Sibby Online

Roger Cornelius asked and I delivered

White hating racist Roger Cornelius said this in regard to a post that is promoting a Muslim presentation in Aberdeen:

That lunatic Islamophobe from Mitchell needs to educate himself on humanity by attending one of these events.

I delivered on that wish by attending a presentation by Taneeza Islam at the University of South Dakota yesterday. I am glad I went and I even asked the final question. After reviewing my notes and video, I will be covering what I learned.

Every sane human being should be an “Islamophobe”, a response to Taneeza Islam's propaganda

On the eve of Taneeza's Islam's next performance on the Muslim Brotherhood's propaganda dancing pole, we have this analysis regarding the use of "Islamophobe":

Here is what Ayaan Hirsi Ali has to say about my forthcoming book, Confessions of an Islamophobe (coming next week from Bombardier Books; pre-order here now):

No one has upset the Islamophobia cabal more than Robert Spencer. First, he knows more about Islamic doctrine than they do. Next, he has outed all the tricks they use in their taqiyyah bag to disinform the public. Finally and most importantly, Robert will not be cowed. Please read this important book and make sure you share it with as many people as possible.

I’ve denied being an Islamophobe for years, while the charge has been relentlessly thrown at me. In Confessions of an Islamophobe, I explain this dichotomy: Leftists and Islamic supremacists for years have conflated under the term “Islamophobia” two quite distinct phenomena: vigilante attacks against innocent Muslims, which are never justified or justifiable, and honest analysis of the motivating ideology of the jihad threat. I reject the former, but if the latter is “Islamophobic,” then call me an Islamophobe. If it’s “Islamophobic” to note that the texts and teachings of Islam contain numerous exhortations to warfare against unbelievers, and that those exhortations are codified in Islamic law, and that women, gays, Jews, Christians, secular liberals and secular Muslims are threatened by those acting upon those teachings, then every sane human being should be an “Islamophobe.”

In Confessions of an Islamophobe, I explain why, with evidence that even the most hardened Antifa member would have difficulty dismissing (unless, of course, that Antifa member was completely irrational, which is likely to be the case).

This February 2008 analysis by Zeyno Baran provides us with an example of the Muslim Brotherhood's true motivation for using the term "Islamophobia":

Until the Holy Land Foundation trial, Muslim American Society leaders played word games regarding their connection with the Ikhwan. At the trial, it was revealed that a phone book was found at the home of Ismail Elbarrasse—an unindicted co-conspirator of the HLF and former assistant to Hamas leader Musa Abu Marzook—listing the names and numbers of the Muslim Brotherhood leadership in the United States. On the first page of the phone book under the title “Members of the Board of Directors” were fifteen names. Among those names are Ahmad Elkadi, Jamal Badawi, and Omar Soubani—the founders of MAS.

In fact, in light of previous documents that became public in other trials, MAS leaders finally have admitted that the group was founded by the Brotherhood. Yet, they quickly add that it has since evolved beyond the Ikhwan to include greater ideological diversity. They maintain that MAS has no formal connection with the Brotherhood. Meanwhile, the Brotherhood is just as reluctant to acknowledge any ties with MAS. One senior Muslim Brotherhood official explained that he does not want to say MAS is a Brotherhood “entity” because doing so “causes some security inconveniences for them in a post-September 11 world.”

Esam Omeish, president of MAS, claimed that the documents introduced at the HLF trial were “full of abhorrent statements and are in direct conflict of the very principles of our Islam.” He said, “The Muslim community in America wishes to contribute positively to the continued success and greatness of our civilization … The ethics of tolerance and inclusion are the very tenets that MAS was based on from its inception.” He also firmly stated that “MAS is not the Muslim Brotherhood.” Omeish said that MAS “grew out of a history of Islamic activism in the U.S. when the Muslim Brotherhood once existed but has a different intellectual paradigm and outlook.”

In August 2007, Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine appointed Omeish to a state commission on immigration. Yet Omeish was compelled to resign less than two months later after a December 2000 video was released in which he praised Palestinians for knowing that “the jihad way is the way to liberate your land;” in another video he congratulated Palestinians for giving up their lives for the sake of Allah. When confronted, Omeish engaged in a rhetorical dance over his intended meaning of “jihad.” But the 1991 Akram memo makes clear just what jihad means to Islamists. Moreover, Omeish’s comments were made at the height of the 2000 Palestinian intifada. In this context, it is clear that the type of jihad that Omeish praised as the way to “liberate” Palestine was the very same process that the Palestinians were engaged in—that is, violent jihad.

What is particularly worrisome in this example, like so many others before, was that Omeish’s accusers were automatically put on the defensive, while many others, including the governor, supported Omeish. It should be a concern to Americans that those who reveal the Islamists’ true nature are tarred as Islamophobes, McCarthyists, or part of some “vast right-wing conspiracy.”

The Baran analysis also covers the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), where Tanneeza Islam worked as National Youth Program Development Director:

While information has been available for several years now, the HLF trial clearly demonstrated the ISNA-Hamas connection. Marzook, the political leader of Hamas at the time, thanked ISNA for its support while he was in prison. This is not a surprise given that ISNA was effectively established by the Ikhwanis and almost all of ISNA’s founders have since remained active either in ISNA or in one of its affiliated organizations. Several key individuals who have been very active since the beginning—such as Sayyid Syeed—have tellingly omitted their early Islamist backgrounds from their “official” biographies.

ISNA also has deep links to well-known Islamists. One of the most prominent such individuals is Sami al-Arian, who helped establish ISNA in 1981 and founded the Islamic Committee for Palestine (an official ISNA affiliate) shortly thereafter. Al-Arian is also currently serving the remainder of a 57-month conviction for supporting the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). Until he was arrested in 2003, he was considered to be one of the country’s leading civil rights activists and was often invited to meet top U.S. government officials, including Presidents Clinton and Bush. This was despite the fact that al-Arian had been the subject of an FBI investigation into his connections with the PIJ since 1996. After videotapes appeared in 2001 of al-Arian speaking at rallies calling for terrorist jihad in Palestine, he was suspended from his professorship at the University of South Florida. Al-Arian and a host of groups—including ISNA—immediately sprang to the defense, loudly proclaiming this to be nothing more than a “smear campaign” and an example of “anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bigotry.” In February 2003, a federal grand jury served a 50-count indictment against al-Arian.

Until the trial, for over a decade, al-Arian denied any connection to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad—in a 1994 interview, he even pretended that he did not know what the initials PIJ stood for. In the trial, one piece of evidence was a videotape showing him declaring to supporters: “Let us damn America, let us damn Israel, let us damn them and their allies until death” and “Quran is our constitution …jihad our path …victory to Islam …death to Israel …revolution till victory.” The case eventually ended in a partial acquittal and mistrial but al-Arian pled guilty in 2006 to “conspiracy to make or receive contributions of funds, goods or services to or for the benefit of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a specially designated terrorist organization.” Moreover, the judge who presided over his trial had few doubts as to al-Arian’s true nature. During sentencing, the judge called him a “master manipulator,” saying to al-Arian “you looked your neighbors in the eyes and said you had nothing to do with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. This trial exposed that as a lie …The evidence was clear in this case that you were a leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.”

Tanneza also worked for CAIR, which also has issues:

The HLF trial documents also proved that CAIR was part of the Muslim Brotherhood linked network created to help Hamas in the U.S. Even though it has portrayed itself to be a civil rights group, and is often described as such by the mainstream press, its top leadership is made up of the IAP and the UASR principals mentioned earlier. Despite public denials, CAIR leaders have been heard expressing their support for Hamas both in public and on FBI surveillance tapes. CAIR has received support from, and lent support to, Hamas financial conduits in the United States. Several CAIR officers and employees have been indicted on terrorism-related charges.

A brief look at the men who founded CAIR, their objectives, and their deceptive methods make clear that this it is not just a civil rights group. As mentioned earlier, CAIR was created following the 1993 Philadelphia meeting of Hamas leaders and activists where the need to engage in propaganda efforts was discussed. U.S. prosecutors named Nihad Awad, CAIR’s executive director, and Omar Ahmad, CAIR’s founder and chairman—both ethnic Palestinians—as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land case.

And...

Typically, when the Ikhwanis are confronted with extremist quotes they claim that they have been misinterpreted. Yet in many cases the directness of their rhetoric leaves little room for interpretation. On July 4, 1998, the San Ramon Valley Herald, a local California newspaper, published an article about an Islamic school study session entitled “How Should We Live as Muslims in America?” The article stated that at this gathering CAIR Chairman Omar Ahmed urged Muslims not to assimilate into American society but instead to deliver Islam’s message. He underlined that Islam is not in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant, and that the Quran should be the highest authority in America with Islam the only accepted religion on Earth. When Ahmed’s statements were highlighted in 2003, the CAIR founder flatly denied making these statements and said that he had sought and obtained a retraction from the newspapers that printed the article. Interestingly, as of December 2006, neither of the newspapers that ran the article received a retraction request from Ahmed and the reporter who wrote the article has adamantly stood by her account of the events.

It is time the people of South Dakota fully understand the role, tactics, and goals of the Muslim Brotherhood. Sadly the South Dakota media has not done its job, and instead is acting as a propaganda tool for Taneeza Islam, along with Cory Heidelberger. Baran's analysis includes this retort to Heidelberger's charge that those exposing the Muslim Brotherhood's agenda in South Dakota are anti-immigrant:

What do I mean by “Islamist?” The term was coined by the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna, in an effort to politicize Islam. Broadly, the label Islamist applies to individuals or groups who believe that Islam should be a comprehensive guide to life. Islamists do not accept that the interpretation of Islam could evolve over the centuries along with human beings’ understanding, or that the religion could be influenced or modified by the cultures and traditions of various regions. Nor do they recognize that Islam can be limited to the religious realm, or to simply providing its followers with a code of moral and ethical principles. With this definition in mind, a nonviolent, American-born Islamist should not be considered an ally of the U.S. Yet a devout, conservative Muslim immigrant to Europe—one who does not even speak any Western languages but rejects Islamist ideology—could be.

Islamists are strenuously opposed to secular governance. Instead, they believe that Islamic rules and laws based upon the Quran and the sharia code must shape all aspects of human society, from politics and education to history, science, the arts, and more. Islamic jurisprudence developed and codified over the course of the 8th and 9th centuries and has not changed since then. In wholly sharia-based countries such as Iran, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia, there is little distinction between religion and state, leaving no room for liberal democracy. The institution of elections might be maintained, but this will inevitably be an illiberal system without dissent, individuation, or critical thinking.

Today’s Islamists adhere first and foremost to the works of the Muslim Brotherhood’s most famous ideologue, Sayyid Qutb, and are not necessarily concerned with Islam’s spiritual or cultural aspects. Qutb, like his ideological predecessors Ibn Taymiyya and Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, was preoccupied with the relative decline of the Muslim world. All three believed this deterioration was a result of Muslims having strayed from pure Islam. Qutb argued that Islam’s crisis could be reversed only if “true” Muslims, emulating the ways of the Prophet Muhammad, worked to replace existing governments in the Muslim world with strictly Islamic regimes. Accordingly, followers of Qutb desire the overthrow of their current governments and declare armed jihad against non-Muslim states. It is important to underline that this step is often viewed as “defensive jihad,” an interpretation which has broad acceptance among many Muslims. This logic has been be used to justify attacks in Spain (which was ruled by Muslims for several hundred years) and any other Western countries that are deemed to be waging a war against Islam, either militarily or culturally. The next step is the establishment of the caliphate. Islamists believe that bringing about such changes is an obligation for all Muslims. They are not bound by constraints of time—they have been fighting this war for many decades already and will continue as long as it takes. Nor are they hindered by location—the new caliphate can be established anywhere.

Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood are engaged in a long-term social engineering project. The eventual “Islamization” of the world is to be enacted via a bottom-up process. Initially, the individual is transformed into a “true” Muslim. This Islamization of the individual leads that person to reject Western norms of pluralism, individual rights, and the secular rule of law. Next, the individual’s family is transformed; then the society; then the state; and finally the entire world is expected to live, and be governed, according to Islamic principles. This ideological machinery is at the core of Islamist terrorism and it works to promote separation, sedition, and hatred. The tactics of the Muslim Brotherhood may be nonviolent in the West and less violent than other groups in the Muslim world, but the ideology behind those tactics remains fundamentally opposed to the Western democratic system and its values.

Cory Heidelberger is clearly on the wrong side of this issue, as Taneeza Islam's agenda is in contradiction to his own worldview.

Cory Heidelberger's illogical post regarding the press and government demonstrates the propaganda found at Dakota Fake Press

Here is the latest piece of propaganda from Cory Heidelberger's so-called Dakota Free Press:

Reflecting on the life of former Aberdeen American News executive editor Cindy Eikamp, Aberdeen mayor Mike Levsen recalls Eikamp was “a reliably fair-minded partner” in informing the public. From that respectful, cooperative relationship, Mayor Levsen learned that the free press serves democracy:

Government and the media are partners in serving the public and serving democracy. Mutual respect is not only appropriate, but the best path to effectively passing along day-to-day news and operating government efficiently [Mayor Mike Levsen, “Lessons Learned from Editor Eikamp,” Aberdeen American News, 2017.11.24].

Good local reporting matters as much as good national reporting in preserving and promoting our civil institutions. Mayor Levsen respects the vital role of independent journalism in our democracy. Leaders who don’t respect the Fourth Estate’s vital role should be viewed with the highest suspicion and replaced at our earliest opportunity

So how can the press be considered "independent", if they are partners with the government?

Cory continues to be confused with this comment:

Good journalism requires resources. Unfortunately, a lot of people with resources, like the Koch Brothers, want to turn journalism into their personal propaganda wing.

Curious: when was the last time Time broke a big story?

To Mike’s comment: it is hard for journalists to carry out the partnership to which Levsen refers when the head of government is an incompetent determined, it seems to destroy both journalism and the government. At that point, media’s “partnership” duty should lead it to rigorously cover and critique the head of government, if not help remove and replace that dysfunctional head. Journalism has a role to check and correct government’s errors.

Cory's hated seems to have impacted his ability to think straight.

Minnesota's Muslim Brotherhood front group confronted as leader used fear mongering and lies to prevent the real agenda from being exposed

The first thing to keep in mind before reading on is that not all Muslim support the Muslim Brotherhood, therefore those exposing the Muslim Brotherhood agenda are not attacking all Arab Americans. Second we need to understand that CAIR-MN, who Taneeza Islam has ties to, is a Muslim Brotherhood front group. These are facts that CAIR-MN does not want Americans to understand as they spread their false propaganda and attack those who are exposing their real agenda. Here is their latest piece of propaganda:

The Minnesota leader of the Council on American-Islamic Relations was asked during a community meeting Saturday if he would renounce the terrorist organization Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

He refused.

The event at the St. Cloud Public Library was part of CAIR’s ongoing “anti-Islamophobia” campaign that it launched in the wake of the election one year ago of President Donald Trump.

About 30 people attended the event Saturday, and they were told Muslims are on the verge of being rounded up and placed in internment camps, just like the Japanese were in 1942 under an executive order signed by President Franklin Roosevelt.

Titled “Japanese-American Incarceration: Could it Happen Again?” the event began with a presentation by a professor of African-American studies at the University of Minnesota, followed by comments from Jaylani Hussein, executive director of CAIR Minnesota, and other panelists.

Professor Yuichiro Onishi said it was his belief that the U.S. was one “trigger” event away from Muslims being rounded up. He explained that America has a history of using immigration laws as a pretext for “state-sanctioned racism,” citing the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the immigration acts of 1927 and 1924, which limited the number of Asians migrating to the U.S.

Jaylani Hussein then presented the Somali refugee community in Minnesota as victims of the latest American racism, taking the form of anti-Muslim bigotry equal to that leveled against the Chinese and Japanese leading up to World War II.

Hussein said Americans only hear in the media about the bad things Somali Muslims do in Minnesota, from stealing and sexually assaulting women at the Mall of America just last week to stabbing people at the Mall of America and at the Crossroads Center Mall in St. Cloud last year. This is all fear-mongering, and it’s a huge industry in the United States, Hussein said.

It is CAIR-MN that is using fear-mongering, and false allegations of racism, to prevent Americans and moderate Muslims from understanding the Muslim Brotherhood's Civilizational Jihad agenda, that includes support for Hamas.

A brave American showed up to pursue that truth:

Local resident Elizabeth Baklaich reminded the professor that America “already had that trigger moment.”

“That trigger moment was 9/11. There were 3,000 people who died,” she said. “… [T]hat was a direct attack that was followed up by war, and if we were going to make this same maneuver against Muslims, it would have happened. … I just wanted to bring that up because I think that’s a fundamental flaw in your thesis,” Baklaich said.

To Hussein, she directed another question.

“I heard you talk about fear Jaylani, and there’s one thing you could do very easily that would help alleviate a tremendous amount of fear in this community,” Baklaich said.

She reminded him of the FBI evidence presented in the Holy Land Foundation terror-financing trial of 2007 that showed CAIR is a front group for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

“If you want to be our friend, and you want to be part of the community, and want us to accept you more, and work with you and be less fearful of what’s coming in, and what’s going on, are you willing to condemn both Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood?” she asked.

Hussein did not denounce the Muslim Brotherhood and proceeded to us talking points of his own:

Hussein accused the woman of using the “talking points” of well-funded “anti-Muslim organizations” that spread “lies” about Muslims across the U.S.

Another woman interjected with the same question for Hussein.

“Do you renounce Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood?” she can be heard saying on the audio recording.

“I am a civil rights organization in the state of Minnesota,” Hussein continued.

“That means no. … So you do support Hamas?” she asked again.

“The questions you are asking me, you didn’t come up with them. You downloaded them from somewhere,” Hussein said.

“So what? I can see the trial [documents] right here. I’ve got it right here,” she said.

“That’s good for you,” said a now totally irritated Hussein. “Why don’t you turn those [documents] over to the authorities and let them actually do the work?”

“They already have them,” the woman answered.

“And they’re not going to do anything,” said Hussein.

“Obama would not let it proceed. He would not let it go forward,” she said.

“Thank you very much,” Hussein said, ending the interchange without ever answering the question of whether CAIR supports or condemns Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood….

Here is support for the two women's position:

At the Holy Land Foundation trial, evidence was presented that ISNA diverted funds from the accounts it held with NAIT to institutions linked to Hamas and to Mousa Abu Marzook, a senior Hamas leader.

Federal prosecutors introduced evidence in the case that “established that ISNA and NAIT were among those organizations created by the U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood.” Hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of checks drawn from ISNA’s account and deposited in the Holy Land Foundation’s account with NAIT were made payable to “the Palestinian Mujahadeen,” which is the original name for Hamas’ military wing.

While Hamas was designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. government in 1997 and is considered the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, the larger Muslim Brotherhood is not itself designated as a terrorist group.

And while the Obama administration has largely remained agnostic towards the organization, the British government released a scathing report earlier this month noting that the Muslim Brotherhood remains supportive of Hamas and that much of its ideology and many of its tactics “are contrary to our values and have been contrary to our national interests and our national security.”

Hussein must be using psychological projection when he complains about a "huge industry":

Purportedly backed by money from Saudi Arabia and supporting a fundamentalist branch of Sunni Islam known as Wahhabism, NAIT holds the deed to the Islamic Society of Boston, which operates the mosque attended by Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the so-called Boston Marathon bombers.

It also controls the Islamic Center of San Diego, which was attended by Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, two al-Qaeda members who helped fly American Flight 77 into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

According to a 2002 Newsweek investigation, members of the San Diego mosque helped the two terrorists obtain housing, driver’s licences and social security numbers. They claimed not to have known about the men’s terror plans.

NAIT also owns the Dar Al-Hijrah mosque in Fairfax Co., Va. — a known hotbed of terrorist activity. Al-Qaeda recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki served as imam at that location in 2001 and 2002. He was killed by an American drone in Yemen in 2011.

So the Muslim Brotherhood is funded by big oil. Yesterday I showed their influence is also present in Sioux Falls:

I have already pointed out this fact:

And that mosque, the Islamic Center of Sioux Falls, is owned lock, stock and barrel by the North American Islamic Trust or NAIT, which has been linked to the extremist Muslim Brotherhood.

I have confirmed that fact via property tax records. More to come on the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood here in South Dakota lead by Taneeza Islam, who has been (most likely still is) involved with both ISNA and CAIR and gave $750 to the South Dakota Democratic Party in March 2017.

Taneeza's work with CAIR-MN also involved protecting the Muslim Brotherhood's indoctrination centers:

In an August 9 press release CAIR demanded that Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota retract his statement in opposition to the planned Ground Zero Mosque in New York City.  “Our governor has engaged in collective guilt by saying that all Muslim activities and images anywhere near Ground Zero are degrading and disrespectful,” said CAIR-MN Civil Rights Director Taneeza Islam.  “All Americans, including Muslims, should seek to help heal our society and avoid statements that create division or distrust.”

Here is more on how the Muslim Brotherhood, including CAIR, will purposely use deception:

In the late 1980s, future CAIR board member Ihsan Bagby said that “Ultimately we [Muslims] can never be full citizens of this country, because there is no way we can be fully committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country.” And in 2006, Zaid Shakir, a well-known African-American imam declared “Every Muslim who is honest would say, I would like to see America become a Muslim country.”

A later affirmation of the Brotherhood’s goal is clear in the views of the group’s official supreme leader, Mohammed Akef. In a series of January 2004 interviews, Akef called the U.S. a “Satan” and said that he was confident America would collapse. Akef also stated that he has “complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America, because Islam has logic and a mission.”

It is actually rather amazing to find such straightforward statements. Since the 1990s (especially after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing), the Brotherhood has been increasingly cautious. At a secret 1993 meeting of Hamas members and sympathizers in Philadelphia, Shukri Abu Baker, the HLF’s former chief executive, stated “war is deception” and urged “caution should be practiced not to reveal our true identity.” Also present at this meeting was CAIR founder Omar Ahmad, who agreed with Abu Baker’s comments that “war is deception” and went on to say, “this is like one who plays basketball; he makes a player believe that he is doing this while he does something else …politics is a completion of war.” [Transcript of October 1993 meeting of U.S. Palestine Committee leaders in Philadelphia, available at http://nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/HLF/93Philly_12.pdf.]                 

To deceive Americans, Ahmad also suggested that the Ikhwan create some neutral sounding organizations such as a “Palestinian-American Friendship Association – …This will be done in order to …put some honey a little bit at a time with the poison they’re given. But if from the first night you …call it ‘The Islamic Society for Youths’ Welfare,’ they will shut the door in your face.” He also asked his “brothers” not to even mention Hamas by name and instead refer to it as “Samah” Later, in 2002 he claimed to “reject and abhor Hamas, its goals and methods,” in total contradiction to earlier tapes and documents that revealed him praising Hamas.

Now we know what the real purpose was behind's CAIR's St. Cloud propaganda show. The tow ladies were really on top of it.

French so-called free thinkers go Pro-Muslim Brotherhood after going anti-Christian matches up with the radical agenda of the Cory Heidelberger faction of the South Dakota Democratic Party

This in interesting:

In a bizarre turn of events, the group of “free thinkers” that fought to have a cross removed from public property in northwest France is now fighting to save a mosque.

For years, the National Federation of Free Thought (FNLP) has been leading the legal battle for the removal of a monument to Pope John Paul II situated on public land in the Breton town of Ploërmel. The group proclaimed victory earlier this month when the French administrative court ordered the removal of the stone cross that surmounts the statue, saying it violated the secular nature of the state.

“Since the cross is a religious sign or emblem within the meaning of Article 28 of the Law of 9 December 1905 and its installation by the municipality does not fall into any of the exceptions provided by this article, its presence in a public location is contrary to this law,” the French court argued.

Now, however, the FNLP has come out in defense of the Muslim community of Clichy in the Parisian suburbs so they can maintain a mosque in the center of town rather than on a smaller premises outside the city center.

Taking the part of the Union of the Muslim Associations of Clichy (UAMC), the FNLP has come after the city mayor, Remi Muzeau, calling on him to reestablish the mosque in the heart of the town. The group also defended the Muslims’ right to pray out on the streets, something the mayor opposed.

Despite the FNLP’s anticlerical slogan of “No gods, no masters!”, the group’s real animus is against Christianity rather than religion in general. As one commentator has noted, the group’s true aim is not separation of Church and State but “purely and simply the disappearance of the Christian identity of France,” while at the same time defending Islam, “which enjoys a much greater tolerance from this association.”

Here is one explanation for the apparent hypocrisy:

I will start with Herbert Marcuse, one of the creators of Cultural Marxism. Here is his position on the much talked about principle of tolerance used by Heidelberger to justify allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to continue with thei migration agenda here in South Dakota:

In the essay “Repressive Tolerance” (1965), the Germanborn American critical theorist Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) of the Franklin School [S/B Frankfurt School] of political theorists argued that, under the conditions of advanced industrial capitalism, the only hope for realizing the original objectives of “liberalist” or “pure” toleration (as articulated by the British philosopher John Stuart Mill [1806-1873])— freeing the mind to rationally pursue the truth—was to practice a deliberately selective “liberating tolerance” that both targeted and enacted the repression alluded to in the essay’s paradoxical title (Marcuse 1965, pp. 81, 85, 90). This “liberating tolerance” would involve “the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements” on the Right, and the aggressively partisan promotion of speech, groups, and progressive movements on the Left (pp. 81, 100).

A couple of weeks ago, Heidelberger applauded the Sioux Falls History Club's decision (again in the name of combating white supremacy) to cancel a free speech rally by a critic of Islam.

Another possible explanation is that the left and our federal government does not view mosques as a church, but instead the military headquarters for the Muslim Brotherhood's global jihadi activities:

A Kansas City mosque owned by an Islamic umbrella organization with deep ties to the U.S. arm of the Muslim Brotherhood has received millions of dollars in federal grants over the past several years, according to a federal spending database.

The Islamic Center of Greater Kansas City has received $2,739,891 from the Department of Agriculture since 2010, a Daily Caller analysis has found. The money largely went to the mosque’s Crescent Clinic to provide services through the Women, Infant and Children nutrition program, known as WIC.

The most recent federal payment — in the amount of $327,436 — was handed out Oct. 1.

Property records show the mosque is owned by the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), which acts as a financial holding company for Islamic organizations. It offers sharia-compliant financial products to Muslim investors, operates Islamic schools and owns more than 300 other mosques throughout the U.S.

Founded in 1973 as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood-backed Muslim Students Association, NAIT’s most controversial connection is to the 2007 and 2008 Holy Land Foundation terror financing cases. Along with other Muslim Brotherhood-linked organizations like the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), NAIT was named a co-conspirator in the federal case but was not indicted.

At the Holy Land Foundation trial, evidence was presented that ISNA diverted funds from the accounts it held with NAIT to institutions linked to Hamas and to Mousa Abu Marzook, a senior Hamas leader.

Federal prosecutors introduced evidence in the case that “established that ISNA and NAIT were among those organizations created by the U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood.” Hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of checks drawn from ISNA’s account and deposited in the Holy Land Foundation’s account with NAIT were made payable to “the Palestinian Mujahadeen,” which is the original name for Hamas’ military wing.

I have already pointed out this fact:

And that mosque, the Islamic Center of Sioux Falls, is owned lock, stock and barrel by the North American Islamic Trust or NAIT, which has been linked to the extremist Muslim Brotherhood.

I have confirmed that fact via property tax records. More to come on the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood here in South Dakota lead by Taneeza Islam, who has been (most likely still is) involved with both ISNA and CAIR and gave $750 to the South Dakota Democratic Party in March 2017.

Exposing the Muslim Brotherhood's lie regarding tolerance

Here is an example that exposes the Muslim Brotherhood's lie regarding their so-called religion of peace:

Rehab Dughmosh, a Muslim woman who tried to murder people with a golf club and a knife in a Canadian Tire store last June, appeared in court Friday and was furiously defiant:

Damn your legislation, damn your nationality, go to hell. Hey you infidels, I do not worship what you worship.

In saying this, she inadvertently provided us infidels with some useful information about Islam’s legendary tolerance. Dughmosh was quoting chapter 109 of the Qur’an.

Chapter 109 is an early Meccan sura -- that is, a section of the Qur’an that Muslims believe dates from the early portion of Muhammad’s prophetic career. In Mecca, he was solely a preacher of religious ideas, not a military or political leader, as he became later in Medina.

Indeed, this chapter of the Qur’an is usually presented as an example of the tolerance of Islam.

Here it is in its entirety:

Say, ‘O disbelievers, I do not worship what you worship. Nor are you worshippers of what I worship. Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship. Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship. For you is your religion, and for me is my religion.

But in her court appearance, Rehab Dughmosh was not sweetly quoting it as a sign of her tolerance. She was spitting it out as part of her repudiation of Canadian law and her demand to be tried only under Sharia -- where she would be found not guilty, as war on infidels is mandated in the Qur’an and Sunnah.

At a previous court appearance in June, Dughmosh exclaimed (through an Arabic interpreter, of course):

I meant to harm those people. I reject all counsel here. I only believe in Islamic Sharia law. I would like to revoke my Canadian citizenship that I received. I don’t want to have any allegiance to you.

This is because she doesn’t worship what the infidel Canadians worship; she worships Allah alone, which makes her “the best of people” (Qur’an 3:110).

And she refuses to be judged by the standards of the unbelievers, who are the “most vile of created beings” (Qur’an 98:6).

According to most Islamic scholars, the Qur’an passage that Dughmosh quoted Friday was revealed at a time when the Muslims were a small, weak, embattled band, and feeling threatened by the pagan Quraysh tribe. It was a plea for tolerance for the Muslims, not a magnanimous granting of tolerance to an opposition group.

...

Likewise, the Egyptian Islamic scholar Muhammad al-Ghazali -- who is often cited as a reformist -- writes ominously in his Journey Through the Qur’an about the limits of tolerance in his commentary on this sura:

Oppressing Islam and denying it the right to life cannot be tolerated. It must be explicitly stated that blood will continue to flow until this evil desire is removed and the power of Islam is restored and its Shari’a protected and its complete implementation guaranteed. Do the oppressors understand? (Emphasis added)

If Rehab Dughmosh has anything to say about it, the “oppressors” in Canada will come to understand. But it is not likely that they, or most other Western leaders, are disposed to listen.

And so, as al-Ghazali said, blood will indeed continue to flow.

Cory Heidelberger's big lie: he is propmoting equality by using the islamophobia label; Instead he is promoting Sharia Law

Last week I said this:

I will start with Herbert Marcuse, one of the creators of Cultural Marxism. Here is his position on the much talked about principle of tolerance used by Heidelberger to justify allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to continue with thei migration agenda here in South Dakota:

In the essay “Repressive Tolerance” (1965), the Germanborn American critical theorist Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) of the Franklin School [S/B Frankfurt School] of political theorists argued that, under the conditions of advanced industrial capitalism, the only hope for realizing the original objectives of “liberalist” or “pure” toleration (as articulated by the British philosopher John Stuart Mill [1806-1873])— freeing the mind to rationally pursue the truth—was to practice a deliberately selective “liberating tolerance” that both targeted and enacted the repression alluded to in the essay’s paradoxical title (Marcuse 1965, pp. 81, 85, 90). This “liberating tolerance” would involve “the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements” on the Right, and the aggressively partisan promotion of speech, groups, and progressive movements on the Left (pp. 81, 100).

A couple of weeks ago, Heidelberger applauded the Sioux Falls History Club's decision (again in the name of combating white supremacy) to cancel a free speech rally by a critic of Islam.

Cory is part of an orchestrated nationwide movement:

Minutes after author Robert Spencer started to speak, the packed room cleared out.

"You are all little totalitarians and neo-grouchers, a stain on Stanford University and academia in general," Spencer said, directing his attention to students in the audience.

It was an orchestrated move by students who opposed Spencer's presence on campus. The university's Young Republicans sponsored the event.

Many students expressed outrage that Spencer, the director of the website Jihad Watch, was invited.

"Racism, bigotry isn't welcome. Those espousing hatred can't have a platform on this campus," said student Jana Kholy.

When asked if he was racist or Islamophobic, Spencer responded with laughter. "I'm neither one. Islam is not a race. Mass murder is not a race."

Though Bruin Hall was nearly empty after the walkout, Spencer supporters weren't allowed in. Organizers insisted that Spencer was invited to create a dialogue.

"This isn't about preaching to the choir," said Amy Lutz of the Young America's Foundation. "It's about educating students on another perspective on the issue."

 

It was an orchestrated move by students who opposed Spencer's presence on campus. The university's Young Republicans sponsored the event.

Many students expressed outrage that Spencer, the director of the website Jihad Watch, was invited.

"Racism, bigotry isn't welcome. Those espousing hatred can't have a platform on this campus," said student Jana Kholy.

When asked if he was racist or Islamophobic, Spencer responded with laughter. "I'm neither one. Islam is not a race. Mass murder is not a race."

Though Bruin Hall was nearly empty after the walkout, Spencer supporters weren't allowed in. Organizers insisted that Spencer was invited to create a dialogue.

"This isn't about preaching to the choir," said Amy Lutz of the Young America's Foundation. "It's about educating students on another perspective on the issue."

Here is Robert Spencer's response:

Stanford administration is responsible for what happened tonight, as they aided and abetted the smear campaign that the Stanford Daily and Stanford Review carried out, and coddled the students who were spuriously claiming that they felt “threatened” by my presence. Above all, they are responsible for refusing to enforce their own policy regarding disruption of the event. Even after the fascist students left, they refused to admit others who wanted to get in. What were Stanford officials afraid of? That someone might hear a truth that the elites have deemed unacceptable?

The Stanford administration also barred the Young America’s Foundation from streaming the event. The reason behind that was clear: they didn’t want the behavior of Stanford students to be exposed before the world. They knew what was coming, and they supported it.

If this were a sane academic environment, Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Provost Persis Drell would be forced to resign in disgrace for allowing first the smear campaign that preceded my event, and then for allowing it to be disrupted. But this is not a sane academic environment, and Stanford is not in any genuine sense a university.

In The Coming of the Third Reich, historian Richard J. Evans explains how, in the early days of National Socialist Germany, Stormtroopers (Brownshirts) “organized campaigns against unwanted professors in the local newspapers [and] staged mass disruptions of their lectures.” We have seen just that play out at Stanford: a massive and libelous smear campaign in the Stanford student press, and then the disruption of the event itself. Stanford is just an Antifa recruitment center, not a center of learning.

Kind of ironic that it is the radical left that has some kind of phobia as they falsely accuse those they disagree with for being Islamophobes, which is a lie:

There is no such thing as “Islamophobia.” This fact has been proven by sharper minds than mine. People are not so much afraid of Islam and Muslims as they are disgusted with Islam and the silence of Muslim clerics regarding Islamic terrorism. Robert Louis Stevenson’s “thicker than thieves at a fair” sums up the silent trust between the terrorist and the “moderates” who secretly support the terrorist’s jihad. What is really happening today is that the religion of Islam, with its long history of violence and intolerance and egregious cultures, has by this time forfeited the trust of the Western world. This is really the issue at hand. So-called “Islamophobia” is simply a tangential matter that serves merely to distract from the real issue, which is Islam’s teachings of intolerance of other faiths and, as a consequence of those teachings, the Ummah’s complete failure to assimilate into Western societies.

As the anniversary of 9/11 came around again, I was struck by the insanely bold and shameless effort the media put into pretending, all over again, that this grotesque atrocity, this terrorist attack, had nothing to do with the religion of Islam. The “moderates” of Islam — those still purporting that the basic message of Islam is salubrious for mankind — are blaming the most zealous of Islam for misrepresenting this. Conversely, the most zealous of Islam excoriate the “moderates” for misrepresenting the basic theme of Islam, which is, in their view, an extreme, imperialistic vision encompassing all of mankind: mass conversion of Western nations to the religion of Islam, which would necessarily include a transition from a Western style judiciary to a judiciary exclusively of Sharia law. For the Muslim zealot, this mass conversion cannot be accomplished soon enough, or in a peaceful manner.

The common preoccupation of both the “moderate” and the zealous of Islam is their drive for a universal Caliphate; this is not unlike Joseph Stalin’s dark machinations during his terrorist exploits preceding the Bolshevik Revolution: “the human cost was irrelevant, subordinate to its political value.”* We see this happening all around us, every day and every night, and yet the journalist, the politician, and the cleric continue to deny the very existence of Islam’s religious assault on Western norms and values (many of which are Christian and Judaic), while besmirching all opposition to this religious imperialism as the mere noise of brutes and dolts.

Most of the Western world no longer can see any redeeming qualities within a religion whose adherents are more adept at deflecting blame and telling lies than they are at admitting to the glaring and inconvenient truths about their religion. They have failed to pick up on the Western adage articulated by Abraham Lincoln on that September day long ago, which is that “you may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”

So it is Cory Heidelberger and his fellow Antifa members who are the fascists and bigots:

Those of us who came to see and hear Robert Spencer’s ideas and were disallowed into the auditorium were shocked and repelled by the actions of Stanford’s self-elected thought police.

This was a demonstration of the most selfish and narrow-minded bigotry – worthy of a fascist state – that has no place in an American academy.

The Stanford faculty who signed the “Letter from faculty and others regarding Robert Spencer” are, in my opinion, sorely misguided by their prejudgments and uninformed attitudes. As someone who has both studied and lived in Islamic countries and who encounters refugees from “Islamic conditions” daily, I encourage these academics to consider their own plea: “For us, this means taking seriously the lived experience of the people most impacted by racism, bigotry, hate speech and xenophobia.”

This “lived experience” perfectly describes the millions of hostage peoples living under “Islamic conditions,” of which Americans are barely aware. The empathy and advocacy for freedom of these Stanford academics, instead of preventing free speech and shared ideas in the academy, should extend to those enslaved by a totalitarian ideology in the form of state-sponsored theocratic oppression.

– James Dinwiddie

Adjunct Professor, Menlo College

Heidelberger's help in establishing a Ne0-Nazi Islamofascist theocracy is South Dakota needs to be exposed. Again, not all Muslims support the Muslim Brotherhood agenda. I informed Cory about that fact a couple of months ago. If he continues to call those who are exposing that agenda as xenophobes and/or Islamophobes, then he is lying, as he continues to ban my comments at his so-called Dakota Free Press. Cory cannot tolerate someone putting a mirror in his face so he can see that he is what he hates.

Corruption in South Dakota continues as a Minnesota corporation gets an $8 million dollar tax cut in the name of building South Dakota

Here is the latest corporate handout from South Dakota taxpayers:

A Minnesota utility won approval Tuesday for one of the largest economic incentives ever made by a South Dakota state government agency.

The South Dakota Board of Economic Development awarded a reinvestment payment up to $8,187,266 to Northern States Power Company, also known as Xcel Energy.

The money comes from Building South Dakota. The Legislature created it in 2013.

The payment is for wind-farm development in Grant and Codington counties in the northeastern region.

Building South Dakota has a variety of separate programs intended to accelerate growth of businesses and communities.

One of the programs is the reinvestment payment.

The payment is available for projects that cost more than $20 million or more than $2 million for equipment.

 The purpose is to offset some of the state sales tax, use tax and contractors excise tax paid for construction of a project.

State board members decided Tuesday that Northern States Power could receive up to 65 percent of sales and use taxes the company paid to South Dakota state government on the wind project.

The board met by teleconference, as it does most times each year. The members discussed various agenda items in an executive session closed to the public. They voted in open session but nobody made any substantial comments about the actions.

Interesting how the crony capitalists spend our money in secret. In fact the legislation to create the fund was done in secret back in 2013. SB 235 passed the Senate as a vehicle bill, and then the accrual legislation was added by an amendment during a House committee hearing. Here is more on the history:

Mercer points to the 12 true conservative Republicans who voted against SB235 and the one Democrat who could not be bought off by the SDGOP Crony Capitalist RINOS:

The vote in the House today was 56-13. Twelve of the “no” votes came from Republicans: Blaine Campbell of Rapid City, Scott Craig of Rapid City, Brock Greenfield of Clark, Stace Nelson of Fulton, Lance Russell of Hot Springs, Dan Kaiser of Aberdeen, Don Kopp of Rapid City, Jim Stalzer of Sioux Falls, Jenna Haggar of Sioux Falls, Isaac Latterell of Tea, Elizabeth May of Kyle and Betty Olson of Prairie City. The one Democrat to vote no was Marc Feinstein of Sioux Falls.

Yes the Democrats are crony capitalists too, as it is a form of socialism. When you have increases in funding education (actually indoctrination into creating a worldwide socialist federation that Bill Gates of Microsoft and other corporations provide service too), welfare housing (so construction corporations receive corporate welfare to build the housing), and economic development centered on Obama's Agenda 21 green energy (most of the big projects that SB235 will benefit is wind energy), while excluding oil pipelines...all various things that SB235 does. Stace Nelson was correct to challenge this issue on fhte House floor. The argument is also supported by the variety of special interest proponents to SB235 who testified on a bill that the rest of us taxpayers had no idea what the content was when it hit House State Affairs committee (Red for GOP special interest, blue for Democrat, black for both):

        Bob Sahr, East River Electric
        David Owen, SD Chamber of Commerce and Industry
        Dick Tieszen, Technical Institutes
        Bob O'Connell, Sioux Falls Area Chamber of Commerce
        Wade Pogany, Associated School Boards of SD
        Kitty Kinsman, Rapid City Area Chamber of Commerce (Handout: #1)
        Robert Monson, School Administrators of South Dakota
        Darla Pollman Rogers, SD Rural Electric Association
        Sandra Waltman, SD Education Association
        Mitch Richter, SD United Schools Association
        Steve Willard, SD Electric Utilities
        Deb Mortenson, Associated General Contractors of SD
        Brett Koenecke, Iberdrola Renewables, Inc
        Bill Van Camp, Nextera Energy Resources
        Shawn Lyons, SD Retailers Association
        Matt Krogman, Brookings Economic Development, Corporation
        Bob Riter, SD Manufactured Housing Association
        Dick Howard, SD Association of Towns and Townships
        Julie Johnson, Absolutely Aberdeen

How did all these special interest know enough about the bill to testify in support, while the rest of us had not been given the bill's content. When you have the collectivist agenda of both the fascist GOP and the socialist Democrats coming together in a multi-faceted bill, the individual normally takes the hit.

I concluded the March 2013 post with this:

This is an example that demonstrates how the South Dakota legislature is no longer representing the people, but instead has become as a rubber stamp to implement the agenda of a shadow government run by the corporatists. With the media being part of the corporate world, don't expect them to tell the people what is really going on in Pierre. And for those of us who learn and become out spoken, the corporatists will look for ways to retaliate. For the mainstream media, that means your advertising revenues will take a hit.

The $8 million tax break to a Minnesota corporation was approved by South Dakota legislature under protest for be unconstitutional. The legislation was negotiated behind closed doors, and now the money is being spent with discussions behind closed doors. Instead of this money being used to fix our roads and pay our teachers, the liberal partnership of liberal Republicans and liberal Democrats voted to increase our sales taxes and increase our taxes when we go to buy and/or license our cars. In 2013. I explained how the liberals so-called building South Dakota is actually taking South Dakota down the road to serfdom:

And in regard to SB235, that also includes the Democrats. The common mindset is a collectivist one in which the State is the  god who is to provide everything, including jobs...all in the name of economic development. And with SB235 that includes special funding for illegal immigrants, who don't speak English, governemnt subsidized housing, and forced taxes at the local level to help fund the roads needed by the monopolistic corporatists to transport their materials and goods.

Flynn's "road ahead" was described by FA Hayek as the Road to Serdom, which also was published in the 1940s. This book review explains his point:

Having grown up and lived in Austria during World War I and later moving to Great Britain, Hayek was particularly frustrated when he saw Britain and the United States making the same mistakes of the Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Hayek argues that collectivism eventually leads to tyranny. Central economic planning gives too much power to the government, which essentially puts that power in the hands of a small group rather than in each individual.

And that small group economic central planners is the governor's Board of Economic Development (so-called). It is clear that SB235 is about central planning of the economy and is a violation of free markets and thereby this South Dakota Republican plank:

1.2 The South Dakota Republican Party supports free, fair and competitive markets, both domestic and foreign, for all agriculture products. We support allowing agricultural producers to use any and all business opportunities available. We believe free, fair and competitive markets are best for both the producer and the consumer.

So then anybody with half a brain should understand that SB235 is bad for both the producer and the consumer, unless you are a producer with insider status to that "small group" of "central planners". Since they control the jobs, anybody who is too out spoken against their agenda may find themselves without a job or for small businesses who can't compete with this monopolistic system, they may suffer loss in business. And those small players who survive will be forced to agree to low prices when they supply big business with goods and services. This is not economic development, these is economic undevelopment as evidenced by over $16 trillion in federal debt that has been used to support this inefficient system over the last several decades. 

Hayek was right, collectivism leads to tyranny...Soviet style. All we need to do is understand history, not the propaganda that is found in our school's history textbooks. The Republicans crony capitalism and the Democrats Marxist indoctrination they call public education does work hand in hand. They call it workforce development, which is actually a system to train the serfs so the corporatists can take advantage. SB235 is proof.

I have been banned from making comments at Cory Heidelberger's web site for making the argument that the establishments of both parties are actually working together. Cory calls it a false equivalency, but he will support crony capitalism when it funds things like green energy.  What Cory is preaching is false equality. More on that later as I demonstrate how the liberal Democrats and the liberal Republicans are working together to implement Sharia Law in South Dakota under the guise of workforce development. The George Soros funded deal involves money for Democrats and cheap labor for Republicans.

Cory Heidelberger and Taneeza Islam team up to implement Sharia Law in South Dakota

Recently Cory Heidelberger argued that James Simpson has some kind of psychological problem for making the argument that the cultural Neo-Marxist Social Justice Warriors have joined forces with the Muslim Jihadis. His argument called the analysis "White Supremacy" This post will provide one premise upon which Cory Heidelberger and Taneeza Islam are teaming up to implement one component fo Sharia Law right here in South Dakota.

I will start with Herbert Marcuse, one of the creators of Cultural Marxism. Here is his position on the much talked about principle of tolerance used by Heidelberger to justify allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to continue with thei migration agenda here in South Dakota:

In the essay “Repressive Tolerance” (1965), the Germanborn American critical theorist Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) of the Franklin School [S/B Frankfurt School] of political theorists argued that, under the conditions of advanced industrial capitalism, the only hope for realizing the original objectives of “liberalist” or “pure” toleration (as articulated by the British philosopher John Stuart Mill [1806-1873])— freeing the mind to rationally pursue the truth—was to practice a deliberately selective “liberating tolerance” that both targeted and enacted the repression alluded to in the essay’s paradoxical title (Marcuse 1965, pp. 81, 85, 90). This “liberating tolerance” would involve “the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements” on the Right, and the aggressively partisan promotion of speech, groups, and progressive movements on the Left (pp. 81, 100).

A couple of weeks ago, Heidelberger applauded the Sioux Falls History Club's decision (again in the name of combating white supremacy) to cancel a free speech rally by a critic of Islam. This comment exemplifies Marcuse's repressive tolerance:

Yeah, I’m not a big fan of censorship. I have a bit more tolerance for dirty words than others, or sex scenes in movies. I don’t, however, like violence or hate or meanness. I also do not like lying, cheating and obfuscation.

Glad to see these violent lying haters with their meanness, cheating and obfuscation “censored.” It’s not really censorship, though. It’s just having no tolerance for fascism, which we beat at a steep cost in WWII. If we understand history, we understand that these fascist haters have to be shut down at every opportunity.

Now enter Muslim Brotherhood activist Taneeza Islam to the effort to stop a free speech rally:

Islam is a “religion of peace,” its advocates in Western nations claim, and they’re willing to go to extraordinary lengths to protest, intimidate, and smear anyone who presents facts that would indicate otherwise.

There are new indications that forces on the left are building coalitions with Muslim Brotherhood fronts and fanning out across the U.S. in search of meetings, conferences, even informal church gatherings where Islam might be discussed in a negative light.
When they find them, they pounce.

The latest attempt to shut down a meeting in which a speaker was planning to provide information critical of Islam occurred in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

Ron Branstner, a researcher based out of St. Cloud, Minnesota, had booked space at the Sioux Falls History Club for Oct. 26. This is a club that has a 100-year history of discussing world events from the perspective of free and open debate.

But while driving to the event Thursday night, Branstner received phone a call from the venue and was told not to come. A powerful Democratic politician with connections to the history club had been contacted by a Muslim lawyer named Taneeza Islam.

Apparently, that’s all it takes in Sioux Falls to shut down the First Amendment, said Branstner, whose presentation was focused, ironically, on Islam and the First Amendment.

“I was going there to speak about the First Amendment, our first right to free speech, and how it is being stolen from us,” Branstner said. “We ended up having to change the venue to another town 27 miles away and so everyone had to drive 27 miles to hear my presentation.”

The female Muslim attorney, Taneeza Islam, has connections to radical Islamist Linda Sarsour and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR. She is involved with the Islamic Center of Sioux Falls, the same mosque that protested former Muslim Shahram Hadian’s speaking event earlier this year in the city.

Taneeza Islam is a Bush Foundation fellow and civil-rights activist who also works as an immigration attorney, representing Muslim refugees and illegal aliens from Central America. She also pushes the idea that anyone who objects to unlimited refugee resettlement and illegal immigration in America is a “white nationalist.”

Antifa, an amalgamation of Marxist/anarchist groups seeking to destabilize the U.S. from within, is planning a series of nationwide protests Nov. 4 with the stated goal of bringing down the presidency of Donald Trump. Islam promotes the #CounterACThate meme on Facebook which tries to shut down and destroy ACT For America chapters holding meetings to educate people about Shariah law.

“She’s connected to that mosque in Sioux Falls, and very politically active,” Hadian said.
And that mosque, the Islamic Center of Sioux Falls, is owned lock, stock and barrel by the North American Islamic Trust or NAIT, which has been linked to the extremist Muslim Brotherhood.

“She was there at a protest outside the hotel where I spoke in April, she was with the imam doing the prayers, they had all the interfaith people standing around them with their backs to the Muslims and their faces turned out while the Muslims were doing their prayers, that’s a great picture of how foolish these people are,” Hadian said of the April event.

Note Taneeza used the cultural Neo-Marxist white supremacy theme often used by Heidelberger to shame critics into silence. And banning critics of Islam is a component of Sharia Law:

The ideas and practices of the leaders, preachers, and movements of the Islamic revival movement known as Islamism (also known as Political Islam), have been criticized by Muslims (often Islamic modernists and liberals) and non-Muslims. Among those authors and scholars who have criticized Islamism, or some element of it, include Maajid Nawaz, Reza Aslan,  Abdelwahab Meddeb,  Muhammad Sa'id al-'Ashmawi,  Khaled Abu al-Fadl,  Gilles Kepel,  Matthias Küntzel,  Joseph E. B. Lumbard, and Olivier Roy.

Among the tenets of the Islamist movement that have come under criticism include: restrictions on freedom of expression to prevent apostasy from and insults to Islam; that Islam is not only a religion but a governing system; that historical Sharia, or Islamic law, is one, universal system of law, accessible to humanity, and necessary to enforcement for Islam to be truly practiced.

Note that not all Muslims agree with Islamism. It is wrong for the left to accuse the trumpet blowers that they hate all Muslims. It is the Muslim Brotherhood that is behind the movement that is intent on removing the status of Nation-States in order to establish a global caliphate. In other wards, these Neo-Nazis Islamofascists intend on implementing a theocracy. Taneeza Islam is one of the operatives, and I have told Cory Heidelberger that via email. Yet he continues to support the cause. He is now knowingly a member of Team Jihad:

Left-wingers don't normally come out and explicitly say they hate the United States, its political institutions, and American culture. They tend to do as radical left-wing community organizing guru Saul Alinsky – the Rules for Radicals author and inspiration to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton – counseled in his 10th rule of "the ethics of means and ends" and "clothe" their arguments "with moral garments." They attack America, emphasizing its shortcomings past and present.

At the same time, they go to great lengths to make excuses for Islam and for Muslim supremacist behavior. They agonize over why so many Muslims hate us. They blame the Christian Crusades that began way back in the 11th century for breeding Muslim animosity toward the Western world.

They blame the U.S. alliance with Israel and the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia for sparking resentment. They blame the U.S. for being too powerful and too wealthy. They blame certain Americans for not showing Islam the respect to which they believe it is entitled.

But leftists sometimes show their hand, speaking with unaccustomed candor about why they sympathize with Islamic supremacism, jihad, and sharia.

Sadly Sharia Law is not going to be kind to atheists like Cory:

Al-Qa’eda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri also agrees with Carlos that jihadists should be willing to work with anybody. He told followers in 2002 to seek allies among "any movement that opposes America, even atheists.

Jihadists’ willingness to work with atheists is striking because atheism is particularly objectionable to Islam. It is punishable by death under sharia and in at least 13 majority-Muslim countries.

“There are 13 countries where atheism is punishable by death,” by Abby Ohlheiser, The Wire, Dec. 10, 2013, http://www.thewire.com/global/2013/12/13-countries-where-atheism-punishabledeath/355961/, accessed May 22, 2016. According to the article, “The countries that impose these penalties are Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar,Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. With the exception of Pakistan, those countries all allow for capital punishment against apostasy, i.e., the renunciation of a particular religion. Pakistan, meanwhile, imposes the death penalty for blasphemy, which can obviously include disbelief in God.”

So if Cory and Taneeza is successful, a day will come where the Islamists will put Cory in the same camp that they have the so-called Islamophobes in. By the time Cory realizes the critics of the Muslim Brotherhood agenda were right on, it will be too late for him, along with the rest of us. Or will Cory cave in and become a Sharia loving Muslim shouting "Allah Akbar" as he continues his mission of persecuting Christians?

Fellow anti-Christian athiest shoots up a group of Christians, and Cory Heidelberger refuses to call it a hate crime

It took a while, but Cory Heidelberger finally covers the attack at a Christian church that left 26 dead in Texas:

Mental illness deserves a strong public policy response. So do underfunded schools, crumbling infrastructure, and climate change. But talking about those problems (and talking is all Trump is doing, since this year he’s proposed nothing but cuts to mental health programs and coverage) does not substantively address America’s unique and shameful problem with gun violence.

What Cory does not want to talk about is that a armed citizen shot the shooter twice and the shooter was an atheist who thought Christians were stupid. This explains what I s going on at the so-called Dakota Free Press:

Atheists who kill Christians are evidently to be given the same religious exemption pass the media routinely pass out to the “Allahu Akbar”-shouting shooters we’ve all gotten painfully used to here in the streets of America.  So it stands to reason that this atheist connection to the Texas shooter isn't particularly newsworthy to leftist ideologues such as Wolf Blitzer.  Still, for the sake of argument, let's imagine for a moment that a meeting of Atheist Alliance International had been targeted by a gun-wielding Christian nutter last Sunday. Would mainstream "news" be so forgiving, failing even to mention the connection between the shooter and his Christian religion? Would they bury the flurry of testimonials pinging all over the Internet from friends of the shooter, insisting he'd been screaming anti-atheist epithets online for years?

Let's be serious.  CNN & Co would be leading every half-hour's news cycle with the screaming headline: "BREAKING: Christian Fundamentalist Shooter Motivated by Hatred of Atheists".  The shooter's religious affiliation in that case would be THE story.  

So why the double standard? Why such careful journalistic “integrity” for this reportedly atheist shooter, whose anti-Christian tirades were all over Facebook?  Why? Because it doesn't fit the narrative.  Christians are the only real haters--not Muslims, not atheists, not even deranged gay guys that walk into the American Family Association and start spraying lead at the defenders of Christian marriage.

The hate-hunting industry is fundamentally Christophobic.  And the fact that the MSM are hard-pressed to actually find a single Christian hater who, in the name of Jesus, would mow down innocent people, doesn't seem to particularly bother them. Christians gotta hate! Everybody knows that.

So hate on, atheists. CNN won't out you. They're only interested in a particular kind of "hate", which isn't hate at all. As long as you follow Allah, or believe that two men can get married, or hate God and all the Christians who love Him--well, you are by definition incapable of a hate crime. So rest easy, and hate on!

And Cory's comment section does hate on:

We are not fooling anyone with this false praying and half massed crap. We are just getting used to it. Praying, what were those folks doing in that church? It was Baptist so they were not there to play bingo.

When you build your society around catering to the psychoses of these folks (the various haters and gun nuts), you have gone a long way down the road to what we’ve got now: criminal gangs in big cities, militias in the small towns and rural areas, and a citizenry constantly made paranoid by the breakdown of society. At some point we have to simply put our foot down on the haters and gun fetishists and say, “No, the mentally deranged will no longer run our society.”

When you build your society around catering to the psychoses of these folks (the various haters and gun nuts), you have gone a long way down the road to what we’ve got now: criminal gangs in big cities, militias in the small towns and rural areas, and a citizenry constantly made paranoid by the breakdown of society. At some point we have to simply put our foot down on the haters and gun fetishists and say, “No, the mentally deranged will no longer run our society.”

If he was just an atheist, live and let live. The key part was that he was a gun nut.

OldSarg, how’s that “thoughts and prayers” thing working for all you “christians”?

Paul Ryan and the rest of the fake prayer nuts are not fooling anyone. They are frauds that cannot do the job of governing. Get the hell out of the way Paul Ryan and take your cynical bottom dwellers with you. We are tired of your love affair with Russia at the expense of America’s freedom. Go away and take NOem, Thune and Rounds with you, toss in some Jackley and that little feller Rusty and hit the road.

“Why not just ban guns and when people are upset about it, just send them thoughts and prayers?” If “thoughts and prayers” are good enough for people who’ve lost their families then it’s good enough for people who’ve lost their guns.”

Speaking of offering thoughts and prayers, jerry, I offer my thoughts and prayers to all the republicans that lost in yesterday’s election and promise not to do anything about it.

What a sad bunch of Christophobic hate mongers. And here is Cory's two cents:

Mental illness happens everywhere. But only in America do mentally ill people have such easy access to firearms, plus constant exposure to cultural images and politicians praising guns.

“Take your guns to church! Take them to school! Carry everywhere! We’re not safe anywhere!” That rhetoric signals paranoia, and it’s making me depressed. There’s our greater mental health problem.

First off the title of Cory's post says, "Mass Shootings Not a Mental Health Issue". And with Cory being paranoid about guns and being depressed, perhaps we should be concerned for Cory and those he has lathered up in an irrational state of hatred. Cory's anti-Christian Social Justice mantra is the cultural imagery that fueled the atheist shooter in Texas. Cory is playing politics by giving this atheist and Jihadis passes for their acts of violence. Thus Cory is the prime example of the cultural Neo-Marxist/Muslim Brotherhood axis that is quickly taking shape in South Dakota. More to come.