The Argus Leader helped Taneeza Islam's Jihad along with “Mayoral hopeful criticized by equal rights advocates for politically charged Facebook posts,” by Joe Sneve:
Sioux Falls mayoral candidate is taking some heat for posts on his personal social media profile that equal rights advocates say are anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim.Mike Gunn, a retired business owner and a dark horse in the 2018 Sioux Falls mayoral race, drew attention from the nonprofit South Dakota Voices for Justice for a series of Facebook posts expressing support for tighter immigration laws and alarmism over the country’s increasing Muslim population.
“It should alarm all citizens of Sioux Falls to see that kind of propaganda being released or reposted by someone who wants to be the top-elected official for the city,” said Taneeza Islam, a Sioux Falls immigration lawyer and executive director of South Dakota Voices for Justice.
Islam was specifically referring to a post shared Tuesday by Gunn from the Facebook page of Americans First, Task Force of Aberdeen SD, a self-described educational page that regularly shares memes and news stories critical of Islam.
The post in question included a story from the website JihadWatch.com stating the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is tied to terrorist organizations. Similar claims have been made by Republican and conservative office seekers throughout the country who site [sic] a Center for Security Policy report linking the organization to terrorist groups in the Middle East.
As I have already pointing out, being critical of Islam is a violation of Fitnah, or what is better known as Islamophobia.
Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch responded with this:
The story below from the Argus Leader of Sioux Falls, South Dakota is a textbook example of how Leftist “journalists” present news articles designed to manipulate the public into holding the views they want them to hold. Argus Leader reporter Joe Sneve tells us that “Mike Gunn, a retired business owner and a dark horse in the 2018 Sioux Falls mayoral race, drew attention from the nonprofit South Dakota Voices for Justice for a series of Facebook posts expressing support for tighter immigration laws and alarmism over the country’s increasing Muslim population.”
So right off the bat, we have Mike Gunn against the South Dakota Voices for Justice, which sounds as if Gunn is against justice. The candidate’s crime was actually that he shared posts from “the Facebook page of Americans First, Task Force of Aberdeen SD, a self-described educational page that regularly shares memes and news stories critical of Islam.” It’s a “self-described” educational page, you see: Sneve is semaphoring that readers should approach this group with skepticism.
And what post did Gunn share? “The post in question included a story from the website JihadWatch.com stating the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is tied to terrorist organizations. Similar claims have been made by Republican and conservative office seekers throughout the country who site [sic] a Center for Security Policy report linking the organization to terrorist groups in the Middle East.”
This gives readers the impression that Jihad Watch and the Center for Security Policy are responsible for the claim that CAIR is tied to terrorist organizations. So I wrote to Joe Sneve and pointed out that it was not I who stated that CAIR was tied to terrorist organizations, but the Justice Department, and sent him this link to substantiate what I was saying. Sneve, however, wrote back saying that after consulting with his editor, they had decided not to change the wording of their story.
Sneve’s story then goes on to say: “But the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit legal advocacy organization specializing in civil rights and public interest litigation, has repeatedly defended CAIR and says the Center for Security Policy is an anti-Muslim extremist group.”
In my email to Sneve, I also wrote: “I wonder if you are familiar with the charges that the Southern Poverty Law Center is not a neutral arbiter of what constitutes an ‘extremist’ group and what does not, but has been harshly and justifiably criticized for turning a blind eye to Islamist extremist groups such as CAIR while defaming legitimate conservative organizations with their ‘extremist’ label.” Sneve never responded to this. Note also that he describes the SPLC as “a nonprofit legal advocacy organization specializing in civil rights and public interest litigation.” In contrast to how he treated the Americans First group, Sneve slaps no “self-described” qualifier on his description of the SPLC, despite considerable evidence that it is not a neutral arbiter, but a hard-Left smear group that uses its “extremist” label to tar legitimate groups that oppose its Leftist agenda.
Sneve is no different from hordes of other establishment media self-described reporters, who treat Hamas-linked CAIR and the defamation factory SPLC as if they were reliable sources, and force conservatives such as Mike Gunn to defend themselves against their charges. In a sane world, Gunn would be lauded for his determination to defend the nation, and the story would be about Sneve and the Argus Leader, and their manipulative propaganda spin designed to intimidate and shame people such as Mike Gunn into being afraid to stand for the national defense. But you’re only going to read that here, on one of the Internet’s few and rapidly diminishing islands of sanity.
I then left this comment at the Jihad Watch post in order to provide more research on Taneeza Islam:
From the Argus report:
“Taneeza Islam, a Sioux Falls immigration lawyer and executive director of South Dakota Voices for Justice.”
Taneeza Islam worked for CAIR-MN as director of civil rights before moving to South Dakota. I asked her on November 28, 2017 if she would denounce the Muslim Brotherhood and their support of Hamas. I posted her response on my web site:
Which brought this analysis:
So as the primary sponsor of the USD presentation announced there was time for one more question I raised my hand and asked:
“So as we talk about the evolution of Sharia, there are members of a group called the Muslim Brotherhood who argue we are going too far away from the foundational belief system of Muhammed, and they want to restore that and actually implement full Sharia, establish a caliphate and implement full blown worldwide Sharia Law. And do you denounce the Muslim Brotherhood for that position and their support of Hamas.”
Taneeza’s response:
“I denounce terrorism in all its forms. I don’t know what your definition of Sharia is, but my definition of Sharia does not match up with your question. So we need to back up and talk outside about what Sharia is, because that was the whole point of that slide, was to tell you that what the average person understand about Sharia is not in fact what it is. Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas…(she hesitated, giggled, hesitated)…there are generations of history that go into these organizations, Why they were formulated and why they exist. There is political parties, there is military, there is a whole bunch of stuff that cannot be answered in one minute. So I am going to prefer to talk to you off line.””
You know you have found a live wire when you get this reaction about condemning terrorism in all its forms.
‘…You know you have found a live wire…’
Spot on, livingengine. Standard operating procedure. Divert, distract, deflect, dissemble – and deceive.
“I denounce terrorism in all its forms.”
Substituting “terrorism” for “violent jihad” is a semantics game.
But, as she’s not being asked to denounce violent jihad…..
Denouncing Islam it all of its forms has also been used by high ranking Muslim Brotherhood operates. In Paul Sperry's,"Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington", we find this from founder of CAIR Omar Ahmad:
He was one of the Muslim leaders invited by the president to the National Cathedral to join the nation in mourning the 9/11 tragedy, Shortly after the attacks, he proclaimed that Muslims condemn "terrorism in all its forms".
That was on page 23. On page 30 we have this coverage of convicted terrorist and founder of the American Muslim Council, Abdurahman Alamoudi:
Whenever Muslim Leaders are asked to condemn violent attacks on non-Muslims they sternly denounce "all forms of terrorism," while pointing out that Islam forbids terrorism and any violence against "innocent" people or "civilians." "We are against all forms of terrorism," Alamoundi said after 1998's U.S. embassy bombings. "Our religion is against terrorism." Technically they are right. Such statements are accurate.
But like Ali's response to his inquisitors, they are cleverly worded dodges. You see, Islamists do not consider all non-Muslims as "innocent" or "civilians." And what the West defines as "terrorism," they may define as "legitimate resistance" or "justice." What the West defines as "terrorists," they may define as Israeli and American "occupiers" or "oppressors." So their statements against terrorism and terrorists are really nothing more than legal lies. It all depends on what their meaning is. (Imagine if Bill Clinton were Muslim!) At the same time Alamoundi publically condemned the embassy "terrorism" in Africa, he privately expressed disappointment in the low American death toll.
According to Sperry (page 27), "British authorities busted Alamoundi" and "Alamoudi eventually pleaded guilty to plotting terroists acts with Libya. Prosecutors also connected him to Hamas..." Sperry quoted CAIR founder Omar Ahmad on page 24:
Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith but to become dominant. The Quran should be the highest authority in ASmerica, and Islam the only accepted reigion on Earth.
Again I point out that Taneeza Islam worked for CAIR-MN and she has publically refused to denounce Hamas and instead said, “I denounce terrorism in all its forms." South Dakota beware!
I visited her South Dakota Voices for Peace Facebook page and found a post from last year where she once again claims that ACT for America is a hate group. I personally asked her if she had ever attended an ACT meeting and if so what hate speech was presented. I have to hear back from her but I did get a couple of responses from someone who seemed to be very defensive and proceeded to question if I have been. I politely stressed to him that the question was for Taneeza and was waiting for her personal response. I guess he didn't like my response so he deleted his comments and blocked me. I have yet to get a response and sure I won't. I will say that I took pictures of everything to document so that nothing can be disputed. Pretty typical I guess that Taneeza can't even respond even though she touts wanting to engage in civil dialogue regarding Islam.
Posted by: Patriot American | February 12, 2018 at 02:12 PM
PA,
The only people who are allowed civil rights are Allah worshiping Muslims. The rest of us are second class.
Posted by: Steve Sibson | February 12, 2018 at 05:59 PM