Monday, August 22, 2011

Many of FBI's 15,000 Informants Watching Mosques, Provoking Violence

As a fellow at the University of California-Berkeley’s Investigative Reporting Program, Florida Center for Investigative Reporting Associate Director Trevor Aaronson spent a year researching how the FBI uses informants in terrorism investigations. Aaronson’s findings, which were published in the September/October issue of Mother Jones, include:
  • The FBI has 15,000 registered informants, many of them keeping watch on Muslim communities. Today, the FBI has nearly three times as many informants as it had 25 years ago.
Aaronson’s report also includes a searchable database of the more than 500 terrorism prosecutions reviewed during the yearlong investigation.

The US Government Won't be Charged With Perjury Even When It's Caught in a Lie

 A chilling court decision unsealed at the end of April by a federal judge in California's Central District reveals that the Obama administration is not only prepared to take advantage of the lies of the Bush administration, but is willing to up the ante. In a case that involved extensive surveillance of Muslim community groups and leaders, the Obama administration has now argued that the government not only can lie about its surveillance activities to American citizens but can, in turn, lie to federal judges when "national security" is involved. And, despite his strongly worded April 27 decision censuring the government for lying, U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney ultimately ruled that the government can both withhold the requested surveillance documents and escape censure for lying. 

Carney's ruling, which has gone under the radar of most mainstream and independent media (with a lone 420-word editorial in the Los Angeles Timesbeing the only mainstream coverage), chastises the U.S. government. But, that's as far as Carney would go. The government will not be charged with contempt of court or perjury nor will it face any other kind of official sanction. In effect, the government can lie and conduct whatever kinds of surveillance it wants without accountability or repercussions for overreach... (Read Full Article)

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Highlights From the Comments Section: Everyone Hates Muslims Edition

Sure, the Tea Party may be economically illiterate and prone to asking stupid questions of important people, but if its pols are booted out of office in 2012, it won't be because of poor communication. Those online commenters are really on their collective game. They hunt in packs, like wolves, or really patriotic bees.

We published the letter Tuesday that Congressman Allen West sent to the Center on American-Islamic Relations. We suggested that his letter -- which said nothing but "NUTS!" -- was kind of a stupid way to respond to a group trying to stand up for your constituents' civil liberties.

But the civil liberties of American citizens seem to matter to West and his supporters only if they're being meted out to Christians -- you know, the good Americans. They say the government should stay the hell out of Americans' business, unless you're gay or Muslim or a woman, in which case you get the classic Allen West "fuck you, I was in the Army" treatment.

West supporters love this treatment, and their defense of him this week was both steadfast and loyal, which is coincidentally the same phrase West uses at the end of all his chickenshit letters. His letter was well-timed, though: He was labeled a "tea party traitor" for his support of the debt ceiling compromise (an entirely different stupid story), and there isn't any better way to mend Tea Party fences than to break out some good old-fashioned prejudice.

Here are some of the more spectacular comments from his Internet defenders, annotated for maximum truthiness: (Read Full Article)

Got Rights?

Courtesy of the Muslim Advocates:

"Watch This Video: It will give you crucial Information about how to protect you and your family when approached by law enforcement.

Since the terrorist attacks of 9-11, Muslims, Sikhs, Arabs and South Asians have endured particular scrutiny by law enforcement -- and in some cases, questioning and searches that infringe fundamental rights at the core of the Constitution. In this climate, it is vital that members of our communities inform themselves about our rights as Americans."

You may think...
"I've done nothing wrong. I've got nothing to hide. I want to help law enforcement."

You should know...
• Seeking the advice of counsel before you talk to law enforcement is the smart thing to do.

• Speaking to law enforcement without an attorney present or advice of counsel--however well intentioned--places you and your family at great risk of criminal prosecution or adverse
immigration consequences (including deportation). (In fact, in at least one recent case, individuals were arrested and jailed on charges--such as alleged immigration violations--completely unrelated to cases agents were investigating.)

• There is no legal obligation to speak to law enforcement officials. You are only required to provide identification to law enforcement officials if asked, and immigrants are required to carry proof of immigration status at all times. Declining to speak cannot be presumed as guilt.

• Any statements made during contact with law enforcement can be used against you at a later time. Lying to a federal officer, even by omission, is a crime.

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Islamic Terrorism Threat May Be Overblown, Expert Says

By Yonat Shimron
c. 2011 Religion News Service
(RNS) After a car bomb detonated on Wall Street one minute past the noon lunch hour killing 38 people, federal investigators came up with a possible link to an overseas group.

Islamic terrorists?

Al Qaeda?

No, Italian anarchists.

The year was 1920, and in those days anarchists were the equivalent of today's terrorists, waging acts of mass destruction against Western capitalism.

Charles Kurzman, a professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina, thinks the wave of 20th century anarchist violence bears a resemblance to the Islamic terrorism of the 21st century in one sense: Neither resulted in a spiraling escalation of violence.

"In many ways," said Kurzman, "Islamic terrorism is simply the latest form of transnational revolutionary violence to grab global attention."

Put another way: This too shall pass.

While mindful of the pain and suffering terrorism has caused, Kurzman has written a book challenging the dominant narrative that worldwide terrorism is out of control.

In "The Missing Martyrs: Why There Are So Few Muslim Terrorists," Kurzman argues that Islamic terrorism has accounted for a miniscule number of murders compared with violent death tolls from other causes.

In the United States, for example, fewer than 40 people died at the hands of terrorists in the 10 years since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. That compares with about 140,000 other murders during the same time. (Read Full Article)

Who's Behind The Movement To Ban Shariah Law?

NPR (Listen to full interview here)

In the past year, more than two dozen states have considered legislation that would prevent the use of Shariah, the Islamic code that guides Muslim beliefs and actions, in courtrooms. Several prominent Republicans, including Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann have all recently warned about the threat of Shariah law. In Tennessee, lawmakers recently debated whether to classify suspected Islamic terrorist groups as "Shariah organizations."
On today's Fresh AirNew York Timesinvestigative reporter Andrea Elliott joins Terry Gross for a conversation about the state-level movement to ban Shariah law. Elliott recentlyprofiled David Yerushalmi, the Brooklyn lawyer who started the anti-Shariah movement and who she says, "has come to exercise a striking influence over American public discourse about Shariah."
"What was intriguing to me was how this man, who was really a fringe figure, came to cultivate allies and influence people at such high levels — former military and intelligence officials, leaders of national organizations, presidential candidates — how did he make that leap?" says Elliott. "And I think part of the answer is, in person he comes across not as the erratic character as some might suspect but as a sophisticated man who is convinced by his idea and has an endless appetite for defending those ideas."
(Listen to full interview here)

Islamic Law and Judaism

NY Times

To the Editor:

Re “Behind an Anti-Shariah Push” (front page, July 31):

How ironic that David Yerushalmi, a Hasidic Jew and a political force behind a nationwide campaign against Shariah, or Islamic law, seems oblivious to the profound Islamic influence upon his own Jewish religious traditions.

This is no more evident than in the life and works of Moses Maimonides (1135-1204), the great Jewish thinker, who lived in Muslim lands and wrote most of his books in Arabic. In his Mishneh Torah , his influential code of halacha, the Jewish version of Shariah, as well as in his philosophical masterpiece “Guide for the Perplexed,” Maimonides cites numerous Muslim thinkers, and all his works clearly mirror the then-prevailing religious and intellectual trends in the Islamic world.

Mr. Yerushalmi’s obvious prejudice against Muslims and Islam is a betrayal of Jewish history.


New York, July 31, 2011

The writer is the director of the documentary film “Out of Cordoba: Averroes and Maimonides in Their Time and Ours.”

To the Editor:

I wonder what David Yerushalmi, a Jew, would do if he got his ban on Shariah and somebody else wanted to ban halacha (Jewish law)? What would he do when somebody wanted to ban circumcision or slaughtering animals according to Jewish dietary laws?

To win his self-invented war with Shariah, he will have to shred all of the protections that keep things like this from happening. Mr. Yerushalmi’s misguided campaign divides our society while it diverts our attention from the real fight with terrorists.


Cedar Rapids, Iowa, July 31, 2011

A Tale of Three Accused Women: And justice American style

A Tale of Three Accused Women:
And justice American style

Assalaamu Alaikum (Greetings of Peace):

This is coming to our readers from the state of Alabama. On Friday I spoke at Masjid Qasim Bilal El-Amin in Montgomery (AL); last night I spoke at the Islamic Center in Hoover (AL), part of Greater Birmingham; tonight (insha'Allah) I will have a few words at the Birmingham Islamic Society in Homewood (aka, The Homewood Masjid), also part of Metropolitan Birmingham.

Earlier this afternoon I did an interview by telephone with Press TV (an Iran-based network I believe), a comparative analysis of the criminal cases involving three young women, two Americans and one Pakistani. The cases of Amanda Knox, Casey Anthony, and Dr. Aafia Siddiqui reveal just how arbitrary and capricious "justice" can be in the U.S. legal system, and how conceptually flawed it can be in the collective mind of the American people (generally speaking).

These three cases also reveal, in very graphic detail, the role that raceclassgenderreligion and politics often play in the pursuit of  justice in the western hemisphere.

Amanda Knox was prosecuted and convicted in Italy (along with her Italian lover and an African immigrant) for the brutal murder of another young female foreign exchange student. Knox received a sentence of 26 years as a result. Now via the automatic appeals process in European law (a superior quality, in my view, to American law), and the recent decision by an appellate judge to allow an independent review of key forensic evidence that was used to convict her - because the evidence was reportedly contaminated by being mishandled by Italian investigators - Knox has a good chance of winning release in the near future.

(If I were a betting man, I would wage it all on my belief that Ms. Knox will be "legally" cleared and repatriated back to America sooner than later.)

Casey Anthony, a young woman from Florida, was charged in the death of her own child, Caylee Anthony. Despite the damning evidence against her, Anthony was recently found not guilty of the most serious charges in the murder indictment, and convicted only for giving false information to the law enforcement officers who investigated the case. Anthony has now been released to an undisclosed location, and reportedly stands to make a fortune when ever she decides to "tell her story."

Dr. Aafia Siddiqui is a Pakistani national, and committed Muslim woman, who came to the United States at the age of 18 for university study. She excelled academically at the University of Houston, MIT, and Brandeis University. She also distinguished herself as a young leader of the Muslim student organization(s) to which she belonged, and engaged in praiseworthy charitable work in the greater Boston area. Aafia would later become a person of suspicion (post 9/11), return home to Pakistan, and eventually become a target of a rendition operation (along with her three young children - ages six, four, and six months) in March of 2003.

After five years of secret detention and torture, Aafia would mysteriously re-emerge in a weakened and disheveled state in Afghanistan; she would be shot and seriously injured while awaiting re-interrogation; and soon after be brought back to the United States, in 2008, to eventually stand trial (two years later) for allegedly "attempting to murder U.S. personnel" (FBI and soldiers) in Afghanistan in July 2008.

While Amanda Knox and Casey Anthony (young, white, non-Muslim females) became "tabloid darlings," whose trials played out in the public sphere like Reality TV dramas, the trial of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui was shrouded under a cloak of near anonymity within the United States - despite the presence of a significant number of reporters in the courtroom each day of the trial.

Both Knox and Anthony misled investigators (aka, repeatedly lied) during their interrogations, while Aafia was forthright from start to finish.

Both Knox and Anthony initially tried to shift responsibility for the crime that they were accused of committing on to an innocent person, and both had strong circumstantial evidence against them. In Siddiqui's case both the material and circumstancial evidence were strongly in her favor; it was the government's star witnesses that perjured themselves on the witness stand during the trial (although they were never charged with perjury)! 

Casey Anthony received an extreme presumption of innocence from a jury that saw a young white female who was facing the death penalty, if convicted. (I predict that the presumption of innocence principle will strongly kick in, post conviction, based on the alleged contamination of evidence, in the appeals process for Amanda Knox.) And while Ms. Anthony had a fair and impartial jurist to preside over her case, Judge Belvin Perry, Aafia Siddiqui had just the opposite. U.S. District Judge Richard Berman was openly biased against Dr. Siddiqui from start to finish.

Anthony's jury was sequestered in a hotel, cutoff from the outside world; while Dr. Siddiqui's should have been! The jury in Aafia's case left the courthouse each day, and were continually exposed to the highly prejudicial, government-fed local media reports that contaminated the court of public opinion; reports that were so unfair and poisonous that they made any prospect for an impartial deliberation process almost impossible.

Anthony's attorneys were given a lot of latitude in their defense of their client; while Siddiqui's attorneys were hamstrung (and in the opinion of some observers, allowed themselves to be hamstrung) to such an extent, that the missing fives years of her secret detention were made off limits during the trial!

While Casey Anthony is a free woman (relatively speaking); and Amanda Knox - who has benefited from a growing defense lobby, and American press coverage that has been primarily positive - may soon be a free woman; Dr. Aafia Siddiqui (who is not accused of harming anyone!) received a sentence of 86 years on September 23, 2010, and is now being confined at a notorious institution (known as Carswell) on a military base in Fort Worth, Texas.

The well known peace activist, Cindy Sheehan, made a provocative observation regarding the outcome of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui case, not long after her sentencing:
"Even if Dr. Siddiqui did shoot at the Americans, reflect on this. Say this case was being tried in Pakistan under similar circumstances for an American woman named Dr. Betty Brown who was captured and repeatedly tortured and raped by the ISI. Here in the states that woman would be a hero if she shot at her captors, not demonized and taken away from her life and her children. I believe Dr. Aafia Siddiqui is apolitical prisoner and now the political bogey-woman for two US regimes."
I couldn't agree more...and so goes the tale of three accused women.
El-Hajj Mauri' Saalakhan
(c) 2011, All Rights Reserved 
(permission is given to share this commentary with others, without any changes, and with the appropriate attribution)

Vilifying Muslims in America

Vilifying Muslims in America - by Stephen Lendman

Judge nations by how they treat all people, whether equally, or advantaging some over others. Judge them harshly if they persecute some for political advantage.

In America, people of color and Muslims are fair game. It's longstanding policy based on prejudicial attitudes, stereotypes, deep-seated racism, and notions of corrupted Western values, high-mindedness, and moral superiority.

Post-9/11, in fact, Muslims are perceived as barbaric, violent, uncivilized, gun-toting terrorists, easily targeted, accused, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned - not for wrongdoing, for their faith in American at the wrong time. As a result, it's no surprise that when suspects are named, media reports automatically convict them in the court of public opinion. .. (READ FULL ARTICLE)

People For the American Way (PFAW) Takes Aim at Anti-Muslim Extremism

Its new report focuses on "The Right Wing Playbook on Anti-Muslim Extremism," saying:

"Under the guise of defending freedom and American values, right-wing anti-Muslim activists....prevent Muslim-Americans from freely worshiping and practicing their religion, curtail their political rights," urge deportations for some and prosecutions of others.

Connected to overall racial and religious hatred, Muslims became a favored target of choice. As a result, politicians argue for close monitoring, investigating, and curtailing their freedoms to stop them, destroying core democratic values in the process.

Post-9/11, manufactured paranoia claims Muslim are a fifth column threat to US security, "working to bring about America's downfall." Vicious rhetoric and accusations vilify them, calling them a dangerous internal threat to be stopped.

According to David Yerushalmi, a leading anti-Muslim propagandist/general counsel for the far-right Center for Security Policy:

"Muslim civilization is at war with Judeo-Christian civilization....The Muslim peoples, those committed to Islam as we know it today, are our enemies." The way to defeat them is to criminalize Islam, he believes, proposing:

-- 20 years imprisonment for knowingly supporting the furtherance of or adherence to Islam;

-- congressionally declaring war on Muslim nations;

-- declaring all non-US citizen Muslims alien enemies under Chapter 3, Title 50 of the US Code, subjecting them to immediate deportation; and

-- assuring no Muslims get entry visas to America.

Accordingly, Muslims are perceived to be violent. No moderate ones exist. According to University of North Carolina Professor Omid Safi:

"A common ploy by Islamophobes is to go to a predictable list of verses in the Koran and the words of Muhammad and to argue that (they) - with no context, no interpretation, and no alternative (ones) - represent the essence of Islam for all eternity, no matter what Muslims may say or why they may protest."

Notorious Islamophobe David Horowitz claims that "between 150 million and 750 million Muslims support a holy war against Christians, Jews and other Muslims," based solely on his racist anti-Islamic hate.

In addition, right-wing religious extremist Pat Robertson compares Muslims to Hitler, urging Americans to fight them the same way, and the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer calls Muslims "parasites" and a "toxic cancer....out to eliminate and destroy western civilization."

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain says he won't have Muslims in his administration if elected. Newt Gingrich defended his position in a Republican candidate debate, comparing them to Nazis. Rep. Renee Ellmers (R. NC) calls them terrorists responsible for 9/11 (an exposed lie), and Allen West (R. FL) claims Muslims are naturally "wild" because God cursed Ishmael and his Muslim descendants.

The Pat Robertson/Jay Sekulow-founded American Center for Law and Justice claims Islam compels its adherents to fight America and other countries, saying:

"Because Islam grew out of the belief in complete world domination, every Muslim is obligated to labor in his own way toward achieving that goal, no matter where he lives or what sovereign claims his allegiance."

Distorting Truth to Spread Lies

Fake research is used to attack the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). As a result, Republican senators and congresspersons want the group investigated.

Not for wrongdoing. For encouraging young Muslim-Americans to become congressional interns to learn more about politics. Nonetheless, CAIR and other Islamic groups are vilified. During Rep. Peter King's first hearings, Rep. Chip Cravaack (R. MN) called CAIR a "terrorist organization." ...

The Peculiar Case of the Black American Islamophobe

Su'ad Abdul Khabeer, The Huffington Post
Assistant professor of Anthropology and African American Studies, Purdue University

Growing up in the diverse black communities of Brooklyn, NY, being Muslim was not really a strange thing. And to a certain extent the same could be said for the rest of the city. For example, a few years ago I attended a bombazo in the South Bronx and while there, I needed to make one of the five daily prayers. In addition to an inconspicuous place to make salat, I needed to figure out the direction of Mecca, northeast. All I asked one of the event organizers, who was not a Muslim, was: "Do you know which way is east?" To which she immediately responded, "Oh, you need to pray?" and then led me to a quiet and clean place where I could do just that. This familiarity with Islam comes from the role that various everyday and prominent Muslims, like Malcolm X and Muhammad Ali, have played in shaping black identity and fighting against racial inequality. And when hip hop took up Black Nationalism in the 80s and 90s, being Muslim was not only familiar but also cool. Even Ramadan, which incidentally began this week, had a cameo, albeit irreverent, in the hip hop track "Kick in the Door" where Biggie Smalls rhymes "quick fast, like Ramadan."

This is why I remain perplexed at the ascendance of African Americans who spew the rhetoric of anti-Muslim bias. Last year, there was Juan Williams' inextricable fear of Muslim garb (whatever that is). Then there was the surprising discovery that black residents are participating in the campaign against the expansion of a local mosque in Murfreesboro, TN. And then there were the most recent and egregious comments of Herman Cain, for which, to be fair, he later apologized...(Read Full Article)

In light of these and other parallels, how do some African-Americans come to jump on the anti-Muslim bias bandwagon? There are likely many answers to that question. One that I would like to suggest is that the bandwagon can be alluring to a community that is usually made to walk. Meaning that, some black people, consciously or subconsciously, take on anti-Muslim attitudes as a means to an end -- to access the privileges of being a full-fledged American that have been so long denied blacks in this country. Of course, this route toward full citizenship is peculiar when juxtaposed against reports like the recent one on the widening of the racial wealth gap; reports, which remind us that, on the whole, whites, and non-whites are living in very different Americas. And unfortunately, black American Islamophobes, blaming it on the Muslims -- who are also black -- won't change that. What the black American Islamophobe needs to realize is that the anti-Muslim bias is not a means to full citizenship. Rather, the "Muslim peril" is just the newest boogey man deployed to uphold the status quo and thereby distract our attention from demanding and making meaningful and equitable change for all Americans.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Poll: Muslims Most Likely To Reject Violence

By Stephen C. Webster, The Raw Story

New data from polling firm Gallup shows that out of all the religious groups in the U.S., Muslims are most likely to reject violence, followed by the non-religious atheists and agnostics.

Through interviews with 2,482 Americans, Gallup found that 78 percent of Muslims believe violence which kills civilians is never justified, whereas just 38 percent of Protestant Christians and 39 percent of Catholics agreed with that sentiment. Fifty-six percent of atheists answered similarly.

(Read the Full Story)

To Fight Radical Islam, U.S. Wants Muslim Allies

By Scott Shane, NY Times

WASHINGTON — Rolling out a new strategy for combating radicalization, White House officials on Wednesday warned that casting broad suspicion on Muslim Americans is counterproductive and could backfire by alienating a religious minority and fueling extremism.

The administration also promised to identify accurate educational materials about Islam for law enforcement officers, providing an alternative to biased and ill-informed literature in use in recent years, including by the F.B.I. Denis R. McDonough, President Obama’s deputy national security adviser, told reporters that Al Qaeda and those it inspired remained the biggest terrorist threat inside the United States. But he said the bombing and shootings in Norway last month, carried out by a right-wing, anti-Muslim extremist, were a reminder that the government could not focus exclusively on any single brand of radicalism.

Mr. McDonough said that Al Qaeda had a “bankrupt ideology,” but that accusing the entire Muslim community of complicity in terrorism could “feed the sense of disenchantment and disenfranchisement that may spur violent extremist radicalization.” Instead, he said, Muslim Americans should be treated as a crucial ally of the government in combating extremism....

...A National Security Council expert on extremism who helped devise the new strategy, Quintan Wiktorowicz, said the administration was aware of “inaccurate training” on Islam for law enforcement officers. He said the administration would compile “gold standard” materials to be posted on the Web for officials to draw upon.

A January study by a liberal research group found a pattern of misleading and inflammatory training about Islam across the country, and a 2009 F.B.I. training document obtained recently by the American Civil Liberties Union gave a provocative account of Islam. That F.B.I. PowerPoint presentation was used for classes for law enforcement personnel at the bureau’s academy in Virginia, but it is no longer in use, according to the bureau.

The F.B.I. document recommended two books by Robert Spencer, an anti-Muslim blogger and author whose work was repeatedly cited in the online manifesto of Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian accused of killing at least 76 people last month. Mr. Spencer, who operates the Web site Jihad Watch, has said he opposes violence and condemns Mr. Breivik’s actions.

(Read Full Article)

Half of Muslims in US Discriminated Against: Anti-Muslim Hate Promoted by Vocal Minority

Fla. Rep. Allen West to Muslims: "NUTS!"

Watch the video above to see Florida Congressman Allen West's response to CAIR Florida's letter requesting that he cut ties with extremist anti-Muslim groups.

These groups and leaders which West has associated with have beenrepeatedly cited by the Norway Terrorist to support his justification for his deadly attack that killed dozens of children. Nonetheless, West maintains close ties with them and supports their arguments.

Monday, August 15, 2011

Video: FBI Asked Agents to Read Anti-Islam Books

Anti-Islam Blogger: Dead Oslo Kids Not So Innocent


Pamela Geller has since redacted this caption from a blog post about the Oslo youth camp victims, seen here in an AP photo a day before the bloodbath.

Islamaphobic blogger Pamela Geller has been one of the most strident voices against the so-called "Ground Zero mosque," and even organized an anti-Islamic bus ad purchased with donations from readers of her blog, Atlas Shrugs. Given her prominence in the bigoted 'Muslim Go Home!' movement, it's no surprise that mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik cited her in his sick manifesto. And over the weekend, it emerged that in 2007, Geller also published an anonymous email from a Norwegian praising her work. The email is chilling in its similarity to Breivik's stated mission:
Orders from Libya and Iran say that Oslo will be known as Medina at the latest in 2010, although I consider this a PR-stunt nevertheless it is their plan.
From Israel the hordes clawing at the walls of Jerusalem proclaim cheerfully that next year there will be no more Israel, and I know Israel shrugs this off as do I, and will mount a strike during the summer against all of its enemies in the middle east. This will make the muslims worldwide go into a frenzy, attacking everyone around them.
We are stockpiling and caching weapons, ammunition and equipment. This is going to happen fast.
When the old blog post came to light in the media, Geller responded by scrubbing out the sentence about stockpiling weapons. After she was called out on it, she put it back in, explaining that "The sentence I edited is not an incitement to anything. It refers to self-defense, but I removed it in the light of recent horrific events in Norway. I thought it insensitive. Nothing more. Everyone has a right to self-defense."
Geller denies that the email was from Breivik, but in a new blog post, she also insinuates that his slaughter could be seen as self-defense. She begins by predicting that the "genocidal leftists will twist what I write here," so let's let her words stand on their own. No twisting required with an essay nauseatingly titled "Summer Camp? Antisemitic Indoctrination Training Center":
I abhor violence (except in regard to self defense). But the jihad-loving media never told us what antisemitic war games they were playing on that island... The camp was run by the Youth Movement of the Labour Party and used to indoctrinate teens and young adults.
Breivik was targeting the future leaders of the party responsible for flooding Norway with Muslims who refuse to assimilate, who commit major violence against Norwegian natives, including violent gang rapes, with impunity, and who live on the dole... all done without the consent of the Norwegians.
Despite her rote platitudes about abhorring violence, Geller clearly states that this "indoctrination center" was committing violence "against Norwegian natives." Framed in that context, Breivik was acting in self-defense when he preemptively fought back against these "junior members of the aristocracy" before they could begin their "careers ruling over the peasants." The subtext is barely sub: Breivik was a patriotic hero defending his nation. (And so handsome after that Aryan plastic surgery!)
Her post features a photo of the campers taken less than 24 hours before the slaughter, so it's likely that some of the children in the photo are among Breivik's victims. In the original version, Geller's photo caption read, "Note the faces which are more Middle Eastern and mixed than pure Norwegian." Little Green Footballs notes that Geller, perhaps realizing that she'd sunk to a new low, has deleted the caption

Pam Geller And Robert Spencer Using Links To Norway Terrorist For Fundraising Campaign

Now Geller and Spencer are leveraging all the attention to raise funds from their supporters. In the past week, both Geller and the David Horowitz Freedom Center — the group that houses Spencer’s Jihad Watch blog — sent out e-mail portraying themselves of victims of what Horowitz, in his letter, called attacks from the “international left.”
In his July 26 email, Horowitz wrote that Spencer was under scrutiny “[b]ecause some of Robert’s ideas happen to have been cited by the lunatic responsible for the carnage.” According to a ThinkProgress analysis of Breivik’s so-called manifesto, Spencer and his Jihad Watch blog were cited a combined 162 times in the 1,500-page document. (Horowitz was cited once.)

14 Propaganda Techniques Fox “News” Uses to Brainwash Americans


There is nothing more sacred to the maintenance of democracy than a free press. Access to comprehensive, accurate and quality information is essential to the manifestation of Socratic citizenship – the society characterized by a civically engaged, well-informed and socially invested populace. Thus, to the degree that access to quality information is willfully or unintentionally obstructed, democracy itself is degraded.
It is ironic that in the era of 24-hour cable news networks and “reality” programming, the news-to-fluff ratio and overall veracity of information has declined precipitously. Take the fact Americans now spend on average about 50 hours a week using various forms of media, while at the same time cultural literacy levels hover just above the gutter. Not only does mainstream media now tolerate gross misrepresentations of fact and history by public figures (highlighted most recently by Sarah Palin’s ludicrous depiction of Paul Revere’s ride), but many media actually legitimize these displays. Pause for a moment and ask yourself what it means that the world’s largest, most profitable and most popular news channel passes off as fact every whim, impulse and outrageously incompetent analysis of its so-called reporters. How did we get here? Take the enormous amount of misinformation that is taken for truth by Fox audiences: the belief thatSaddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and that he was in on 9/11, the belief that climate change isn’t real and/or man-made, the belief that Barack Obama is Muslim and wasn’t born in the United States, the insistence that all Arabs are Muslim and all Muslims are terrorists, the inexplicable perceptions that immigrants are both too lazy to work and are about to steal your job. All of these claims are demonstrably false, yet Fox News viewers will maintain their veracity with incredible zeal. Why? Is it simply that we have lost our respect for knowledge?
My curiosity about this question compelled me to sit down and document the most oft-used methods by which willful ignorance has been turned into dogma by Fox News and other propagandists disguised as media. The techniques I identify here also help to explain the simultaneously powerful identification the Fox media audience has with the network, as well as their ardent, reflexive defenses of it.
The good news is that the more conscious you are of these techniques, the less likely they are to work on you. The bad news is that those reading this article are probably the least in need in of it.
1. Panic Mongering. This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking moment. From Muslims to swine flu to recession to homosexuals to immigrants to the rapture itself, the belief over at Fox seems to be that if your fight-or-flight reflexes aren’t activated, you aren’t alive. This of course raises the question: why terrorize your own audience? Because it is the fastest way to bypasses the rational brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they don’t think rationally. And when they can’t think rationally, they’ll believe anything.
2. Character Assassination/Ad Hominem. Fox does not like to waste time debating the idea. Instead, they prefer a quicker route to dispensing with their opponents: go after the person’s credibility, motives, intelligence, character, or, if necessary, sanity. No category of character assassination is off the table and no offense is beneath them. Fox and like-minded media figures also use ad hominem attacks not just against individuals, but entire categories of people in an effort to discredit the ideas of every person who is seen to fall into that category, e.g. “liberals,” “hippies,” “progressives” etc. This form of argument – if it can be called that – leaves no room for genuine debate over ideas, so by definition, it is undemocratic. Not to mention just plain crass.
3. Projection/Flipping. This one is frustrating for the viewer who is trying to actually follow the argument. It involves taking whatever underhanded tactic you’re using and then accusing your opponent of doing it to you first... (Read the rest)