Infiltrated: Republican Party and Fox News

Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack

As we demonstrated with The Abedin “Affairs” with Al Saud, there is a movement afoot in the West that seeks to transform Muslim minority lands into Muslim majority lands. And while the Right points fingers at the left on an array of issues, we need to seriously examine this movement’s spigot—Saudi Arabia and the Royal family.

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is a member of that family. He acquired 5.46% of Fox News Channel's parent Company - Newscorp. - in 2005. He is also its second largest shareholder. It was Fox News that provided a platform for perhaps the most stinging rebuke of Rep. Michele Bachmann's questions about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in general, and Huma Abedin's background in particular. Edward Rollins - Bachmann's former campaign chief - denounced Bachmann with a piece entitled, "Shame on you, Michele" while Fox provided no counter-balance to speak of.

The Fox News website also reported the rebukes of Bachmann by John McCain and Republican House Speaker John Boehner, yet Bachmann's position was all but ignored.

So much for “Fair and Balanced”.

Alwaleed has purchased significant influence at major U.S. Universities and has contributed to CAIR. How does this all work? Well, it was explained by Al-Walid himself. In an article that appeared on Accuracy in Media's website, Diana West quoted from an interview the Saudi Prince granted to Arab News:

“Arab countries can influence U.S. decision-making ‘if they unite through economic interests, not political,’ (Alwaleed) stressed. ‘We have to be logical and understand that the U.S. administration is subject to U.S. public opinion. We (Arabs) are not so active in this sphere (public opinion). And to bring the decision-maker on your side, you not only have to be active inside the U.S. Congress or the administration but also inside U.S. society.’”

Even the very liberal, Soros-backed Think Progress, reported on bin Talal's influence over the Fox News Channel. In 2005, during riots in France (and two months after bin Talal acquired 5.46% of Newscorp.), the banner being run on Fox said, “Muslim riots.” Think Progress quoted bin Talal as saying the following:

“I picked up the phone and called Murdoch… (and told him) these are not Muslim riots, these are riots out of poverty. Within 30 minutes, the title was changed from Muslim riots to civil riots.”

In 2001, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly interviewed Sami al-Arian and aggressively pursued al-Arian when the latter seemed to implicate himself as being involved in terror fundraising. Al-Arian was eventually convicted and O'Reilly's efforts played a key role. It would be O'Reilly's high water mark on such matters.

In an exchange with bin Talal in 2011, Fox News host Neil Cavuto made the pecking order quite obvious when he referred to the Saudi Prince as “Your Highness”.



Then, in May of 2012, conservative host Sean Hannity welcomed none other than Ground Zero mosque imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf to his program to... promote his book. To his credit, Hannity was not as deferential as Cavuto was with bin Talal but he did provide Rauf with the platform to market his book.

Why?

The Democratic Party is lost and it has gladly welcomed Islamists so why are there Islamists with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood registering with the Republican Party? Part of the answer is that the Republican establishment is allowing them in. It is the Tea Party, which predominantly understands the Islamic threat that rejects Brotherhood elements.

Let us look at some examples.

NEZAR HAMZE
CAIR's Executive Director for South Florida is a man named Nezar Hamze. As such, Hamze is furthering the cause of CAIR's leadership. The group's national Executive Director and co-founder is Nihad Awad, a man who has expressed support for Hamas; he denounced the convictions of Islamic fundamentalists found guilty of the 1993 WTC bombing and did so while expressing a belief that the Mossad was behind that bombing. Prior to that Awad was the Public Relations Director for a Hamas front group. Incidentally, Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel.

Another CAIR co-founder - Omar Ahmad - was actually quoted by the San Ramon Valley Herald on July 4, 1998 as saying something that should be considered antithetical to both political Parties in the United States:

“Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran…should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

If Hamze will not denounce the views of his group's leadership, he has no place in the Republican Party. Yet, Republican Party leadership will not denounce him.

MOIN "MOON" KHAN
When Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) made comments critical of CAIR and would not apologize, Moon Khan – a Muslim Republican who is a precinct committeeman and York Township board of trustees’ member – invited Walsh to his home for some 'dialogue' with some other members of the Muslim community. Walsh ultimately visited Khan's home and addressed more than 80 Muslims but did not apologize, though not for lack of trying on Khan's part.

Walsh's initial comments were critical of CAIR, a group sympathetic to both Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. As a Republican, why wouldn't Khan stand with Walsh? Instead, he painted Walsh as defensive and unyielding, as someone unwilling to apologize for his comments. Khan once served as a chairman of Brotherhood front, ISNA's 1997 National Convention's Media Relations Committee.

SUHAIL KHAN
The son of Mahboob Khan, Suhail Khan, was born to a man who co-founded two Muslim Brotherhood groups in the United States – the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim Students Association (MSA). Despite this undeniable truth, while at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in 2011, Suhail said on camera that, “there is no Muslim Brotherhood in the United States.” With that one sentence, Khan denied his father's work and obviously did so because he didn't want the truth about it revealed.

Besides founding two Muslim Brotherhood groups, Mahboob Khan was an anti-Semite who agreed with the primary goal of the Muslim Brotherhood in America – overthrow the United States from within. The elder Khan never hid his true colors. In fact, as Paul Sperry wrote in Front Page Magazine, his son Suhail pledged to carry on his “dear father's shining legacy”. Conversely, at CPAC, Suhail denied his father's work. Yet, of all the people the Republican Party goes out of its way to distance itself from, Suhail Khan gets a pass.

GROVER NORQUIST
Then we have Grover Norquist who is perhaps the most prominent Republican to avoid accountability for his Islamist ties. Norquist is founder of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), a conservative group formed at the behest of Ronald Reagan in 1985. Then, something happened circa 1998. Norquist began to be influenced by two men who would later be convicted on charges related to terrorism – Abdurahman Alamoudi and Sami Al-Arian. According to Center for Security Policy's Frank Gaffney, Alamoudi's deputy – Khaled Saffuri – co-founded an organization called the Islamic Free Market Institute (IFMI), with Norquist. In 2005, Gaffney reported that he made it known to Norquist that the ATR founder was consorting with Muslim leaders who had unseemly ties. Gaffney wrote at the time:

The idea that Norquist was unaware that he was aiding and abetting Islamists became untenable after I, among others, made known to him that his outreach effort was reaching out not to peaceable, tolerant, pro-American Muslims... but to those who are none of the above – i.e., adherents to an Islamofascist ideology and/or their sympathizers, financiers and apologists.

Less than two months after the 9/11 attacks, in a an article published by the New Republic, writer Franklin Foer wrote about how Saffuri, Norquist's co-founder at the Islamic Free Market Institute, began ushering Islamic leaders into the White House shortly after George W. Bush's inauguration nearly one year earlier with the help of none other than Suhail Khan, an administration advisor at the time whose job was to help with Muslim outreach.

Moreover, as recently as 2009, Khan was listed as a Board member of both Norquist's IFMI as well as CPAC's American Conservative Union (ACU).

In 2011, when much of the backgrounds of Khan and Norquist were available for public consumption, it was reported that Gaffney was the one who had been banned from CPAC while Khan and Norquist proudly attended.

The Republican Party's silence over such an egregious, two-pronged affront was not just deafening; it was a damning indictment of itself.

GEERT WILDERS
Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders launched his anti-Islam Party known as the Freedom Party (PVV) and has seen tremendous success. Formerly a member of the right wing, yet liberal VVD Party, Wilders broke away because VVD supported welcoming Turkey into the European Union (EU). With the passage of time, Wilders is vindicated on a near daily basis in that regard.

American politicians can learn much from Wilders' path. VVD's support for Turkey's ascension to the EU is indicative of Islamic influence on the Party. When Wilders formed the PVV Party, he eliminated that possibility by identifying his Party as being “anti-Islam”. In 2010, The Week reported that Wilders would be launching his Party in both the USA and the UK.

IN CONCLUSION...
As long as agents of the Muslim Brotherhood are able to successfully portray anyone who opposes them as racist, Islamophobic, or intolerant, Brotherhood apparatchiks will continue to make strides in much the same way that Nezar Hamze, Moon Khan, Suhail Khan, Grover Norquist, and Alwaleed bin Talal have made strides.

Conservatives will one day be faced with a decision. When that day comes, they will have to decide if the Republican Party can be sufficiently held accountable for identifying groups and individuals sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood. If it cannot, the birth of an anti-Islam, Tea Party will be in order.

Many of those who call us racist are anti-Semites, which makes them racist projectionists.

Walid Shoebat is a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood and author of For God or For Tyranny

Ben Barrack is a talk show host and author of the book, Unsung Davids

cross-posted at Shoebat.com

GEERT WILDERS TRIAL FALLS APART - JUDGES QUIT

The judges in the trial of Geert Wilders found the perfect way to get out of a very uncomfortable position after the prosecution recommended last week that charges be dropped. Whether it was their intention to step down from the proceedings because the Defense accused them of bias matters little.

Via Reuters:

Oct 22 (Reuters) - A Dutch court approved on Friday a request from anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders to have new judges for his trial on charges of inciting hatred against Muslims.

Wilders made this request earlier in the proceedings but it was declined. The court has now agreed with Wilders and has stepped down based on claims that a court official has attempted to intimidate one of the defense's witnesses.

Via Dutch News:

Geert Wilders' trial on inciting hatred charges in Amsterdam took a new twist on Friday after it emerged another court official may have tried to pressure one of the defence witnesses.

The allegations, in De Pers newspaper, led Wilders' lawyer Bram Moszkowicz to again ask for the judges to be dismissed because they refused to rule on whether the witness should be recalled.

Wilders broke his silence to call personally for new judges. The trial is 'a great big mess', Wilders told the special panel considering the request.

The Monsters & Critics website is reporting that one of the judges tried to influence one of the defense witnesses at a dinner.

Wilders had filed the partiality complaint on grounds that one member of the panel of judges had attempted to influence an expert on Islam, who was being called on as a witness in the proceedings.

When the expert witness, an Arabic scholar, divulged the attempt to influence him, he was no longer allowed by the panel of judges as a witness. Thereupon Wilders' lawyers filed suit declaring that he 'had not the slightest trust' any longer in the judges.

In the wake of the ruling, it meant that a new panel of judges would have to be found to carry out proceedings against Wilders.

This is a huge victory for Geert Wilders, made even more so by revelations and admission by the court itself that he was a victim of judicial bias.

The judges should be investigated.

ARE MUSLIMS PROVING GEERT WILDERS' CASE?

As Dutch politician Geert Wilders stands trial in his home country, accused of insulting Islam, thereby inciting hatred and violence against Muslims, actual Muslims are kind of proving his case by threatening - what else - violence against the Netherlands for form a minority government that includes Geert Wilders and his anti-Islam Freedom Party (PVV).

Via the Dutch Press:

Amsterdam - The Taliban have warned of a possible terrorist attack against the Netherlands, according to a press report Monday, in the wake of the government's decision to forming a minority government backed by the anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders.

'If the Netherlands enforce its anti-Islamic policies, it will ensure that they will be the target of an attack by a jihadist group,' Taliban spokesman Sabiullah Mujahid told the de Volkskrant newspaper.

Not sure about you but this kind of reminds me of Nathan Thurm who got overly defensive after being accused of being defensive.

h/t Weasel Zippers

VIDEO: IS THIS WHAT GOT PROSECUTORS TO REQUEST WILDERS NOT GUILTY?

During the Geert Wilders trial, one of the judges read an incredibly powerful statement from former Muslim Wafa Sultan, who has made it her life's work to tell people the truth. She was one of only a few witnesses Wilders requested whose testimony was allowed to be heard. This is definitely must-see viewing. Sultan's words are read in Dutch for the court but the English subtitles are easy to follow.

It was only a matter of a few short days after this testimony was read that the prosecution requested that all charges against Wilders be dropped. Once you hear Sultan's words read aloud by this judge, it's not that far of a leap to conclude this testimony had something to do with it. This trial may just be a watershed moment in the battle for western civilization. While the judges have not yet ruled in this case, ruling against the recommendations of the prosecution would come across as quite foolish.

Besides, I've got to believe that the simple act of reading Sultan's words aloud had to have had an impact on this judge.

Powerful stuff via Vlad Tepes

Part 1



Part 2



h/t ROP

GEERT WILDERS FOUND NOT GUILTY

We can at least chalk a portion of this victory for Geert Wilders up to the massive shift in political sentiment in the Netherlands recently. His anti-Islam Freedom Party won huge gains in that country's elections this past June and with that victory comes power. That's not to say there was anything untoward. It simply means that politicians know when the political winds are shifting. They have shifted in a major way in the Netherlands. I wouldn't be surprised to see Wilders leading that country before long.

Via Dutch News:

The public prosecution department on Friday afternoon stated that Geert Wilders is not guilty of discriminating against Muslims. Earlier on Friday it announced he should also be found not guilty of inciting hatred.

Prosecutors Birgit van Roessel and Paul Velleman reached their conclusions after a careful reading of interviews with and articles by the anti-Islam politician and a viewing of his anti-Koran film Fitna.

They said comments about banning the Koran can be discriminatory, but because Wilders wants to pursue a ban on democratic lines, there is no question of incitement to discrimination 'as laid down in law'.

This may be a bigger victory for Wilders than the election. He definitely has the opposition on defense. This victory is certain to strengthen his influence. Look for this guy to take the lead in Europe as the inevitable battle with Islamo-fascism becomes the top priority for the west.

h/t to Weasel Zippers

WOW: TRUTH NOT ACCEPTABLE DEFENSE IN GEERT WILDERS TRIAL

Dutch politician Geert Wilders is on trial for speaking out against Islam and inciting hatred. Part of his defense is that he is only speaking the truth. The prosecution took the absurd step of actually arguing that Wilders should not be allowed to defend himself by arguing that his claims are true and based in facts. That's right. Prosecutors are arguing that the truth should not be tolerated. It's now becoming painfully obvious why Geert Wilders is actually on trial - the powers that be don't want to hear the truth. What else can it be?

Via the Canadian Press:

AMSTERDAM — Populist politician Geert Wilders' negative views of Islam — he has called it "retarded" and "inherently violent" — are his opinions, not irrefutable facts, Dutch prosecutors argued Tuesday at his criminal trial for inciting hatred.

Wilders has argued that his views of Islam are supported by expert and academic analysis, and speaking the truth cannot be a crime. He says the charges against him are an attack on the freedom of speech.

But at the second hearing of his closely watched trial, prosecutors countered that there is no general agreement about the nature of Islam, and Wilders' statements are opinions that cross the legal threshold.

Hopefully, this will become a moment similar to what happened in the Supreme Court case known as Citizens United vs. FEC. That trial was about campaign finance and whether corporate dollars could be used to produce political films either for or against candidates. There was a moment of clarity in which the argument of the FEC came down to an advocacy for banning books.

It was an eye-opener and hopefully a man being told he cannot argue his case based on truth and facts is another one.

h/t to Jihad Watch

JUDGES IN GEERT WILDERS TRIAL STAYING PUT

On the first day of Dutch politician Geert Wilders' trial, he asked the judges to recuse themselves for being biased against him. They responded by adjourning for 24 hours until they could render a decision. When they came back, they said they weren't going anywhere and that Wilders mis-understood their statements.

First up, via Bloomberg, here is what one judge said that Wilders found objectionable on Day 1:

Presiding Judge Jan Moors yesterday, on the first day of the trial, told Wilders the court “reads newspapers and watches television” and that Wilders has been blamed by others for being “good in taking a stand and then avoiding a discussion.” By choosing not to testify “it seems you’re doing that today as well.”

After Wilders accused the judges of bias, they came back one day later and said they would not recuse themselves; here is their explanation:

“There are no weighty indications that the judges have given the impression of being prejudiced,” Judge Frans Bauduin, who was brought in to rule on the impartiality question, said at the court today. The words used by the presiding judge in that last sentence were chosen unfortunately,” Bauduin said. “They’ve given the requestor a wrong impression.”

Words chosen unfortunately? How about the bias? Was that chosen unfortunately too?

h/t to Weasel Zippers

GEERT WILDERS THROWS DOWN GAUNTLET AT BEGINNING OF TRIAL

On Day one of Geert Wilders' trial, in which he is accused of inciting hatred toward Islam, he was able to get the judges to adjourn for 24 hours after calling for them to recuse themselves based on the grounds of bias. The Dutch politician whose anti-Islam party made huge gains in the June elections, putting Wilders at the head of the third largest political party in the Netherlands, is facing a year in jail if convicted and a huge fine.

He's not backing down at all. Via the AFP

AMSTERDAM — The hate speech trial of Dutch anti-Islam MP Geert Wilders was adjourned for 24 hours shortly after opening in Amsterdam on Monday as he called on the judges to recuse themselves on the grounds of bias.

"We will now retire to consider" Wilders' application, said judge Frans Bauduin, the chairman of a special panel of judges hastily convened to hear the recusal bid that interrupted Wilders' trial.

This could be the most important trial of the century. Inexplicably, Dutch leadership seems to have an extremely bad case of Stockholm Syndrome.

A little further into the AFP article, we learn what prompted Wilders to request the recusal of the judges:

After a brief initial statement in the morning in which he defended his right to free speech, Wilders announced to the court that he would invoke his right to remain silent and not answer any questions.

This moved presiding judge Jan Moors to observe that Wilders has often been accused in the media of making wild statements and then avoiding the discussions they evoked, adding “it seems as if you’re doing it again”.

What's very interesting here is that if the judges are fearful of siding with Wilders, he may have given them an out.

If they do recuse themselves, it might signify cowardice; if they don't it could signify sympathy for Wilders' accusers.

On October 2nd, two days before his trial started, Wilders gave a speech in Berlin. HERE is the link.

h/t to Weasel Zippers

NEWSWEEK BLAMES GEERT WILDERS FOR TERROR THREATS

Talk about delusional. This is Stockholm Syndrome on steroids from Newsweek. In a story from the magazine that not so long ago sported the cover that said, 'We're All Socialists Now,' it's apparently lowered the bar on itself. The article is called, 'Turn on The Red Light,' and instead of demonizing the actual would-be perpetrators of any terror attack in Europe, Newsweek singles out 'Muslim bashers' as being the source of the threat.

Via NewsWreck:

For years jihadists have exploited a few persistent issues: NATO’s presence in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories. What’s new is the rising power and influence of xenophobic, anti-Muslim parties that are making Europe an ever-more target-rich environment for the terrorists. “The far right and the jihadis need one another,” says anthropologist Scott Atran, who is frequently consulted by U.S. government agencies about the social and organizational characteristics of terrorist organizations. In Europe especially there’s a growing impression that Muslims with immigrant backgrounds are “being thrown to the wolves,” says Atran. That fear plays directly into the jihadists’ propaganda. “This is politics,” says an architect of French counterterrorist strategy, declining to be named talking about his bosses. “But it does not help stop terrorists.”

The most conspicuous provocateur at present is Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders. His anti-Islam, anti-immigrant Freedom Party is expected to have a pivotal role in the conservative coalition government still taking shape nearly four months after elections. Wilders first came to international attention in 2008 as producer of a film called Fitna, attacking Islam as a repressive ideology. “I think he hoped there would be riots, and nothing like that happened,” says Edwin Bakker of the Clingendael, Netherlands Institute of International Relations.

An oft-used movie line came to mind as I read that.

"Just give them what they want and they'll leave us alone."

There were passengers on three jet airliners on September 11, 2001 that heard the same line before they were slaughtered. Passengers on the fourth plane didn't buy it and fought back, likely saving U.S. Capitol building from a direct hit.

h/t to Weasel Zippers

GEERT WILDERS GETTING HIS BURQA BAN?

When his anti-Islam party won a substantial share of seats in the elections this past June in the Netherlands, Geert Wilders also received leverage and political capital. He's obviously showing that he's willing to use it. Two other parties in that country realized that in order to get the support of Wilders' PVV party, they had to yield on what has become a major agenda item for Wilders. The agreement reached between the parties includes banning the Burqa.

Reuters reports:

Two center-right parties agreed on Thursday to ban the burqa in the Netherlands as the price for parliamentary support from the anti-Islam Freedom party for their minority government.

The Netherlands would become the second European Union country to ban the burqa after France, in what many see as a shift to the right which has dented the bloc's reputation for tolerance and may increase security risks.

The agreement tightens the rules on immigration and boosts the number of police officers in a sop to far-right Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders, who is on trial in the Netherlands for inciting hatred against Muslims.

As Wilders is getting other party leaders to jump on board with his agenda, he himself goes on trial next week for inciting hatred and insulting Muslims.

Via Blooomberg:

Wilders, 47, is charged with insulting a group of people, inciting hatred and inciting discrimination with his comments, the court said on its website. Wilders may face as many as two years in prison or be fined as much as 19,000 euros ($26,000).

Uh, so should the other party leaders who agreed to ban the burqa and tighten up on illegal immigration be prosecuted too? It would seem that these charges against Wilders would best be dropped since an increasingly large number of people in his country are aligning with him.

h/t to Weasel Zippers

GEERT WILDERS GOING ON OFFENSE WITH MESSAGE

Dutch politician Geert Wilders, head of that country's Freedom Party (PVV) has been calling for a ban on all immigration into the Netherlands from Islamic countries as well as a ban on Shariah law. Now he is taking his message to other countries later this year. Bolstered by huge gains in his country's recent elections, Wilders appears to be getting more confident in his message.

Via the UK Guardian:

An anti-Muslim populist in the Netherlands is forming an international alliance to spread his message across the west in an attempt to ban immigration from Islamic countries, among other goals.

Geert Wilders, leader of the Freedom party, told the Associated Press that he would launch the movement late this year, initially in five countries: the US, Canada, Britain, France and Germany.

"The message, 'stop Islam, defend freedom', is a message that's not only important for the Netherlands but for the whole free Western world," Wilders said at the Dutch parliament.

Among the group's aims will be outlawing immigration from Islamic countries to the west and a ban on Islamic sharia law. Starting as a grassroots movement, he hopes it eventually will produce its own lawmakers or influence other legislators.

In the U.S., the Ground Zero mosque controversy has served to increase awareness about the deceptive tactics of America's Islamic enemies. Wilders also spoke at the protest there on 9/11. The Tea Party in America seems to be standing up to Islamic intimidation and Wilders may be seeing increased support from it as a result.

h/t to Free Republic

GEERT WILDERS' SPEECH AT GROUND ZERO ON 9/11

It's really shameful that a politician from a foreign country has to come to ground zero on the 9th anniversary of 9/11 and deliver words no one of substantial rank here in the United States will deliver. There are some in congress that come close - Peter King (R-NY) is an example of one - but no one has been willing to go as far as Wilders has. He even does so at great personal risk; he has found himself in physical, political, and legal danger as a result of his work.

On September 11, 2010 Geert Wilders spoke at the ground zero protest, at one point even making reference to the Darryl Worley song, "Have you Forgotten?"

HERE is a partial transcript of Wilders' speech courtesy of his party's website (VIDEO AT BOTTOM OF POST):

Dear friends,

May I ask you to be silent for ten seconds? Just be silent and listen. Ten seconds. And listen… What we hear are the sounds of life in the greatest city on earth.

No place in the world, no place in human history, is as richly varied and vibrant and dynamic as New York City.

You hear the cars, you hear the people, you hear them rushing to their various destinations, you hear the sounds of business and of pleasure, you hear the cheers, you hear the cries, the buzzing sounds of human activity.

And that is how it should be. Always.

Now close your eyes – I know it’s a beautiful day, but close your eyes. I have been told that this day nine years ago was just such a beautiful day -- and remember, or try to remember, or try to imagine the sounds which were heard here on this spot under this same blue sky exactly nine years ago.

The sound of shock, the sound of destruction, the sound of panic, the sound of pain, the sound of terror.

Did New York deserve this? Did America deserve this? Did the West deserve this?

What, my friends, would you say to people who argue that New York, that America, that the West had itself to blame for those horrible sounds?

There are people in this city who argue this. And they are angry because we are gathered here today to commemorate, to make a stand, to draw the line.

My friends, I have come from the other side of the Atlantic to share your grief for those who died here nine years ago.

I have not forgotten how I felt that day.The scenes are imprinted on my soul, as they are on yours. But our hearts were not broken in the same way as the hearts of the relatives and friends of those who lost their lives here.

Many relatives of the victims are here in our midst today. I wish to take this opportunity to express my deepest and most heartfelt condolences to them and to all of the people of New York and America. Humbly, I stand here before you as a Dutchman and a European.I, too, however, cannot forget. How can anyone forget?

Let me remind you of the words from Darryl Worley’s 9/11 song. Have you forgotten how it felt that day? To see your homeland under fireAnd her people blown away....

Be sure to read it all.

An interesting side note is that the former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton stood with Wilders on ground zero. Earlier this week, Bolton seemed to indicate he would consider a presidential run in 2012.

Speaking of Worley, here's the video.



HERE IS THE SPEECH:

WILL GLENN BECK TALK ABOUT FOUNDING FATHERS ON ISLAM

There is no one in the media who touts America's founding fathers more than Glenn Beck. Posters of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Samuel Adams seem to follow him everywhere he goes. That leads me to wonder if he will ever dig in to what our founders thought of Islam. To this point, the subject of America's Islamic enemies is rarely broached by Beck. While he admirably fights the Big Government abuses, he rarely broaches the subject.

One of the times he did, albeit briefly, was on March 8, 2010. During this segment of his television show, he seemed to imply that Dutch MP Geert Wilders - a vehement critic of Islam - is a fascist. Though Beck doesn't overtly say that, the implication seems very clear.



Fast forward to September 10, 2010. Courtesy of an excellent article by Laura Rubenfeld at Pajamas Media, we learn quite a bit about what the founding fathers thought of Islam at the time:

Correspondence from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson on July 16, 1814, reveals John Adams’ true feelings about Islam: Adams states that Mohammed is “a military fanatic” who “denies that laws were made for him; he arrogates everything to himself by force of arms.”

John Adams did indeed own a Quran — the copy he owned contained the following in the preface:

This book is a long conference of God, the angels, and Mahomet, which that false prophet very grossly invented; sometimes he introduceth God, who speaketh to him, and teacheth him his law, then an angel, among the prophets, and frequently maketh God to speak in the plural. … Thou wilt wonder that such absurdities have infected the best part of the world, and wilt avouch, that the knowledge of what is contained in this book, will render that law contemptible …

How about Ben Franklin?

In a March 23, 1790, letter to the editor of the Federal Gazette [7], Ben Franklin wrote:

Nor can the Plundering of Infidels be in that sacred Book [the Quran] forbidden, since it is well known from it, that God has given the World, and all that it contains, to his faithful Mussulmen, who are to enjoy it of Right as fast as they conquer it.

John Adams' son may have perhaps the most incendiary writings about Islam.

Read it all

VIDEO: CUOMO VS. WILDERS - WHO IS THE ISLAMOPHOBE?

The tale of two diametrically opposing views in the form of New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who is running for Governor and Dutch politician Geert Wilders. Cuomo supports construction of the mosque and says he has no plans to investigate the Cordoba initiative's mosque or its funding. This necessarily means that he's averse to confronting the controversy. In the opposite corner is Wilders, who has been an outspoken critic of Islam and actually heads the Freedom Party (PVV); its platform consists of a very large anti-Islamic plank.

Now how about that term, "Islamophobia"? First off, the word "phobia" is defined as follows:

a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.

Opposition against construction of the mosque is running at about 70% in the state of New York. Consequently, those people are being painted as Islamophobic.

NY1 quoted Cuomo:

"I hope nobody is suggesting this is a religion that some people don't like and therefore we should start a government investigation. That would be a terrible and dangerous precedent,"

It would appear that Cuomo has a bit of a fear of what such an investigation might lead to.

Contrast that with the Australian Imam, Sheikh Feiz Muhammad, who is calling for the beheading of Geert Wilders.

Having an irrational fear of something necessarily means you don't want to confront it. It would seem that it is Wilders who is doing the confronting and Cuomo who is doing the avoiding. It is Cuomo who is the Islamophobic one.

Once again, the left is taking terms that apply to itself and placing them on their opponents.

Here is the video of Muhammad talking about Wilders:



After watching that, you are urged and encouraged to watch this video (in Dutch with English subtitles) of Wilders' opening statement in court after being sued for inciting hatred of Islam. Meanwhile, Feiz Muhammad is calling for the assassination of a political leader without apparent consequence.



h/t to Jawa

OUTRAGE: GEERT WILDERS TOLD NOT TO SPEAK

Conservatives in America are constantly told that elections have consequences when they express their outrage over the Obama administration's policies and Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. One would assume that elections have consequences in the Netherlands too. In June there, Geert Wilders's PVV Freedom Party made huge gains.

From his website:

After weeks of discussions among the leading Dutch political parties following the June 9th general elections, a minority conservative ruling coalition has been formed. This gives Geert Wilders' PVV Freedom party some important leverage. This is largely due to the significant seat tallies, 24 that the PVV garnered in the new Hague Parliament, as well as the significant continuing rise in Wilders' and the PVV popularity among voters in the Netherlands.

So as Wilders is surging in popularity in the Netherlands, he's also surging in popularity with a large cross section of Americans who oppose the Ground Zero Mosque. That reality has manifested itself in Wilders being scheduled to appear at the protest there on September 11th. This is apparently lost or disregarded by former General Secretary of Nato, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer who seems somewhat reluctant to embrace the 'elections have consequences' mantra. Via Dutch News:

De Hoop Scheffer, a Christian Democrat and former foreign minister, says he is personally against the building of a mosque close to Ground Zero. But he thinks it inadvisable for Wilders to speak as he will be seen as representing the Netherlands.

One of the consequences of the elections in the Netherlands is the rise in popularity of Wilders in the United States, where we still have a First Amendment.

Scheffer is the one who should think twice before speaking.

LINK to entire story.

GEERT WILDERS TO PROTEST GROUND ZERO MOSQUE

Something tells me this Ground Zero mosque protest in New York City on September 11th could be much larger than anyone is expecting. Dutch politician Geert Wilders is certain to help in that effort. Dutch News is reporting that Wilders - after seeing his party make significant gains in recent elections there - will be speaking at the rally.

Via DutchNews:

Geert Wilders is to speak at the rally being held in New York on September 11 to protest at plans to build a mosque close to the site of Ground Zero, the PVV said on Friday.

The rally is being organised by a group called Stop Islamization Of America which says it is wrong to build a mosque so close to the place where some 3,000 died when Islamic extremists flew two planes into the World Trade centre.

It's pretty sad that a Dutch politician with real guts is coming to America to defend against a monument being built to Islamic conquest near ground zero while that city's mayor, Michael Bloomberg is the epitome of cowardice.

Sad. Very sad.

GEERT WILDERS SAYS JORDAN SHOULD BE PALESTINE

Dutch politician Geert Wilders continues to raise his game as others refuse to join him, apparently unable to read the tea leaves resulting from Wilders' huge gains in the recent June 9th elections in The Netherlands. Israel is almost constantly on defense against the collective arab world, which refers to Israel as occupied land. That occupied land belongs to the Palestinians and should be called 'Palestine' according to them. As a consequence, Israel is constantly trying to defend itself by having to explain why it should be called 'Israel'.

Enter Geert Wilders, who says Jordan should be re-named 'Palestine' and that Palestinians can move. Via Ynet:

"Jordan is Palestine," said Wilders, who heads the third-largest party in Holland. "Changing its name to Palestine will end the conflict in the Middle East and provide the Palestinians with an alternate homeland."

Wilders added that Israel deserved a special status in the Dutch government because it was fighting for Jerusalem in its name.

"If Jerusalem falls into the hands of the Muslims, Athens and Rome will be next. Thus, Jerusalem is the main front protecting the West. It is not a conflict over territory but rather an ideological battle, between the mentality of the liberated West and the ideology of Islamic barbarism," he said.

Predictably, Jordan didn't take kindly to Wilders' assertions, neither did the Saudis. The west is in desperate need of leaders like Wilders.

The phrase, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way" could not be more appropriate.

h/t to Free Republic

GEERT WILDERS' PARTY GAINS BIG IN ELECTIONS

Known as the Anti-Islam Freedom Party, the party that Dutch MP Geert Wilders has been leading did quite well in the June 9th elections in the Netherlands. In that country, there are multiple parties represented in a 150-member Parliament. Consequently, party coalitions are necessary. Wilders' Freedom Party had 9 seats going into the election.

London Times reports:

The Freedom Party of the anti-Islam MP Geert Wilders emerged as the third force in Dutch politics last night, more than doubling its number of seats in Parliament in the country’s general elections.

Exit polls predicted that Mr Wilders would command 23 seats, up from 9 — pushing the Christian Democrats, led by the outgoing Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, into fourth place.

This is a huge gain for Wilders and while it won't put him at the top of the Netherlands' government, it will give him significantly more power within it.

What still remains to be seen is which of the two parties that will hold more seats than Wilders' Freedom Party will come out on top - either the Dutch Labour Party or the Liberal Party (VVD). Unlike in the U.S., that "Liberal" Party is actually a right-wing party that ran on a platform of cost-cutting. Of the two, that is the one that would benefit Wilders the most when it coalition time comes. As of this writing, it was still too close to call. Either Labour or VVD will end up with 31 seats. At 23, Wilders' Freedom Party will be significant.

Job Cohen, the head of Labour, doesn't seem to like Wilders much while the head of VVD, Mark Rutte, might include putting Wilders on his Cabinet.

Mr Wilders, who wants to ban Muslim veils and the building of new mosques, is constitutionally bound to take part in coalition talks. He could be offered a place in a Cabinet chosen by Mr Rutte, who has said that the Freedom Party is “just another party”, but Mr Cohen has ruled out on moral grounds sharing power with the controversial critic of Islam on moral grounds.

What I find interesting is Wilders' rise in conjunction with Turkey's bold lurch toward overt support of the Gaza flotilla, Hamas, and Islamic fundamentalism in general. I don't want to overstate it but we could be witnessing a re-make of how Winston Churchill came to power as the rise of Turkey continues.

UPDATE: Breitbart reporting that Rutte's VVD Party ended up with 31 seats with Labour getting 30. This would appear to be more good news for Wilders.

More at Times Online

GEERT WILDERS STANDING ALONE IN SUPPORT OF ISRAEL

Sorry for two consecutive posts involving Glenn Beck but it couldn't be helped. To Beck's credit, he has been very outspoken in support of Israel defending itself against the flotilla of thugs that attempted to break Israel's blockade. A prominent politician in Europe - Geert Wilders - has been alone in his support of Israel within the political leadership of the Netherlands. This is significant because Glenn Beck implied back in March that Wilders might be put in power by fascists.

As I wrote at the time, Beck - for all the good he does - was very unfair to Wilders. Dutch News is now reporting that Wilders is not only an outspoken supporter of Israel's handling of the flotilla but that he's alone in doing so:

MPs from across the political spectrum, even those traditionally supportive of Israel, have said they were shocked by Israel's actions.

'Everything points to the fact that it is not right what Israel has done,' the Volkskrant reports VVD MP Atzo Nicolai as saying. Unless Israel comes up with a convincing story, an international inquiry will be unavoidable, he said.

However, PVV MP Geert Wilders said it is 'cheap' to attack Israel. 'I am certainly not going to make a cheap attack on Israel by howling in the woods with the rest of the wolves,' he told tv show Nova.

Israel was fully justified in entering the ships to see if they were also carrying weapons, he said.

The foreign affairs minister went so far as to say he wants the Israeli ambassador to appear in The Hague to answer questions.

Again, Beck does far more good than anyone else in television these days but when he's wrong, he should be corrected. Given his position on Israel lately, it is time for him to stand with Geert Wilders. To refresh your memory, here is Beck talking about Wilders back in March.

ANOTHER REASON TO LIKE GEERT WILDERS

There is another reason to like Geert Wilders and even Glenn Beck would seemingly have to agree with this one. If you remember, Beck implied on his March 8th television program that Wilders is a fascist. If one considers that putting words in Beck's mouth, he at the very least said that the election of Wilders as Prime Minister in the Netherlands would signify that country's turning toward fascism. However, Beck has done little, if anything, to clarify what he meant. In fact, Fox News had the video of that segment pulled from YouTube (video below courtesy of eyeblast).

According to Radio Netherlands, Wilders is calling for the closing of two Public Broadcasting channels along with shutting down the source of this story, Radio Netherlands:

The three public TV networks should be reduced to one, and Radio Netherlands Worldwide, the country's international broadcaster, should be abolished altogether. The party argues in its election manifesto that these measures are necessary to free up the financial means needed to pay for health care.

Forgive my skepticism but would a fascist call for reducing the government's media influence? Moreover, if Geert Wilders was filling a fascistic void, would he be concerned about government waste? On the contrary, Wilders is sounding like quite the capitalist - a principle that Beck espouses loudly on a near daily basis.

This story takes on an interesting degree of salience in light of the fight over internet regulation here in the United States and the recent court ruling that said the FCC has no grounds to do so. Beck is vehemently opposed to the effort - being spearheaded by Robert McChesney, a professed Marxist. Based on Wilders' calling for the elimination of Public Broadcasting channels in his own country - as a politician running for office, no less - he likely cheered this decision as loudly as did Beck.

To clarify, this isn't a matter of two people - Beck and Wilders - coincidently sharing a small slice of common ground by agreeing on something inconsequential, with one of the two men implying the other is a fascist. Wilders is championing something that is at the very core of Glenn Beck's arguments - freedom from government control, specifically the first Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in this instance. Wilders is also doing so at a time that is not at all politically expedient for a sitting politician running for higher office and facing jail time if convicted of the charges against him, which have to do with his being critical of Islam.

This tack being taken by Wilders - calling for the reduction of public broadcasting channels - is yet another example of him picking a fight with an entrenched government establishment. It is a fight Beck is supposed to revere. In fact, on the latter's April 6th television show, he wondered aloud why so many media outlets continue to refuse to help him in his valiant fight - a fight I too think is noble. So clearly, Beck should understand what Wilders is going through. However, on March 8th Wilders was thrown under the bus by the host of the most popular and controversial television talk show host who, by all accounts, should be an ally.

Here is the excerpt from the March 8th Glenn Beck program in which he demagogued a man he should be aligning with.