cpac, john hawkins, grover norquist, and suhail khan attack Robert Spencer

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/03/cpac-blog-award-update-john-hawkins-of-right-wing-news-does-damage-control-for-norquist-and-cpac-throws-spencer-under-the-b.html

Friday, March 08, 2013

WHEN BLOGGERS ATTACK: JOHN HAWKINS TAKES A DIVE FOR GROVER NORQUIST

Robert Spencer called me last Monday, right after he got off the phone with John Hawkins, and told me the whole story about how John Hawkins had told him that unnamed people had said that he must not criticize Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan when he got the award. I thought Robert could have told John sure, he wouldn't talk about GroverNorquist and Suhail Khan, and then say whatever he wanted at the awards ceremony.

But Spencer said to me that he couldn't do that, and told John Hawkins so. And now Hawkins is accusing Spencer of "lying to get his 5 minutes of PR"? Spencer is an honorable guy -- he wouldn't lie privately to Hawkins, and now we are supposed to believe that he lied publicly to get publicity?

What makes this so disheartening is that I always liked John. He says below that he "helped Pamela get the room she used at CPAC last year." And it's true. He's been very good to me over the years. So imagine my shock when the time came for him to stand up, and he came tumbling down.

I thought John Hawkins was a standup guy. He was one of the few on the right who didn't throw in with the rest of the lemmings. Or so I thought. I was wrong. As soon as his principles and his integrity were put to the test, he completely caved and became someone I don't recognize.

Also note that in Robert's initial post, he never named Hawkins. It was about Grover and Suhail Khan. And now it isn't about them, it is about bloggers attacking their allies. Now Hawkins is in league with Loonwatch and the other Islamic supremacist sites. He even sounds like them in his attacks on Spencer. He has really thrown in with the butchers.

And the pity is, John doesn't realize that he played right into their hands. This is their MO -- they divide and conquer. This issue is not about Geller and Spencer. By targeting every person who speaks about the jihad and Islamic supremacism, the subject becomes forbidden. No one will talk about it, because everyone who would talk about it has been eliminated.

This is how great evils happen: people make a small accommodation here and a small accommodation there, until finally they are completely compromised. John should have stood up; instead, he went down in a tantrum to protect his job and his paycheck. Hawkins picks up the projection tactics of the Left and the Islamic supremacists: he is the onemaking money and he accuses Spencer of trying to get money and publicity. Spencer and I never raised a dime at CPAC. Hawkins is the one protecting a paycheck. He is going down in a blaze of blustering feigned outrage. He knows he's lying. John Hawkins knows.

John Hawkins sold his soul for a paycheck. That's why he's squirming and shouting. John, thou dost protest too much. Whatever they're paying you, John, it ain't enough.

Hawkins is writing to Salon now. What's next? Will he contact Anwar al-Awlaki's brother?

Robert Spencer Speaks About CPAC Award on Michael Coren

CPAC blog award update: John Hawkins of Right Wing News does damage control for Norquist and CPAC, throws Spencer under the bus Robert Spencer at Jihadwatch

...And at the Right Scoop he writes even more strongly:

I’m John Hawkins and I’m the one who spoke to Robert on the phone.

Just to give you some background, I helped Pamela get the room she used at CPAC last year. TheTeaParty.net, the group that’s co-sponsoring the blogger awards this year, provided that space. Pamela and Robert were both at the blogger award ceremony last year and Pamela won an award. I’ve also interviewed both Robert and Pamela at http://www.rightwingnews.com, linked them from my blog and I considered Pamela a friend and Robert a friendly acquaintance before this happened.

I asked Robert, as a personal favor, to just pick up his award without ranting about the ACU. Some people may disagree, but I don’t think asking someone not to pull a Kanye West at an award ceremony is a big imposition. The awards are supposed to be about awarding unappreciated bloggers for the good work they’re doing, not about Robert Spencer airing his personal grievances with the ACU. When Robert refused to agree to that, it was the end of the conversation because there was nothing else to say. Let me note that I absolutely, unconditionally did not tell him that he was “barred from receiving his award.” In fact, I thought he was going to be at the ceremony until his post claiming he was “barred from receiving his award” came out.

Additionally, Robert did win the award, I personally had the plaque made for him and as late as yesterday he was even going to have someone receive it on his behalf, although I’ve been told he changed his mind about that. Either way, he will have a plaque and I promise to put up a picture of it when the pictures of the award ceremony come out if he doesn’t want to have someone pick it up for him.

Last but not least, if anybody has a problem with this, they can feel free to blame me for it. I’m the one who talked to Robert Spencer and I’m the one who’s saying that I think demanding the right to throw a tantrum as a condition of accepting an award is unacceptable. All I can say beyond that is that I hope lying to get his 5 minutes of PR was worth burning people who’ve been supportive of him, because he is dead to me.

Note that in neither of his responses does he address the central question and say that I can receive the award and say anything I like. Clearly the prohibition on my talking about Norquist and Khan is still in place and very much real. Anyway, I wrote this response to the Right Scoop, which published it, and sent it also to the American Thinker:

John Hawkins’ account below is highly tendentious to the point of being outright dishonest.

John represents his telling me not to speak about Norquist and Khan’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic supremacists as a “personal favor” he was asking of me, not to “rant” and “throw a tantrum.” The ties that Norquist and Khan have to islamic supremacists are not a matter of a rant or tantrum, but a serious issue that is causing immense damage to the conservative movement and the Republican Party’s ability to oppose Barack Obama’s consistent enabling of Islamic supremacism domestically and internationally. It needs to be raised, yet as I told John when we spoke, I had no intention of doing so at the awards ceremony until he conveyed to me the order not to do so — which order only impressed upon me anew the need to call attention to this problem.

Also, John never represented this to me as a “personal favor.” He stressed to me repeatedly that he was conveying an order from higher ups which he told me he was further ordered not to name to me. And while he did make clear that I was welcome to come and accept the award, he also made it quite clear that I was not to say anything about Norquist and Khan (the ACU was actually never discussed), and that one was conditional on the other.

I ask in the interests of fairness and accuracy that if you print his highly misleading and disingenuous remarks below, that you also print these.

And there is more. Let's take Hawkins' claims one by one:

I am the one who talked to Robert Spencer. I told him that I didn't care what he said about the ACU to bloggers, in interviews outside the door, on radio row or anywhere else at CPAC, but I've known Robert for years and I asked him as a personal favor not to rant about his feud with the ACU when he received his award.

Actually we never discussed the ACU. We discussed Norquist and Khan, whom he is careful not to mention in these messages. He never said anything about not caring what I said in interviews, or on radio row, etc. He never asked me not to speak about them as a personal favor, but repeatedly conveyed the prohibition on my saying anything about Norquist and Khan as coming from higher ups whom he was not at liberty to name. And I do not have a "feud with the ACU." I am one of the people who has raised questions about Norquist's and Khan's unsavory ties to Islamic supremacists. For that, as Suhail Khan has boasted to me, I am banned from speaking at CPAC.

He said he couldn't do that. If he got his award, he absolutely had to trash the ACU after he received it.

Remember: this wouldn't have come up at all if he had not raised it, at the behest of his employers. I didn't call John and tell him I could only receive the award if I spoke about Norquist and Khan -- he brought them up.

That was basically the end of the conversation because there was just nothing left to say after that.

Actually he said he would talk to his superiors and get back to me, but he never did. Apparently he can't acknowledge that now because they seem to have required him to take the hit for them by claiming that he did this all on his own initiative.

But, it's extremely important to note that at no point did I tell him not to come or say he wouldn't be allowed in the room.

Straw man. I never claimed that he told me not to come or said that I wouldn't be allowed in the room.

Ultimately, I thought the blogger awards should be about bloggers being recognized for the great work they're doing. Robert apparently thought it should be about the problem he has with the ACU. I'm very sorry he feels that way and I'm extremely disappointed that he went so far as to falsely claim that he was barred from getting his award to drum up PR for himself.

Again, remember: none of this would have happened if he hadn't informed me that his bosses told him to tell me not to talk about Norquist and Khan. They raised the issue. I am a free speech activist -- what else was I going to say in the face of a gag order but that I would defy it? And this business about doing this for PR -- in this Hawkins is beginning to ape the Islamic supremacists and their enablers for whom he is carrying water, in making this an ad hominem attack rather than dealing with the issues at hand.

I am dead to him, eh? So also is his integrity.

Big Fur Hat spoke to John Hawkins and one of his principal colleagues, and weighs in here:

Last night I was read the riot act on the phone in regards to the Robert Spencer/John Hawkins “he said/he said.” The person on the other end of the phone is not my enemy, we consider each other friends, but they took offense to my posting of the article Congratulations Politichicks For Winning the CPAC Peephole’s Choice Award!!!!

(This was my sarcastic take on the Robert Spencer article about how he won a People’s Choice Award at CPAC but was later told that the win came with some restrictions, restrictions that were decreed from “on high.” I chose to simply ignore the results of the poll, as if Robert didn’t exist, and congratulated the runner-up as the winner.)

The caller said by merely linking, and not doing any homework, I revealed myself to be a “non-journalist who couldn’t resist the opportunity to run a story that seemed sexy, all for blog hits, without knowing the real story.”

The phone call was to be, I guess, my education. Bottom line – Robert Spencer is a liar and a guy who does what he does, run roughshod over people, for PR. (Where have I heard that before? Oh, ya, CAIR says that.)

I spent a great deal of time yesterday going back and forth with John Hawkins via e-mail to try and understand his side of the argument. Bottom line – Robert Spencer is a liar and a guy who does what he does, run roughshod over people, for PR. (Where have I heard that before? Oh, ya, the paragraph above.)

I guess that’s how the evil pr*ck won the People’s Choice Award with over 50% of the vote in a field of 15, right?

If there are two world’s, the blogging world, where people may see Spencer in a different light, and the reader world, which obviously sees Spencer as a dedicated warrior, it’s no wonder that I always characterize myself as an outsider. I don’t want to know about the politics of politics. I’m voting for Robert and his work, and I really don’t want to hear about how Robert is causing trouble because he reacted badly to being told his particular award “is a problem.” That’s ridiculous, and it should have been dealt with properly. Robert should have never been told, at all, that winning this award had a taint. He was obviously told because the hope was that Robert would make everything alright without John having to do anything that made life difficult for him.

I tried to impress upon John Hawkins that his instincts in this imbroglio were running counter to the results of his own poll. Later in the evening, during the heated exchange on the phone, I was told that Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller are becoming “less and less popular with each passing year and it’s because of their loutish ways.”

At this rate, in 2020, Spencer might barely be able to squeak out a 15% margin of victory among the people who matter most – the voting public.

Now, before we get too deep into the wrong swamp, let me say that this is a much larger story than Robert Spencer, John Hawkins and the 9 dollar plaque from Balloons R’ Us. I think Spencer agrees. Spencer said he was honored and flattered to receive such an overwhelming show of support from the people, but now a much more important issue has poked its rotten head out of the subtext – CPAC is obviously under the control of Suhail Khan and Grover Norquist and both of these people are facilitators in the advancement of Islamic influence in American government.

For 364 days of the year Robert Spencer is a free speech advocate that writes about Islamic infiltration, and writes about the shady tentacles of Suhail Khan and Grover Norquist, but is told “not to rant and throw a tantrum” (John Hawkins’ words) on the day he receives an award for precisely this work.

Robert Spencer was expected to go along with this. I was told straight out that Robert’s past speeches are “tantamount to being invited to a party and sh*tting on the host’s rug.” When I pointed out that this is a house that needs to be sh*t in I received no cogent counter opinion other than, “You don’t do this because this is a revenue source.”

And there we have it.

Either you believe in the work being done by Robert Spencer or you don’t. Obviously the people polled overwhelmingly agree that Robert’s work is not only important, it belongs at CPAC....

Read it all.

Finally, here is a reminder for John Hawkins of what integrity looks like. The Tea Party Fort Lauderdale wrote this to the TeaParty.net, one of the co-sponsors of the CPAC Blog Awards and CPAC itself:

HERE'S ANOTHER REASON TO REMOVE US FROM YOUR LIST. NORQUIST & KHAN, AND YOU CALL YOURSELVES 'TEA PARTY?" 

"Spencer was told that one of the co-sponsors of the award, TheTeaParty.net, didn’t want to allow him to receive the award at CPAC next week unless he promised not to criticize two board members of CPAC’s hosting organization, the American Conservative Union: Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan."

In years past at CPAC, Robert Spencer and Pam Geller have held panels warning of the dangers of radical Islam. Looks like Grover and Tea Party.net are running things now.

How absurd! Blogs have soared in popularity because they report what the MSM doesn't! Now we have Grover Norquist and Tea Party.net effectively SILENCING an American's freedom to speak about the very subject matter he won the award for.

It looks as though the CPAC Gestapo, Grover Norquist and Tea Party.net, have effectively silenced free speech!

It is my hope Robert Spencer and Pam Geller attend CPAC. The majority of CPAC attendees support them! Norquist and Tea party.net do not speak for us!

The Band of Mothers will be at CPAC to collect Post Cards For Soldiers. The folks need to be reminded of the dangers among us and the noble Heroes who keep us safe!

Beverly Perlson
The Band of Mothers

Robert Spencer: Impeach Pennsylvania’s sharia Judge

In FrontPage this morning I call for justice to be done to Judge Mark Martin in Pennsylvania:

The facts of the case are clear: Ernest Perce, a young atheist in Pennsylvania, marched in a Halloween parade dressed as “Zombie Muhammad.” A Muslim, Talaag Elbayomy, grew enraged when he saw Perce’s costume, and began choking him while trying to pull off the fake beard that Perce had glued onto his face. Perce went to the police, and so did Elbayomy – the latter under the mistaken impression that it was illegal in the United States, as it is in many Muslim lands, to insult or mock the prophet of Islam. Elbayomy was mistaken, of course: it isn’t illegal to mock Muhammad in the United States, but it may be soon, courtesy Judge Mark Martin, who dismissed the case against Elbayomy.

Martin claimed in a message trying to explain away his mishandling of the case that he dismissed the case for lack of evidence: “In short, I based my decision on the fact that the Commonwealth failed to prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the charge was just; I didn’t doubt that an incident occurred, but I was basically presented only with the victim’s version, the defendant’s version, and a very intact Styrofoam sign that the victim was wearing and claimed that the defendant had used to choke him. There were so many inconsistencies, that there was no way that I was going to find the defendant guilty.”

Martin didn’t mention in his apologia that Perce was filming at the time Elbayomy attacked him, and the video evidence is quite clear. Nor did he mention that a police officer on the scene, Sgt. Bryan Curtis, backed up Perce’s version of events. Both the video and Curtis’s testimony give the lie to Martin’s claim that “I was basically presented only with the victim’s version, the defendant’s version, and a very intact Styrofoam sign that the victim was wearing and claimed that the defendant had used to choke him.”

Nor did Martin mention that he lectured Perce at length about how his Halloween costume outraged Islamic sensitivities, concluding: “And what you’ve done is you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I am a Muslim. I find it very offensive…You are way outside your bounds of first amendment rights.” Martin later denied that he was a Muslim, and so when he told Perce that he was one, he may have been speaking conditionally, as in, “If I were a Muslim, I, too, would find it offensive.”

However, despite the best efforts of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and its increasingly compliant enablers in the Obama Administration, it is still not illegal to offend Muslims in the United States. In fact, it is only illegal to offend Muslims and Islam under Islamic law. In lecturing Perce at length about how he had “trashed” Muslims’ “essence” and then ignoring two important sources of evidence that proved the charge against Elbayomy, Martin was effectively enforcing Sharia in an American courtroom. For under Islamic law, Elbayomy would have been perfectly within his rights, and even to be commended, for choking Perce for mocking Muhammad. The only criticism that might have been leveled against him had this case been brought in Jeddah or Tehran was that he didn’t finish Perce off altogether.

Pamela Geller interviewed Perce, who articulated the implications of the ruling: “Martin’s decision effectively says that Muslims do not have to learn to accept blasphemy against their religion without violence. Yet when you are a citizen of the USA, you accept our Constitution. Free speech is our foundation.”

Indeed. With the OIC engaged in a years-long struggle to compel Western states to criminalize truthful speech about jihad and criticism of Islam under the guise of criminalizing “religious hatred,” Martin’s skewed and biased ruling is particularly ominous, especially insofar as it coincides with Sharia prohibitions on speaking ill of Muhammad, the Qur’an, and Islam....

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/03/robert-spencer-impeach-pennsylvanias-sharia-judge.html

9/11 Attacks Established Basis for Increased islam Influence

Home - by Claudia - September 11, 2012 - 15:10 America/New_York - 10 Comments

Chad Groening, OneNewsNow

Terrorism expert Robert Spencer says Islamic supremacism is alive and well on the 11th anniversary of 9/11. And Christian writer and commentator Janet Parshall says on this anniversary, it is clear that radical Muslims continue to work toward their dream of a world dominated by Islam.

Much has changed since the morning of September 11, 2001. For example, Islam has advanced its influence throughout the world — even in the United States. And Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch says that should give Americans pause on this 11th anniversary of the attacks.

“We can say that 9/11 was a great boon for Islamic supremacists,” he tells OneNewsNow, “because it enabled them to get access and make inroads into American society to an unprecedented degree.”

Describing what he considers another major change, Spencer notes that George W. Bush has been replaced by Barack Obama in the White House. “It could be very bad for defenders of freedom if Obama is re-elected,” he states, “and there could be real effort to shut down pro-freedom websites and pro-freedom radio commentators. It’s a very real possibility that that could happen.”

And according to the Jihad Watch leader, while Obama continues to pander to Muslims, the Canadians have taken a strong stand by severing ties with Iran. “Canada is taking over really the leadership of the free world and is showing that Obama has largely abdicated that role,” he comments. “Canada is doing what the United States ought to have done a long time ago.”

[snip]

Janet Parshall is a Christian activist, public speaker, and author of Buyer Beware: Finding Truth in the Marketplace of Ideas. She says radical Islamists remain committed to ushering in a worldwide caliphate.

“It’s still a part of the game plan,” she laments. “And those Islamacists who want that caliphate to be put in place work slowly, consistently, steadfastly — and they have much more patience than we do generally here in the West.”

And that is unfortunate, she says, because Westerners are stuck in a quagmire of political correctness, not doing what needs to be done. “It’s like saying during World War II [that] we’re fighting the Nazis, but we don’t mention the Nazis by name,” Parshall tells OneNewsNow. “So we need to recognize that there is an enemy who has stated declaredly that they want us dead. [To them] we are the ‘Great Satan.’”

[snip]

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=149257

ATLAS EXCLUSIVE: ROBERT SPENCER: El Presidente WILL “MAKE NETANYAHU PAY”

Monday, September 10, 2012

Obama Will “Make Netanyahu Pay”
By Robert Spencer

The elimination and then restoration (after, and only after, a national outcry) of language calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel from the Democrat Party platform last week was revealing enough, but a more significant abandonment of Israel came when the Pentagon decided to decrease drastically its participation in a joint military exercise with the Jewish state – while pursuing military exercises with the new Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt.

At the same time, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, even suggested that an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites would be a crime, and that the U.S. would have no part of it, when he said: “I don’t want to be complicit if they choose to do it.”

An Israeli official explained that the diminishment of the joint exercise was “the Obama administration’s response to the dinner party Netanyahu held in Romney’s honor,” and another took a longer view: “Regardless of the exercise, the relations between Israel and the US have soured.” Most ominously, one official noted: “The US elections are in two months, and there is no doubt that President Barack Obama, if he is reelected, will make Netanyahu pay for his behavior. It will not pass quietly.”

Such a view is widely shared stateside – especially among those who long for just such an eventuality. The crude and arrogant stealthIslamic supremacist Reza Aslan tweeted gleefully: “The way Bibi has tried to manipulate and embarrass Obama at every turn, he should be scared shitless of Obama’s reelection.”

Israeli officials attributed Iran’s increasingly brazen statements of its genocidal intentions toward Israel and belligerence toward America well to this Obama Administration stance. One explained: “This is why the Iranians are issuing threatening statements against the US. Washington’s hesitant policy is making the Iranians feel freer to move ahead with the nuclear program. This is not how you create deterrence to avoid a military operation.”

Indeed, and it is a far cry from Obama’s address at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in May 2011, when he struck a conciliatory tone: “Even while we may at times disagree, as friends sometimes will, the bonds between the United States and Israel are unbreakable, and the commitment of the United States to the security of Israel is ironclad.”

Yet even when he spoke them, those words were hollow, and they’re even hollower now. According to Shimon Shiffer in Ynet News, the Administration’s abandonment of Israel in its attempt to head off an Iranian nuclear bomb wasn’t remotely limited to Dempsey’s “don’t want to be complicit” remark: “The United States has indirectly informed Iran, via two European nations, that it would not back an Israeli strike against the country’s nuclear facilities, as long as Tehran refrains from attacking American interests in the Persian Gulf…According to the report, Washington used covert back-channels in Europe to clarify that the US does not intend to back Israel in a strike that may spark aregional conflict.”

Not only did Obama inform a nation that considers itself an enemy of the U.S. that it would not support a U.S. ally, but Ynet added that Obama “is promoting a series of steps meant to curb an Israeli offensive against Iran, while forcing the Islamic Republic to take the nuclear negotiations more seriously.”

In that context it is useful to remember what the Kuwaiti MP Jama’an Al-Harbash said on al-Jazeera in March 2010: “This is a war of religion, not just a war between Arabs and Israelis, or a war between liberators and occupiers. This is an ideological war, an Islamic war, which will end in victory only under the banner of Jihad.”

Those who believe such things will never be compelled to take “nuclear negotiations” seriously enough to end the jihad against Israel. Islamic supremacists will never accept Israel’s existence, even if the “Palestinians” have a state, and even if Obama makes all kinds of concessions to Iran to get them to take negotiations more seriously. On the contrary: the Islamic supremacists will be emboldened to fight on for final victory against their weakened foe.

Netanyahu, and Israel, must not be “made to pay.” All free people must now stand against Obama, against the jihadis who wish to destroy the Jewish State, and with Israel.

Mr. Spencer is director of Jihad Watch and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), The Truth About Muhammad, Stealth Jihad and The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran (all from Regnery-a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).

Posted by Pamela Geller on Monday, September 10, 2012 at 09:01 AM in SPENCER!

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/09/atlas-exclusive-robert-spencer-obama-will-make-netanyahu-pay.html

DO POLITICS DEFINE 'DOMESTIC TERRORISTS'?

Press, government don't apply same labels to Muslim violence

Published: 2 hours ago

by JACK MINOR

Jack Minor is a former Marine who served under President Reagan. He has written hundreds of articles and has been interviewed about his work on multiple television and radio outlets. He is also a former pastor and has been acknowledged for his research ability in several books.

 Subscribe to author feed

It only took hours following the shooting at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin by a white male for authorities to announce the event could possibly be domestic terrorism, in sharp contrast to attacks by Muslims where the government quickly put great distance from such labels.

The shooting, which killed six, was at the Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wis., an hour before services were scheduled to begin last weekend. The alleged shooter, Wade Michael Page, who himself died, was a 40-year-old Army veteran and suspected white supremacist.

Ads by Google

• Will You Boldly Proclaim"I am a Christian"? Sign the pledge now!billygraham.org/I-am-a-Christian
• CNA Nursing SchoolsLocate CNA Schools Near You. Search Now!www.collegesurfing.com

Less than 24 hours after the shooting, Oak Creek police chief John Edwards said authorities were treating the attack as a domestic terrorist incident.

While the incident appears to fall under the definition of domestic terrorism, which is partly defined by the Patriot Act as a dangerous action intended to intimidate a ‘civilian population,” an expert on Islam says the speed by which the designation was made stands in sharp contrast to when Muslims have carried out similar attacks.

“This is part of a pattern by the Obama administration where they are anxious to label violent attacks by non-Muslims as domestic terrorism while whitewashing similar acts when they are committed by Muslims,” Robert Spencer, founder of Jihad Watch said.

“By being quick to say it was politically motivated it is designed to downplay the reality of jihad terrorist while exaggerating non-Muslim terrorist acts.”

Spencer has received death threats himself from Muslims after recently publishing his book “Did Muhammad Exist?”

When Nidal Hassan opened fire on fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, killing 13, while allegedly shouting “Allahu Akbar,” officials including President Obama immediately came out saying people should not jump to conclusions about the incident. Authorities later said there was no evidence domestic terrorism was involved, but rather the event was a simple case of workplace violence.

A similar thing happened after a gunman opened fire at the ticket counter of El Al Airlines at the Los Angeles International airport. While authorities eventually ruled the incident a terrorist act, in the immediate aftermath Los Angeles Mayor Jim Hahn told the public “We have no information that indicates that this incident is connected to any terrorist attack or anything else.”

Following the shooting outside of an Arkansas recruiting center in 2009 which killed one soldier while wounding another, Abdulhakim Muhammad was not charged with domestic terrorism. Prosecutors said it was a drive-by shooting committed by a thug with a gun.

Former Congressman Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., noted the media was undoubtedly thrilled to finally get a white male right wing terrorist.

“The media was quick to label the Aurora, Colo., shooter a tea party member. It must have sent a collective tingle up the leg of every member of the media that the shooter was a white male. This is what they have been praying and hoping for, that a shooter would turn out to be a right-wing kook.

“This is typical for the media and authorities to quickly label these events as right wing terrorism while ignoring other acts of terrorism,” he said. “Look at Maj. Hassan, the Fort Hood shooter, they still don’t want to call it an act of domestic terrorism. They call it workplace violence.”

Following the Wisconsin shooting the Council on American Islamic Relations issued a statement saying, they “stand with their Sikh brothers and sisters.” However, they then suggested the shooting was intended to be an attack on Muslims.

In an e-mail Sunday, CAIR said, “Sikh men who wear beards and turbans as part of their faith are often targeted by bigots who mistake them for Muslims.”

It then went on to call on mosques to review security procedures.

Spencer said it was interesting how CAIR was attempting to suggest that Muslims were the real victims in the attack.

“CAIR was quick to suggest that this attack on the Sikhs was an anti-Muslim attack. In actuality Muslims have… persecuted Sikhs around the world,” he said.

There have been a number of indicators from the federal government regarding its perspective of domestic terror, such as a recent study from National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, or START, at the University of Maryland, which was funded by the DHS.

The study, “Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970-2008,” noted that nearly one-third of all terrorist attacks from 1970 to 2008 occurred in five metropolitan counties run by Democrats.

The counties were Manhattan, Los Angeles, Miami-Dade, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. The report went on to list groups by ideology such as right-wing, left-wing, religious and single issue.

Interestingly, key data regarding Islamic terrorism was missing from the report.

On Page 22, Table 4 lists “hot spots” for religious terrorism by decade. For the 1990s, it shows there was no religious terrorism in New York or Los Angeles and only two terrorist attacks during the 2000s.

Patrick Poole, writing in PJ Media, noted that the report apparently does not consider the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to be terrorism. Also omitted was a 1994 shooting by Rashid Baz, who killed 16-year-old Jewish student Ari Halberstam and attempted to murder dozens more in a van on the Brooklyn Bridge.

The report also ignores the 2002 shooting at the El Al ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport. Following the attack, which killed two and wounded four others, the FBI and Justice Department concluded that the shooter, Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, was an Egyptian terrorist who wanted to be a Muslim martyr.

Also, by cutting the report off at 2007, it was able to omit events such as the Fort Hood massacre by Hasan, who killed 13 people and wounded 29 others, and the Little Rock Army recruiting center, where a Muslim convert shot soldiers in front of a recruiting office.

Examples of what START considered to be “right wing” include “groups that believe that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent.” The report also goes on to describe right-wing “terrorists” as those who are reverent of individual liberty and suspicious of centralized federal authority.

Under such a definition, the Founding Fathers might have been considered right-wing terrorists.

WND has reported the DHS issued another report listing returning veterans and Christians who believed in end-time prophesies as potentially dangerous right-wing extremists.

A report issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center warned law enforcement agencies to watch for individuals with bumper stickers for third-party political candidates such as Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin. It also identified opponents of illegal immigration, abortion and federal taxes as possibly harboring radical ideologies.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/do-politics-define-domestic-terrorists/

Robert Spencer exposes John McCain - Muslim Brotherhood infiltrating the US Government

Sunday, July 22, 2012

BACHMANN IS RIGHT, MCCAIN IS WRONG ON THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD IN THE US GOVERNMENT

McCain is cavalier, lax and sloppy with the facts about the greatest threat facing our nation. Bachmann should be lauded and applauded. And Congress should be pressing for the prosecution of Muslim Brotherhood groups named as such in the captured internal document released during the Holy Land Foundation trial.

Huma Abedin and the Muslim Brotherhood: Bachmann vs. McCain by Robert Spencer at FrontPage

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is at the center of a firestorm over her request that the State, Homeland Security, Defense and Justice Departments, investigate potential “policies and activities that appear to be the result of influenceoperations conducted by individuals and organizations associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.” This is an entirely legitimate call, as Bachmann abundantly illustrated in a 16-page letter to Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN), laying out the reasons for her concerns. Yet even Senator John McCain (R-AZ), who should know better, has upbraided Bachmann, criticizing her for including Hillary Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin, among those she noted for having Brotherhood ties.

McCain declared in a statement on the Senate floor that “recently, it has been alleged that Huma, a Muslim American, is part of a nefarious conspiracy to harm the United States by unduly influencing U.S. foreign policy at the Department of State in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist causes.”

McCain, brimming with righteous indignation, thundered: “These sinister accusations rest solely on a few unspecified and unsubstantiated associations of members of Huma’s family, none of which have been shown to harm or threaten the United States in any way. These attacks on Huma have no logic, no basis, and no merit. And they need to stop now.”

He explained that the letter Bachmann and several other Representatives sent asking for an investigation into Muslim Brotherhood influence in the government “alleges that three members of Huma’s family are ‘connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations.’  Never mind that one of those individuals, Huma’s father, passed away two decades ago.”

However, in her letter to Ellison, Bachmann explained that much more was behind her concern about Abedin than guilt-by-association based on family members: “The concerns about the foreign influence of immediate family members is such a concern to the U.S. Government that it includes these factors as potentially disqualifying conditions for obtaining a securityclearance, which undoubtedly Ms. Abedin has had to obtain to function in her position. For us to raise issues about a highly-based U.S. Government official with known immediate family connections to foreign extremist organizations is not a question of singling out Ms. Abedin.  In fact, these questions are raised by the U.S. Government of anyone seeking a security clearance.”

And in Abedin’s case, there are ample reasons for raising these questions. Her father, Syed Z. Abedin, was a professor in Saudi Arabia who founded the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs, an organization supported by the Muslim World League, a Brotherhood organization. Her mother, Saleha Mahmoud Abedin, is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood, the Brotherhood’s adjunct organization for women. The Brotherhood itself is in its own words, according to a captured internal document, dedicated to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house.”

All that leaves McCain unmoved, for he goes on to assert that “the letter and the report offer not one instance of an action, a decision, or a public position that Huma has taken while at the State Department that would lend credence to the charge that she is promoting anti-American activities within our government. Nor does either document offer any evidence of a direct impact that Huma may have had on one of the U.S. policies with which the authors of the letter and the producers of the report find fault.”

However, it is odd that McCain would expect Bachmann to produce the outcome of an investigation before any investigation has even taken place. As Bachmann noted, “these questions are raised by the U.S. Government of anyone seeking a securityclearance.” So why should Huma Abedin be exempt? Would an official who had family connections with the Ku Klux Klan or the Aryan Nations be similarly exempt from scrutiny? If not, why should someone with familial connections to a group dedicated to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within”?

As Bachmann pointed out in her letter to Ellison, the Muslim Brotherhood ties of Abedin’s mother, father and brother have never been a secret, and have long been noted in the international press. Abedin herself has never publicly distanced herself from the Brotherhood, or explained how her worldview or her vision of Islam differ from that of her parents or brother. So by what moral calculus can it possibly be “sinister,” as McCain put it, to ask that Abedin be subjected to the same scrutiny that would be focused upon anyone seeking a security clearance that would allow access to sensitive material comparable to that which she enjoys?

Read it all. And here is Spencer discussing all this on the Mark Levin Show:

Posted by Pamela Geller on Sunday, July 22, 2012 at 02:04 PM

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/07/bachmann-is-right-mccain-is-wrong-on-the-muslim-brotherhood-in-the-us-government.html