VIRGINIA CHURCH HOSTS LECTURE ON ” ISLAMOPHOBIA”; PROFESSOR CLAIMS IT’S DRIVEN BY “IMPERIALISM”

 Todd Green
 Todd Green is serving as a Franklin Fellow and advisor on Islamophobia in Europe.
 Todd Green visiting with Representative Keith Ellison (MN) in Washington, DC.
ABOVE: GREEN WITH ELLISON 
SEE OUR PREVIOUS POSTS ABOUT ELLISON:
VIRGINIA CHURCH HOSTS LECTURE ON 
” ISLAMOPHOBIA”; PROFESSOR CLAIMS IT’S DRIVEN BY “IMPERIALISM” 
BY ANDREW HARROD
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

“I have lots of relationships with Muslims. They have taught me compassion and peace,” stated Luther College Professor Todd Green during a January 22 presentation at McLean, Virginia’s Lewinsville Presbyterian Church (LPC). Here this self-proclaimed “scholar of Islamophobia” and “anti-Islamophobia activist
reiterated his fantasy that interpersonal relationships with Muslims
can refute supposed “Islamophobic” prejudices arising from Western sins
like imperialism.

Green, author of the 2015 book The Fear of Islam:  An Introduction to Islamophobia in the West, is currently a Franklin Fellow
at the United States Department of State, where Green “assesses and
analyzes Islamophobia in Europe.” He has had ample opportunity to
expound the book’s themes in various appearances in radio (see here, here, and here) and online, as well as public presentations such as at the 2016 Peacestock conference of the leftwing Veterans for Peace. He also writes for left-leaning publications such as the Huffington Post and Sojourners.

Without specific definitions, Green has concluded that “Islamophobia
is an irrational fear, hostility, or hatred of Muslims and Islam” and is
“one of the most acceptable prejudices in the United States today.”
This presents a “cultural racism” in which “Muslims are essentialized;
they are treated as a race,” he elaborated at LPC. Nonetheless, he has
previously vaguely qualified that critical study of any such posited
bigotry “is not an attempt to cut off critical conversations about
Islam.”

Green has assessed that “imperialism is one of the main factors
driving Islamophobia in the past and in the present,” resulting from
historical “imperial tension and imperial competition” between
Christians and Muslims. “In the seventh century when Islam came on the
scene, it spread very quickly and Islamic empires developed quite
quickly,” he has stated, while leaving unmentioned the Islamic
supremacist jihad doctrine
that propelled such conquests. With shifting power balances between
Western and Islamic civilization across the centuries, Islamic empires
gave way to the European colonialism that subjugated many Islamic lands.

Westerners colonizing Muslims, Green has argued, realized that “with
imperial projects there must be some ‘other’, and this ‘other’ must be
demonized and dehumanized in order for the imperial nation to galvanize
popular support.” The “neo-imperialism” of rival Cold War superpowers
followed European colonialism. Even post-Cold War, “much of U.S. foreign
policy is incomprehensible apart from understanding that we are still
engaged in the imperial project.”

Casting Muslims as passive victims of Western aggression, Green
believes that such stereotypes influence Americans today who “have seen
and continue to see Muslims in many parts of the world as obstacles to
our imperial ambitions.” In the Huffington Post, he emphasizes
the “history of Western interventionism in Muslim-majority contexts,
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the U.S. exploitation of energy
resources in the Middle East, the legacy of European colonialism.” The
oft-debated question “Is ISIS [the Islamic State in Iraq and (Greater)
Syria] Islamic?” is merely a “thinly veiled form of Islamophobia
intended to heighten our fears of Islam while absolving the U.S. of its
own responsibility in contributing to the rise to ISIS.”

“Religion is rarely the driving force behind terrorism,” Green’s article claims, befitting his oft-disproved analysis
that socioeconomic disadvantage, not Islamic doctrine, lies behind
jihadist violence. At LPC, he described Muslims joining ISIS because of
factors like discrimination in Europe or oppression from Middle Eastern
dictatorships, just as socioeconomic factors might influence Westerners
to join rightwing movements. “White Christians have an empire to hide
behind.  Many of these young men joining ISIS don’t.  When you are
politically disenfranchised you will sometimes find other ways to find
power.”

In identifying “Islamophobia’s” past and present purveyors, Green resorts to well-worn, hackneyed tropes. He embraces the fraudulent Edward Said’s Orientalism
thesis that “knowledge about Islam coming from Orientalism was being
distorted by the imperial project.” Past Western Islamic studies served
not intellectual inquiry, but rather “knowledge for the sake of control”
over Muslims.

Green today castigates “professional Islamophobes” supposedly motivated by pure malice, such as Pamela Geller, Daniel Pipes, Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer, and Geert Wilders.
“From the time they wake up in the morning to the time they go to bed
at night, their job is to figure out ‘how can I better demonize Muslims
today.’” While “Islamophobia” often appears among conservatives, it is
“more dangerous in the way it manifests itself among those who claim to
be liberal,” such as talk show host Bill Maher, Green noted at LPC. He meanwhile makes the common yet baseless claim
that “Islamophobia” forms a well-funded “powerful industry,” while the
“anti-Islamophobia side does not pay quite as well” for individuals like
him.

Contrastingly, in Green’s estimation Islamic belief seemingly can
cause no harm, as he rejects “misconceptions” that “sharia law is
somehow incompatible with democracy or with the West.” “The overwhelming
majority of Muslims” globally “really are trying to practice their
religion that helps them and their fellow human beings flourish,” he has
argued. At LPC he added that “I hate the language of ‘radical Islamic
terrorism’” and its “simplistic understanding that Islam programs people
to be violent.”

Islamic rule past and present thus raises few concerns for Green
while he condemns the United States for having supported dictators like
Iran’s shah. Like many academics, he whitewashes Islam’s often brutal, subjugated
“status of dhimmis or protected minorities” for non-Muslims, stating
that “for much of the history of Islam Christians and Jews were
protected and lived in peace with Muslims.” Today Americans in the
Middle East should “be very consistent when it comes to supporting
democratic movements, even if that means risking losing an alliance with
an autocratic government,” irrespective of such “democratic” results in
1979 Iran and 2011 Egypt.

More often than not, non-Muslims draw Green’s criticism. Writing in Sojourners, he approved of President Barack Obama’s regurgitation of the common canard
that the Crusades were unjustified aggression, not a just war defensive
response to jihadist conquests. “Obama did his best at the National Prayer Breakfast
in February [2015] to address the legacy of violence carried out in the
name of Christianity.” Green also has falsely relativized that the
“Bible has its fair share of violent texts” along with the Quran,
thereby ignoring fundamental differences between violent verses in these two scriptures.

Green’s Huffington Post writings betray a less than stirring defense of free speech against jihadist censorship. Geller and Spencer’s 2015 Muhammad cartoon contest in Garland, Texas, where security guards killed two Muslim assailants, merely exemplified “hate rallies that engage in Muslim-bashing under the pretense of defending freedom of speech.” Reviewing Iran’s 1989 blasphemy death sentence for British writer Salman Rushdie,
Green mused that “minorities rarely have possessed the same
opportunities to shape public opinion as those with political power or
cultural capital.” Therefore, “Rushdie and some of his more outspoken
supporters adopted a fairly uncritical approach to freedom of
expression, assuming at times that this freedom benefits all members of
Western societies equally.”

For Green, individual relationships between Muslims and non-Muslims
are the antidote to what he has called a “perfect storm of Islamophobia”
in a French television interview.
He laments supposedly skewed media representations emphasizing Islam’s
violence while “there simply are not enough strong relationships in the
West between Muslims who are in the minority and the non-Muslim
majority.” As one venue for interfaith outreach, he advocates the Muslim
Brotherhood (MB)-derived Muslim Students Association (MSA), which he addressed in 2010 at Minnesota’s St. Cloud State University.

One of Green’s book interviewees, Muslim congressman Keith Ellison, currently under fire for his anti-Israel statements and extremists Islamist affiliations,
presents for Green the kind of Muslim people should befriend. “If you
have a really jaded, negative view of politicians and think that they
are intellectually disengaged, you should have a conversation with Keith
Ellison, and you will change your mind,” Green has stated about the
Minnesota representative. Accordingly, Green’s wife and fellow leftist, Tabita, has written
about how he took Luther College students from their Iowa campus on a
field trip to Ellison’s Minneapolis mosque, where the radical imam Siraj Wahaj has been a featured speaker.
Tabita also noted that the field trip included a visit to the Minnesota
chapter of the Hamas-derived Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) “to learn about their civil rights work.”

Green’s tweets round out his Islamist sympathies. In one, he calls the radical, anti-Semitic Woman’s March on Washington organizer Linda Sarsour a “shining star in the battle against racism and bigotry” and therefore “#ImarchwithLinda.” In another,
his CAIR and MSA affiliations apparently make him worry that
“[d]esignating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist org. will open the
door to witch hunts aimed @ Muslim civil liberties groups.”

Yet even Green recognizes that interfaith relations with Muslims are
not without their pitfalls. “You want to see a nonstarter happen,” he
has indicated in his various appearances, including at LPC, then
introduce the subject of “Palestine” between Jews and Muslims. Before
tackling such hot topics, he recommends that interfaith groups undertake
noncontroversial community projects like Habitat for Humanity homebuilding; “I tend to prefer more organic relationships to evolve,” he has stated. Apparently then, Jewish legal legend Alan Dershowitz should build a house with Ellison before deciding to leave the Democratic Party if he becomes the Democratic National Committee chairman.

Reality belies Green’s “getting to know you
thesis in which individual relationships with Muslims dispel
reservations towards Islam that actually come from the faith’s hard
facts, not imagined prejudice. Numerous Christians from Muslim-majority
countries have impressed upon this author Islam’s oppressive nature
towards non-Muslims, even though these individuals lack no opportunity
to meet Muslims as Green bemoans in the United States. Likewise Europe’s
significantly larger Muslim populations, recently increased by an
influx of “refugees,” have done little to improve Islam’s popularity.

The arguments of Green, who by self-admission is by training a
student of American and European religious history, not Islamic studies,
might impress his fellow leftists as indicated by his largely positive
reception at LPC. Paralleling the Obama Administration’s State
Department, LPC has made an appeal to “Actively Support the Boycott of Products Made in Israeli Settlements” and is pro-LGBT. Yet individuals like James Lafferty,
head of Christians Against Radical Islam (CARI), indicated during
audience questions why skepticism is warranted. He recalled a local
presentation 25 years ago by Anwar al-Awlaki, an imam once feted as a Muslim “moderate”
and later killed in Yemen as an Al Qaeda supporter by a 2011 American
drone strike. “He said many times exactly the same words I have heard
tonight,” Lafferty noted.
______________________________________________________

 THE FEAR OF ISLAM BY TODD GREEN:
 
 

EXPOSED! THE POWER BEHIND THE WOMEN’S MARCH

 EXPOSED! THE POWER BEHIND THE WOMEN’S MARCH
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
By Kelleigh Nelson


January 23, 2017
NewsWithViews.com
The
most persecuted group in the world today is Christians. Christians in
Nigeria, Egypt, Syria and other nations are murdered, raped, kidnapped,
enslaved and persecuted on a daily basis. The reason for the vast majority
of all of this violence is that they are Christian among Muslims.
But
their abuse does not stop with the violence. The perpetrators of violence
are measured in the thousands, but the greatest abuse is at the hands
of those who should demand that the violence stop. The silence in the
face of this persecution is denial and justification. The persecutors
are few, but the deniers are in the billions.
—Professor Bill
Warner
Pro-Palestinian
Islamic Heads the Women’s March
Linda
Sarsour is a National Co-Chair of the Women’s March on Washington, which
took place on January 21, 2017, one day after the inauguration of Donald
Trump as President of the United States of America.
Sarsour
is a Palestinian-American
activist who is the executive director of the Arab
American Association of New York
. This group will receive $10 million
over the next five years, awarded to them by the Mayor of New York City.
[Link]
Sarsour is very vocal about her support for Palestine and her
utter hatred for Israel
. She was recently spotted at a large Muslim
convention in Chicago posing for pictures with an accused financier for
Hamas, the terrorist group.
In 2016,
Sarsour endorsed Socialist Senator Bernie
Sanders
for President of the United States, and attended the Democratic
Convention as a delegate from the State of New York.
The
women in this march celebrate abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy.
No pro-life feminists were allowed. Yet, the Islamic National Co-Chair,
Sarsour, and her Muslim brethren have an average of 6.2 children per family.
Their goal is to outnumber Jews and Christians via population growth.
An Obama
White House “Champion of Change,” Sarsour spoke at the 15th
annual convention of the Muslim
American Society
and Islamic
Circle of North America
. While there, she posed for a picture with
Salah
Sarsour
, a member of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee and former Hamas
operative who was jailed in Israel in the 1990s because of his alleged
work for the terrorist group.
Linda
Sarsour is very active on Twitter. She is pro Sharia law, and a couple
of her tweets even have a seditious tone to them where she romanticizes
Sharia law and hints at it taking over America whereby we would have interest
free loans. (Islamists do not pay interest on loans).
She
tweeted this picture of American women tying on hijabs in solidarity with
Islam.
So,
women of America, how do you like the fact that the organizer of your
march advocates for Shariah Law, has ties to the terrorist group, Hamas,
is considered a second class citizen because she’s a Muslim woman,
and is leading your pro-rights Women’s March?
Here
is a list
of the so-called celebrities attending the Women’s
March, which includes Planned Parenthood President, Cecile Richards, daughter
of former Democratic Governor of Texas, Ann “Ma” Richards.
And
of course, once again, this march
is being funded by the Soros groups
.
Truly,
have these women lost their minds?
Seditionists
at Women’s March

A photograph was taken by an observer of the Women’s March in Washington
D.C. that shows a participant holding a sign that calls for the assassination
of President Donald Trump. The sign reads, “Someone should chop
Trump’s head off & burn it in the ashes of everything he loved.
666”
This is sedition, calling for the assassination of our duly elected President,
but even worse, signing it with the number of the anti-Christ is telling.
And he’s smiling!

Heather
Lowrey
Heather
Lowrey, who described herself as a Louisville vixen and aspiring wrestling
diva on her Twitter profile, before going into electronic hiding, tweeted
the message on January 17, “If someone was cruel enough to assassinate
MLK, maybe someone will be kind enough to assassinate Trump. #bekind #trump
#lovetrumpshate.”
Her
employers soon after fired Lowrey and issued public statements distancing
themselves from her threatening tweet.
Madonna
The
Secret
Service has reportedly said it will open an investigation into Madonna

after the singer told the Women’s March on Washington that she had thought
about “blowing up the White House.”
Donning
a black p***y hat, the music icon dropped the F-bomb four times, sparking
a slew of apologies from broadcasters airing the protest live.
She
went on to speak of her rage at the election result, telling the crowd
she had thought a lot about “blowing up the White House, but knew
that it wouldn’t change anything.”
Ashley
Judd
Actress
Ashley Judd proudly took to the stage to proclaim the fact that she was
glad she was able to abort her baby conceived in rape. Judd proudly repeated
the phrase “I’m a nasty woman,” as the crowd of thousands
continued to cheer. “And our p***ies ain’t for grabbing, they’re
for reminding you that our walls are stronger than America’s ever
will be,” she concluded.
“Our
pu**ies are for our pleasure, for birthing new generations of filthy,
vulgar, nasty, proud, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Sikh, generations of
nasty women.” [Link]
She
went on to rant
and rave
about her monthly periods and why Tampax is taxed whereas
Viagra and other men’s erectile dysfunction prescriptions are not.
I guess she doesn’t realize that one is a physician’s prescription
and the other is an over-the-counter convenience for women.
Patriotism
vs. Classless Morons
Samuel
Adams said, “He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of
this country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as
his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into
any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man…The
sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy this gift of Heaven, let us
become a virtuous people.” Virtue was absent at the Women’s
March.
And
Thomas Paine stated, “Those who expect to reap the blessings of
freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”
President Trump has given up a life of ease to take on the huge task of
righting our beloved nation, not just for his own descendants, but for
all of the Americans he loves and cares about.
And
like President Trump, singer Lee Greenwood is the epitome of true patriotism.
Back in 2015, when Lee Greenwood crossed paths with the U.S. Army Chorus,
they shared a profoundly patriotic moment in the tunnels of Nationals
Park, Washington, D.C. In honor of Lee and the amazing patriotic impact
his music has had on our nation, here is the video. And may God Bless
you, Sir, and God Bless the USA!
There’s
a New Sheriff in Town
Former
Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy said, “The reason why we find
ourselves in a position of impotency is not because the enemy has sent
men to invade our shores, but rather because of the traitorous actions
of those who have had all the benefits that the wealthiest
nation on earth has had to offer – the finest homes, the finest college
educations, and the finest jobs in Government we can give.”
 Those
days have now come to an end, and the liberal Socialists are rebelling.
Journalist
Daniel Greenfield
said it far better than I ever could, “There
were those who celebrated and those who mourned the fall of the USSR.
So too there are those who celebrate and those who mourn the end of Obama.
The tears of leftist hipsters crying over Obama are no different than
those of the old women holding up Stalin’s portrait on May Day in
the Red Square.”
______________________________________________________

 Women’s March organizer Linda Sarsour 
makes Islamic State signal
 

SEE OUR PREVIOUS POSTS ABOUT LINDA SARSOUR:
https://ratherexposethem.org/2017/01/southwest-airlines-flight-turns-on-pink.html 
_________________________________________________

 

Women’s March organizer Linda Sarsour has family ties to Hamas, recently met former Hamas financier

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/01/womens-march-organizer-linda-sarsour-has-family-ties-to-hamas-recently-met-former-hamas-financier;

  republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

 “Though she avoids discussing it now, Sarsour has acknowledged
in past interviews that she has cousins serving prison time in Israel
because of their work for Hamas.Sarsour has denied having any contact
with the terror group. She told The New York Times in 2012 that she
would not have been appointed an Obama ‘Champion of Change’ if she had.”

In reality, it’s highly doubtful that Obama, who stopped the
prosecutions of and legitimized Hamas-linked Islamic groups in the U.S.,
would have cared.
Related question: how do you think all these silly, narcissistic,
self-pitying women wearing “pussy hats” and marching against Trump would
fare in Hamas-controlled Gaza?

“Women’s March Organizer Recently Met Ex-Hamas Operative, Has Family Ties To Terror Group,” by Chuck Ross, Daily Caller, January 21, 2017:

Linda Sarsour, one of the organizers behind Saturday’s
Women’s March, being held in Washington, D.C., was recently spotted at a
large Muslim convention in Chicago posing for pictures with an accused
financier for Hamas, the terrorist group.

Sarsour, the head of the Arab American Association of New York and an
Obama White House “Champion of Change,” was speaking at last month’s
15th annual convention of the Muslim American Society and Islamic Circle
of North America.
While there, she posed for a picture with Salah Sarsour, a member of
the Islamic Society of Milwaukee and former Hamas operative who was
jailed in Israel in the 1990s because of his alleged work for the
terrorist group.
Salah Sarsour, who is also a board member of American Muslims for
Palestine, served as a bodyguard of sorts at the convention for Sumeyye
Erdogan Bayraktar, the daughter of Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip
Erdogan.
While it is unclear if Salah and Linda are related (though they share
the same surname, she has suggested in the past on social media that
they are not and did not respond to requests for comment), she has other
family ties to alleged Hamas operatives. Though she avoids discussing
it now, Sarsour has acknowledged
in past interviews that she has cousins serving prison time in Israel
because of their work for Hamas.Sarsour has denied having any contact
with the terror group. She told The New York Times in 2012 that she
would not have been appointed an Obama “Champion of Change” if she had.

The activist has risen to national attention recently. She served as a
delegate to the Democratic National Convention, and she is one of four
lead organizers for the Women’s March.
The event is expected to attract 500,000 people and will feature
several high-profile progressive speakers. But it has been heavily
criticized for excluding pro-life women’s groups. Meanwhile, the Council
on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim civil rights group which
opposes abortions past 20 weeks, was asked to take part in the event.

HLF was found to have funneled money to Hamas, which was designated a terrorist group in the 1990s.
Salah Sarsour has ties to that group.

Sarsour was implicated in Hamas activity in the West Bank in the 1990s, according to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).
ADL cited a Nov. 2001 FBI memo detailing information provided by Sarsour’s brother, Jamil, to Israeli investigators in 1998.
“According to statements given to Israeli investigators by his
brother Jamil, Sarsour was personally involved in fundraising for Hamas.
According to a November 2001 FBI memorandum, Jamil Sarsour was arrested
in 1998 for funding Hamas and told Israeli investigators that Salah
Sarsour was involved in funding Hamas through his fundraising for the
Holy Land Foundation (HLF),” ADL reported….

_______________________________________________________

 Bernie Sanders, Fashion Magazine “Elle” defend Hamas-linked pro-Sharia Women’s March organizer Linda Sarsour

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/01/bernie-sanders-elle-defend-hamas-linked-pro-sharia-womens-march-organizer-linda-sarsour;
EXCERPTS“The Daily Caller ran an exposé on Women’s March organizer Linda Sarsour’s ties to Hamas, and John Perazzo at FrontPage compiled an extensive report on her agitation in support of the “Palestinian” Jihad and Hamas in particular.
 Multiple links to Hamas? Openly in favor of a system that allows women
to be beaten, devalues their testimony and inheritance rights, and
treats them essentially like commodities owned by men? That sounds like
someone the contemporary Left would love! And they do. As this
information has come out about Sarsour, numerous prominent Leftists have
rushed to her defense, including Bernie Sanders.
 Sarsour’s defenders even include the fashion magazine Elle, which
apparently has not considered what the fashion industry would be like
were Sharia to prevail in the West. (Or maybe it has; top designers are
designing hijabs these days, so it could be that Elle is simply looking
at the way the wind is blowing.) Without taking even a nanosecond to
investigate whether or not the charges against Sarsour are true, Elle
dismisses them as “Islamophobic attacks.” (Could it be because she is
such a fashion plate?)”
________________________________________________________

AFDI Video at #WomensMarch: Violence, Profanity and Hate, Our Reporter Attacked 

Published on Jan 24, 2017
Subscribe: GellerReport.com
Like on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pamelageller/
Like AFDI on Fscebook: https://www.facebook.com/AFDInational/
AFDI.us

Last
week I warned on this site and various email newsblasts that it was
going to get ugly and we must get ready to fight for Trump. It’s worse
than that.

I was in DC for the Deploraball and the inauguration
and I can tell you, it was the best of times and it was the worst of
times. The best of America and the worst.

If anyone thought the
left would accept defeat and respect the democratic process, they have
not been paying attention for the past 40 years. The left’s army of
goons is fueled by incendiary rhetoric by the media, academia, Hollywood
airheads was on full display this past weekend at the sore losers
protests in leftwing cities across the country.

 

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES FLIGHT TURNS ON PINK CABIN LIGHTS FOR PRO ABORTION “WOMEN’S MARCH PARTICIPANTS

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES FLIGHT TURNS ON 
PINK CABIN LIGHTS FOR PRO ABORTION 
“WOMEN’S MARCH PARTICIPANTS 
BY HEATHER CLARK
 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

WASHINGTON — A Southwest Airlines flight
transporting a number of men and women to the “Women’s March” on
Washington on Thursday reportedly turned the cabin lights pink to show
support for those attending the event, which was largely pro-abortion
and feminist.
“Southwest turns on the pink lights and a loud cheer erupts.
#WomensMarch” Jennifer Moran, who was aboard the flight, Tweeted,
sharing a photo of the illuminated cabin.
Passenger Krystal Parrish likewise posted a photo to Instagram
writing, “When your Southwest flight crew celebrate a plane full of
[expletive] women and men going to the Women’s March by lighting it
up!!”
Southwest Airlines has since released a statement outlining that the
move wasn’t a company effort, but that individual flights often change
the lighting as a statement of support for passengers.

“While we’re unaware of details surrounding a specific flight, our
flight crews celebrate, commemorate, acknowledge and share in special
moments with our customers all the time,” it said.
“Some of our aircraft are equipped with mood lighting and while this
was not a companywide initiative, at times, our flight crews will adjust
the lighting for a customer or group of customers traveling on their
flight,” the company explained. “For example, in October, one of our
flight crews changed the lighting to honor a breast cancer survivor
onboard their flight.”
According to reports, hundreds of thousands attended the march in
Washington, which included speeches and appearances from secular
celebrities such as Madonna, Cher, Alicia Keyes, Katy Perry, Miley
Cyrus, Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem, Whoopie Goldberg, Scarlett Johannson,
Natalie Portman, Emma Watson, Drew Barrymore, Lena Dunham, Vanessa
Hudgens, and many others.

Some held signs such as, “We deserve to be sexual and serious, or
whatever we please,” “I stand with Planned Parenthood,” “Our bodies, our
minds, our power” and “I am woman, hear me roar.” Some were too
explicit or profane to repost—using profanity or vulgarity—and some
referred to President Trump as the “predator in chief.”
Cecile Richards, the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, was one of the speakers at the event.
“For the majority of people in this country, Planned Parenthood is
not the problem, we’re the solution,” she claimed. “My pledge today is:
our doors stay open.”
Former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton Tweeted in
support of the march, writing, “Thanks for standing, speaking &
marching for our values @womensmarch. Important as ever. I truly believe
we’re always stronger together.”
But a number of women who identify as “pro-life feminists” also took
to the streets of Washington to counter the abortion advocacy message,
holding banners and signs such as “Abortion betrays women” and “Real
feminists reject abortion.” The Huffington Post reports that some
attendees cussed at the pro-life women, while others thanked them for
their participation.
In addition to support for abortion, which was characterized as
“reproductive rights,” other platforms for marchers included immigration
rights, environmental justice and “LGBTQIA rights.”
“We firmly declare that LGBTQIA rights are human rights and that it
is our obligation to uplift, expand and protect the rights of our gay,
lesbian, bi, queer, trans or gender non-conforming brothers, sisters and
siblings. We must have the power to control our bodies and be free from
gender norms, expectations and stereotypes,” the website for the event
reads.

Similar marches were stated to have been held in cities across the nation, as well as internationally.
One of the event organizers, Linda Sarsour, is a Muslim and Planned
Parenthood supporter. Sarsour, who serves as the executive director of
the Arab American Association of New York, posted prior to the event,
“God be a fence around the #womensmarch tomorrow. May God protect our
marchers, may He envelope us in His love and mercy.”

 ______________________________________________________

WHITE HOUSE “CHAMPION” BLASTS MUSLIMS WHO TALK TO ANY PRO ISRAEL JEWS

 https://www.jihadwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/lindasarsour.jpg
WHITE HOUSE “CHAMPION” BLASTS MUSLIMS WHO TALK TO ANY PRO ISRAEL JEWS 
BY CHERYL CHUMLEY
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

A Palestinian activist who decried “bitter people” on Twitter forgot
her own words and failed to walk what she talked when – three days later
– she delivered a hate-filled speech at the American Muslims for
Palestine conference that took broad sideswipes at Jews.
Here’s the story, from the Investigative Project:

“Linda Sarsour took to Twitter Nov. 22 with a quick, venting post: ‘You know what I can’t stand? Bitter people. That’s all.’
“Sarsour spoke at the annual American Muslims for Palestine (AMP)
conference three days later. Evidently, she can’t stand herself.
“Sarsour, who describes herself as a ‘racial justice and civil rights
activist,’ lashed out at Jews who extended a hand of friendship and
solidarity over concerns that increasing hostility toward Muslims in
America might lead to draconian government action. And she lashed out at
fellow Muslims who accepted the gesture and joined in a new inter-faith
dialogue.”

Umm, a bit bitter, wouldn’t you say, Sarsour?

Linda Sarsour is regarded as a moderate voice for Islam, but nonetheless criticizes Jewish people and those who believe Israel ought to exist as a nation.Linda
Sarsour is regarded as a moderate voice for Islam, but nonetheless
criticizes Jewish people and those who believe Israel ought to exist as a
nation.Again, from the Investigative Project, a clue to her angst:

“The Jews at issue support the state of Israel, support its existence and its vitality. Sarsour wants none of that.”

Got it. So bitterness, bad – except when it comes from outrage over Jewish people who support the state of Israel.
She said, the news outlet reported:

“‘We have limits to the type of friendships that we’re
looking for right now,” Sarsour told the AMP conference, ‘and I want to
be friends with those whom I know have been steadfast, courageous, have
been standing up and protecting their own communities, those who have
taken the risk to stand up and say – we are with the Palestinian people,
we unequivocally support BDS [boycott, divestment and sanctioning
Israel] when it comes to Palestinian human rights and have been attacked
viciously by the very people who are telling you that they’re about to
stand on the front line of the Muslim registry program. No thank you,
sisters and brothers.’”

Sarsour’s remarks no doubt went over well with the other conference attendees.
As Investigative Project wrote:

“AMP claims its ‘sole purpose is to educate the American
public and media about issues related to Palestine and its rich cultural
and historical heritage.’ But in practice, the group has defended Hamas
and its leaders admit they seek ‘to challenge the legitimacy of the
State of Israel.’”

Sarsour isn’t just any voice in the wilderness. She was honored by
the Obama administration as a “Champion of Change” and also served with
Sen. Bernie Sanders on his failed presidential campaign.
Once again, from the Investigative Project:

“She acknowledges there’s a rift among Islamists about
how hard a line to draw in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, yet she was
intent on pouring gasoline on the fire.
“The ‘cracks in our community’ are so wide, she said, they’re visible
to ‘right-wing Zionists, Islamophobes, white supremacists.’
“‘They know where we’re divided. They know that we’re segregated,’
she said. ‘So they, we could easily be targeted when we’re a fragmented
community. But if we were a strong, united, steadfast community that
stood up for each other first and foremost, you’d better believe that no
opposition would ever be trying to take us down, because we’d be too
big, too strong and too united.’
“Some of her comments likely were directed at Anti-Defamation League
chief Jonathan Greenblatt. Should a Trump administration create a
registry for Muslims, an idea that does not seem to be on the table,
Greenblatt recently pledged that ‘this proud Jew will register as
Muslim.’”
“Sarsour not only rebuked the gesture, she cast Muslims who might
respond more positively as sellouts of the Palestinian cause.
Cooperation and solidarity gestures should only be reserved for those
who share the depth of her hatred toward Israel, she said.”

______________________________________________________

 SARSOUR RAILS AGAINST “WHITE SUPREMACY”:
 COMBATING ISLAMOPHOBIA

BERNIE SANDERS, JULIAN CASTRO SET TO SPEAK AT HAMAS LINKED ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA CONFERENCE


BERNIE SANDERS, JULIAN CASTRO SET TO SPEAK 
AT HAMAS LINKED ISLAMIC SOCIETY 
OF NORTH AMERICA CONFERENCE
BY ROBERT SPENCER
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
There is simply no concern on the Left for Islamic jihad and its enablers. Jihad does not exist; only “Islamophobia” does.
“The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) was established in July 1981 by U.S-based members of the Muslim Brotherhood with a background as leaders of the Muslim Students Association (MSA). As author and terrorism expert Steven Emerson puts it, ISNA “grew out of the Muslim Students Association, which also was founded by Brotherhood members.” Indeed, Muslim Brothers would dominate ISNA’s leadership throughout the Society’s early years. Striving “to advance the cause of Islam and serve Muslims in North America so as to enable them to adopt Islam as a complete way of life,” ISNA was highly dependent upon Saudi funding during its early years.” — from Discover the Networks
In its latest filing before the federal district court in Dallas on behalf of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and its affiliate organization, the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) in the Hamas-terrorism financing case, the ACLU has made a noteworthy admission.
Rather than deny that there is copious evidence tying ISNA and NAIT to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, the brief argues that such evidence is merely dated. In a curious footnote on page 7, the reply states:
Assuming the authenticity of documents’ dates, the most recent documents to mention either ISNA or NAIT are dated 1991, Gov. Exhs. 3-3 and 3-85, but the majority of the documents are older. Almost all of the numerous exhibits that purport to show financial transactions and that contain any mention of ISNA or NAIT are dated 1988 and 1989 (there are two dated 1990), almost a decade before the majority of the overt acts the government alleges in support of its conspiracy charges against the HLF defendants.
So ISNA and NAIT are not saying that the documents tying their organizations to Hamas are “inauthentic,” but that the problem with the evidence is just that it is old. Then, even more curiously, the reply goes on to argue something that the government has not even alleged:
Even if the “evidence” provided some basis for alleging criminality against petitioners, the government’s discussion of it shows the government utterly fails to grasp the singular weight and consequence that an official accusation of criminal conduct carries in our criminal justice system and in our society.
But, of course, the government has not charged ISNA or NAIT with criminal conduct, or the two groups would be indicted in their own right, rather than un-indicted co-conspirators who worked with the Holy Land for Relief and Development (HLF), the defendant and alleged Hamas-front. The reply brief then, as Shakespeare might write, “doth protest too much.”
“Bernie, Castro Set to Speak at Terror-Linked Radical Islam Conference,” by Tyler O’Neil, PJ Media, August 7, 2019:
At least two candidates for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former HUD Secretary Julián Castro, will speak at the annual convention for the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). ISNA was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case concerning funding the terror group Hamas.
ISNA may be the largest Muslim group in America, but it also has a bad history with terror and radical Islam. The Holy Land Foundation raised $12 million for Hamas, which the State Department designated a terrorist organization in 1997. The U.S., Israel, and the European Union have shut down organizations that funnel money to Hamas.
The Department of Justice lists ISNA as an “entity” of the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical group dedicated to establishing a global caliphate with all humanity living under sharia (Islamic law).
ISNA wasn’t just a co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case — the organization also shared an address with the Holy Land Foundation. One of its founders, Sami Al-Arian, would later be deported to Turkey thanks to his support for terrorist groups. Abdurahman Alamoudi, who would later be convicted on terror charges, led ISNA’s Political Awareness Committee.
ISNA’s bi-monthly publication, Islamic Horizons, has promoted terror-supporting radicals like Siraj Wahhaj, imam of Brooklyn’s al-Taqwa mosque. Wahhaj was an unindicted co-conspirator for a trial dealing with the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, an act that killed six Americans. He had been linked to the bombmaker. The publication has also fundraised for Islamic Relief, which Israel labeled as a front for Hamas.
Many forms of sharia condemn homosexuals. In July 2017, ISNA booted Muslims for Progressive Values, a pro-LGBT Muslim group, from its convention. Muzammil Siddiqi, ISNA’s president from 1997 to 2001, said he supported laws in countries where homosexuality is punishable by death.
Why do Sanders and Castro, who claim to support LGBT activism, openly associate with ISNA?…

ISLAM & FREEDOM DON’T MIX IN NEW CHARTER (PART ONE & TWO)

JIHADIST MUSLIMS SIGN DOCUMENT THEY’LL LIKELY NEVER ADHERE TO
 “American Charter of Freedom of Religion and Conscience”
 The American Charter of Freedom of Religion and Conscience is an initiative of the Religious Freedom Institute in partnership with Baylor University’s Institute for Studies of Religion with funding from the Templeton Religion Trust.
The American Charter of Freedom of Religion and Conscience is the result of a collaborative initiative to:

  • Restore civility to public discourse on religion and freedom of religion and conscience in American society.
  • Explore the meaning and value of freedom of religion and conscience as a foundation of American democracy and national and international prosperity.
  • Build a multi-faith, non-partisan coalition working to affirm freedom of religion and conscience as a vital safeguard for people of all faiths and none.
ISLAM & FREEDOM DON’T MIX IN NEW CHARTER (PART ONE) 
BY ANDREW HARROD
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
 

Award-winning religion reporter Richard Ostling recently noted a “neglected story” from 2018, namely the November 29 signing of the American Charter of Freedom of Religion and Conscience. This deeply flawed document, “at 5,000 words needlessly repetitive” in his description, includes several nefarious exponents of political Islam in an initiative that will ultimately do little to promote freedom.
The charter correctly emphasizes that religious freedom is a “fundamental right grounded in the dignity of the human person” and correspondingly notes the 1776 Declaration of Independence with its expression of natural law. America’s founding document is part of the “great tradition of freedom-loving peoples and their ringing declarations” such as the 1215 Magna Carta and the 1791 United States Constitution. This tradition evinces that “Americans’ political commitment to the Republic is rooted in deep pre-political conviction.”
The charter notes that religious freedom “has played an irreplaceable role in the story of our nation” and created “social capital…vital for human flourishing.” Correspondingly, the charter lauds the religious leadership in American reform movements, such as those against slavery and segregation. The charter thus announces its “distinctively American,” character while its authors universally “commend the vision, principles, and goals of the Charter to other nations.”
Yet the leadership of a prominent conservative Montana evangelical church (they believe in “young-Earth creationism” and that “Roman Catholicism is a counterfeit Christianity”) scorns the charter’s underlying ecumenical universalism. The church’s popular website Pulpit and Pen (PP) criticizes the fact that the charter “places oppressive religions like Islam in the same category as Christianity and credits them all with equal contributions to the American way of life.” While the American abolitionist and civil rights movements drew heavily upon Christian faith, the charter’s general terms are “gutting America of its theological underpinnings, minimizing its Christian heritage.”
The 19th-century French intellectual Alexis de Tocqueville provides compelling witness for PP’s valid observation that “America’s commitment to Christianity is responsible for its national exceptionalism.” American “pre-political” human rights values come from the “uniquely Christian doctrine” of mankind being made in the “Imago Dei.” By contrast, as the esteemed Catholic intellectual Robert Reilly has lucidly analyzed, Islamic orthodoxy’s denial that humanity shares a divine likeness has resulted in Islamic denigration of the human reason that underlies free societies.
Notwithstanding the charter’s prioritization of “pluralism” in America and abroad, observes the Christian commentator Cody Libolt, “some cultures are better than others.” The charter’s citation of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) among freedom’s “ringing declarations” ignores the fact that the UDHR resulted from centuries of human rights advocacy in which Christians were preeminent. All the other “ringing declarations” merely represent the “great tradition of freedom-loving peoples” in Anglo-American culture.
PP rightfully suspects that certain charter language would prevent policymakers from exercising precisely such necessary cultural awareness with respect to Islam. The charter vaguely opposes “any governmental policy that would discriminate against individuals or groups based on their religion.” The charter further condemns “rhetoric and actions by governmental leaders and others that demonize individuals or faith communities” or that “hold entire faith groups collectively responsible for the evil deeds of a few.” As PP observes, the charter apparently targets “policies like that threatened by President Trump” to “place a temporary moratorium on immigrants from primarily Islamic nations who want to destroy the United States.”
Review of the charter’s Muslim signatories only confirms PP’s wariness towards multiculturalism. Both Mohamed Magid and Sayyid Syeed, a man who wants to “to change the constitution of America” that is so praised by the charter, have not-so-“freedom-loving” pasts, as evidenced by both men’s leadership of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). This Muslim Brotherhood (MB)-derived organization and terrorism-financing unindicted co-conspirator demonstrated its continuing Islamic supremacism at ISNA’s 2018 annual conference with a rogue’s gallery of jihad terrorism apologists and Israel-haters.
Likewise Eftakhar Alam and Anwar Khan represent Islamic Relief USA, the American branch of another global MB organization known for antisemitism and terrorism support. Omar Suleiman’s apologetics for honor killings and sex slavery, along with his vicious antisemitism and Islamic myths that deny Jewish Temple Mount history, hardly befit the “dignity of the human person.” The Shiite Imam Hassan Al-Qazwini is similarly anti-Semitic, as indicated by his Dearborn, Michigan, Islamic Center of America hosting Louis Farrakhan as well as a 2010 memorial service for Hezbollah leader Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah.
“Free exercise of religion and conscience requires other fundamental rights also guaranteed by the First Amendment, including the freedoms of speech,” the charter proclaims, yet its Muslim signatories have consistently belied this sentiment. Al-Qazwini called in 2012 for censoring the internet film Innocence of Muslims as a form of incitement, while Suleiman has aided Google’s suppression of “Islamophobia.” Maha ElGenaidi wrote to Stanford University about her horrified opposition to a 2017 lecture by the “well-known national fomenter of Islamophobia,” Jihad Watch’s own Robert Spencer.
Similarly, Princeton University Muslim Life Coordinator and Chaplain Imam Sohaib Sultan tried to stop a 2009 address by the Egyptian-American Muslim convert to Christianity Nonie Darwish. His fellow signatory Asma Uddin once promoted the deranged leftist Israel-hater, academic fraud, and “Islamophobia” scam artist Nathan Lean at a Washington, DC, event by the Rumi Forum, part of the shadowy Islamic Fethullah Gülen network. She has correspondingly downplayed Islamic sharia law’s dangers and has wrongly argued that state law prohibitions on judicial application of foreign laws like sharia in violation of constitutional rights would ban private Islamic religious arbitration.
The Muslim charter signatory Usra Ghazi’s speech raises troubling questions of its own. She once responded to the internet sensation of a woman who wrote about concealing her Muslim identity to other Muslims, because she feared their condemnation for wearing traditionally non-Islamic female attire such as shorts. Ghazi argued that such “chastisement comes from a place of love” and is “taking really literally and personally the Koranic commandment [i.e. Quran 3:110] to enjoin good and forbid evil for the sake of the salvation of other Muslims.” While under the law in free societies such as America, she may debate such Islamic hijab dress codes for women, other women globally know from bitter personal experience how oppressive such Islamic enjoinment can be.
The charter proclaims with sacral invocations a religious freedom “commitment that is, at its heart, covenantal, based on a solemn and binding promise between citizens as embodied in the U.S. Constitution.” Yet the charter’s Muslim signatories inspire little confidence that they will embrace any such solemn commitment and its Western moral and theological underpinnings. By contrast, these dubious individuals will benefit from the legitimacy of associating with such a lofty-sounding charter and its implied opposition to “Islamophobia.” However, the charter will provide less benefit in protecting the religious freedom concerns of the charter’s often naïve non-Muslim signatories, as a forthcoming article will analyze.
______________________________________________________________

 Islam and Freedom Don’t Mix in New Charter (Part II)
BY ANDREW HARROD
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
 

The November 29, 2018, American Charter of Freedom of Religion and Conscience claims as supporters a “multi-faith, non-partisan coalition” that includes several sharia supremacist charter signatories, as previously disclosed. Yet these and other dangers raise little alarm among the charter’s Christian signatories, who promote a flawed religious freedom defense.
The disturbing Muslim charter signatories receive no critical corrective from non-Muslim signatories such as Charles Haynes, Religious Freedom Center (RFC) founding director at the Washington, DC, Newseum Freedom Forum Institute. While Haynes has written about the “Islamophobia” concern he shares with his fellow signatory and RFC colleague Asma Uddin, the RFC has welcomed noted British Salafists. In a parallel situation, the evangelical Bob Roberts has suggested censoring Innocence of Muslims while praising the extremist Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi.
Roberts has a longstanding relationship with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). His fellow evangelical signatory Chris Seiple has also had a similar lengthy relationship with Suhail Khan, an American Muslim with numerous close ISNA and other Muslim Brotherhood (MB) ties. The CATO Institute’s past laughable pronouncements on sharia law’s compatibility with libertarianism and dubious Muslim “libertarian” advisers meanwhile make suspect the credibility of signatory Ilya Shapiro, a CATO legal scholar.
The Catholic signatories such as conservative intellectual luminary Robert George always seem to show affection for all things Muslim, including his fellow charter signer and friend Hamza Yusuf, notwithstanding his radical affiliations. Similar outlooks are found among George’s fellow Catholics at Washington, DC’s Religious Freedom Institute (RFI), including its executive director Kent Hill, who over-optimistically advocates pro-life Christian-Muslim alliances. Georgetown University Professor Timothy Shah’s past policy prescriptions for Middle East Christians have likewise emphasized encouraging Muslim respect for religious freedom rather than Christian realpolitik defensive measures.
RFI’s Thomas Farr has carefully assessed strategies “to help Muslim reformers win the war of ideas” for religious liberty in Islamic societies, a key tool “to forestall religion-based violence and terrorism.” Yet he has concluded that, while Ground Zero Mosque initiative leader Faisal Abdul Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan “have said some highly inflammatory things, their lives of service and outreach belie the charge of extremism.” Farr would amaze National Review Online writers such as Andrew C. McCarthy and Ibn Warraq, who have amply demonstrated how “Rauf is a master of double talk and prevarication.”
Meanwhile, the Jewish leaders who signed the charter often profess leftist pieties about peace and multiculturalism, such as American Jewish Committee (AJC) general counsel Marc Stern. The AJC has drawn Jewish criticism for forming a Muslim-Jewish Advisory Council with ISNA while on the other hand not opposing affirmative action programs inimical to Jewish students. Rabbi Jack Moline has previously responded to jihadist violence not with criticism of Islamic doctrines, but rather with calls for gun control. Rabbi Michael G. Holzman is a member of the rabbinic cabinet for the George Soros-funded J Street, a leftist group with a fraudulent “pro-peace, pro-Israel” slogan.
Holzman and his fellow charter signer Usra Ghazi both supported statements opposing Israel’s 2014 campaign against Hamas terrorism in the Gaza strip. Ghazi signed a letter condemning “Israel’s illegal and immoral actions in the Occupied Territories” and calling for suspending military aid to Israel. Holzman issued a joint letter with the former ISNA president Mohamed Magid that presented Israel’s defense against Hamas’ jihadist aggression as a matter of “vengeance and blood-feud” and “tribal urges.”
Among all the charter signatories, the popular Baptist website Pulpit and Pen (PP) spotlighted Russell Moore, the leader of the Southern Baptist Convention’s (SBC) Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC). PP noted his lifelong leftist tendencies at variance with the SBC’s Christian conservatives and his leading role in the Soros-funded Evangelical Immigration Table (EIT). EIT’s pro-immigration positions are fine with Moore, who has decried building a border wall as a “golden calf,” and with his “social justice warrior-companion,” the Hispanic evangelical and charter signatory Reverend Samuel Rodriguez.
While Moore and other Christian charter signers might seek good relations with leftists and Muslims, increasingly these groups are forming somewhat paradoxical red-green political alliances opposed to Christian conservatives. In particular, even Islamist groups such as ISNA have expressed support for Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) laws that would punish Christians and others for opposing homosexuality and “transgender” gender dysphoria.
In contrast, the charter makes the critical concession that “[l]ike all human rights, freedom of religion and conscience is not absolute.” As a press release states, the

American Charter frankly acknowledges today’s
controversies involving tensions involving freedom of religion and
conscience, including those involving the equal protection of the laws
and domestic security.

The press release expresses the pious hope amidst the pelvic Left’s take-no-prisoners assault upon Christians and other traditional sexual morality supporters that what “unites us as Americans is greater than what we disagree” on. Invoking the “civility” mantra particularly in vogue among America’s modern Left, the charter states the desire to “counter the incivility of the last half century of culture-warring.” As Haynes has written in conjunction with Oliver Thomas from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the charter responds to a “divided, dangerous moment in our history.”
Correspondingly, one charter signatory, National Association of Evangelicals President Leith Anderson, has accepted a so-called compromise on SOGI laws paired with religious exemptions. Yet Farr has previously accurately reported from America’s culture wars that today the “greatest threat to religious freedom” is same-sex “marriage” proponents like the ACLU, who have “such anger and vindictiveness that it’s frightening.” Thus Moore and Rodriguez, among others, have rejected Anderson’s belief that religious exemptions could ever defuse the inherent threats of SOGI laws.
However, in the charter, notes Christian commentator Cody Libolt, Moore “continues his pattern of speaking up for non-Christians while saying nothing about the massive and escalating infringements of the rights of Christians in this country.” While the charter proffers peace to secular LGBT agendas and makes previously noted nods against “Islamophobia,” he is “taking a stand for groups that are known to take advantage of tolerance until they come to power.” Notwithstanding commitments to human equality, Libolt concludes, “principled Christians should not lift even one finger to assist the agenda of groups explicitly hostile to Christianity or to the security of our nation.”
No wonder PP dismisses as “feckless, cowering, ecumenical claptrap” the charter and its broad church of signatories. Among them appear religious freedom stalwarts and jihad opponents such as former representative Frank Wolf as well as Suhag Shukla, whose Hindu American Foundation promotes supremacist Hindutva Hindu nationalism. It is doubtful how much the American Charter, with its carefully calibrated compromises, code phrases against “Islamophobia,” and motley crew coalitions with groups varying in their sincerity towards liberty, will protect religious freedom.
______________________________________________________________

 Freedom of religion and conscience: Restoring civility, protecting pluralism – Part 1
 
Brookings Institution

Published on Sep 14, 2017
 On September 13, 2017, Brookings hosted a discussion with the American Charter Project on the vital role that religious pluralism and freedom of religion and conscience play in fostering civility and unity in our democratic republic. https://www.brookings.edu/events/free… (transcript available)
 PART 2

NEW KATY PERRY SONG ENCOURAGES ANTI TRUMP RIOTS

 New Katy Perry Song Encourages Anti-Trump Riots
 NEW KATY PERRY SONG ENCOURAGES 
ANTI TRUMP RIOTS
 Pop culture re-brands civil unrest 
to cash in on divided America
BY PAUL JOSEPH WATSON
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
The lyrics to a new Katy Perry
song timed to coincide with her re-branding as an anti-Trump “activist”
includes a line that openly encourages her fans to riot.
Released earlier today, the pop star’s Chained to the Rhythm
track features lyrics by reggae singer Skip Marley that include the
lines, “We’re stumbling, we’re crumbling, and we’re about to riot / They
woke up, they woke up the lions.”
Elsewhere, the lyrics make reference to “liars” and the “empire,” clearly placing it in a political context.
“Even
though Skip is the one who seems to slyly diss the President, many drew
attention to how it’s still Katy’s song, and how her lyrics could also
be related to the current political climate,” reports Hollywood Life.
Perry, who now considers herself an “activist” according to her Twitter bio
(no doubt a genuine lifestyle choice and not just an avaricious form of
virtue signaling to make more money), endorsed Hillary Clinton multiple
times and headlined a concert in her honor back in November.
Following Donald Trump’s victory, she took to Twitter to call for a “revolution,” asking people to “rise up”.
As part of her new role as the Che Guevara of pop music, Perry also attended last month’s anti-Trump “women’s march” in DC.
After releasing her new song, Perry proclaimed the new era of “purposeful pop”.
Fans reacted to Perry’s new song by thanking her for taking on Trump.
“The anthem for our revolution!” wrote one.
“Katy Perry’s #ChainedToTheRhythm is the 1st major pop release that feels influenced by Trump era,” added another.
It is rumored that Perry will perform the new song during an appearance at the Grammys this Sunday.
Other anti-Trump pop stars have also jumped on the bandwagon in recent weeks. During the “women’s march,” which was organized by a supporter of sharia law, Madonna gave a speech in which she said she had “thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House”.
While it’s unlikely that Perry’s fans
are likely to organize a mass riot any time soon, her new song
highlights how popular culture is re-branding civil unrest as a trendy
form of virtue signaling in order to cash in on the deep political
divisions that plague America.
There
have been numerous riots since Trump won the presidency, including
immediately after the election, at the inauguration, more violent unrest
in response to his travel ban policy, as well as the shocking scenes at
Berkeley last week when attendees of a Milo Yiannopoulos event were
pepper sprayed and beaten by Antifa thugs.

While the dominant
culture desperately tries to portray itself as the anti-establishment
counter-culture, the only real counter-culture is the new brand of
conservatism that helped sweep Trump to victory in the first place.

“SOLD HER SOUL TO THE DEVIL” PERRY CALLS HER FANS “ZOMBIES” AND LOVES IT

“CHAINED TO THE RHYTHM” SONG

 
1 3 4 5