Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Muslim Leaders Want To Turn US Into A Muslim Country

Many people with a desire  not appear Islamophobic will do anything to avoid the facts. They will ignore  any information, any testimony or any individual who produces contrary data.  It is the old 'head buried deeply in the sand'  syndrome.   We are not in that camp.

We DO NOT HATE ANYONE and we do don't hate Muslims but that does not mean we have to ignore what we see, what Europe is experiencing and what everyday Muslims have to live with.

Hear directly from a US Imam as to what their goals are, his views are contained in the following link. Check it out.

Conservative Tom


http://www.supportisraelnow.com/2016/03/05/top-us-muslim-imam-i-promise-this-country-will-become-a-muslim-country/

Muslim Teacher Calls For Murder Of Jews

Texas Pre-School Teacher Removed From Classroom After Twitter Calls to ‘Kill Some Jews’ Come to Light

avatarby Lea Speyer

Nancy Salem. Photo: Facebook.
Nancy Salem. Photo: Facebook.
A pre-school teacher in Texas has been suspended from the classroom pending an investigation into her encouraging social media followers to “kill some Jews,” The Algemeiner has learned.
Nancy Salem, who teaches at The Children’s Courtyard in South Arlington, as The Algemeiner first reported, was among 24 anti-Israel activists at the University of Texas, Arlington (UTA), exposed by covert campus watchdog group Canary Mission for expressing racist and violent thoughts online.
Salem — a member of the UTA chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine and a supporter of the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement — used her now-disabled Twitter account to post such remarks as: “How many Jews died in the Holocaust? Not enough…HAHAHAHA.”

FEBRUARY 22, 2017 10:57 AM
0

Australia’s PM Criticizes UN’s ‘One-Sided Resolutions’ Against Israel

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull offered a staunch defense of Israel on Wednesday, criticizing the United Nations and vowing never...
Since Canary Mission’s exposure of Salem’s social media behavior, the Children’s Courtyard’s Facebook page has been flooded with comments criticizing the institution and calling on parents to remove their children from the school. 
In response, the school stated, “Our senior management team is working to address this matter. This in no way reflects the views of The Children’s Courtyard. We strive to provide an inclusive environment for all children, families and staff members. We also expect our employees to uphold standards of personal and professional conduct.”
The Algemeiner was unable to reach Salem for comment, as she has closed her social media pages and the school declined to share her contact information.
— Rachel Frommer contributed to this report.

A Definition Of Illegal Aliens That Clearly Makes The Point

Image may contain: text

Universities Used To Be Free Speech Havens--No Longer

FIRE Lists Ten Colleges With the Worst Free Speech Issues

Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images
FEBRUARY 22, 2017
153620 Comments2168
Greg Lukianoff, the CEO and President of the Foundation for Individual 
Rights in Education (FIRE), released a list of the ten worst colleges for
free speech in 2017
FIRE is a legal advocacy group that aims to defend due process, religious
liberty, and the First Amendment on college campuses. Its staff consists of
 individuals across the political spectrum who are dedicated to protecting
 students' constitutional rights.
VIDEO QuickTake: University Endowments Under Fire

Below is FIRE's list of the ten worst purveyors of speech suppression, including
some excerpts of Lukianoff's explanation of why FIRE assigned them their
unenviable ranking. 
1. Northern Michigan University
Any list of schools that most shocked the conscience with their censorship in the past year would have to include Northern Michigan University (NMU). Until last year, NMU had a long-standing practice of prohibiting students suspected of engaging in or considering self-harm from discussing “suicidal or self-destructive thoughts or actions” with other students. If they did, they faced the threat of disciplinary action.
After FIRE brought this information to a national stage, causing a social media firestorm, NMU hastily distanced itself from the practice and publicly committed not to punish students for discussing thoughts of self-harm.
2. California State University, Los Angeles
Last February, conservative author and political commentator Ben Shapiro was scheduled to speak at California State University, Los Angeles (CSULA) at the invitation of a student chapter of Young America’s Foundation. After students threatened to protest Shapiro’s speech, CSULA demanded that the students hosting the event pay the cost of security because the appearance was “controversial.” The students objected, but it didn’t matter; CSULA President William Covino unilaterally canceled Shapiro’s speech, claiming he could appear at some future date if accompanied by a panel of speakers who disagree with him.
3. Fordham University
On November 17, the Fordham United Student Government (USG) Senate and Executive Board approved a prospective Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapter. Dean of Students Keith Eldredge informed SJP’s members that he wanted to review the group’s status before it could be granted official recognition, and then chose to overrule the USG and deny SJP’s recognition on December 22. Eldredge wrote that he “cannot support an organization whose sole purpose is advocating political goals of a specific group, and against a specific country” and that “the Israeli-Palestinian conflict … often leads to polarization rather than dialogue.”
On January 25, FIRE and the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) sent a letter to Fordham demanding the university recognize SJP and noting that its reasons for rejecting SJP fail to align with the university’s stated commitments to free expression. In its response to FIRE, Fordham doubled down on its rejection of SJP and offered a new baseless justification: that members of SJP chapters at other universities had engaged in conduct that would violate Fordham’s code of conduct.
4. University of Oregon
The University of Oregon’s (UO’s) Bias Response Team (BRT), and its response to a professor’s off-campus Halloween costume, earned it a spot on this year’s list.
UO’s BRT, which responds to student complaints about offensive (yet protected) speech, found itself embroiled in public controversy last spring and then tried to hide its records from public scrutiny. Criticism arose when the BRT’s annual reports surfaced, revealing that the BRT had intervened with the student newspaper because of a complaint that it “gave less press coverage to trans students and students of color.” In another instance, UO dispatched a case manager to dictate “community standards and expectations to” students who had the audacity to express “anger about oppression.”
5. California State University, Long Beach
This fall, California State University, Long Beach (CSULB) administrators betrayed First Amendment principles when they closed the curtain on a scheduled campus performance of the satirical play N*GGER WETB*CK CH*NK (N*W*C*).
The university canceled the September 29 performance due to its apparent opposition to the play’s deliberately provocative content. N*W*C* is performed by Asian-American, Hispanic-American, and African-American actors who share personal narratives about how the construct of race shapes personal identity while also mocking stereotypes and racial slurs that perpetuate social injustice.
6. Harvard University
Last May, Harvard President Drew Gilpin Faust and Dean Rakesh Khurana announced their plan to blacklist members of off-campus single-gender organizations, including fraternities, sororities, and Harvard-specific “final clubs.” Students determined to be members of these organizations would be banned from leadership positions on sports teams and official student organizations, and barred from receiving recommendations from the Dean’s Office for Rhodes and Marshall scholarships.
While not a straightforward “free speech” violation, Harvard’s actions so severely violate the correlated right to freedom of association that the university deserves inclusion on this list.
7. University of Southern California
What lesson did students at the University of South Carolina (USC) learn in 2016? Even when you do everything you can to avoid getting in trouble for potentially controversial speech on campus, trouble may still find you.
Last February, USC student Ross Abbott and the campus chapters of Young Americans for Liberty and the College Libertarians filed a First Amendment lawsuit with FIRE’s assistance after Abbott was investigated for a free speech event for which the groups received prior approval.
8. Williams College
Last February, Williams President Adam Falk took what even he described as an “extraordinary step” when he unilaterally disinvited author and conservative commentator John Derbyshire, a polarizing figure for his writings on “race realism,” from the Massachusetts liberal arts college.
9. Georgetown University
Making its second appearance in as many years on FIRE’s “worst” list is Georgetown University. As the presidential primary season got underway, Georgetown University Law Center informed a group of Bernie Sanders supporters that campus was no place for talking to fellow students about their chosen candidate. The students were informed that, because Georgetown is a tax-exempt institution, the law school could not allow any campaigning or partisan political speech on campus.
10. DePaul University
In April, after students chalked messages in support of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, DePaul warned all students that they were not allowed to chalk partisan messages on campus due to the university’s tax-exempt status—a justification that FIRE has refuted on several occasions.
A month later, when the College Republicans invited controversial speaker Milo Yiannopoulos to campus, DePaul attempted to obstruct the event by limiting Yiannopoulos’ speaking time to 15–20 minutes and charging the students $1,000 for extra security. When students stormed the stage and disrupted the event, the security guards refused to intervene. When the College Republicans sought to re-invite Yiannopoulos, DePaul banned them from doing so.
But DePaul was not done infringing on its students’ rights. In July, DePaul also banned the DePaul Young Americans for Freedom chapter from inviting conservative journalist Ben Shapiro to speak on campus.
These ten colleges are not the only ones that have problems with censorship. Lukianoff suggested that 92% of colleges and universities impose speech codes on their respective student bodies. Free speech issues occur across party lines and it poses a significant threat to constitutional freedom and liberties. It is important for liberty-loving Americans across the aisle to fight back against the fascists in college administrations.

Sweden's Politically Correct Speech For Everyone But Homosexuals And Jews



  • In Sweden, comments that object to sexual violence against women in the Quran are prosecuted, but calling homosexuality a "virus" is fine.
  • Antisemitism has become so socially acceptable in Sweden that anti-Semites can get away with anything, and no one even notices, as Nima Gholam Ali Pour reports.
  • One of Sweden's main news outlets, in fact, described anti-Semitism as simply a different opinion. Clearly, in the eyes of Swedish authorities, neither homosexuals nor Jews count for much.
  • Swedish authorities also give large sums of money to organizations that advocate violence and invite hate preachers who support terrorist organizations such as ISIS. One of the speakers SFM hired was Michael Skråmo, who has publicly called on his fellow Muslims to join ISIS and has appeared in propaganda videos, posing with assault rifles alongside his small children.
Are some individuals receiving preferential treatment under Sweden's "hate speech" laws? It seems that way.
Under the Swedish Penal Code, a person can be held responsible for incitement if a statement or representation made "threatens or disrespects an ethnic group or other such group of persons with regards to race, color, national or ethnic origin, religious belief or sexual orientation".
In 2015, the imam at Halmstad mosque, Abu Muadh, said that homosexuality was a "virus" from which parents were obliged to protect their children.
The Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Rights (RFSL), filed a legal complaint in October 2015. "[M]any people are listening [to the imam] and there is a risk that the opinions and other expressions of homophobia will spread among believers, as they attach great importance to their representatives' words", said Ulrika Westerlund, chairman of RFSL.
The Swedish legal establishment however, seemed entirely unconcerned; the imam was not prosecuted.
"[F]or something to be incitement, it needs to reach a certain level and in this context, the assessment is that this statement does not reach that level", said Martin Inglund, acting investigation officer at Halmstad police. He added that an assessment had been made based on freedom of religion, as well as the European Convention on Human Rights. It took the police only one week to make the decision not to prosecute the imam.
"It is a strange decision, said Jonnié Jonsson, chairman of RFSL Halland, "I do not think anyone has the right to violate other people in the name of religion".
Then there is the recent case of Stefan Vestling, a local politician from the Sweden Democrat Party. He was recently prosecuted and convicted for "incitement against an ethnic group", when he wrote the following comment on the official Facebook page of the Sweden Democrats Party in Norberg in December 2014:
"Muslims who have ended up in the 'diaspora' are at war. A Muslim who lives in Sweden is thus living in a war zone, where it is allowed to rape a woman, as this is a Muslim right according to the Quran. [A Muslim] is allowed to have sex with women who have been conquered in war... that is to say the infidels' women (Quran Sura 4:3, 4:24). Easiest for 'Swedish' horny Muslims is of course to join ISIS where they can have their sick, devilish desires fully satisfied".
The prosecutor failed to convince the district court that Vestling had committed a crime. "Freedom of expression includes the right to convey such information and opinions and ideas that offend shock or disturb" the court wrote in its ruling. However, at the Court of Appeals in Svea, in December 2016, the court found that Vestling's post had been offensive to Muslims. The appeals court seemingly had no problem with the first part of Vestling's post. It was the last sentence, "Easiest for 'Swedish' horny Muslims is of course to join ISIS where they can have their sick, devilish desires fully satisfied", which was considered to be in violation of the Penal Code. Vestling was handed a suspended jail sentence and a fine. He has appealed the verdict to the Supreme Court.
Both the statements made by Abu Muadh and the statements made by Stefan Vestling were offensive; yet the Swedish authorities ended up protecting the imam from legal repercussions, even though prosecuting him would send an important signal to other Muslim preachers who view homosexuality in a similar way. That they do has been documented by a Swedish-Muslim blogger, who wrote:
During my years as a Muslim, I have visited several Swedish mosques from north to south. In all the mosques, homophobia was the norm. I have heard worse things than "homosexuality is a virus." In no mosque, I repeat not one, have I come across teachings that tolerate homosexuality... The fact that the media act as if they were astonished [at Abu Muadh's statement] shows how little contact they have with Muslim environments in Sweden. For those who have been on the "inside", who have visited mosques and spent time with Muslims who are active in the mosques, the imam's views [sound] completely mainstream.
Swedish experts largely consider Abu Muadh a radical, who moves in Salafist circles and has encouraged jihad, glorifying martyrdom in the battle to spread Islam. In a video clip on YouTube, he urges people who have "sinned" to wage jihad to be forgiven by God. In an interview with Hallandsposten in June 2016, he said that Muslims should not befriend unbelievers. He has argued that Muslims must not emulate the dress and haircuts of "kuffars" (infidels) and has declared 95% of all TV programs "haram" (forbidden).
In Sweden, comments that object to sexual violence against women in the Quran are prosecuted, but calling homosexuality a "virus" is fine.
Homosexuals are not the only ones to find themselves among those groups that Swedish society apparently no longer count as minorities worthy of protection. Anti-Semitism has become so socially acceptable in Sweden that anti-Semites can get away with anything, and no one even notices, as Nima Gholam Ali Pour reports. One of Sweden's main news outlets, in fact, described antisemitism as simply a different opinion. Clearly, neither homosexuals nor Jews count for much in the eyes of Swedish authorities.
In addition, Swedish authorities give large sums of money to organizations that invite hate preachers who support terrorist organizations such as ISIS and Al Qaeda.
The Gothenburg-based nonprofit organization, Swedish Federation of Muslims (SFM,) was handed a government subsidy of 535,200 SEK [$60,000] in 2016. This is in addition to 150,000 SEK [$17,000] that SFM received from the city of Gothenburg.
SFM applied for the money "to combat Islamophobia", which the organization considers "one of the biggest problems in Sweden right now". One of the speakers SFM hired was Michael Skråmo, who has publicly called on his fellow Muslims to join ISIS. Now, calling himself Abdul Samad al Swedi, he has appeared in propaganda videos, posing with Kalashnikov assault rifles alongside his small children, outside Kobane in Syria. Abu Muadh is also a regular speaker.


Michael Skråmo, a Swedish convert and ISIS jihadist, brought his family to Syria. He has also urged Muslims in Sweden to bomb their workplaces.

Terror researcher Magnus Ranstorp said that he was surprised that SFM had been awarded state grants. "I see lots of question marks. We're talking about a group that invited hate preachers, whose Salafist orientation is in many ways the opposite of tolerance", he said. The decision to award SFM government subsidies also runs counter to the government's agreement with the four conservative Alliance parties that no public money should go to advocate violence.
What is the Swedish authorities' response to the official granting of money to organizations that host extremists? "Of course this is serious, and it is our view that this must be factored into future contribution assessments", said Daniel Norlander, chief secretary of the National Authority Against Violent Extremism. The authority apparently does not think that the money should be returned or that there should be any sanctions. After all, we are only talking about preachers of violent jihad.
Judith Bergman is a writer, columnist, lawyer and political analyst.

© 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Europe Once Again Goes After The Jews



  • A German court actually ruled that firebombing a place where Jews worship is somehow different from attacking Jews.
  • Why was the Israeli embassy not attacked, rather than a synagogue whose worshippers were presumably not Israeli? Presumably the worshippers were German. What happened in the German court was pure Nazi-think and the most undisguised antisemitism: that Jews are supposedly not Germans.
  • Meanwhile, another German Court again rejected an action against your friendly neighborhood "sharia police."
  • In Germany, it seems, firebombing synagogues is merely "anti-Israeli" even if there are no Israelis there, and "police" who use Islamic sharia law -- without legal authority and within a system of law that persecutes women, Christians, Jews and others -- are acceptable and legal.
  • The anti-Semitism facing Jews at UK universities led the Baroness Deech to declare British University campuses "no-go zones" for Jews.
  • Simply defining and identifying anti-Semitism is only the start. It is also necessary to start tackling the anti-Semitic attitudes of Islamic communities across Europe and the attitudes of immigrants coming to our nations.
  • What needs to be made clear is that you are welcome here as long as you respect Jews, Christians and all others, as well.
Antonio Tajani, the new President of the European Parliament, has made a bold opening statement of intent: "No Jew should be forced to leave Europe." While this is an admirable position to hold, it sadly could not be farther from the truth. The poison of anti-Semitism festers in Europe once again.
Europe is seeing yet again another rise in the number of Jews leaving the continent. Jonathan Boyd, Executive Director of the Institute of Jewish Policy Research (IJPR), notes that the number of Jews leaving France is "unprecedented"
The results of the study show that 4% of the French and Belgian Jewish populations had emigrated those countries to reside in Israel.
The IJPR attributes this demographic transformation to the inflow of migrants from the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia. Is this really surprising? Sadly, when individuals come from nations that have culturally a high dislike of Jews, many of these immigrants might hold anti-Semitic views that eventually get spread.
In France, anti-Semitic incidents more than doubled between 2014 and 2015, from 423 reported incidents to 851. From January to July, anti-Semitic incidents in the UK increased by 11% according to the UK's Common Security Trust. And this prejudice is increasing.
With such spikes in Jew-hatred, is it surprising that Jews are leaving Europe? Equally concerning is Europe's blindness to this anti-Semitism.


Anti-Semitic graffiti [Illustrative]. (Image source: Beny Shlevich/Flickr)

Recently, a German court decided that the firebombing of a synagogue in Wuppertal was only the expression of "anti-Israeli sentiment."
Really? Why, then, was not the Israeli embassy attacked rather than a synagogue whose worshippers presumably were not Israeli? They worshippers were German. What happened in the German court was pure Nazi-think: the most undisguised anti-Semitism: that Jews supposedly are not Germans.
The old wine of pure anti-Semitism is now dressed up in new "politically correct" bottles of criticism of Israel. At heart, however, it is your grandmother's same old Jew-hate, much of it still based on racist tropes. The Jews in that firebombed synagogue were German nationals and may have had absolutely no links to Israel. They do however, have a connection to Judaism.
The German court actually ruled that that attacking a place where Jews worship is somehow different from attacking Jews. Your pet slug would not believe that.
Meanwhile, another German Court again rejected an action against your friendly neighborhood "sharia police."
In Germany, it seems, burning down synagogues is merely "anti-Israeli" even if there are no Israelis there, but "police" who use Islamic sharia law -- without legal authority and within a system of law that persecutes women, Christians, Jews and others -- are acceptable and legal.
And people cannot understand why Jews are leaving Europe?
Even though German authorities evidently struggle to identify anti-Semitism, the Israeli government claims there has been an 50% increase in anti-Semitic incidents in Germany just since 2015.
Jew-hatred in Europe is spreading to the workplace and the hubs of supposedly enlightened discourse: universities. At Goldsmith's University, students scrawled on a public feedback board that they wanted "No more David Hirsch, no more Zionism -- a bitter Jew."
The message and tone here is clear: Jews are not welcome. The suggestion that academics would also not be welcome because of their religion is deeply worrying and should be unacceptable.
Goldsmith's have since condemned the action, but it is telling that someone felt he could comfortably post such anti-Jewish abuse. The anti-Semitism facing Jews at UK universities led the Baroness Deech to declare British University campuses "no-go zones" for Jews.
Students at Exeter University wear T-shirts glorifying the Holocaust; the Labour Party Chair at Oxford University commendably resigned over members calling Auschwitz a "cash cow" and mocking the mourners of the Paris terrorist attacks; SOAS University is under investigation for lectures likening Zionism to Nazism and delusionally arguing that it was Zionists who were conspiring to increase anti-Semitism to encourage Jews to leave the UK and go to Israel.
The Israeli government also believes there was an increase in anti-Semitic incidents in Britain by 62%.
While it is praiseworthy that UK Prime Minister Theresa May has backed and adopted a new definition of anti-Semitism to attempt to deal with the rising hate crime, simply defining and identifying anti-Semitism is only the start. It is also necessary to start tackling the anti-Semitic attitudes of Islamic communities across Europe and the attitudes of immigrants coming to our nations. What needs to be made clear is that you are welcome here as long as you respect Jews, Christians and all others, as well.
Robbie Travers, a political commentator and consultant, is Executive Director of Agora, former media manager at the Human Security Centre, and a law student at the University of Edinburgh.

© 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.