Updated with POWERLINE’S excellent run-down of Ellison… He is a fan of everything radical and part of the problem in Minniapolis. I have
Given that this guy glorifying the Antifa handbook is Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison I doubt he’s going to be telling the truth about Antifa’s involvement any time soon pic.twitter.com/6zqBhtfkm4
— Matt Wolking (Text TRUMP to 88022) (@MattWolking) May 30, 2020
I first detailed his Ilsamic affinities on my old site (February 28, 2010), But some of POWERLINE are locals… so they have followed all these crazies for longer:
1987–Ellison enrolls in University of Minnesota Law School
1989–Ellison publishes the first of two articles in the University of Minnesota Daily under the alias “Keith Hakim.” In the first such article, Ellison speaks up for the Nation of Islam.
1990–Ellison participates in the sponsorship of the anti-Semitic speech by Kwame Ture given at the University of Minnesota Law School (“Zionism: Imperialism, White Supremacy or Both?”). Ellison rejects the appeal of Jewish law students to withdraw sponsorship of the lecture. Ellison graduates from University of Minnesota Law School.
1992–Ellison appears as speaker at demonstration against Minneapolis police with Vice Lords leader Sharif Willis following the murder of Officer Haaf by four Vice Lords gangsters in September.
1993–Ellison leads demonstration chanting “We don’t get no justice, you don’t get no peace” in support of Vice Lords defendant on trial for the murder of Officer Haaf. Ellison attends Gang Summit in Kansas City with Willis.
1995–Ellison supports Million Man March, appears at organizing rally with former Nation of Islam spokesman Khalid Muhammed at University of Minnesota. Ellison acts as local Nation of Islam leader in march at office of U.S. Attorney in Minneapolis protesting indictment of Qubilah Shabazz for conspiring to murder Louis Farrakhan. Ellison charges FBI with conspiring to murder Farrakhan. Ellison writes article under alias “Keith X Ellison” attacking Star Tribune for criticizing Louis Farrakhan. Here it is; click to enlarge:
1997–Ellison appears under alias “Keith Ellison-Muhammad” at Minnesota Initiative Against Racism hearing in support of Joanne Jackson. Ellison defends “the truth” of Jackson’s statement that “Jews are the most racist white people.” This is the Star Tribune’s article on the controversy, which refers to Ellison’s statement:
1998–Ellison first runs for DFL endorsement for state representative. Ellison identifies himself as member of Nation of Islam in Insight News article on his candidacy. Ellison runs for endorsement under alias “Keith Ellison-Muhammad.”
2000–Ellison gives speech supporting Kathleen Soliah/Sara Jane Olson at National Lawyers Guild fundraiser. Demands Soliah/Olson’s release. Asks audience to recall time when “Qubilah Shabazz was prosecuted in retribution against Minister Farrakhan.” Speaks favorably of cop killers Mumia Abu-Jamal and Assata Shakur.
May 2006–Ellison writes letter to JCRC asserting involvement with Nation of Islam limited to 18 months supporting Million Man March.
August 2006–Ellison appears at unpublicized fundraiser with CAIR executive director and Hamas supporter Nihad Awad among featured guests.
What are we to make of this? Take a look at Ellison’s May 28, 2006, letter to the Jewish Community Relations Council; it served as the keystone of his 2006 campaign for election to Congress. That letter to the contrary notwithstanding, the documents posted above nevertheless by themselves establish that 1) Ellison’s involvement with the Nation of Islam exceeded any 18-month period, 2) Ellison’s involvement with the Nation of Islam extended far beyond the promotion of the Million Man March, and 3) that Ellison himself, far from being ignorant of the Nation of Islam’s anti-Semitism, actively supported it.
The steadfast refusal of the local Minnesota media to examine Ellison’s public record in the course of his congressional campaign represented a striking case of nonfeasance, incompetence and willfully averted eyes that remains a story unto itself……
Ellison shed crocodile tears for a brilliant television sound bite effect–not truth. Matthew Shaffer of National Review reports on the real aftermath of Hamdani’s death on September 11, 2001.
[S]ix weeks after the September 11 attacks – before Hamdani’s remains were identified, which Ellison implies to be the turning point of public perception – Congress signed the PATRIOT Act into law with this line included: “Many Arab Americans and Muslim Americans have acted heroically during the attacks on the United States, including Mohammed Salman Hamdani, a 23-year-old New Yorker of Pakistani descent, who is believed to have gone to the World Trade Center to offer rescue assistance and is now missing.” That is, Hamdani was actually singled out for particular high honors among the thousands of victims of the September 11 attacks.
There’s little evidence of the “rumors” of which Ellison speaks, either. Poke around yourself on Google.
You’ll discover two discordant sets of returns: none for sites and news reports accusing Hamdani of being a terrorist, and many thousands of pages honoring him as a hero while claiming that he was “widely accused” of being a terrorist.
[H]e was eulogized by the New York Times, had scholarship funds named after him, was honored by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly (both of whom went barefoot to honor Muslim practice) at his funeral, and has been celebrated over and over again by the media.
Ah, but Bloomberg and Kelly, who removed their shoes, didn’t convert to Islam.
After this appearance on the Bill Maher show, one writer at BIGPEACE.COM POINTS OUTthat the verse Rep. Ellison quotes is now — for all intent and purposes — defunct:
Matthew Shaffer of NRO (as noted here by Ethel Fenig) exposed Keith Ellison’s mendacious taqiyya (Koran-sanctioned Islamic dissimulation) theater during the Congressman’s testimony at Thursday’s Homeland Security Hearings on American Muslim radicalization.
The next day, during a 3/11/11 interview with Bill Maher (on “Real Time With Bill Maher”), responding to Maher’s complaint that, “[Islam] comes from a hate-filled holy book, the Koran, which is taken very literally by its people,” Ellison invoked a deceitfully redacted extract of Koran 5:32, and the ostensible Koranic paean to “tolerance,” verse 2:256.
Ellison’s disingenuous response was predictable.
Following the murderous acts of jihad terrorism committed on September 11, 2001, Ibn Warraq highlighted the tragic irony of many apologists quoting selectively from Koran 5:32, “whoso slays a soul …shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether; and whoso gives life to a soul, shall be as if he has given life to mankind altogether”, attempting to demonstrate that the Koran disapproved of violence and killing. Here is the entire verse (5:32), quoted in full context, with the intimately related verse, Koran 5:33:
(5:32) Therefore We prescribed for the Children of Israel that whoso slays a soul not to retaliate for a soul slain, nor for corruption done in the land, shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether; and whoso gives life to a soul, shall be as if he has given life to mankind altogether. Our Messengers have already come to them with the clear signs; then many of them thereafter commit excesses in the earth. (5:33) This is the recompense of those who fight against God and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement
[For direct comparison see, Mishna, Sanhedrin, IV, 5, “Thus was created a single man, to teach us that every person who loses a single soul, it shall be written about him as if he has lost the entire world, and every person who sustains a single soul, it shall be written, about him as if he has sustained the entire world”]
As Warraq noted, with regard to Koran 5:32/33, 1
The supposedly noble sentiments are in fact a warning to Jews. [2 see these commentaries as well] “Behave, or else” is the message. Far from abjuring violence, these verses aggressively point out that anyone opposing the Prophet will be killed, crucified, mutilated, and banished
Regarding the other pacific sounding verse Congressman Ellison cited, 2:256, it must be contextualized by Muhammad’s bellicose evolution within the Koran itself. But how, exactly? Abrogation is critical to understanding this evolution. Ali ibn Abi Talib—revered by Shiite Muslims and Islam’s 4th “Rightly Guided” Caliph—is reported to have told a pious Muslim companion, Abdul Rahman
“[C]an you differentiate between abrogating and abrogated verses” Abdul Rahman said, “no.” Thereupon Ali said “Thou art damned and causeth others to be damned.”
The Koran’s “verses of peace,” as cited by Ellison, and many other Muslim and non-Muslim apologists, most notably verse 2:256, “There is no compulsion in religion,” were all abrogated by the so-called verses of the sword. These abrogating verses of the sword recommend beheading or otherwise murdering and mutilating non-Muslims, and Muslim apostates. According to classical Muslim Koranic commentators verse 9:5 (perhaps the most infamous verse of the sword), “Slay the idolators wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush…”, for example, cancels 124 verses that promote patience and toleration. And this doctrine of abrogation, necessitated by the many contradictions which abound in the Koran, originates as putatively taught by Muhammad, himself, at verse 2:106: “Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?”. This verse, in combination with verses* 16:101, 22:52, and 87:6, was elaborated into a formal system of abrogation (naskh in Arabic) by the greatest classical Muslim Koranic scholars and jurists, which entailed (p.72),
…the suppression of a ruling without the suppression of the wording. That is to say, the earlier ruling is still to be found in the Koran, and is still to this day recited in worship, but it no longer has any legal force.
I brought this up in a discussion with a Muslim in a debate setting and he never got back to me… I wonder why? Here is a small reference to this conversation from another post of mine:
iii. Comparison of Scripture. Some quick facts. Scripture in Islamic tradition is prescriptive. In the Biblical sense it is descriptive. This simple comparison goes a long way to explain why most of the terrorists in the world today are Islamic. Another explanation for this phenomenon is that in the Islamic fundamentalist tradition, verses in their Scripture. I guess the best way to exemplify this is with this final posting in a debate where a Muslim was trying to explain his faith to others. However, I showed him I had an in-depth understanding of his view of his scripture. Here is my response which is cataloged at my site Discussing God:
You see, unlike the Bible, the Qu’ran abrogates its “verses” and depending on what time period they were written (and depending on if the Muslim community was weaker than it was later), these later verses take over in importance (replaced with something “better”) in application for the Muslim.
So, Kursat, is this Sura Meccan? More specifically, is it the fifth and sixth years of the Prophet’s Mission? There is even a period after this in Mecca. After this period was Medina, right?
For those who are not aware of this abrogation (stated in the Qu’ran) and are use to thinking of Scriptures in a “Western” manner, this Sura you gave sounds great. But if one understands the full implications of 2:106 and 16:101. Then this changes the ballgame a bit, doesn’t it Kursat?
Obviously Kursat didn’t return because he was not a moderate Muslim. Moderates look at the Qur’an as descriptive and they reject the idea that these verses in the Qur’an are placed in any chronological importance. THUS, the later verses about Jihad in Islamic fundamentalism DO NOT trump the one’s about peace.
….. The main texts of Islam are the Qur’an, the Hadith, and the Sira. The Qur’an is the Uncreated and Literal Word of God. It cannot be changed. It contains contradictions within itself, which long ago were resolved in favor of what are thought to be the later, and harsher verses. The “harsher” verses are said to date from Muhammad’s time in Medina, after he conquered that city. No longer needing to curry favor with anyone, as he had had to do in Mecca, he could afford to be as harsh as he pleased. The interpretive vehicle for dealing with contradictions in the Qur’an, and favoring the later verses, is “abrogation” or naskh. The doctrine dates back more than a millennium. Nonetheless, some have suggested that the doctrine be abandoned, so that the harsher verses no longer would be held to abrogate the softer verses from Muhammad’s “Meccan” period. This is unlikely to be accepted by more than a handful of would-be “reformers of Islam.”
The Hadith are the written records of what Muhammad said and did. In the centuries immediately following the death of Muhammad, tens of thousands of Hadith were recorded by imaginative Muslims. It became the job of specialists – muhaddithin – to study the existing Hadith, so as to determine with what degree of confidence to believe in the reliability of any given Hadith. These muhaddithin in the main relied on the study of the isnad-chain – that is, study of the transmission through time of each Hadith. Thus if A heard a story from B, who heard it from C, who heard from D, back as far as possible, and the closer that chain reached to the time of Muhammad and an eyewitness to what he said or did, the more “authentic” that story was deemed to be.
The muhaddithin did make the study of isnad-chains into a laborious and, by our lights, sterile pseudo-science, and in so doing did manage to winnow the tens of thousands of existing Hadith down to about 4,000 (the number of Hadith in the two collections deemed most reliable). There are many collections of Hadith. But six collections of them, identified by the word “Sahih,” by different muhaddithin, are regarded as the most reliable. And among those six, the two compiled by Al-Bukhari and Muslim are treated with the greatest respect. Rather than employing an Accept/Reject system, the muhaddithin established categories of likely authenticity, and proceeded to rank each Hadith according to four levels of reliability, based on study of each Hadith’s isnad-chain. A Hadith that is assigned a high rank of authenticity by Al-Bukhari or Muslim will have much greater authority for Muslims than a Hadith that is assigned to the lowest rank of authenticity by them, or given a middle rank by one of the muhaddithin deemed less authoritative.
The Sira is the name given to the traditional Muslim biographies of Muhammad. The Hadith, which are stories, not in chronological order, about the acts and sayings of Muhammad, also contain miscellaneous information about everything from the treatment of women, to the origin of the universe, to music and musical instruments, to the correct methods of bathroom hygiene, to views on dogs and statues, and much more. The Sira, by contrast, tells the story of Muhammad, in chronological order, and in particular, it tells of the progressive revelation, over 23 years, by the Angel Gabriel, of Allah’s Message to Muhammad, Messenger of God, Seal of the Prophets. The very first, and indispensable, contribution to “the Biography of Muhammad” is believed to be that by Ibn Ishaq, who lived some 150 years after Muhammad had died. And that biography is preserved thanks to one Ibn Hisham, who copied it down and incorporated it into one of his own works. Non-Muslim scholars differ as to how much faith can be put in a biography composed 150 years after the death of its subject, and preserved in a copy written by someone else (and possibly subject to scribal error), but Muslims do not question what is contained in the Sira, just as they believe in the Hadith and in the ranking systems for the Hadith by those they consider the most authoritative muhaddithin.
All the biographies of Muhammad by Muslims are hagiographical; no matter what he did, Muhammad could do no wrong. He is for Muslims the Model of Conduct (“uswa husana”) and the Perfect Man (“al-insan al-kamil”). The Sira is, in large part, based on the information contained in the Hadith, but aside from its chronological organization (lacking in the Hadith), the Sira offers other information, not to be found in the Hadith, about the times in which Muhammad lived, just as the Hadith contains much information not to be found in the Sira. There is considerable overlap between the Hadith and Sira, but they are not the same.
The texts – Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira – have been the subjects of generations of commentators. A commentary on the Qur’an is called a tafsir, and the commentaries are particularly important because the language, and meaning, of much of the Qur’an require elucidation; some passages are simply unfathomable. The scholar Christoph Luxenberg (an alias), is a philologist who is a native speaker of Arabic, and a great authority on Syriac (the version of Aramaic spoken in the region of Edessa). For years he has been startling the world of Qur’anic studies by claiming that 20% of the Qur’an is incomprehensible even to native speakers familiar with classical Arabic. Luxenberg believes that the Ur-text of the Qur’an is Syriac, possibly the language of a Christian lectionary; he argues that many of the knottiest philological problems in the Qur’an are susceptible of solution if one posits such an Ur-text, written not in Arabic but in Aramaic, or rather in that version of Aramaic known as Syriac. He has been winning converts to this view among non-Muslim Qur’anic scholars, but few Muslims, obviously, can allow themselves to accept Luxenberg’s view. Even without the Luxenberg controversy, It is not possible to read the Qur’an, even its seemingly least difficult verses, and grasp their meaning without making use of the most authoritative Muslim commentators. They serve as the indispensable guides to the meaning of many passages that cry out for exegetical glosses.
The Sunna – essentially, the manners and customs and ways of being of the Arabs in the days of Muhammad – matters to Muslims, or most Muslims, as much as the Qur’an. It has even been said that the Sunna could exist without the Qur’an, but not the Qur’an without the essential gloss of the Sunna. And the Sunna is founded on, consists largely of, what is in the Hadith and the Sira, that is the life – words, deeds, and stories about – Muhammad. He, not Allah, is the central figure in Islam. Muhammad is mentioned four times as often as Allah in the Qur’an. He is the Model of Conduct – uswa hasana – a phrase used in the Qur’an exactly three times, the other two times both used to describe Abraham. He is, furthermore, the Perfect Man, al-insan al-kamil, and everything he did, as a consequence, was Perfect. Whatever he did was right. Some of what he did is exclusive to him – he had nine wives and two concubines, but ordinary mortal Muslims are allowed four wives only. However, much of what he did is not limited to him but is worthy of emulation. Little Aisha caught his fancy when she was six, the daughter of his good friend, and was considered betrothed at that point, but Muhammad contained himself, waiting until she reached the reasonable age of nine before consummating, with sexual intercourse, his marriage to her. That might have been thought one of the details of his life – such as nine wives – that ordinary Muslims would not have been allowed to emulate. But it turns out that the age of the child bride, little Aisha, is not regarded by Muslims as embarrassing – though with Westerners who raise the matter of Aisha, in a manner that suggests dismay or horror, they have started to offer various strategies of pretend denial: she wasn’t really nine years old, but possibly as old as nineteen, we are told, offered preposterously by apologists as the age at which she reached puberty. But we know from reliable Hadith that she was called by her mother when she was on her swings with playmates, and then later, when she went to Muhammad’s house, she brought her toys with her. Swings and toys suggest nine years, not nineteen.
If the subject of little Aisha comes up – and in any conversation or discussion of Islam between Muslims and non-Muslims the latter should be sure to raise the subject, non-Muslims should understand that Aisha matters because she is not merely a figure in the distant and unrepeatable past. Her example affects Muslim girls today. Under the secularizing Shah, the marriageable age of girls in Iran had been raised to eighteen. That learned theologian of Islam, the Ayatollah Khomeini, managed in 1982 to lower the marriageable age of girls from thirteen to nine years. Since Khomeini died in 1989, the legal age has again been raised, to thirteen. A piquant detail: Khomeini married his wife when she was ten years old. And if it worked for him, and for Muhammad, why not allow it for everyone?
Muhammad’s Islam is mandated in the Quran, portrayed in the sira and hadith, and codified by the Islamic books of law and theology. The men who compiled the sira and hadith devoted the majority of their adult lives to the study of Muhammad and Islam. Many lived during Islam’s geo-political power heyday and they did not need to play to a Western audience’s proclivities, preferences, and appetites. Instead, they wrote confidently and strongly; they told it like it was. No apology was needed.
Although there are multiple Qurans in existence, and there are thousands of “sahih” hadith that contradict each other, and there are multiple contradictory stories in the sira, and the four major Sunni schools of Islamic law do not agree on every principle, it is still possible to confidently draw and define “real Islam” which allows for minor variations. Those minor variations are not the issue. Muhammad actually allowed for minor variations within his faith, (take prayer or Quranic recitation for example), so real Islam allows for minor variations as well. Throughout Muhammad’s life Islamic variations occurred but they were minor and did not contradict his teachings and commands.
The Quran, hadith, and sira, give us a composite, and detailed, description of Muhammad’s teachings and actions, and they provide the context behind his words and deeds. We are not operating in a vacuum. With these we can define real Islam. We are not wrestling with a Zen “kōan,” we do not have to approach this topic like a Sherlock Holmes’s mystery, we are not starting from scratch. We have substantial material in our hands; we only need to study and understand it. The study of these texts gives us Muhammad’s Islam.
A man is known by, and defined by his actions. If these correspond to his words or teaching, then we can paint a harmonious picture of a man who not only talked the talk, but also walked the walk. Muhammad talked and he walked his talk. His actions were in agreement with his teachings. He did what he said he was going to do and he performed what he expected others to perform.
The first 13 years of his “prophetic” career occurred in Mecca, where he was very weak and persecuted. Had he been violent his opponents would have had just cause to kill him. Consequently Allah told him not to use force, (Quran 10:99). After 13 years in Mecca he fled for his life to Medina. However, just before he fled to join his armed followers in Medina, Allah commanded him to use violence to spread Islam’s rule.
In Medina, he quickly used violence and the trail of blood behind him grew ever wider. Muhammad grew in power and he liked it. As time when on, the scale of attacks against non-Muslims grew in magnitude.
As the pre-eminent Muslim, Muhammad did many things, some good, some evil. He prayed often, in poverty he shared his food, in hard times he shared his money. He worked side by side with his followers. I believe he loved his followers and I know that they loved him. They would not only willingly die for him, they would gladly kill for him. In doing so, they earned Muhammad’s praise.
Real Islam, Muhammad’s Islam, requires legitimate good works. That is commendable. However, it also requires oppressive, aggressive, violence. That is Satanic, dark, and evil. Of course there is good, but we are focusing on the bad, negative, violent facts of real Islam.
There is no shortage of articles on the web about Muhammad’s acts of oppression and violence. He was a slave trader, he allowed his men to rape captured slaves, he robbed and plundered others, he had his opponents tortured, assassinated, and massacred. Here are some suggested websites and articles where you can read about Muhammad’s evil and violence in Islam:
Better yet, read the hadith and sira for yourself! All of Muhammad’s vile actions detailed by the sites and articles above are drawn from the hadith and sira. Torturing for money? Check. Rape of female slaves? Check. Extortion, robbery, murder, massacre? Check. Sex with children? Check. All of that comes from the Quran, sira and hadith, but the sira and hadith provide the contextual details.
Jesus taught that the thief comes to kill, steal, and destroy; Muhammad killed, stole, and destroyed. Satan demanded worship; Muhammad demanded that all people worship his Allah and recognize his prophethood upon penalty of death.3 Until his dying day, Muhammad did not let up on spreading his power by force and destroying those who rejected his claim of prophethood. That was real Islam in action back then, and it is real Islam in action today.
Bear this historical fact in mind: the pattern of Islam that followed Muhammad’s death is repeated over and over again within the Islamic world today. The early Muslims had their first internal violent power struggle the day after Muhammad died. Once the new king was identified, (Abu Bakr), he then used his power to attack and kill people who wanted to leave Islam, (The Wars of Apostasy). Today, throughout the Muslim world, similar internal power struggles continue. Violence is often used. Once settled, the Muslims then turn their attention against the non-Muslims. Islam is a religion of power, power of one Muslim man over other Muslims, the power of Muslim husbands over their wives, and the power of Muslims over non-Muslims.
Muhammad taught that his followers were to believe in him as prophet and obey him as Allah’s voice to mankind. Therefore, “Real Islam” is believing what Muhammad believed, obeying Muhammad as Allah’s voice to mankind, and doing the things Muhammad did and commanded. All of this is documented in the Quran, hadith, and sira.
Hi guys. Act! for America is an extreme anti-Muslim hate group. They have a Santa Clarita chapter with its own little facebook group and one of its members is none other than city council candidate Jason Gibbs
So I responded thus (I changed the order just a tad):
I like posts like this… because it gives us all a chance to forgo what followers say or do and look at what the founders of the faith purport… and would make us all happy or weary of the devout followers of the two. (The question then becomes… whom are you for or against? If you are “anti-Trump” because of his past statements about women… or some perceived “tyrannical bent”… would applying this idea make you pro or anti Muhammad — and thus, anti-Islamic?)
MUHAMMAD(a) ordered his followers, and (b) and participated in both digging their graves and cutting the throats of between 600-to-900 men, women, and children. Some of the women and boy and girl children were taken as property. He was a military tactician that lied and told others to use deception that ultimately led to the death of many people (taqiyya): The word “Taqiyya” literally means: “Concealing, precaution, guarding.” Lying and cheating in the Arab world is not really a moral matter but a method of safeguarding honor and status, avoiding shame, and at all times exploiting possibilities, for those with the wits for it, deftly and expeditiously to convert shame into honor on their own account and vice versa for their opponents. If honor so demands, lies and cheating may become absolute imperatives.” [David PryceJones, “The Closed Circle” An interpretation of the Arabs, p4] We never see any depictions of Muhammad with children, we just know that he most likely acquired a child bride at age 6 and consummated that “marriage” when she was nine — he was a pedophile in other words; While the Qu’ran states that a follower of this book should have no more than 4 wives, we know of course that he had many more. Many more; Even the most ardent/obedient Muslim still leaves his or her entrance into “heaven” is an arbitrary choice of “Allah” … no story of love and sacrifice.
JESUS, when Peter struck off the ear of the soldier, healed it. Christ said if his followers were of any other kingdom, they would fight to get him off the cross. He also told Peter if he lived by the sword he would die by it.; Christ invited and used children as examples of how Jewish adults should view their faith… something culturally radical – inviting children into an inner-circle of a group of status oriented men such as the Pharisees was unheard of. Especially saying to them their faith must be similar; Jesus, and thusly us, can access true love because the Triune God has eternally loved (The Father loves the Son, etc. ~ unlike the Unitarian God of Islam). Love between us then: (1) my wife and I for instance, as well as family, (2) the love in community/Body of Christ, (3) love for our enemies, etc., has eternal foundations in God; This love from God towards us has caused a Sacrifice to ensure our salvation. Jesus said as well that he has “spoken openly to the world… always teaching in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. ‘I said nothing in secret.’” The Bible also states that God cannot lie… and Jesus is God in orthodoxy. The love of Christ and the relationship he offers is bar-none the center piece of our faith… something the Muslim does not have. Which is why the Church evolved because they have a point of reference in Christ to come back to.
“All of the nine founders of religion, with the exception of Jesus Christ, are reported in their respective sacred scriptures as having passed through a preliminary period of uncertainty, or of searching for religious light. All the founders of the non-Christian religions evinced inconsistencies in their personal character; some of them altered their practical policies under change of circumstances. Jesus Christ alone is reported as having had a consistent God-consciousness, a consistent character himself, and a consistent program for his religion” (Robert Hume, The World’s Living Religions [New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1959], 285-286.).
BY THE NUMBERS
I love the graphics Mrs. Raza put to Sam Harris’ cogent response to Ben Affleck.
(Here is the video description) By the Numbers is an honest and open discussion about Muslim opinions and demographics. Narrated by Raheel Raza, president of Muslims Facing Tomorrow, this short film is about the acceptance that radical Islam is a bigger problem than most politically correct governments and individuals are ready to admit. Is ISIS, the Islamic State, trying to penetrate the U.S. with the refugee influx? Are Muslims radicalized on U.S. soil? Are organizations such as CAIR, who purport to represent American Muslims accepting and liberal or radicalized with links to terror organizations?
The below video is a the original Ben Affleck video challenging Sam Harris. What I didn’t know however is that Ben (and all the panelists) are instructed NOT TO INTERFERE with the interview portion between Maher and whoever his guest is that sits to our right, Maher’s left.
I wanted to repost as well Ben Shapiro’s discussion of this appearance of Ben Affleck on Bill Maher’s show. It was an earlier version of Raheel’s video… but I REALLY liked Raheel’s graphics better:
#Batfleck got pwned!
A good summation of the nembers can be found here, which the below is an excerpt of. Here are some numbers that indicate the percentage of radical Muslims (unlike a Zudhi Jasser or Raheel Raza)…
…Raza breaks down the rising threat with the visual concept of three concentric rings: Violent Jihadists, Islamists, and Fundamentalists. Organizations such as ISIS and al-Qaeda would fall into this first classification of Violent Jihadists. “There are anywhere between 40,000 to 200,000 Muslims involved in fighting for ISIS across the world. That’s just ISIS; and it doesn’t include the 100’s of 1,000’s of Jihadists fighting for al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, The Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and other groups.”
Next is the Islamists. “Islamists want many of the same things as the Jihadists; it’s just that their tactics differ. So instead of engaging in terror themselves, they use the political and cultural system to further their aims.” As she highlights and identifies past and present events, and organizations throughout the world, she brings to light what has been repeatedly been denied. Noteworthy mentions are the Muslim Brotherhood and Council on American-Islam Relations, (CAIR).
The outlying third circle, the Fundamentalists. Raza shares from an exhaustive report by Pew Research revealing, the demographics of Global Islam and the beliefs of these Fundamentalists. In this report, Muslims were interviewed from 39 countries. Here are just a few of the startling statistics:
79-86% of Sharia supporting Muslims in Afghanistan, Egypt & Jordan, believe apostates should be executed
27% is the Average of all Muslims polled believe apostates should be executed.
This 27% makes up approximately 237 million Muslim.
39% of all Muslims in the countries surveyed, believe that honor killings can be a justifiable punishment for a woman who has had pre or extra-marital sex
This 39% makes up more than 345 Million Muslims
53% of Muslims surveyed said they want Sharia Law, or Islamic Law to be the law of the land in Muslim majority countries
Of this 53%, over 52% are in support of whippings and cutting off of hands This 52% makes up more than 281 million Muslims Of the original 53%, 51% are in support of stoning if they are unfaithful to their spouses
This 51% makes over 289 million Muslims
These numbers and concerning statistics only continue. When Muslims in countries outside of the Middle East were polled, the concern continues….
This story has popped up at times, even since it’s debunking. So I thought I would add a bit of my own “swerve” to the fun. PJ-MEDIA (part one and part two) has a great response to this issue that I will merely add (adapt) to and from. So these are the issues I think undermind the idea that more violence and death are caused by “right-wing” extremists:
The perpetrators used as examples do not kill IN THE NAME OF an ideology;
The perpetrators noted as part of the data set are often NOT “right-wingers”;
The data set starts AFTER 9-11;
The data sets DO NOT INCLUDE world-wide statistics.
This entire post can be summed up in one cartoon, to allow the person with low-attention-spen-deficet-disorder the opportunity to “get it” and click out:
Just a quick note before beginning — that explains shortly (see the longer explanation here) — why almost all KKK’ers and “white supremacists” are socialists (a LEFT leaning political economic system):
Again, let’s recap for clarity some of my reasons white racist/nationalists cults vote Democrat:
They are typically socialist in their political views, and thus support the welfare state for personal financial reasons (poor) and ideological reasoning (socialist); or for the reason that it is a way of controlling minorities (racist reasoning). A modern plantation so-to-speak; There is a shared hatred for Israel and supporting of groups wanting to exterminate the Jews (Palestinians for instance).
This is why a majority STILL supported Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. She is a socialist at heart, wants a big welfare state, and does not like Israel as much as Trump, who has kids practicing the Jewish religion. Thee ONLY issue a racist could want to vote for Trump on is his immigration policies… hardly a racist position. It has only now become an issue of bigotry and racism because the Left has moved the goal post in the use of language. Racists no longer means “genetically superior,” rather, it mean you disagree with a Democrat and/or hurt their feelings. Otherwise, these people would be RACISTS!
Even the EL PASO SHOOTER is not a right-winger… even though every media outlet labeled him such:
So, as an example[s] of the bullet points at the top of this post. VOX uses the following example:
JAMES HODGKINSON: In June, a 66-year-old white man from Illinois shot at Republican Congress members during an early morning baseball practice, severely wounding several people including Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the House of Representatives Majority Whip.
STEPHEN PADDOCK: Sunday night, a 64-year-old white man from Nevada opened fire on a crowd of more than 22,000 people at a country music festival in Las Vegas, killing more than 50 and wounding more than 200.
(BTW, I am not one who thinks NOT NAMING these cucks is helpful, so be aware. I am sure the media would like to obfuscate their roots by making it impossible to track them down to “test” their narrative.) Here is a good example of the obfuscation of “being a white-man” versus an “ideology” or belief you are doing your crime in the name of or for some twisted reasoning.
JAMES HODGKINSON (LEFTIST)
I posted on this in more depth, but here is an excerpt OF THAT POST:
The Shooter of Rep. Steve Scalise is a radical Leftist. He was deeply involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement. He railed against the one-percent. Was a long-time fan of Bernie Sanders years before he ran for election. Mind you. the media has a role in egging people on that may have these radical tendencies. On my Facebook, I noted this:
If Republicans are “worse than terrorists”… why wouldn’t Leftists shoot them [us]? Yes, the Democrats (Bernie Sanders intimated this as well as others) say we are worse than ISIS due to rejecting the idea that mankind is driving in a significant manner climate change. The shooter had many posts on climate. I mean Democrats are seriously considering jailing Republicans for denying AGW (anthropogenic global warming).
This shooter was also egged on by Democrat politicians (the following is adapted a bit from FRONTPAGE MAGAZINE):
…What made James Hodgkinson believe that stopping the repeal of ObamaCare was a matter of life and death? Or, as he put it, “Republicans Want to Deny Most All Americans Health Care”?
It was Bernie Sanders who claimed that “thousands of Americans would die” if Republicans repealed ObamaCare. “Families will go bankrupt. People will die,” Elizabeth Warren had tweeted.
James Hodgkinson was a big Bernie supporter. And he was a fan of Elizabeth Warren.
Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe — “People are going to lose lives.” Instead of trying to push gun control, he might have revisited his own rhetoric.
Congressman John Lewis claimed that the repeal would kill.
Congressman Ruben Gallego insisted that he didn’t have to be civil to Republicans because their “policies that are going to kill people”.
It’s a short step from accusing Republicans of killing people to suspending civility to wishing them dead.
And Democrat politicians were downright restrained compared to some of their media allies.
Newsweek’s Kurt Eichenwald wanted to see every Congressional Republican who voted for ObamaCare have a family member perish. “It should be their loved ones who die,” he ranted. “The goprs in congress didn’t just send out a tweet wishing for me to face my own death. They actually voted to do it. If people don’t give a damn about the consequences of what they do, they should face those consequences,” Eichenwald wrote in a statement.
James Hodgkinson was a fan of the Rachel Maddow show. Eichenwald was an MSNBC contributor and his work had been touted by Rachel Maddow.
Calls for violence against Republicans had become normalized.
A few days before the attack, the Huffington Post ran a piece calling for executing Trump “and everyone assisting in his agenda”. It has since come down, but a similarly themed piece defending a “violent response” to President Trump is still up.
Julius Caesar reimagined as Trump and leftist activists as his heroic assassins made headlines. “Killing Republicans” in neighboring Brooklyn did not.
“If the shooter has a serious health condition then is taking potshots at the GOP house leadership considered self defense?” Malcolm Harris, a regular at the New Republic, whose work has appeared at the Washington Post and Salon, inquired.
“Noam Chomsky calls the Republican Party the Most Dangerous Organization in Human History!” was one of the messages on his Facebook page. According to Chomsky, appearing on Democracy Now with Amy Goodman, Republicans are committed “to the destruction of organized human life on Earth.” Forget health care. Republicans are actually trying to wipe out the species by denying Global Warming.
James Hodgkinson participated in the People’s Climate March. Its theme, like Chomsky’s, was that Trump and Republicans were a threat to the entire planet.
If that’s true, shouldn’t someone save the planet by doing something about those Republicans?
Hodgkinson was taught by the left that all problems were reducible to Republican evil. He quoted Robert Reich, a Sanders Institute fellow, claiming that the poor economy was due to tax cuts for the rich.
“Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co,” Hodgkinson ranted. Trump isn’t destroying our democracy. The leftists trying to bring him down are.
The left has whipped up an angry mob and promised them that if they scream and shout enough, President Trump will be forced out of office. They manufactured a crisis and now it’s exploding on them. If they can’t deliver a coup, there will be more shootings like this one.
The Democrats are sleepwalking into a civil war. They want power, but like leftists from Russia to Cuba, they haven’t seriously contemplated the price that will have to paid for their bloody utopia.
And to this day there was no motive known behind the Vegas shooter. If the idea is that he is merely white, and this leads to mass shootings… then African nations should be peaceful. Yet, in 100-days 800,000 people were killed. Not by whites. John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo killed 10-people. And? Chicago is a shit show:
One city., again, one city. Almost all black-on-black (similar to Paddocks white-on-white). Similarly, in the U.S., the Black murder rate and violent crime rate is much higher than white (DAILY WIRE):
1. Data shows that 93 percent of black homicide victims are killed by other blacks.
The left’s rebuttal is that that 84 percent of white homicide victims are killed by other whites, but The Wall Street Journal‘s Jason Riley points out that the white crime rate is “much lower than the black rate.”
2. According to Riley, “Blacks commit violent crimes at 7 to 10 times the rate that whites do.”
Blacks committed 52 percent of homicides between 1980 and 2008, despite composing just 13 percent of the population. Across the same timeframe, whites committed 45 percent of homicides while composing 77% of the population, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Here are some more statistics from the FBI:
In 2013, the FBI has black criminals carrying out 38 per cent of murders, compared to 31.1 per cent for whites. The offender’s race was “unknown” in 29.1 per cent of cases.
What about violent crime more generally? FBI arrest rates are one way into this. Over the last three years of data – 2011 to 2013 – 38.5 per cent of people arrested for murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault were black.
3. Black crime is even more prevalent in the country’s largest cities and counties.
Heather Mac Donald writes in her book The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe that in Chicago, IL, blacks committed 76 percent of all homicides, despite composing 35 percent of the city’s population. Blacks also accounted for 78 percent of all juvenile arrests. Whites, who compose 28 percent of the city’s population, committed 4 percent of its homicides and 3.5 percent of its juvenile arrests. Hispanics, who compose 30 percent of the city’s population, committed 19 percent of its homicides and 18 percent of its juvenile arrests. (Another eye-opening fact from Mac Donald’s research is that only 26 percent of murder cases were solved in Chicago.)
Blacks are 10 percent of the population in Los Angeles, CA, but commit 42 percent of its robberies and 34 percent of its felonies. Whites make up 29 percent of the city’s population, and commit 5 percent of its robberies and 13 percent of its felonies.
In New York City, blacks committed “75 percent of all shootings, 70 percent of all robberies, and 66 percent of all violent crime,” despite only composing 23 percent of the population, said Mac Donald in a Hillsdale speech. Additionally, 2009 Bureau of Justice Statistics numbers show that in 2009, “blacks were charged with 62 percent of robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults in the 75 biggest counties in the country, despite only comprising roughly 15 percent of the population in these counties.”
4. There were almost 6,000 blacks killed by other blacks in 2015.
By contrast, only 258 blacks were killed by police gunfire that year….
Stack took Tea Party anger at taxes to a new level when he flew a plane into the Austin, Texas, IRS building, killing himself. He left behind a manifesto attacking the IRS, taxes, and government bailouts.
There was no evidence that Stack belonged to a Tea Party organization, even though the media immediately made the connection.
Another guy the press immediately tried to connect to the T.E.A. Party. It was pointed out that much of what the IRS Joseph “the bomber” Stack talked about was directly from Michael Moore movies.
The man suspected of intentionally crashing an airplane into a Texas office building today appears to have posted a lengthy online diatribe attacking the Internal Revenue Service and declaring that, “I know I’m hardly the first one to decide I have had all I can stand.”
The things said in his manifesto seem to all be taken straight from Michael Moore movies?
Anti-health care system= SICKO
Anti-Capitalism= CAPITALISM, A LOVE STORY
IRS cronyism with businesses= CAPITALISM, A LOVE STORY
Anti-Bush= FAHRENHEIT 9/11
Blames Big Corporations for job issues= THE BIG ONE
Nope. Not a righty TEA Partier. Here is another person mentioned on the LIST:
James von BrunN (“Right-Winger”)
Now isn’t this fascinating. James von Brunn , the white-supremacist suspect in the Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting in which the guard who was shot has now tragically died, describes the relevance of evolution to his sick thinking. He’s obsessed with “genetics.” He writes in his manifesto (emphasis added):
Approval of inter-racial breeding is predicated on idiotic Christian dogma that God’s children must love their enemies (a concept JEWS totally reject); and on LIBERAL/MARXIST/JEW propaganda that all men/races are created equal. These genocidal ideologies, preached from the American pulpits, taught in American schools, legislated in the halls of Congress (confirming TALMUDIC conviction that goyim are stupid sheep), are expected to produce a single, superintelligent, beautiful, non-White “American” population. Eliminating forever racism, inequality, bigotry and war. As with ALL LIBERAL ideologies, miscegenation is totally inconsistent with Natural Law: the species are improved through in-breeding, natural selection and mutation. Only the strong survive. Cross-breeding Whites with species lower on the evolutionary scale diminishes the White gene-pool while increasing the number of physiologically, psychologically and behaviorally deprived mongrels. Throughout history improvident Whites have miscegenated. The “brotherhood” concept is not new (as LIBERALS pretend) nor are the results — which are inevitably disastrous for the White Race — evident today, for example, in the botched populations of Cuba, Mexico, Egypt, India, and the inner cities of contemporary America. (Here’s the PDF version of Von Brunn’s “manifesto.”)
This wacko despises Christianity, too, though not quite as much as he does Judaism. Like Hitler in Mein Kampf, he draws lessons from his interpretation of Darwinism.
The below is some more news on James von Brunn. As they sift through his life more and more of his reasoning (or lack thereof) is coming to light and I feel I must share it with you. The following is from NEWSBUSTERS:
While Mr. von Brunn is currently being made out to be the poster child of the Republican Party, even a cursory look at his professed views shows he is the avowed enemy of the GOP in its current incarnation. Among many others, Mr. von Brunn hates Rupert Murdoch, Fox News (that means you, too, Shep!), George W. Bush and John McCain.And according to the FBI, Mr. von Brunn even had in his vehicle the address of the Weekly Standard, home base of the dreaded “neo-cons.”
Seems Mr. von Brunn wasn’t a big fan of the Iraq War and also believed that 9/11 was an “inside job.” Given this political sketch, Mr. von Brunn would feel at home at Camp Casey, Cindy Sheehan’s antiwar outpost in Crawford, Texas, and at the Daily Kos convention, rather than partaking in a National Review cruise with pro-Israeli war hawks Mark Steyn and Victor Davis Hanson.
It’s not Charles Lindbergh’s Republican Party any more. And it hasn’t been for more than a half-century. But don’t tell that to the facile minds at the DHS [the Department of Homeland Security] and CNN.
An interesting aside. Dr. George Tiller, who was a women’s health physician, and performed legal abortions. was gunned down in his church by an anti-abortion zealot. Here is how NewsBustrers wrote about the story then:
First Day Contrast: Keith Olbermann Called Tiller Shooting ‘Terrorism’ And A ‘Jihad,’ But Avoided Those Terms For Fort Hood.
On June 1 of this year, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann devoted most of his hour of Countdown to his withering outrage at the shooting of late-term abortionist George Tiller in Kansas (and how it was caused by Fox News).
The tone was dramatically different than his tone on November 5, the night of the Islamic terrorist shooting rampage at Fort Hood in Texas. Here’s Olbermann’s very dry opening: “Nightmare at Fort Hood: How could a soldier kill at least 12 other soldiers and wounded at least 31 more? And why?”
The man accused of opening fire at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC on June 10, James W. von Brunn, left a trail of unhinged writings around the internet.
The anti-semitism of von Brunn is the first thing one notices when visiting these bizarre websites. However, like those of most “white supremacists”, many of von Brunn’s political views track “Left” rather than “Right.” Clearly, a re-evaluation of these obsolete definitions is long overdue.
For example, he unleashed his hatred of both Presidents Bush and other “neo-conservatives” in online essays. As even some “progressives” such as the influential Adbusters magazine publicly admit, “neoconservative” is often used as a derogatory code word for “Jews”. As well, even a cursory glance at “white supremacist” writings reveals a hatred of, say, big corporations that is virtually indistinguishable from that of anti-globalization activists.
James von Brunn’s advocacy of 9/11 conspiracy theories also gives him an additional commonality with individuals on the far-left.
I think this guy fails the “right-wing” category given to him “willy-nilly.”
….Signs emerged that Bedell harbored ill feelings toward the government and the armed forces, and had questioned the circumstances behind the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
In an Internet posting, a user by the name JPatrickBedell wrote that he was “determined to see that justice is served” in the death of Marine Col. James Sabow, who was found dead in the backyard of his California home in 1991. The death was ruled a suicide but the case has long been the source of theories of a cover up.
The user named JPatrickBedell wrote the Sabow case was “a step toward establishing the truth of events such as the September 11 demolitions.”
That same posting railed against the government’s enforcement of marijuana laws and included links to the author’s 2006 court case in Orange County, Calif., for cultivating marijuana and resisting a police officer. Court records available online show the date of birth on the case mentioned by the user JPatrickBedell matches that of the John Patrick Bedell suspected in the shooting….
After the Christian Science Monitor and Talking Points Memo (TPM) connected Bedell to the Tea Party… real evidence started coming out in which I asked this question: “How many Tea Partiers or conservatives…”
Shoot at the Pentagon and hate the military?
Are registered Democrats?
Hate George Bush and the whole Bush family?
Think 9/11 was perpetrated not by Muslims but by Republicans?
Grow and smoke marijuana?
Read left-wing anti-Bush books?
Talk about “economic justice”?
Think the Vietnam War and the Iraq War were not merely mistakes but were part of a government conspiracy?
…Michelle Malkin uncovered a key inconvenient fact which doesn’t quite fit this predictable “right-wing extremist” narrative — that bedell was a registered democrat.
Patterico has now posted a full transcript of one of Bedell’s internet rants — the same one cited by Talking Points Memo as evidence of his right-wing leanings — which has Bedell uncorking phrases like “economic justice” and paragraphs like (writing in 2006 during the Bush presidency) “This organization, like so many murderous governments throughout history, would see the sacrifice of thousands of its citizens in an event such as the September 11th attacks, as a small cost in order to perpetuate its barbaric control. This collection of gangsters would find it in their interests to foment conflict and initiate wars throughout the world in order to divert attention from their misconduct and criminality. The true nature of such a regime would find its clearest expression in Satanic violence currently ongoing in Iraq.” and anti-war conspiracy theories like “The political and military disasters such as the wars in Vietnam and Iraq that an illegitimate coup regime uses against the people…”.
Add all that to the previous discovery already linked above that Bedell’s Amazon “Wish List” featured the the left-wing conspiracy-theory books The Immaculate Deception: The Bush Crime Family and Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, the Powerful Forces That Put It in the White House, and What Their Influence Means for America.
So, which state-run media outlet will be the first to claim this Bush-hating Truther is a tea party activist? …We’ll have to wait and see. In the meantime, the Christian Science Monitor was the first to call the pot smoking, Bush-hating, Truther a right wing extremist. For the record, 35% of democrats believed Bush knew about the 9-11 attacks in advance. 99.9% of the left were Bush-haters.
UPDATE: So… Will the state-run media report this? The Pentagon shooter is linked to several gay rights groups along with PETA, NPR, various drug legalization orgs, Greenpeace and Al Franken. Hmm. So when was the last time you ran into a “right wing extremist” who was a big fan of Al Franken?
Some “right-winger,” so right-wing he registered as a Democrat! The problem is, as IJR points out that the LEFT merely uses a low-threshold definition of right wing:
…However, when right-wing terrorist attacks are coded by New America, those are attributed in a loose manner to mere statements made by the perpetrators that fit the left-wing’s shibboleth that racist or anti-government views define someone as a “right-winger.”
Thus, the conclusions are not only questionable, they are borderline deceptive. The professor concludes:
Right wing terrorism is more deadly for Americans only if you add a number of very limiting parameters (e.g. excluding the victims of 9/11, ignoring “lone wolf” attacks without solid connections to groups like al-Qaeda and their affiliates, etc…). But if you lift those limitations, and apply equal standards, then the raw and unfiltered numbers of deaths of Americans due to Islamic extremism in the United States over the last fifteen years dwarf the numbers attributable to right wing extremism by a ratio of over 62 to 1.
Even if you leave out 9/11 victims and just focus on the ideological statements and goals of the attackers, then the deaths of Americans due to Islamic extremism still outnumber the deaths attributable to right wingers (which reveals an even greater disparity when compared with population groups). If we move beyond America’s borders, then the disparity becomes far greater, with somewhere around 90% of the world’s terrorism related deaths attributable to Islamic extremism, and only a fraction of 1% attributable to right wing extremism.
Back to PJ-MEDIA’S article… they note that “Bloomberg[‘s] View columnist Megan McArdle noted several ‘right-wing’ cases in New America’s data set that were dubious at best.” Continuing with Megan’s column:
Counting the other types of extremist terrorism is a little murkier. Some of them are fairly obvious: When a white supremacist starts shooting people at a Sikh temple, I don’t think we need to wonder too hard what his motives were. On the other hand, the data set The Times relies on also includes Andrew Joseph Stack, who you may remember piloted a small plane into an IRS building in Austin. Stack left a manifesto behind, and it doesn’t exactly read like an anarcho-capitalist treatise. Oh, he’s mad at the government, all right, but he’s mad about … the 1986 revision to Section 1706 of the tax code, which governs the treatment of technical contractors […]
Its closing lines are “The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.”Labeling this as a “deadly right-wing attack” is beyond a stretch; it’s not even arguably correct.
McArdle identifies several other eye-rolling examples of New America’s “right-wing” killers.
Law enforcement arrested a 19-year-old New York man before the Labor Day weekend and charged him with plotting a terrorist attack in New York City. It was the 114th Islamist terrorist plot or attack against the U.S. homeland.
Here is the professors ending and addendums to the linked article:
…The Global Terrorism Index also notes, for example, that since 9/11 only 0.5% (half of 1%) of all terrorist related deaths took place in western countries, to include the United States, Canada, Australia, Europe, etc… This number includes not only deaths due to attacks by right wingers, racists, nationalists, etc… but also Islamic terrorists operating in Western countries who were often responsible for the most deadly attacks. So “right wing” terror attacks account for… only a portion… of only half… of 1%… of all worldwide related terrorist deaths in 2014, based on the GTI study.
Again, as I noted in the introduction, this is not to dismiss the threat of right wing terrorism and its very deadly consequences for some, but only to add perspective to the claims being made. Right wing terrorism is more deadly for Americans only if you add a number of very limiting parameters (e.g. excluding the victims of 9/11, ignoring “lone wolf” attacks without solid connections to groups like al-Qaeda and their affiliates, etc…). But if you lift those limitations, and apply equal standards, then the raw and unfiltered numbers of deaths of Americans due to Islamic extremism in the United States over the last fifteen years dwarf the numbers attributable to right wing extremism by a ratio of over 62 to 1. Even if you leave out 9/11 victims and just focus on the ideological statements and goals of the attackers, then the deaths of Americans due to Islamic extremism still outnumber the deaths attributable to right wingers (which reveals an even greater disparity when compared with population groups). If we move beyond America’s borders, then the disparity becomes far greater, with somewhere around 90% of the world’s terrorism related deaths attributable to Islamic extremism, and only a fraction of 1% attributable to right wing extremism.
Addendum (June 14, 2016): Since the attack on a gay bar by an Islamic State supporter in Orlando that resulted in the deaths of 50 people, New America has updated their numbers to now show that jihadists have killed almost twice as many Americans since 9/11 (and excluding 9/11) than “Far Right Wing-Terrorists.” See my recent analysis for The College Fix.
Addendum (Feb. 28, 2017) Screen shot of current count on the New America website showing 94 deaths due to jihadists, with 50 due to right wing extremism.
(MOONBATTERY hat-tip) Ami Horowitz investigated the mother of many Islamic terror groups, the umbrella group known as the Muslim Brotherhood, and unsurprisingly found that it is devoted to the imposition of a global caliphate. This sinister organization has already established a secure beachhead in the USA.
Secular left and Islamic/Islamist left, united. Marxism / Socialism and Islam, are ideological brothers, both are, utopian, anti-capitalism, big state, regulate society, anti-israel, antijudaism, antichristianity, anti-individual liberty, anti-American, trans-national, wants limits of thought and speech freedom, androgyny, against marriage protection, monopolism, etc. (See more from a chapter by Melanie Phillips, HERE)
(JUMP TO UPDATE) The headlines are in stark contrast to how the corporate media zealously covered the Christchurch terrorist attack by a white supremacist that killed 49 last month, which highlighted not only the attacker’s identity, but his white supremacist motives. But how they and politicians do not report on more than 400% more murders on Easter.
One of my son’s pointed this out, and so I wish to UPDATE the post with the noting of this odd phenomenon. In all my religious studies I never came across this denomination.
Over at LIBERTY NATION, Leesa Donner writes about Obama and Hillary (in their Tweets) coming up with a new sect of Christians: “Easter Worshippers“
…Those pitching their tent on the left of the American political spectrum can’t seem to make themselves utter the “C” word. Many do verbal somersaults to avoid addressing, writing about, or publicly recognizing those who laud Easter. Are we on some sort of right-wing paranoid rant here? Well, let’s take a moment and see where the facts lead us.
Liberty Nation was first alerted to this odd assault on Christians by PATRICK HAUF, who seems to be a rather savvy college student. Perhaps he isn’t the progenitor of this phenomenon, but that’s where we spotted it. Hauf astutely noticed Hillary Clinton’s tweet that referred to Christians as “Easter worshippers.”
Then he did a taste-test, comparing HRC and former President Obama’s tweets about Easter and how they referred to people in the aftermath of the synagogue terrorist attack in Pittsburgh and the horrific killing of Christians in Sri Lanka.
This naturally led to tongue-in-cheek tweets like this one from LN’s Jeff Charles, “Can anyone actually tell me what an ‘Easter Worshipper’ is? Do these people worship the holiday Easter? Are they going to start calling us ‘Christmas Worshippers’ in December?” Then Charles doubled down with: “What happens if a terrorist targets Jews during the same time period as Easter? Are we supposed to call them ‘Passover Worshippers’?”
Here we might take a moment to hearken back to a salient proverb of George Orwell. “Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” Orwell could have added another rubric to language distortion that works just as well: Never write or say the word you despise – just put it on extinction. Then in a generation or so people will ask one another: “Christian? What is a Christian?”
While I like their rants (Paul Watson, Mark Dice, and others) and these commentaries hold much truth in them, I do wish to caution you… he is part of Info Wars/Prison Planet network of yahoos, a crazy conspiracy arm of Alex Jones shite. Also, I bet if I talked to him he would reveal some pretty-crazy conspiratorial beliefs that would naturally undermine and be at-odds-with some of his rants. Just to be clear, I do not endorse these people or orgs.
This is uploaded because many do not know the reasons Asia was placed in jail and sentenced to death. The leftist university says all cultures are equal, and that the real evil in the world is American hegemony. I wish our influence was more in Pakistan. I like Michael’s comment, “these guys are a nuclear power” (rough quote). In a horrific update, we see that the religion of death is living up to its name:
Blasphemy is usually related to insulting Islam, Mohammed or the Islamic deity Allah. Bibi’s blasphemy is based on her being directed to fetch water by a village elder from a well. How in the world did Bibi become charged for blasphemy for merely getting water out of a well? She drew water from a Muslim well. GASP! How dare a 45 year old Christian Pakistani mother get charged for blasphemy for going to a Muslim well? The MUSLIMS were offended and stated that they could no longer draw water from a well contaminated by Christian hands. The act of drawing water from a Muslim well then offended Islam because Bibi was a Christian.
On Monday, Bibi received a Death Sentence from a Pakistani Court for the crime of fetching water as a Christian for Muslim women.
And in January 2014 I posted this video Via CNSNEWS:
For several days the media has been shrieking, wailing, crying and beating its breast over the possible tragic fate of Jamal Khashoggi.
Every utterance made by the Turkish Islamist regime is treated as fact by the media. Trump is being barraged with “how could you” lectures by the same media that is happy to ignore the tens of thousands of political prisoners in Turkish jails.
Why is the media so in love with Jamal Khashoggi?
Guessing isn’t hard. It’s the easiest thing in the world. And there’s only one kind of fellow that the Turkish government would be up in arms over. There’s only one kind of Muslim the media loves. Only one kind.
The fate of Khashoggi has at least provoked global outrage, but it’s for all the wrong reasons. We are told he was a liberal, Saudi progressive voice fighting for freedom and democracy, and a martyr who paid the ultimate price for telling the truth to power.
In truth, Khashoggi never had much time for western-style pluralistic democracy. In the 1970s he joined the Muslim Brotherhood, which exists to rid the Islamic world of western influence. He was a political Islamist until the end, recently praising the Muslim Brotherhood in the Washington Post. He championed the ‘moderate’ Islamist opposition in Syria, whose crimes against humanity are a matter of record. Khashoggi frequently sugarcoated his Islamist beliefs with constant references to freedom and democracy. But he never hid that he was in favour of a Muslim Brotherhood arc throughout the Middle East. His recurring plea to bin Salman in his columns was to embrace not western-style democracy, but the rise of political Islam which the Arab Spring had inadvertently given rise to. For Khashoggi, secularism was the enemy.
The Washington Post was happy to provide a forum for a member of a terror network that is responsible for murdering countless Christians and Jews….