged election, Iranians, many of whom were under the age of thirty, took to the streets to demonstrate.  Their cries for freedom went largely ignored by those around the world who watched in silence, including the United States.  Thousands were jailed, scores were murdered, and many were tortured in prison.  In the end, the revolution failed, and Iran’s highly educated, western-oriented youth remain in the shackles of Islamic authoritarianism.</p>
<p>At the time of the failed revolution, it was already the law of the land that schools were segregated by gender and that unmarried men and women could not mingle, in accordance with Islamic law.  Till this day, women must have their heads veiled so as not to entice male sexual appetites. Western influence, including Western music, meanwhile, is viewed by the government as a national security threat.  After all, if the government’s raison d’être is to promote and live out its version of Islam, then anything secular or “un-Islamic&#8221; threatens the regime.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, Valentine’s Day has grown in popularity, and by 2011 the Iranian government had had enough.  Though the holiday itself is not officially illegal, in 2011, the government did pass a ban on the sale and distribution of any Valentine’s Day products, including red roses, teddy bears, heart-shaped candy, and even boxes and posters decorated with red hearts.  At the demand of hardliners, the Printing Works Owners’ Union issued a directive explaining that shops violating the ban will face legal action against them. This poses a problem not just for young lovers, but for retailers who made good money during the holiday, and who needed it, especially in light of sanctions against Iran.</p>
<p>Still today, in upscale Tehran, many restaurants offer special menus on Valentine’s Day, sometimes with live music or fireworks.  Yet, if unmarried couples are caught socializing, openly expressing affection, or exchanging Valentine’s gifts, they face the possibility of jail time.</p>
<p>Fortunately, the same determined youth that were intent on protesting for political freedom during the Green Revolution are still refusing to submit to laws restricting affection.  Some express affection behind closed doors. Others risk imprisonment to say “I love you” in public.  To their credit, they have the courage to remain outlaws of love.</p>
<p><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">Deborah Weiss, Esq. is a contributing author to the book “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network”; and is the primary writer and researcher for “CAIR: its Use of Lawfare and Intimidation”.  She is a regular contributor to FrontPage magazine and The Washington Times.  A partial listing of her work can be found at www.vigilancenow.org.</i></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.</b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/irans-outlaws-of-love/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>30</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Geneva Conference Moves Toward Criminalizing &#8220;Islamophobia&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/deborah-weiss/geneva-conference-moves-toward-criminalizing-islamophobic-speech/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=geneva-conference-moves-toward-criminalizing-islamophobic-speech</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/deborah-weiss/geneva-conference-moves-toward-criminalizing-islamophobic-speech/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Oct 2013 04:30:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Deborah Weiss]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Censorship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Geneva]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islamophobia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Muslim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=208139</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The fight to save free speech in the West continues. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/oic_summit_cairo_02_06_2013.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-208148" alt="oic_summit_cairo_02_06_2013" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/oic_summit_cairo_02_06_2013-450x346.jpg" width="270" height="208" /></a>In its quest to criminalize speech that’s critical of all Islam-related topics, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)* endorsed the formation of a new Advisory Media Committee to address “Islamophobia.”</span></b></p>
<p>This past September, the OIC held “<a href="http://www.oic-oci.org/oicv2/topic/?t_id=8420&amp;t_ref=3391&amp;lan=en">The First International Conference on Islamophobia: Law &amp; Media</a>.”  The conference endorsed numerous recommendations which arose from prior workshops on Islamophobia from media, legal and political perspectives.  A main conclusion was the consensus to institutionalize the conference and create an Advisory Media Committee to meet under the newly established OIC Media Forum based in Istanbul Turkey.</p>
<p>Supposedly, the purpose of the conference was to support an OIC campaign to <a href="http://www.oic-oci.org/oicv2/topic/?t_id=8420&amp;t_ref=3391&amp;lan=en">“correct the image of Islam and Muslims in Europe and North America.”</a>  By this, it means to whitewash the intolerant, violent and discriminatory aspects of Islam and Islamists.  The OIC has launched a campaign to provide disinformation to the public, delinking all Islam from these undesirable traits and attacks all who insist on these truths, as bigots, racists and Islamophobes.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.comcec.org/TR_YE/Yeni_Site_Dokumanlar/Basic_Documents/OIC_Charter.pdf">The OIC is a 57 member organization consisting of Muslim countries</a> whose long term goal is the worldwide implementation of Sharia law and <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/oic_and_the_modern_caliphate.html">seemingly the ultimate establishment of a Caliphate</a>.  Its members tend to vote together as a block in the UN, so it is extremely powerful, despite the fact that few people have heard of it.</p>
<p>Its present goal is the international <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/islamic_world_tells_clinton_defamation_of_islam_must_be_prevented_in_america.html">criminalization of all speech that “defames” Islam</a>, which the OIC defines as anything that sheds a negative light on Islam or Muslims, even when it’s true.</p>
<p>Its target is the West and one of its tactics is to accuse those who criticize Islam or its various interpretations as <a href="http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/122029/norway-attacks-reinforce-need-for-united-stand-against-intolerance.html">“Islamophobic.”</a>  It is attempting to pass the equivalent of Islamic blasphemy codes in the West, using accusations of bigotry to silence anyone who speaks the truth about Islamic terrorism or Islamic persecution of religious minorities.</p>
<p>The OIC uses international bodies such as the UN and international “<a href="http://www.ihsanoglu.com/en/topic_details.asp?tID=346">consensus building</a>” as a platform to achieve its goals.  Certainly, if the OIC straightforwardly informed America and Europe of its aspirations to silence speech, it would gain no strides.  Therefore, it uses bureaucratic, unaccountable entities such as the UN as a means to make inroads, using watered down language and words that sound palatable to the West in order to deceive the public about its underlying goals.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the OIC has been fairly successful in passing <a href="http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/HRC/resolutions/A_HRC_RES_7_19.pdf">UN resolutions that if implemented, would have the effect of stifling speech that “defames religions</a>.”  Of course, the OIC is only concerned with the defamation of Islam.  Indeed, OIC countries all have some sort of Islamic blasphemy laws which prohibit such defamation.  To be certain, these laws are regularly used to criminally punish those who speak critically of Islam.  These laws are also used to justify persecution of religious minorities.  For example, in many OIC countries, openly practicing a version of Islam not sanctioned by the government can land one in jail for blasphemy.  The OIC has no reciprocity in refraining from “defamation” of Judaism, Christianity, or other religions.</p>
<p>After the US realized that the UN resolution to Combat Defamation of Religions had a potentially disastrous impact on free expression, the US State Department asked the OIC to draft an alternative resolution that would address “Islamophobia” concerns and still retain free speech.  <a href="http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4db960f92.pdf">The OIC produced Resolution 16/18 to Combat Intolerance Based on Religion or Belief. </a>Initially, the State Department interpreted this resolution to protect religious minorities of all stripes from discrimination and violence, while still retaining freedom of speech.</p>
<p>The OIC, however, has made it clear that it clings to its goal to protect Islam from so-called defamation.  Indeed, it has manipulated the language in resolution to do just that.</p>
<p>Rizwan Saeed Sheikh, spokesman for the OIC Secretary General has explained that <a href="http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&amp;contentid=20130218153611">the OIC’s goal is to make “denigration of religions” a crime. </a>Somehow, over time, the State Department appears to have adopted the OIC’s view that the West is Islamophobic and that Islam is a religion of peace which should never be associated with terrorism.  Toward this end, the Obama Administration has completely <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2011/robert-spencer/obama-adminstration-bans-the-truth-about-islam-and-jihad/">purged all its counterterrorism training programs</a> from any mention of Islamic terrorism.  Only “right-wing extremists” persist in using the term, and of course are “Islamophobes” for doing so.</p>
<p>The OIC’s claims that it seeks to protect all religions and religious symbols from defamation are patently false and are contrary to the actions of the OIC countries which discriminate against infidels.  In Saudi Arabia, Jews are denied citizenship; in Iran, Baha’is are denied equal employment opportunities; in Pakistan, Ahmadiyya Muslims are jailed for openly practicing their faith, and there’s a genocide against Coptic Christians in Egypt.  Many OIC countries also prohibit the building or repair of churches and synagogues as well as public worship by minority religions.</p>
<p>The September meeting constituted <a href="http://www.thewashingtonreview.org/articles/will-istanbul-process-relieve-the-tension-between-the-muslim-world-and-the-west.html">the third Istanbul Conference</a>:  international meetings designed to implement Resolution 16/18 in support of the OIC’s agenda to combat “Islamophobia” in the West.</p>
<p>If the OIC really wanted to combat Islamophobia, it would persuade terrorists to refrain from violence; it would condemn the genocide of Coptic Christians in Egypt and it would spare little girls from forced marriages in OIC countries. The OIC has the power to stop the denigration of Jewish, Christian, Zorastrian and Baha’i religious symbols in the OIC countries.  It can pressure OIC member states to implement domestic policies that will honor and respect minority religions in the Middle East and elsewhere.  Do this, and “Islamophobia” in the West will dissipate.</p>
<p>Instead, the OIC requests that the media censor their reports about Islamic terrorism, Islamic persecution of religious minorities and human rights violations committed in the name of Islam, as an interim step toward the criminalization of such speech.  All of this will only serve to increase, not decrease “Islamophobia.”</p>
<p>The clash of civilizations widens.</p>
<p><i>*The Organization of Islamic Cooperation was originally called The Organization of Islamic Conference, but changed its name in 2011.</i></p>
<p><i>This article was commissioned by </i><a href="http://www.legal-project.org/"><i>The Legal Project</i></a><i>, an activity of the Middle East Forum.</i></p>
<p>*</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t miss <strong>Jamie Glazov&#8217;s</strong> video interview with <strong>Walid Shoeba</strong><em> about </em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-FOR-Islamophobia-Americas/dp/0982567960"><em>The Case for Islamophobia:</em></a></p>
<p><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ihfr-yx5aB4" height="315" width="420" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/deborah-weiss/geneva-conference-moves-toward-criminalizing-islamophobic-speech/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>131</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>France Fights Public School Islamism</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/deborah-weiss/france-fights-public-school-islamism/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=france-fights-public-school-islamism</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/deborah-weiss/france-fights-public-school-islamism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2013 04:04:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Deborah Weiss]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[France]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public school]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[religious freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secularism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=204018</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why a state-implemented secularism charter still won’t save the republic.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Sharia4FranceBurqas.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-204054" alt="Sharia4FranceBurqas" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Sharia4FranceBurqas.jpg" width="380" height="252" /></a>Secular France wants nothing to do with religion.  Yet, it has been forced to grapple with its increasing Islamization that appears to be spinning out of control.  The French Education Minister has a new plan to push back:  a secularism charter in every public school.  However, France’s misguided efforts are unlikely to solve the problem.</p>
<p>France is officially a secular country with separation of church and state.  There is no state religion and everyone is free to believe or not believe as they wish.  The expression of religious faith is permitted within the boundaries of public order.  All creeds are respected and treated equally under the law.  But, unlike America which has true religious freedom and allows religion in the public square so long as one religion is not favored over another, the principles underlying <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/2005/12/09/100th-anniversary-of-secularism-in-france/">France’s 1905 Laïcité laws</a><b> </b>call for the cleansing of religion from State functions and institutions.  Therefore, despite the fact that France’s  Constitution claims otherwise, secularism reigns supreme over faith.</p>
<p>In recent years, France’s secular underpinnings have been challenged.  Largely due to faulty immigration policies, France is quickly becoming the most Islamized country in Europe.  Approximately 200,000 people immigrate legally into France every year, and another 200,000 people immigrate illegally.  Currently, <a href="http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/156077#.Ui4lZ47D8dU">approximately 10 percent</a> of France’s population is Muslim (an estimated 4.7 &#8211; 10 million people) and the numbers are rising.</p>
<p>Muslim immigrants pose a severe threat to French secularism and therefore to the nation’s identity.  Many Muslim immigrants show little interest in assimilating, learning French, or integrating into mainstream society.</p>
<p>Increasingly, Islamic institutions and practices are replacing French secular traditions.  Muslim University students are demanding separation of the sexes, excused absences for religious reasons, and pressuring universities to alter their curriculums.</p>
<p>In some areas, there are Muslim enclaves governed by Sharia law.  In these “no-go zones” government officials have de facto relinquished control.  Police, firemen, and even ambulances refrain from entry.  At last count<a href="http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2367/european-muslim-no-go-zones">, France had 751 “Sensitive Urban Zones”,</a> as these areas are euphemistically called.</p>
<p>The French are loosing control in other regions of the country as well to groups of Muslims who regularly violate State laws.  For example, in some locales Muslims block traffic and fill the streets for Jummah prayers on Fridays, in violation of French law.  Yet, the police stand idly by.  There are numerous other examples along the same lines.</p>
<p>In recent years, the French government has been trying to push back against the Islamization of its country.  It has introduced several initiatives in an attempt to enforce its secular principles.</p>
<p>For example, in 2010, the Parliament passed a law making it <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2010/deborah-weiss/france-gets-serious/">illegal to wear a full face veil in public</a>.  Though the Islamic burqa was not specifically named in the legislation, everyone knew that the burqa was the target of the bill.  In 2004, the government <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/islam/hijab.html">outlawed all religious symbols and attire in public schools.</a>  Students can no longer wear yomikas, crosses, or hijabs to school.</p>
<p>Now on August 26, 2013 the French Education Minister Vincent Peillon has announced that the government will post a <a href="http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2013/09/france-posts-secular-charter-in-all-state-schools">secularism charter</a> in each of its 55,000 public schools by the end of September.  The purpose of the charter is to remind students and teachers of France’s secular underpinning and restore “secular morality”.  Some of the items embodied in the charter mirror France’s Constitution, reiterating that there is no State religion and emphasizing separation of religion and state.</p>
<p>Additional items listed in the Charter expressly assert that the school is a secular institution, students are prohibited from proselytizing, and that students are disallowed from demanding excused absences or challenging class lessons based on their religion.</p>
<p>Minister <a href="http://www.aleteia.org/en/education/documents/the-school-that-little-papa-peillon-built-1659001">Peillon’s true thoughts on the role of secularism</a> in the Republic are revealed in his 2008 book titled, “The Revolution is not Over”, published by Seuil.  In it he asserts that the purpose of secular education is “to remove the student from all forms of determinism, whether familial, ethnic or social” in order to “enable each student to emancipate himself”.  He states that the goal of the school is to produce “a free individual, emancipated from all guardianships: political, religious, familial, social – so that he can make his own choices….”</p>
<p>His writings aspire to a new religion …. that of secularism, as indicated by his language:  “the Republican system is forced to invent a new metaphysics and a new religion in which man can transcend himself… It is not a religion of God made man… It is a religion of the man who creates himself thought constant movement”.  He expressly states that socialism needs a new religion to take the place of the old and that Secularism can be that religion.  His claims that done properly, this can create a “new birth”, “a transubstantiation” and “a new Church”.</p>
<p>Apparently, he and other officials in the French government believe that true religion is the problem and that squelching it in favor of a secular manmade religion is the solution.</p>
<p>To date, there is no evidence that such an approach will work.  At the current rate of Muslim immigration combined with its high birth rates, France will be a Muslim majority country in 23 years.</p>
<p>The measures instituted by the French government are largely symbolic.  The government doesn’t appear to have the fortitude to enforce French secularism by doling out consequences for serious infractions of French law committed in the name of Islam, whether in the no-go zones or elsewhere.</p>
<p>True religion is not the problem.  Religions that operate within the spiritual sphere, respecting the laws of the land are not a threat to the fabric of French society.  There is no reason to repress the religious freedom of all because of the problems posed by only one “religion” that seeks to impose itself on unbelievers.  The government must acknowledge that those who seek parallel societies run by Sharia law constitute a subversive political movement, cloaking itself in the language of religion.  France must treat the movement accordingly.  If it doesn’t, the Islamist threat will continue to erode the foundations of French society.</p>
<p><i>This article was commissioned by </i><a href="http://www.islamist-watch.org/"><i>Islamist Watch, </i></a><i> a project of the Middle East Forum.</i></p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/deborah-weiss/france-fights-public-school-islamism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>44</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fort Hood Trial:  Don’t Say the “T” Word</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/deborah-weiss/fort-hood-trial-dont-say-the-t-word/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fort-hood-trial-dont-say-the-t-word</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/deborah-weiss/fort-hood-trial-dont-say-the-t-word/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2013 04:32:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Deborah Weiss]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fort Hood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nidal Hasan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=201585</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Purging the language doesn't bring justice to the fallen -- nor eradicate the threat.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/fort_hood_trial.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-201587" alt="fort_hood_trial" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/fort_hood_trial-450x337.jpg" width="270" height="202" /></a>The Fort Hood shootings constituted the largest massacre on a military base in the history of the United States. There is overwhelming evidence that the defendant’s motivations were religious in nature.  But as the trial ensues, the US government continues to bend over backwards to avoid calling the massacre an act of Islamic terrorism, consistent with Islamist demands not to associate Islam with terrorism.</p>
<p>On November 5, 2009, Army Major and psychiatrist Nidal Hasan took his semi-automatic pistol and headed to the Soldier Readiness Processing Center on the military base at Fort Hood.  There, soldiers were being cleared for deployment to Afghanistan and Iraq.  <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/05/national/main5539067.shtml">Hasan fired a spray of bullets killing 13 people and wounding over 30 others.  It was the worst massacre on a military base in US history</a>.</p>
<p>Hasan had purchased a gun that would be efficient in a high-target environment and attended weeks of target practice.</p>
<p>Two days prior to the blood bath, Hasan gave away his furniture, disseminated business cards that read Soldier of Allah, and emailed Al-Awlaki saying he looked forward to joining him in the afterlife.</p>
<p>Dressed in traditional Islamic garb, Hasan appeared at the Fort Hood military base prepared to fulfil his Islamic duty to defend his Muslim brothers.</p>
<p>Upon his arrival to the scene, he bowed his head in prayer, then jumped up and <a href="http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/08/20/judge-sanitizes-jihad-motive-by-blocking-evidence-in-nidal-hassan-case-n1668956">screamed “Allahu Akbar”</a> (Allah is the greatest!) before unloading his ammunition at unarmed soldiers.</p>
<p>Reports indicate that army officials were cognizant of Hasan’s increasing radicalization since 2005.  <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/33753461/ns/us_news-tragedy_at_fort_hood/">Hasan had given a seminar which revealed his Islamist ideology, during which he justified suicide bombings. </a> He also expressed increasing ambivalence about serving in the military since the US was “killing Muslims”.</p>
<p>Additionally, an investigation discovered conclusive evidence <a href="https://www.weeklystandard.com/keyword/Anwar-al-Awlaki">that Hasan had significant email communications with Anwar Al-Awlaki,</a> a prominent Al-Qaeda operative who was a target of  Obama’s targeted killing drone program.  Hasan’s emails asked whether it was acceptable to kill innocents during jihad and when suicide bombings were justifiable.  He also regularly visited jihadi websites which condoned suicide bombings.</p>
<p>Hasan was <a href="http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-fort-hood-hasan-20130820,0,2266226.story">charged in a Military Court</a> under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with 13 counts of pre-meditated murder and 32 Counts of attempted murder.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-fort-hood-testimony-20130815,0,4208147.story">He appeared before a board of mental health professionals to determine his fitness to stand trial</a>.  At his hearing, Hasan confessed to the murders and claimed he did it to “defend Taliban leadership.”  He showed no remorse.  Never-the-less, the board ruled he was sane.</p>
<p>Hasan is representing himself at trial.  The trial commenced August 6, 2013.  During Hasan’s opening statements, he confessed the murders and blatantly asserted his jihadi motives.  He explained that he had “switched sides” and regards himself as mujahideen.</p>
<p>The prosecution has had almost 90 witnesses and Hasan has engaged in virtually no cross-exam.  Some believe that he is purposely leading a strategy of defenselessness in order to achieve martyrdom.  Though he denies it, <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57598332/fort-hood-massacre-trial-is-hasan-seeking-martyrdom/">Hasan’s past statements indicate that he wished he had been killed so he’d become a martyr and that government execution would still qualify him as such. </a></p>
<p>So the question remains, how should Hasan’s mass murder be characterized?</p>
<p>An independent commission conducted an investigation of the Fort Hood shootings. DoD released its report in January 2010.  It found that the Pentagon was unprepared to defend itself against internal threats.  DoD and other government agencies have <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/06/military-growing-terrorist-target-lawmakers-warn/">characterized the massacre as “workplace violence”</a> and omitted any mention of Islamist ideology or terrorist behavior.</p>
<p>The leaders of the investigation stated that their concern was “actions and effects, not necessarily motives”.  And, <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2009/11/08/general-casey-diversity-shouldnt-be-casualty-of-fort-hood/">Army Chief of Staff General George W. Casey proclaimed that “as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.” </a></p>
<p>The FBI determined that because Hasan had no co-conspirators, further investigation was unnecessary.</p>
<p>In his public address and at the eulogy, President Obama also refused to acknowledge the role of Islamic terrorism in the massacre.</p>
<p>Yet motive is what distinguishes one type of homicide from another.  A homicide victim is equally dead regardless of motive.  But our legal system and moral code mandate that intent be taken into account when determining what, if any punishment should be accorded.</p>
<p>The omission of the terrorist motives in the Fort Hood massacre is <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/6/nidal-hasans-fort-hood-trial-starts-workplace-viol/">resulting in the denial of purple hearts for the fallen soldiers,</a> and a denial of medical benefits and financial compensation for the survivors.</p>
<p>Though the UCMJ does not have terrorism in its code as a possible charge, the military court could have waived jurisdiction, allowing Hasan to be prosecuted in Federal Court where a charge of domestic terrorism would have been in order.</p>
<p>Even if Hasan was not criminally charged with terrorism, the government could make a political determination that this was a terrorist act, allowing the victims to be properly compensated.  DoD <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/6/nidal-hasans-fort-hood-trial-starts-workplace-viol/">officials claimed that Hasan could have argued he couldn’t get a fair trial due to accusations of criminal liability.</a></p>
<p>However, Hasan has already admitted criminal guilt.  Therefore, it is more likely that the government’s characterization of the massacre as workplace violence was made in line with its pattern of denial regarding Islamist ideology.</p>
<p>This Administration has rewritten all national security training material to <a href="http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/09/25/57-top-u-s-muslim-groups-demanded-government-wide-islamophobia-purge-in-letter-to-white-house/">delete all reference to Islamic terrorism</a> and has launched an aggressive campaign of interfaith dialogue and  <a href="http://www.legal-project.org/4088/us-praises-sharia-censorship">“peer pressure and shaming”</a> to stifle all debate on the issue of Islamism.</p>
<p>The Administration has also formed close alliances with Islamist organizations in a quest to silence all speech critical of Islam, in a manner tantamount to blasphemy codes.</p>
<p>Free speech constitutes a human right and is critical to maintaining the cause of freedom.  It is especially important to allow open debate on the nature of national security threats and their motivational ideology.</p>
<p>Denying the threat of Islamic radicalism has consequences.  Resulting policies hamper America’s ability to defeat those that wish us harm.  Whether the Benghazi attacks, the Fort Hood massacre or other Islamic terrorist attacks, most Americans realize that purging the language does not eradicate threats.</p>
<p>This awareness does not apply to the Administration, however, where the folly continues.</p>
<p><i>This article was commissioned by </i><a href="http://www.legal-project.org/"><i>The Legal Project</i></a><i>, an activity of the Middle East Forum.</i></p>
<p><i>Deborah Weiss, Esq. is a regular contributor to FrontPage Magazine and the Washington Times.  She is a contributing author of &#8220;Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network&#8221; (Palgrave MacMillan, 2011).  A partial listing of her work can be found at </i><a href="http://www.vigilancenow.org/"><i>www.vigilancenow.org.</i></a></p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/deborah-weiss/fort-hood-trial-dont-say-the-t-word/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>31</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>U.S. Praises Sharia Censorship</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/deborah-weiss/u-s-praises-sharia-censorship/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=u-s-praises-sharia-censorship</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/deborah-weiss/u-s-praises-sharia-censorship/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 04:20:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Deborah Weiss]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=190622</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Obama administration adds its weight to the criminalization of free speech.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/2012-634807128700938005-93.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-190639" alt="2012-634807128700938005-93" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/2012-634807128700938005-93.jpg" width="223" height="164" /></a>The United States is silent as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) passes its most recent UN Resolution that unravels global consensus to support freedom of speech.</p>
<p>From 1999-2010, the OIC succeeded in passing its “<a href="http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/HRC/resolutions/A_HRC_RES_7_19.pdf">defamations of religions</a>” <a href="http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/HRC/resolutions/A_HRC_RES_7_19.pdf">resolutions</a>, which ostensibly would protect Islam from all criticism, including true statements of fact.  Though the name of the resolutions indicated that it would pertain to all religions equally, in the OIC’s interpretation, it applied to Islam only.</p>
<p>Realizing the clash that this concept holds with that of free expression, the US State Department urged the OIC to produce an alternative resolution which would address the OIC’s concerns about “Islamophobia” and still protect free speech.</p>
<p>Accordingly, in March 2011, the OIC introduced the now infamous <a href="http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4db960f92.pdf">Resolution 16/18</a> to combat intolerance based on religion or belief, purportedly proposed as a replacement for the defamation of religions resolution.  It garnered wide-spread support and Western states touted it as a victory for free speech.  They believed that its focus marked a landmark shift from suppression of speech critical of religions to combating discrimination and violence against individuals based on their religious beliefs.</p>
<p>Over time it became clear that the OIC retained its long term goal to protect Islam from “defamation” and indeed to criminalize all speech that shed a negative light on Islam or Muslims.  Resolution 16/18 turned out to be a tactical move by the OIC to bring the West one step closer toward realizing its goal of achieving global blasphemy laws, by using language more palatable to the West, and open to interpretation.</p>
<p>Against this backdrop the US held the first conference to “implement” Resolution 16/18, the process now known as the “<a href="http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/rm/2011/178640.htm">Istanbul Process</a>.”</p>
<p>Unfortunately, America’s concern for the protection of free speech seems to have gotten lost as its focus moved closer to the OIC’s positions, and an emphasis was placed on protecting Muslims in the West from “Islamophobia.”</p>
<p>Some circles including free speech advocates, national security experts, and those concerned about the Persecuted Church, have beaten the drum against Resolution 16/18 and the continuation of the Istanbul Process.  Their efforts have been to no avail as the Istanbul Process continues.</p>
<p>However, while awareness of the perils of Resolution 16/18 is on the increase, news on Resolution <a href="http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/LTD/G13/122/68/PDF/G1312268.pdf?OpenElement">A/HRC/22/L.40</a> has gone virtually unreported.  It retains the same title as Resolution 16/18, but has glaringly dangerous amendments.</p>
<p>To focus on just one, it asserts that “terrorism…cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group.”  This is obviously problematic.  The lumping together of these categories implies a false equation of immutable characteristics such as nationality and ethnicity with those that are subject to choice such as religion or belief.</p>
<p>Religions and belief systems come in all stripes.  To preclude the possibility that any of them might be ideologically associated with terrorism leads to a position based on an unexplored assumption rather than a conclusion based on fact.  Indeed, the assertion condemns the mere exploration of the facts a priori, a notion which is not only illogical but dangerous.</p>
<p>After 9/11 and the multitude of terrorist attacks committed in the name of Islam, one ought to be able to raise legitimate questions about Jihadi ideology without being labeled a bigot. Government has an obligation to determine the motivational ideology of terrorism even if even if it turns out to be an interpretation of a religion.</p>
<p>The government should not get into the business of ascertaining what is or is not proper theological interpretations of any religion.  But a distinction has to be made between those who are truly practicing a religion as the word is understood in the West, versus those who are implementing a subversive political ideology cloaked in the language of religion.</p>
<p>Anyone who has conducted a good faith investigation knows that there is such a phenomenon as “Islamic terrorism.”  Only those in denial can claim otherwise.  Truth should never constitute prohibited speech, no matter how ugly reality might be.</p>
<p>The condemnation of honest discussion on this important matter, along with other disturbing speech restrictive clauses in Resolution L.40, demonstrates the unraveling of the “consensus” by nation states to promote freedom of expression.  Those who follow the OIC closely know that its allegiance to this concept was folly from the onset.  One need only take a cursory glance at the OIC countries to determine the disingenuousness of this portention, as many OIC countries fine, jail and even execute the exercise of speech deemed <a href="http://www.rationalistinternational.net/Shaikh/blasphemy_laws_in_pakistan.htm">blasphemous</a> to Islam.  For those less informed, nothing more than the language embodied in Resolution L.40 is needed to realize that the OIC’s commitment to free speech is a sham.</p>
<p>Subsequent to passage of Resolution L.40, the EU representative to the UN <a href="http://webtv.un.org/watch/ahrc22l-40-vote-item9-50th-meeting-22nd-regular-session-human-rights-council/2245193180001?utm_source=twitterfeed&amp;utm_medium=twitter">expressed unabashed concern</a> over the erosion of international consensus to support free speech.  He insisted that the EU will continue to uphold the ideas pertaining to the protection of minorities, but will oppose any efforts to undermine the right to free expression, including discussion of Islamic terrorism.</p>
<p>The US representative <a href="http://webtv.un.org/watch/ahrc22l-40-vote-item9-50th-meeting-22nd-regular-session-human-rights-council/2245193180001?utm_source=twitterfeed&amp;utm_medium=twitter">stated no such concern</a>. She failed to make a principled statement on America’s position regarding freedom of speech.  Instead, she lavished praise on the OIC for maintaining a “consensus” on Resolution 16/18 for three consecutive years.</p>
<p>The Obama Administration has erroneously characterized the <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/dramatic-video-shows-fort-hood-massacre-aftermath-article-1.1262031">Fort Hood attack</a> as mere “workplace violence”; has <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/sep/24/picket-muslim-advocacy-groups-influence-heavily-us/">cleansed from its national security</a> and counterterrorism lexicon any reference to Islamic terrorism, has <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/16/state-department-hasnt-ruled-out-role-anti-islam-video-in-libya-strike-sources/">blamed the Benghazi attacks</a> on the an “anti-Islam video” and has taken a lead role in the Istanbul Process, promising to use “<a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/07/168636.htm">peer pressure and shaming</a>” against American citizens who speak out on these issues in a way that the Administration finds disagreeable.</p>
<p>Therefore, it should have come as no surprise when after the Boston bombings, during a time of trial, tribulation and grief, the President’s address emphasized that people should prioritize America’s value of <a href="http://www.680news.com/2013/04/20/obamas-full-speech-following-bombing-suspect-arrest/">diversity</a>.  No doubt that this diversity of ideas includes the motivational ideology of Islamic terrorism, even though acknowledgment of its existence is now verboten.</p>
<p><em>This article was commissioned by the <a href="http://www.legal-project.org/">Legal Project</a>, an activity of the <a href="http://www.meforum.org/">Middle East Forum</a>.</em></p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/deborah-weiss/u-s-praises-sharia-censorship/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>30</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>OIC Ramps Up &#8216;Islamophobia&#8217; Campaign</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/deborah-weiss/oic-ramps-up-islamophobia-campaign/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=oic-ramps-up-islamophobia-campaign</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/deborah-weiss/oic-ramps-up-islamophobia-campaign/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2013 04:11:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Deborah Weiss]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blasphemy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hate Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Organization of Islamic Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=179276</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[International Islamic blasphemy codes move one step closer to being realized.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/deborah-weiss/oic-ramps-up-islamophobia-campaign/kaffash20130201102509687/" rel="attachment wp-att-179328"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-179328" title="kaffash20130201102509687" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/kaffash20130201102509687-450x332.jpg" alt="" width="288" height="213" /></a>The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has long been on the forefront of the Islamist mission to establish the equivalent of Islamic blasphemy laws in the West.  Now, during its 12<sup>th</sup> Islamic Summit held in Cairo February 7-8, 2013, the OIC set forth new and creative ways to silence, and ultimately criminalize criticism of Islam.</p>
<p>The OIC is a 57-member state organization that claims to represent 1.5 billion Muslims around the globe.  As the second largest international organization in the world, behind only the UN, and as the largest Islamic organization in the world, it is obviously quite powerful.  Though it is arguably the largest voting block in the UN, most people have never heard of it.</p>
<p>One of the OIC’s primary aims for at least the last fourteen years has been the international criminalization of speech that is critical of any Islam-related topic, including Islamic terrorism, Islamic persecution of religious minorities and human rights violations committed in the name of Islam.</p>
<p>Since 1999, the OIC has set forth UN resolutions that would “combat defamation of religions.”  These resolutions condemned criticism of religion, but in the OIC’s interpretation, it applied only to Islam.  True statements of fact constituted no exception.</p>
<p>Support for the resolutions declined once the United States and other Western countries caught wind of the true meaning of “defamation of religions” and its inevitable chilling effect on freedom of expression.</p>
<p>In 2011, at the State Department’s request, the OIC drafted an alternative resolution that was intended to retain freedom of expression and still address the OIC’s concerns about alleged Islamophobia.  The result was Resolution 16/18 to Combat Intolerance Based on Religion or Belief.</p>
<p>The US State Department and numerous Christian organizations were elated, believing that the OIC had abandoned its mission to protect Islam from so-called “defamation,” and instead replaced it with the goal of protecting persecuted religious minorities from discrimination and violence.  In other words, many assumed a paradigm shift away from providing legal protections to a religion and toward legal protections for people.</p>
<p>But the OIC had some very creative interpretations of the language embodied in the new resolution.  By its manipulation of words such as intolerance and incitement, giving new meanings to what many thought was plain English, the OIC made it clear that it had not dropped its ultimate goal of protecting Islam from “defamation.”</p>
<p>Almost immediately upon its passage and the passage of a similar resolution in the General Assembly, the OIC set out on the unconventional task of “implementing” Resolution 16/18, contrary to the norm of leaving UN resolutions in the realm of the theoretical.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the U.S. State Department acted as a willing accomplice in this effort, holding the second “Istanbul Conference” in December of 2011.  But, in its implementation phase, rather than moving toward the preservation of free expression, the OIC successfully moved the process in the opposite direction:  toward speech restrictive policies.</p>
<p>Though the U.S., thus far, has not pushed for the enactment of “hate speech” laws, it has “advocated for other measures to achieve the same result.”  Indeed, at this Administration’s behest, all national security training materials and policies “de-link” any interpretation of Islam from Islamic terrorism.  Many U.S. government agencies have now made it verboten to mention Islamic terrorism or assert anything negative about Islam.</p>
<p>The OIC’s task is easier in the EU countries, most of which already have some sort of hate speech restrictions.  They vary from country to country.  Some are cast as laws against the “denigration of religions”; some are “hate speech” laws; some are “public order” laws and some are “incitement to religious hatred” laws.  Additionally, the penalties can range from civil fines to jail time depending on the country.  The U.S. is the last hold out on retaining true freedom when it comes to matters of speech.</p>
<p>This past February, the OIC held an Islamic Summit, a high-level meeting held every three years.  It is the OIC’s largest meeting.  Heads of State and high ranking officials from member states attend.  The purpose of the meeting is to provide guidance pertinent to the realization of the objectives provided for in the OIC Charter and to consider other issues of importance to member states and the Islamic Ummah.  This year’s theme for the agenda was “The Muslim World:  New Challenges and Expanding Opportunities.”</p>
<p>Though the summit focused largely on Syria, Mali, and the “Palestinian issue,” the OIC also made it clear that it would ramp up its efforts to defeat “Islamophobia.”</p>
<p>The OIC is fastidiously working on the creation of legal instruments to address and combat “Islamophobia.”  Renewing its commitment to mobilize the West to comply with Islamic blasphemy laws, the OIC vowed to push for nation states to enact laws that will criminalize the “denigration of religions” during in its next Istanbul conference, anticipated to take place this June.</p>
<p>Further, it is requesting that the UN start an international mechanism that could serve as an “early warning system” against instances of discrimination and intolerance on religious grounds.  Specifically, the OIC is proposing the creation of an observatory at the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, presumably analogous to the Observatory on Islamophobia that the OIC already maintains.  The difference would be that the new observatory would be overseen by an internationally sanctioned entity (the UN) and would expand to all religions.</p>
<p>It is fair to say that since Islamist organizations have coordinated campaigns across the world that encourage and solicit reports of either real, feigned, staged or imagined incidents of “Islamophobia,” the new “empirical data” that such an observatory would collect, would still be drastically skewed.  No other religion has a worldwide campaign instructing its members to report unpleasant truths as “bigotry” or to complain about slights as minor as “hostile looks.”</p>
<p>Additionally, the OIC is continuing to use the language embodied in pre-existing legal instruments in order to make it harder for Western countries to object.  For example, Resolution 16/18 mirrors some of the language in the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).  ICCPR, Article 20 states “the advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”  The U.S. rightly signed a reservation to this clause, effectively opting out, insisting that Americans retain the right to exercise their First Amendment freedom of speech.</p>
<p>Further, though Article 20 makes such speech illegal, it leaves the definition of these terms open to interpretation and does not specify that the illegality must be criminal in nature.  Despite this, Rizwan Saeed Sheikh, spokesman for the OIC Secretary General, insists that pursuant to Article 20 the “denigration of symbols or persons sacred to any religion is a criminal offense.”</p>
<p>Such claims are indicative of the legal and linguistic gymnastics that the OIC will use to achieve its goal to “combat defamation of Islam” and to export Islamic blasphemy laws, labeling them as something aesthetically easier to swallow.</p>
<p>At the Summit, OIC members also unanimously elected Iyad Madani to the post of OIC Secretary General.  His term is to commence in 2014 when current Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu’s term expires.  This is the first time that the OIC will be headed by a Saudi.</p>
<p>Though the current OIC regime is comprised of sticklers for Islamic blasphemy laws and staunch advocates for the obliteration of Israel, it is likely that the OIC will become even more extreme under Madani.  Compared to the Wahabbis in Saudi Arabia, Ihsanoglu and gang can be considered reformers pushing “Islam lite.” The election of a former Saudi Minister to head the largest Islamic organization in the world and lead the UN’s most powerful voting bloc is a bad omen of what’s to come.  Indeed, it would come as no surprise if under its new leadership, the OIC’s old leadership would be labeled “Islamophobic.”</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/deborah-weiss/oic-ramps-up-islamophobia-campaign/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>31</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CAIR’s Thought Police: At It Again</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/deborah-weiss/cairs-thought-police-are-at-it-again/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=cairs-thought-police-are-at-it-again</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/deborah-weiss/cairs-thought-police-are-at-it-again/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2013 04:30:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Deborah Weiss]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAIR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Censorship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ibrahim Hooper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[islamist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[journalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[language]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=173075</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ibrahim Hooper embarks on a jihad to delete the word “Islamist” from our vocabulary. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/deborah-weiss/cairs-thought-police-are-at-it-again/img_0183-2/" rel="attachment wp-att-173095"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-173095" title="img_0183" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/img_01831-450x300.jpg" alt="" width="270" height="180" /></a>The thought police over at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are <a href="http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=95acjidab&amp;v=001QYDB14zrJ48hFETA_tXnL3JM2j337qJlLdkIFZ-_j1v4wc05FggKbICK6LXmZzjNl9doLEIXqqAheLMIONkWOCuOgxWqAgqTr68wr13jfADRAW0lfi61VVXaAulFlsaxGliDF7zGfLp2Lxz5EqdBY3CJKHIYAifEhot04IIZ-rdL7K8KUQooVg%3D%3D">urging</a> journalists to delete the word “Islamist” from their lexicon.  Though CAIR claims that the word stems out of bigotry, CAIR’s real agenda is to protect Islam &#8212; and Islamists &#8212; from so-called “defamation.”</p>
<p>The Associated Press Style Book is a guide for journalists which lays out rules for spelling, punctuation, and other guidelines.  In its most recent edition, it added the word “Islamist,” which it defines as: “Islamist: supporter of government in accord with the laws of Islam.  Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.”  Generally, the word “Islamist” is used to distinguish those who want to practice Islam as a spiritual faith, as opposed to those who interpret it and apply it as a political ideology.  Those in the latter category desire the merging of mosque and state.</p>
<p>On January 3, 2012, Ibrahim Hooper, national spokesperson for CAIR, published a column suggesting that in the New Year journalists should refrain from using the word “Islamist.”</p>
<p>He complains that news reports unfairly focus on Islamists and notes that there are no news reports of “Christianist,” “Hinduist,” or “Judaist” political leaders.  He further insists that the word “Islamist” is used almost always “pejoratively” by “Islamophobic groups and individuals” who link the word to terrorism, persecution of religious minorities, and human rights violations committed in the name of Islam.  Hooper whines that such “bigoted attacks” unfairly target Islam because they are not equally hurled at other faiths.</p>
<p>Hooper goes on to claim that often the word “Islamist” is used by “Islam-bashers” who “disingenuously” claim to hate political Islam, though deep in their hearts they hate all Islam.  As proof of his assertion, he accuses the alleged Islamophobes of failing to explain how a practicing Muslim can be politically active without attracting the label “Islamist.”  After all, he writes, Muslims who wish to serve the “public good” and are merely “influenced” by their faith are slapped with the label “Islamist.”  He professes that they just want to work for the “welfare of humanity and to be honest and just,” and if that same inspiration had eminated from the Bible instead of the Quran, they’d be deemed “good Samaritans.”</p>
<p>However, Hooper allows one exception for when use of the word “Islamist” is acceptable, and that is when it is used by Islamists themselves.</p>
<p>And therein lies the rub.  It’s not really the word to which Hooper is objecting.  It is the negative connotation which serves to “defame Islam.”  In the eyes of CAIR and other Islamist organizations, anything that sheds a negative light on Islam or Muslims constitutes “defamation,” even if it’s true. This is a definition at odds with that in the American legal system which requires defamation to consist of a false statement of fact.</p>
<p><strong>So the real agenda of CAIR and its ilk is not to stop “bigotry” against Islam or Muslims, but to whitewash and obfuscate the truth and propagate a disinformation campaign about, yes, Islamist terrorism, Islamist persecution of religious minorities and Islamist human rights violations, all of which are done in furtherance of the ultimate goal of Islamist Supremacy.</strong></p>
<p>The word “Islamist” has negative connotations because the underlying idea that the word represents is negative in the minds of freedom loving people.  Any cosmetic word change that carries the same meaning will eventually attach a negative connotation as well.</p>
<p>The real issue here is not to let the Islamist thought police like CAIR remove the arsenal of words from the English language in service of undermining the War on Terror.  Words have meaning and it is critical that we accurately use them to identify our enemies.  By placating CAIR’s demands, we tie one hand behind our backs in defending freedom.</p>
<p>Hooper conflates those whose values come from their religious faith and practice it within a constitutional framework, with those who use their faith to undermine constitutional freedoms. The reason news reports don’t contain allegations of Christianist, Hinduist and Judaist politicians is because there are no analogous political movements cloaked in the language of other faiths which seek to subvert the government and replace it with so-called “religious” institutions to be dominated by a monolith.</p>
<p>Though it isn’t incumbent on reporters to explain to the likes of CAIR how a Muslim can be influenced by his faith without being labeled “Islamist,” for Hooper’s benefit, it is laid out here:</p>
<p>1. Consider Islam a spiritual practice and not a political ideology to be imposed on others.</p>
<p>2. Do not work toward the merging of mosque and state.</p>
<p>3. Don’t demand that infidels comply with Islamic laws.</p>
<p>4. Support equality under the law between Muslims and non-Muslims, and between men and women.</p>
<p>5. Support freedom and refrain from advocating for anti-Constitutional measures such as restrictions on freedom of speech or special preferences in the workplace not afforded to those of other faiths.</p>
<p>6. Stop supporting terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah and start supporting national security measures that will protect American citizens from terrorist attacks including terrorist attacks by Muslims.</p>
<p>Muslims who can’t practice their version of Islam without violating these rules, accurately warrant the label “Islamist.”</p>
<p>It makes sense that Hooper would object to the negative connotations inherent in the word “Islamist” since the organization he represents qualifies for that label.  CAIR has close connections to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.  It was an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror-financing trial in the history of the United States.  Several of its former leaders sit in jail on terrorism-related convictions.  And, its current leadership is well known to be empathetic to Hamas and Hezbollah, both State-designated terrorist organizations which seek the obliteration of the State of Israel.</p>
<p>CAIR serves as an apologist for what is commonly called “creeping Sharia.”  It opposes every free speech stance that might be deemed anti-Islamic even if it’s true. CAIR has also opposed every national security measure that would protect American citizens from Islamist terrorism.</p>
<p>During the meetings from which CAIR sprung into existence, its founders proudly referred to themselves as Islamists.  They fully believe in and support the ultimate vision of a worldwide Sharia State, where Islam reigns supreme over all other religions.</p>
<p>But, whether the term is spoken by those who favor or abhor its meaning, an Islamist by any other name is still an Islamist.  Journalists have a duty to report the truth even when, and perhaps especially when, the subjects of the information find it offensive.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/deborah-weiss/cairs-thought-police-are-at-it-again/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>36</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>E-Tracking Saudi Women</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/deborah-weiss/e-tracking-saudi-women/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=e-tracking-saudi-women</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/deborah-weiss/e-tracking-saudi-women/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2012 04:45:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Deborah Weiss]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[apartheid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Deborah Weiss]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[E-Tracking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[electronic detection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPageMag.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[islamic gender apartheid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jihad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[koran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saudi Arabia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[saudi women]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=170455</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What’s next, doggie shock collars for wives?]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/deborah-weiss/e-tracking-saudi-women/women_saudi/" rel="attachment wp-att-170457"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-170457" title="women_saudi" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/women_saudi-450x299.jpg" alt="" width="270" height="179" /></a>Saudi men are now receiving automatic text messages from the government whenever their wives exit the country.  It is part of a new program to electronically track women and ensure that they don’t leave the country without permission from their male “guardians”.  The response from liberal feminists in the West?  Silence.</p>
<p>Saudi Arabia constitutes one of the most oppressive regimes in modern day history.  It is known for its notorious human rights violations such as public beheadings, its extreme persecution of religious minorities, and its policies of gender apartheid, all of which are based on its stringent interpretation of Islamic law, or Sharia.</p>
<p>Already, the law requires that women be covered from head to toe in burkas when in public, that unrelated men and women cannot mingle, and that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s.  In divorce, child custody goes automatically to the man.  Inheritance laws favor sons over daughters.  The list goes on and on.  In short, women are treated as little more than chattel.</p>
<p>But this isn’t enough for the Saudi government.  So, recently, it implemented a practice whereby a male “guardian” is notified with a text message every time his wife or daughter leaves the country.</p>
<p>It has always been the case in Saudi Arabia that women, all of whom are referred to as “dependents”, (along with children and foreign workers employed by individuals), must obtain written permission from a male relative or other male guardian before being able to work, attend university, obtain necessary medical procedures or leave the country.</p>
<p>In 2010, the Ministry of the Interior implemented several initiatives to “update” the “efficiency” of the guardianship program, making it easier for guardians to authorize a dependent’s departure by, for example, allowing men to fill out permission forms online rather than producing the paperwork in person.</p>
<p>Additionally, men had the choice of opting into a program whereby they would be notified whenever their “dependents” crossed the country’s borders.</p>
<p>But in recent weeks, this notification program has been changed to automatically send text messages to men even when they did not sign up for the program.  Thus, all male guardians in Saudi Arabia now receive a text message when their wives or daughters cross the border, even if he happens to be travelling alongside her.</p>
<p>The change in policy was prompted by an incident where a 28-year-old woman used falsified documents to escape Saudi Arabia.  Reportedly, she had converted from Islam to Christianity, a capital offense under Sharia law.  She fled to Sweden, presumably to evade punishment.  Subsequently, the Saudi government made SMS notification official policy rather than elective.</p>
<p>One husband, who had been notified of his wife’s border crossing as he accompanied her, was alarmed by the notification.  He alerted al-Sharif, a women’s rights activist, of the new policy.</p>
<p>Al-Sharif became famous, or infamous, depending on one’s viewpoint, when she uploaded a YouTube video of herself defying the government’s prohibition on women’s driving.  Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that prohibits women from driving.  Last year, numerous Saudi women, who defied this ban, including Al-Sharif, were arrested and jailed.  Al-Sharif was subsequently released on bail, so long as she promised not to drive again or speak to the media.</p>
<p>Upon learning about the government’s e-tracking of women, she sent out tweets with the news, which were met with outrage from both men and women in Saudi Arabia.  Reply tweets made proclamations like, “[H]ello Taliban, here with some tips from the Saudi e-government” and “[W]hy don’t we just install a microchip into our women to track them around?”</p>
<p>Instead of making the guardianship system hi-tech, Saudi Arabia should be phasing it out.</p>
<p>It’s ironic that one of the richest, most technologically advanced countries in the world is using technology to ensure that its human rights, morality, and treatment of women does not progress past that of the 7<sup>th</sup> century.  The more advanced technology gets, the more backward and controlling of women becomes Saudi Arabia.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, feminists in the West, especially in America, don’t realize how good they have it.</p>
<p>There are constant cries of “sexism” or accusations of male patriarchy every time a man compliments a women’s legs (“objectifies” her),  or an older boss innocuously puts his hand on an employee’s shoulder (“sexually harasses” her), or a man provides his wife with an opportunity to be a stay-at-home mother (“devalues” her).</p>
<p>Some men are afraid to open doors for women or pay for them on dates out of fear of “insulting” today’s “emancipated” women.  And supervisors may go overboard in censoring the workplace out of fear of being slapped with a sexual harassment lawsuit.</p>
<p>Yes, feminists in the West have made themselves clear:  treat them like men or they don’t consider themselves equal.</p>
<p>Yet, women in Saudi Arabia are legally infantilized by the guardianship system in Saudi Arabia and treated as less than second class citizens in most of the Islamic world.  Real human rights for women just plain do not exist under Sharia law.</p>
<p>It is true that the Sharia does not directly address text messages or driving.  However, the humiliation, excessive control of women, their subjugation and general deprivation of freedom as manifested in policies such as airport e-monitoring, certainly derive from the gender inequality based in Islamic law.</p>
<p>Yet, the technological advancement used to tighten control of women even further produces not a peep from the Gloria Steinem’s of the West.  Though Saudi feminists are outraged, when it comes to true sexism based in Islamist ideology and culture, liberal feminists in the West are, as usual, silent.  Mum’s the word.</p>
<p><strong>Editor&#8217;s note: To get the whole story on why leftist feminists turn a blind eye to the vicious persecution of Muslim women under Islamic gender apartheid, read Dr. Jamie Glazov&#8217;s critically acclaimed book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/United-Hate-Romance-Tyranny-Terror/dp/1935071602/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1356031519&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=united+in+hate"><em>United in Hate: The Left&#8217;s Romance With Tyranny and Terror</em></a>.</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/deborah-weiss/e-tracking-saudi-women/united-75/" rel="attachment wp-att-170460"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-170460" title="united" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/united1.jpg" alt="" width="450" height="300" /></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/deborah-weiss/e-tracking-saudi-women/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>22</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>When Class Envy Kills</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/deborah-weiss/when-class-envy-kills/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=when-class-envy-kills</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/deborah-weiss/when-class-envy-kills/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2012 04:19:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Deborah Weiss]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joselyn Ortega]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Killed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MANHATTAN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marina Krim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nanny]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=166803</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[New details suggest a chilling motive behind a Manhattan nanny's murder of two children. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/deborah-weiss/when-class-envy-kills/lulu-krim-leo-krim2/" rel="attachment wp-att-166916"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-166916" title="lulu-krim-leo-krim2" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/lulu-krim-leo-krim2.jpg" alt="" width="294" height="221" /></a>A devoted mother of three on Manhattan’s posh Upper West Side, came home one evening to find that two of her beloved children suffered a gruesome murder by the family’s trusted nanny.  Emerging facts indicate that class envy may have been the motive.</p>
<p>On Thursday, October 25, 2012, Marina Krim took her 3 year old daughter Nessie to a swimming lesson.  The nanny, Joselyn Ortega (age 50), was supposed to meet them at a dance studio afterwards with Marina’s two other children, Lulu, age 6, and Leo, age 2.</p>
<p>When they didn’t show up, Marina became worried and returned to the apartment.  She went upstairs and found the apartment dark.  She then headed back down to the lobby where she asked the doorman if the nanny had left the building with the children.  He replied that they had remained in the apartment all day.</p>
<p>Marina returned to the apartment, turned on the lights and found nobody in the living room or the bedrooms.  Finally, she turned on the bathroom light to discover the most horrific sight imaginable to a mother: her two children had been stabbed to death, apparently by the nanny.  Both were lying in the bathtub, fully dressed, and drenched in a pool of blood.  Lulu suffered slashes around her neck, multiple stabs to her stomach and defensive wounds to her arms, indicating that the 6 year old had attempted to stave off the knife.  Leo, who had only recently had his second birthday, had two slashes across his throat.  Police Commissioner Ray Kelly asserted that the nanny started slitting her own throat when she heard the mother enter the bathroom.</p>
<p>The children’s mother yelled out bloodcurdling screams, prompting the neighbors to call 911.  Ironically, she still took a towel to stop the blood flow from the nanny’s neck, likely saving her life.</p>
<p>An ambulance came and took both children on a single stretcher to the hospital where they were pronounced dead on arrival.  The nanny, unconscious by the time the ambulance arrived, was taken to New York Presbyterian/Weill-Cornell Medical Center where she was admitted in critical condition.  She had puncture wounds to her neck vertebrae, was put into a medically induced coma and placed on tubation.</p>
<p>Marina grabbed her only surviving child and continued screaming uncontrollably.  Neighbors state that she could be heard half way down the street.  Witnesses sympathetically attest that Marina was hysterical and not lucid, except when she requested a physician.  She and her 3 year old had a sheet placed over their heads so that little Nessie would not absorb the magnitude of the situation, attendant with police and crowds. They were whisked away to St. Luke’s hospital where Marina was sedated.</p>
<p>Marina Krim’s whole life revolved around children.  She had been a stay-at-home mom for four years until she decided to return to her day job as a pediatrician.  On weekends, she taught art classes to little children.  She also kept a blog called “Life with the Krim kids”.  It was filled with hundreds of photos showing the joys of motherhood and the loving relationship that her children had with each other.  Some brothers and sisters exhibit sibling rivalry, but the Krim kids were always hugging, snuggling up with each other and playing together.  Photos showed them strolling through Central Park, chomping on Gray’s Papaya hotdogs, and enjoying ice cream with their friends.  It wasn’t difficult to detect Marina’s strong bond with her children as her blog gushed love and admiration at every entry.</p>
<p>The final post, entered three hours prior to the murders, read:  “[M]y favorite part of the day is after I drop the two girls off at school and get to spend three whole hours alone with my son.  I know, I’m getting darn near cheesy, I adore him so much.&#8221;</p>
<p>Kevin Krim, the father, is the General Manager of CNBC’s Digital Media Division.  At the time of the double murder, he was flying home from a business trip.  He was met at the airport by the police, who informed him of what had transpired, and escorted him directly to the hospital to see his wife.</p>
<p>Afterwards, the family stayed at a hotel for a time and then with family members.  Marina can’t bring herself to return to the apartment, even to pack up her belongings.  She proclaimed that she never wants to go back and does not want the worldly possessions she left behind.</p>
<p>The Krim residence is a 3-bedroom apartment in a prewar doorman building on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.  It’s in an ideal neighborhood:  walking distance to Central Park, Lincoln Center, and the Museum of Natural History.  It has numerous restaurants and quaint shops, and is one subway stop away from the Broadway theatre district.  Similar apartments in their building are on the market for $10,000 per month.</p>
<p>The nanny, Joselyn Ortega, hales from the Dominican Republic, and has been a naturalized US citizen for twelve years.  She had been recommended to Marina by a friend two years ago.  The Krims did everything they could to thoroughly vet her.  They even visited Joselyn’s family abroad for nine days prior to hiring her.</p>
<p>At first, they all got along great.  Marina treated Joselyn like family.</p>
<p>But Joselyn had been suffering financial problems recently.  The sublet in the Bronx where Joselyn and her son resided had expired, and they were forced to move into a Harlem apartment with Joselyn’s sister and niece.  Rumor has it that Joselyn was in debt, despite the fact that the Krims paid her well.  Having been made aware of her troubles, the Krims tried to help.  They offered Jocelyn five additional hours of light housework per week to help her earn additional money.  They also paid for her round trip airfare to the Dominican Republic so she could visit her family.  They even arranged an interview for her as a part-time baby-sitter with another family.  However, the family declined to hire her, explaining that her demeanor was too grumpy.</p>
<p>Initially, police had no clue as to what could possibly have been the motive for Jocelyn to engage in this unspeakable crime.  She had no criminal record, left no note, and no evidence was found in her home.</p>
<p>But upon her return to consciousness, tidbits of information began dribbling in.  According to Joselyn’s peers, Joselyn resented her employers for living a life that she perceived as luxury, while she struggled to pay her bills.</p>
<p>Reportedly, there was recent tension between her and the Krim family and Joselyn didn’t like “being told what to do”.  Instead of being grateful that they did so much to try to help her, she griped about doing housework, quipping that she’s not a maid, but a nanny, which apparently she thought was more dignified.  Her financial situation was taking its toll.  Joselyn had been loosing sleep, weight, and her relatives took her to visit a psychologist.  Joselyn’s mood had changed and the Krims told her that if her work performance didn’t improve, they might have to let her go.</p>
<p>After Joselyn awoke from her coma, she immediately lawyered up.  She inquired about how her own family was doing, but never once asked about or mentioned the Krim family.  To date, reports indicate that she has shown no remorse for stealing the lives of the two children who were left in her care.</p>
<p>Those who knew Joselyn are indicating that class envy drove Jocelyn to commit her heinous acts.  Her apparent notions of entitlement and fairness echo those on the left who perceive that life is supposed to result in financially equal outcomes for all.</p>
<p>But life isn’t just about money.  Everyone is dealt a different hand in all regards.  Some people are blessed with beauty, brains, or a loving family.  Others suffer the hardships of physical disability, or come from abusive or drug-addicted homes.  And, it is only through an accident of birth that some are born into freedom while others are born into politically tyrannical countries.</p>
<p>Those who understand at an early age that life isn’t fair and accept it, have a chance of growing up as well adjusted adults to have the best lives they can with whatever assets or attributes they’ve been given.</p>
<p>Others, forever the victims, demand that society meet their every need.  But as the famous author, Thomas Sowell noted, “social justice” is an illusion, impossible to attain.  Additionally, the premise that money cures all ills is patently false.</p>
<p>The Krims worked hard for their money, and appear to have been generous with it.  But they know first hand that all the material riches of this world cannot cure the pain or fill the void caused by the brutal and senseless murder of their two young children.</p>
<p>Joselyn Ortega was reportedly a religious Catholic.  In Catholicism, envy is deemed one of the Seven Deadly Sins.  They are often described as “capital sins” because they engender the commission of further sins.  And sometimes, as in Joselyn’s case, class envy kills.</p>
<p>This holiday season please keep the Krim family in your prayers. And remember, the greatest gifts in life cannot be bought.  RIP sweet Lulu and Leo.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/deborah-weiss/when-class-envy-kills/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>73</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The War Against Free Speech Rages On</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/deborah-weiss/the-war-against-free-speech-rages-on/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-war-against-free-speech-rages-on</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/deborah-weiss/the-war-against-free-speech-rages-on/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2012 04:32:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Deborah Weiss]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Film]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jihadists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=149149</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks to Obama, thousands of Muslims descend upon Google.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/deborah-weiss/the-war-against-free-speech-rages-on/war-5/" rel="attachment wp-att-149196"><img class=" wp-image-149196 alignleft" title="war" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/war-450x292.jpg" alt="" width="315" height="204" /></a>The Obama administration conveniently scapegoated a short, anti-Islam video for the murderous attacks on the US consulate on September 11, 2012.  Now that the State Department has confessed its knowledge that Benghazi was the result of a pre-planned terrorist attack, many in both the mainstream and conservative media are asserting that it’s obvious nobody would really have responded to a silly 14-minute YouTube clip with mass protests.  Not so fast.  In fact, the administration’s relentless condemnation of the video’s content, even after the Benghazi facts have been established, may have given license for many Muslims in the West to do the same.</p>
<p>On Sunday, October 14, 2012, thousands of Muslims stormed the London Headquarters of Google, the parent company of YouTube.  They were protesting the notorious anti-Islam video clip, titled “Innocence of Muslims,” a 14-minute, amateurish, low-budget trailer that portrays Mohammad in a negative light.  The video had been falsely blamed by administration officials for the murders of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other US diplomats in Benghazi, Libya.</p>
<p>Barricades were erected around the building, and numerous streets in England’s capital were blocked off near the Queen’s palace.  Those in protest were demanding that YouTube pull down the video.</p>
<p>The Muslim Action Forum organized the event and approximately 800 imams from mosques across the UK assisted.  Muslims from Manchester, Blackburn, and Luton<strong> </strong>attended.  Others came from as far away as Glasgow.</p>
<p>The Birmingham Mosque told its attendees that it was important to attend the event in honor of the Prophet, and warned participants to refrain from violence in order to prove to the world that Islam is a religion of peace.  The mosque provided buses to transport crowds to the event.</p>
<p>Though police reported that only approximately 3000 people attended, the Muslim Action Forum insists that attendance was closer to 10,000.  At a glance, the irate mob appeared to consist primarily of men, but in fact, a smaller gathering of women joined them, as is often the case, in the back of the crowd.  They were fully covered from head to toe in hijabs and chadors.</p>
<p>The name of the campaign was “The Campaign for Global Civility.”  Demonstrators carried signs that demanded civility from others, even as they intimidated those with whom they disagreed.  Others signs proclaimed “Islam is a religion of peace,” even as an implied threat of violence filled the air.  And some even had the audacity to wave signs that read, “Prophet Muhammad is the founder of freedom of speech” despite the fact that the entire purpose of the protest was to shut people up.  Additional signs read that “Google is a worldwide terrorist” and “[H]ow dare you insult the blessed Prophet.”</p>
<p>Protest organizer, Masoud Alam, asserted that the goal of the demonstration was to have the anti-Islam YouTube clip banned worldwide.  The video has been blocked by Google in a few countries where prohibited by law, such as Saudi Arabia, and a handful of governments in other countries removed the video when Google refused.  However, it remains posted throughout the West and in numerous other regions. Alam<strong> </strong>made it clear that the protests would continue until demonstrators get their way.  There would be a zero tolerance for dissent.</p>
<p>Indeed, the protest in London was the third held this month in the here-to-fore Free World.  The Muslim Action Forum plans to hold protests at Google offices around the globe, including a “Million Muslim March” anticipated to be held in the next few weeks.</p>
<p>Masoud Alam proclaims that he’s merely seeking “civility” and Alam Ghulam Rabbini, a Sufi cleric, explains that Google should not have the right to “hurt the feelings of 1.5 billion Muslims.”  But the real goal of the protests is to stifle all criticism of Islam in a way that parallels Islamic blasphemy laws.  In fact, Alam states that he believes “YouTube and its parent company, Google, continue to share Islamophobic material and continue to incite racial hatred” and admits that “[T]his insult of the Prophet will not be allowed.”</p>
<p>Clearly, if the video is taken down, it will not end the demonstrations, but only serve to further embolden those who seek to stifle free speech in the name of Islam.</p>
<p>And, in accordance with the Muslim Brotherhood mandate to sabotage the West from within, <em>using their own hands</em> (emphasis added), the Muslim Action Forum hopes to create a coalition of dhimmis, including Christians, Jews and conservatives to join their ranks for the cause of civility.  Never mind that the bridge of civility flows in only one direction, with complete disregard for the daily diet of anti-Semitism fed through Arab media, and the persecution of Christians spread pervasively throughout Muslim lands.</p>
<p>So far, Google has stood firm.  First, it refused to remove the video clip in response to the administration’s “inquiry” to determine if the clip violated YouTube’s terms and conditions, and now it stands strong in its response to thousands of angry Muslims who want to protect Islam from so-called “defamation.”</p>
<p>And, while Team Obama continues to denounce the content of this film, “shaming” those who espouse a different viewpoint, the President’s actions amount to yet another policy of appeasement.  Fighting negative stereotypes of Islam wherever he finds them, as he promised to do in his speech at Cairo, the President is giving a green light to those who want to do the same by other means.</p>
<p>The real job of the President of the United States it to stand on principle and fight for the rights enshrined in the Constitution…. including the right to freedom of speech.  Google executives have it right.  They have asserted that the company “has very clear views on this issue.  We believe the answer to bad speech is more speech.”</p>
<p>In the context of other wars, the President has stated that he wants to “lead from behind.”  However, in the War against Free Speech, he’s ahead of the pack.</p>
<p><em>Please drop a note of support to Google executives to stand on principle as the pressure mounts in the coming weeks:</em></p>
<p><em>Google UK, Ltd.                                 Larry Page, CEO<br />
Belgrave House                                   Google Headquarters<br />
76 Buckingham Palace Road</em>              <em>1600 Amphitheatre Parkway<br />
London</em><em>, UK, SW1W9TQ                    Mountain View, CA 94043</em></p>
<p><em><br />
</em></p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
<p><em><br />
</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/deborah-weiss/the-war-against-free-speech-rages-on/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>37</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 1365/1434 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 06:15:44 by W3 Total Cache -->