Friday, November 9, 2018

 CAIR applauded Plano Library’s "commitment to diversity" for their act of censorship removing Frank Miller's graphic novel, "Holy Terror" calling it "anti-Muslim." Miller denies knowing much about Islam to dislike it, but focused only on Al-Qaeda in New York.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Dallas-Fort Worth chapter (CAIR-DFW) recently “applauded a decision by the Plano Library to resolve an issue related to anti-Muslim material in its catalog.” CAIR claims to have convinced this Texas library to remove the book Holy Terror by renowned graphic-novel author Frank Miller, a disturbing act of censorship and a flagrant violation of longstanding library standards.
This author asked the Plano Library Director Libby Holtmann about the book’s removal. She stated that the library “did not remove the subject item from its collection from a request by anyone including CAIRDFW,” but rather “was alerted by a comment sent through social media.” Examination of Holy Terror revealed “that it did not have any professional reviews,” which she claimed is a “necessary component for maintaining an item.” She also cited library records showing little reader interest in Holy Terror.
In fact, dozens of reviews of the comic book have been published, including by prominent newspapers and peer-reviewed journals. Plano library’s dubious response leaves several troubling questions. What was this social media comment that led to an immediate “evaluation” of Holy Terror? Why does Plano Library appear to be kowtowing to CAIR? Does the very controversy itself surrounding Holy Terror raised by groups such as CAIR not justify keeping a copy for the sake of healthy public debate?
CAIR’s opposition to Holy Terror, a story of comic superheroes battling Al Qaeda in New York City, goes back to when it first appeared in 2011. CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad had condemned Holy Terror as a “shameful” example of how “Islamophobia is becoming mainstream.” That same year, journalist Spencer Ackerman wrote that “Holy Terror is a screed against Islam.”
Accordingly, CAIR-DFW Executive Director John Janney asked the Plano library about “standards, policies or code of ethics that the publicly funded library followed when faced with publications that dehumanize or marginalize minorities.” This applied, he claimed, “especially when those publications are targeted at children” (which the adult graphic novel Holy Terror is in fact not). Although paying lip service to First-Amendment free speech guarantees, CAIR-DFW’s argued that “imposing hate literature on a captive audience of children is not appropriate” for a library’s mass holdings.
CAIR-DFW also claimed that Miller had in 2018 “expressed regret for the book” — implying that Miller would support the censorship of Holy Terror. Yet he actually stated, in a Guardian interview, that he did not “want to go back and start erasing books I did.” Importantly, he described Holy Terror in a 2011 interview as a specific “screed against Al Qaeda,” not Islam. “The issue here is a method of killing. It’s not a religion,” he explained. “I can tell you squat about Islam,” but “I know a goddamn lot about Al Qaeda and I want them all to burn in Hell.”
Ironically, CAIR-DFW’s announcement appeared during the annual Banned Books Week of the American Library Association (ALA), the “oldest and largest library association in the world,” founded in 1876. During Banned Book Week, ALA promotes a “Stand for the Banned Read-Out” for people to “declare your literary freedoms by reading from a banned book or discussing censorship issues on camera.” Since the Week’s 1982 beginnings, “libraries and bookstores throughout the country have staged local read-outs, continuous readings of banned and challenged books.”
Similarly, ALA’s Library Bill of Rights “affirms that all libraries… should challenge censorship” and provide “information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues.” “Toleration is meaningless without tolerance for what some may consider detestable,” ALA elaborates, concluding that “partisan or doctrinal disapproval” should not restrict library material. Purportedly, the ALA even “opposes all attempts to restrict access to library services, materials, and facilities based on the age of library users.”
The ALA has thus throughout the years monitored “challenges to library, school and university materials” in its “Top Ten Most Challenged Books” lists. Motives for book removal have included “racism, violence… anti-ethnic… occult/satanic… sexually explicit… offensive language… unsuited to age group.” The ALA defends the right for libraries to offer even these “offensive” books.
Correspondingly, Plano libraries hold a wide variety of materials, such as Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf and a DVD of the 1915 American white supremacist film Birth of a Nation. Plano’s holdings also include the anti-Israel screed The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. And while CAIR-DFW professes concern over Miller’s influence upon children, Plano library continues to hold over 20 other Miller titles.
CAIR-DFW’s claimed censorship success raises troubling questions over what might be next on the Islamist book banning index. The seriousness of issues involving Islam in the modern world should demand more speech about Islam, not less. But CAIR and its allies have argued precisely the opposite. Journalist Spencer Ackerman in particular played a central role in the 2011 federal government purge of government training materials covering vital Islamist doctrines such as jihad, something he dismissed as irrelevant following the military debilitation of Al Qaeda.
CAIR certainly seems to show little respect for constitutional free speech rights, as CAIR’s attempted suppression of critical inquiry into Islam has extended well beyond Plano. In 2014, for example, CAIR chapters tried to stop anti-Islamist events in a Chicago-area public library and a Knoxville, Tennessee public high school.
Americans concerned about free speech should stand up to CAIR and contact the Plano library for a return of Holy Terror to the catalog, a book that many may want to examine following CAIR’s public opposition. Middle East Forum president Daniel Pipes has labeled censorship of speech about Islam as “Rushdie Rules.” Such suppression should have no place in a public library. Readers should form their own opinions about Holy Terror, Islam, and Islamism without any de facto fatwa from CAIR.
Andrew Harrod is a writer for Islamist Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
In this debate with David Wood yesterday, Mohammed Hijab gives an ugly example of what are all too common tactics employed by Muslim debaters. This debate is an unpleasant experience to watch, because Hijab’s arrogance, contempt, and hatred are on full, open, unapologetic display, to the utter glee of the mostly Muslim audience, which twice erupts into “Allahu akbars.” Many Muslim spokesmen have directed the same arrogance, contempt, and hatred toward me on numerous occasions, and this is because Muhammad himself, the prophet of Islam, directed his followers to deal with unbelievers in this way. Consider these hadiths (thanks to Sam Shamoun), one of which David Wood refers to right at the end of the debate:
Ubayy b. Ka’b told that he heard God’s messenger say, “If anyone proudly asserts his descent in the manner of the pre-Islamic people, tell him to bite his father’s penis, and do not use a euphemism.” It is transmitted in Sarah [sic] as-sunna. (Mishkat Al Masabih, English Translation With Explanatory Notes By Dr. James Robson [Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Booksellers & Exporters, Lahore, Pakistan, Reprinted 1994], Volume II, Book XXIV — General Behaviour, Chapter XIII. Boasting and Party-Spirit, p. 1021)
Then ‘Urwah said: “Muhammad, tell me: if you extirpate your tribesmen, have you ever heard of any of the Arabs who destroyed his own race before you? And if the contrary comes to pass, by God I see both prominent people and rabble who are likely to flee and leave you.” Abu Bakr said, “Go suck the clitoris of al-Lat!” — al-Lat was the idol of Thaqif, which they used to worship — “Would we flee and leave him?” (The History of al-Tabari — The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael Fishbein [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany 1997], Volume VIII (8), p. 76)
And in the words of Abu Bakr As-Sideeq to ‘Urwah: “Suck Al-Lat’s clitoris!” — there is a permissibility of speaking plainly the name of the private parts if there is some benefit to be gained thereby, just as he [Muhammad] permitted a plain response to the one who made the claims of the Jahiliyyah (i.e. claims of tribal superiority), by saying: “Bite your father’s penis!”[3] And for every situation there is a (fitting) saying. (Provisions for the Hereafter (Mukhtasar Zad Al-Ma’ad), by Imam Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah, summarized by Imam Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab At-Tamimi [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, First Edition: September 2003], Chapter. Regarding the Story of Al-Hudaibiyyah, p. 383; source; words within brackets ours)
There is a great deal more that is illustrative in this debate. Note also that Mohammed Hijab, while repeatedly berating David Wood for supposedly mocking Muslims, which he never actually has done, invokes James White as a model Christian debater worthy of respect. There is one primary reason for this: White has allowed Muslim Brotherhood-linked imam Yasir Qadhi to spread lies without challenge — White is just the sort of Useful Idiot that Islamic debaters want to face if they want to score an easy victory. Hijab’s blustering and posturing was all designed to intimidate David and put him on the defensive; intimidation is a beloved tactic of Islamic spokesmen. Hijab’s liberal use of it was actually a implied admission that he had no arguments. If he were to meet White in debate, he might be friendlier, but he wouldn’t be any more receptive to White’s arguments than he was to Wood’s.
Hijab also eats up minute after minute of his allotted time thumping his chest, declaring victory, and proclaiming Wood’s ignorance, instead of actually demonstrating it by responding substantively to his arguments. This, too, is an extremely common Islamic debating tactic; I ran into it most memorably in my debate with Mubin Shaikh, a man for whom the phrase “a legend in his own mind” was coined. It plays well to the audience, which, of course, doesn’t have the slightest idea about the minutiae of this debate, that is, what Tertullian or Origen may or may not have said or meant, but who were roused by Hijab’s empty braggadocio to hearty takbirs.
As for the actual substance, Hijab didn’t have much. He repeatedly challenged Wood to produce a pre-Nicene Church Father whose Christology was the same as that of Nicaea. David ably explained why this request was irrelevant, but in any case, here’s one. It took me about 30 seconds to find:
“There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is His subsistent Wisdom and Power and Eternal Image: perfect Begetter of the perfect Begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, Only of the Only, God of God, Image and Likeness of Deity, Efficient Word, Wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and Power formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father, Invisible of Invisible, and Incorruptible of Incorruptible, and Immortal of Immortal and Eternal of Eternal. And there is One Holy Spirit, having His subsistence from God, and being made manifest by the Son, to wit to men: Image of the Son, Perfect Image of the Perfect; Life, the Cause of the living; Holy Fount; Sanctity, the Supplier, or Leader, of Sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father, who is above all and in all, and God the Son, who is through all. There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything superinduced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abideth ever.” — Gregory Thaumaturgus, “A Declaration of Faith,” from 275AD

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
President Philip Hanlon
Dartmouth College
Hanover, New Hampshire
Dear President Hanlon,
On October 23, I spoke at your college. I was invited by members of College Republicans and Students Supporting Israel. They probably wanted to hear what I had to say because I am one of the most prominent conservative intellectuals in America, having published over twenty books, three of which were New York Times best-sellers and one of which was nominated for a National Book Award. The feminist Camille Paglia has said of me: “I respect the astute and rigorously unsentimental David Horowitz as one of America's most original and courageous political analysts…. As a scholar who regularly surveys archival material, I think that, a century from now, cultural historians will find David Horowitz's spiritual and political odyssey paradigmatic for our time.”
Despite my credentials, and even though these conservative students pay the same tuition - $75,000 per year – as your leftwing students, I was forced to raise the money to underwrite my visit and lecture. This was particularly galling to the Dartmouth conservatives who invited me, because the previous spring Dartmouth’s “Office of Pluralism and Leadership” sponsored a visit by notorious anti-Semite and terrorist supporter Linda Sarsour – who has no academic credentials to speak of – underwriting her expenses and paying her a reported $10,000 honorarium for her talk.
My hosts were also probably interested in what I had to say because over the preceding decades, Dartmouth has purged conservative intellectuals from its faculty so effectively that the students could only name two Dartmouth liberal arts professors who were conservative. This reflects a collective faculty attitude that intellectual diversity is dangerous and unwanted. This is a disgraceful fact of academic life, which could easily be remedied, which prevents Dartmouth students from getting a decent liberal arts education, where all issues are controversial and intellectual diversity is the only guarantee that students are being educated rather than indoctrinated, or that there are reasonable checks on unchallenged leftist professors going off the deep end. As it happens my visit elicited a professorial outburst showing just how far leftwing bigotry and anti-academic discourse can go on your campus. I will come to this in a moment.
Before my arrival, an anonymous leaflet was circulated, apparently by the Dartmouth Socialists club. It was filled with lies about my work, calling me a “racist, sexist and ignorant bigot.” These slanders were drawn from the Southern Poverty Law Center, an institution so discredited that it recently had to pay a devout and moderate British Muslim $3.4 million after it libeled him as “a violent anti-Muslim extremist.” None of the students behind this slander sheet was apparently aware that I have a 50-year public record as a civil rights activist, or that I have published three books in the last 20 years dedicated to Martin Luther King’s vision of an America in which people are judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. And why should Dartmouth students be aware of my views since Dartmouth’s leftwing faculty obviously has no respect for conservative perspectives, which is why conservatives are as rare as unicorns on your faculty.

Leading the pack of Dartmouth character assassins who mobilized to combat my presence was Professor Annelise Oreleck, an out-of-control Gender Studies professor who tweeted: “Long-time hater, Islamophobe and anti-intellectual David Horowitz is speaking today in Rocky 3 at 6pm. He is a hater of the first order. If you’re so inclined, support students who are organizing a protest – Bring signs. Turn your back. Stage a walkout.” What justification can there be to have such an angry, close-minded individual teaching Dartmouth students?
Professor Oreleck’s protest instructions happened to be – and surely this was no coincidence - exactly what the Dartmouth Socialists were planning to obstruct my lecture -  namely to turn an academic talk into a circus so that no one would pay serious attention to anything that was said. They came in force to play loud porn videos, put on headphones to block out my words, unfurl distracting banners with slogans like “Trans Rights Are Human Rights” and “ICE is the Gestapo,” and to periodically walk out of the room throwing jibes in my direction as further distractions before they left. One transgender person, dressed as though she was going to Mardi Gras, sat herself near the front and eyed me intensely in the hope I guess that I would find her disturbing.
All the disrespectful antics of the protesters were in fact disturbing – not least because they were displays of Ivy League students wasting what could have been a valuable educational opportunity, and demonstrations of their total lack of interest in what someone who disagreed with them, and was far more educated, might be saying. When I was a college radical, as I told them to no effect, I always wanted to hear what our opponents were saying because I thought it would make me a better radical. Apparently, today’s radicals are so dedicated to self-righteous know-nothingism that they couldn’t care less what they are fighting against. As for the transgenderism, like many other conservatives, I am actually a very tolerant person. I happen to have a transgendered grandson who graduated from an Ivy League school and would never think of attending a college lecture only to mock it.
Wondering how students paying $75,000 a year for a Dartmouth education could throw away such an opportunity, it occurred to me that maybe they were not paying anything at all, but were so-called “marginalized” and “under-served” affirmative action scholarship cases. What a travesty that Dartmouth would encourage them to squander the opportunity their scholarships provided by not insisting on behavior appropriate to an academic community. When educators encourage closed minds, what is left of the learning process?
As it happens there were several Dartmouth administrators overseeing this event, including Keysi Montás, the Director of Safety and Security who was in charge. Unfortunately, they were not there to enforce an educational decorum but to encourage the protesters by tolerating their antics and refusing to eject them.
The whole travesty was sealed by the school newspaper, The Dartmouth, which bills itself as “The Oldest College Newspaper,” and which sent a reporter named Andrew Culver to cover the event. Before I began speaking, I gave Culver a recorded interview at his request. In it, I defended myself against the slanders in the anonymous leaflet, and showed him exactly how and why they were gross misrepresentations of the facts. For example, I was called a “sexist” for pointing out the scientific fact that men score higher on mathematical aptitude tests than women. What the slander sheet left out was that I also said, women score higher than men on verbal aptitude tests, and that I brought up these facts in defense of Harvard’s liberal president, Larry Summers, who was under fire for stating them first. I also described my public record as a civil rights activist, mentioned the fact that I had three black grandchildren, and was probably the only conservative in the country to defend Trayvon Martin during the trial of his killer George Zimmerman.
The Dartmouth reporter Andrew Culver failed to print a single word of my interview. Instead he opened his article by repeating the lies in the leaflet – namely that I was a racist, a sexist and a bigot. Culver’s mis-reporting of the event closed off the possibility that anyone in the Dartmouth community at large would be exposed to anything I had actually said. Only the slanders would remain. This is the state of education at a once admired Ivy League institution, where students can go four years without encountering a conservative adult. Moreover, if one is invited to campus to speak, he will be drowned out by students who shouldn’t be in college in the first place.
You had no personal role in these travesties, but you are president of the institution that made them possible. I’m not going to ask you to have your “Office of Pluralism (how Orwellian is that)” sponsor a return visit from me, since it might well provoke a faculty riot. I just want you to think about these signs of a damaged institution. and the warping of the educational experiences of your students.
I would like an apology from you on behalf of the Dartmouth community. I would also like to see some instruction from you to your staff on the importance of promoting educational values rather than encouraging close-minded political bigotry at your school. Perhaps hiring a dozen or so conservative administrators might help.
David Horowitz

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
CHARLESTON, W.V. — Residents in West Virginia voted on Tuesday to approve a proposal that would add an amendment to the state Constitution declaring that there is no “right” to an abortion in the document.
51 percent of voters approved Amendment 1, also known as the “No Constitutional Right to Abortion” amendment, with 48 percent voting against it.
The ballot question asked whether residents agreed that the State should “amend the West Virginia Constitution to clarify that nothing in the Constitution of West Virginia secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of abortion.”
Should the U.S. Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade by leaving the matter up to the states, the amendment would solidify West Virginia’s right to declare abortion illegal in the state.
“[We] are hopeful we’ll get a Supreme Court that actually reads the Constitution and doesn’t make it up as they go along, and if they do, someday that decision is going to be overturned,” Sen. Robert Karnes, R-Upshur, told the Charleston Gazette-Mail.
“We wouldn’t want our state Supreme Court to suddenly find a right to abortion,” he outlined. “So what this says is, if that were to happen, if this resolution is adopted, then it would be within the purview of the state legislature to determine what the laws in the state of West Virginia are going to be regarding abortion.”
According to the “Vote Yes on 1” website, West Virginia already has a law on the books declaring abortion to be illegal, and that law was never repealed after the issuance of Roe v. Wade. Lawmakers considered Roe as superseding state law since it was a federal decision.
As previously reported, the initial bill to put the constitutional amendment on the ballot was presented by Sen. Patricia Rucker, R-Jefferson. She told reporters that the move also would counter a 1993 West Virginia Supreme Court ruling that struck down a law banning Medicaid funding of abortions.
“I believe that that’s something that people who have conscious objection shouldn’t have to pay for,” Rucker remarked to CBS News.
However, a coalition identified as Advocates for Reproductive Rights, Health and Justice launched an effort in opposition to Amendment 1, stating that they were “beyond” outraged.
“This amendment sets us up for restrictive policy after restrictive policy, year after year. Not to mention the fact that if Roe v Wade is overturned federally, draconian language in our own state code would totally criminalize all abortion,” a website for the effort states. “This means anyone involved in an abortion would be subject to jail time. Think of it—that means doctors; nurses; a woman attempting to self-abort…”
As previously reported, in his 1854 lecture at the University of Pennsylvania on criminal abortion, obstetrician Hugh Hodge declared, “[H]uman life commences at the time of conception; … the embryo and fetus therefore should be protected during its intra-uterine life as sedulously as after birth.”
“Hence, that all efforts, direct or indirect, to disturb the progress of gestation or to injure the product of conception are criminal, alike violating the laws of nature and of God,” he stated.
Psalm 139:13-14 also declares, “For Thou hast possessed my reins; Thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Marvelous are Thy works, and that my soul knoweth right well.”
Ecclesiastes 11:5 proclaims, “As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child, even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.”


 Google Admits in Court Documents that it Believes Free Speech is “disastrous” for Society
 It’s now reality: Google has monopoly power 
over the flow of information
BY Lance D. Johnson |
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
(Natural News) Every year, nearly half the world’s population uses Google. According to Internet Live Stats, Google processes over 40,000 search queries every second. In that same second, internet users view over 76,000 YouTube videos, a streaming service designed by Google. Across the globe there are now over two billion active android devices, a mobile operating system designed by Google. Google uses these services to track users and collect information about them.
It’s now reality: Google has monopoly power over the flow of information. Google has control over the dissemination and manipulation of information around the world. Google algorithms can either suppress information or promote it. Because of this, Google Inc. is susceptible to political and ideological censorship, affecting billions of users who use Google services annually. With this power, Google interferes with elections, business, and people’s livelihoods. There are industries and political agendas that influence Google, industries that will do whatever it takes to shut down truthful speech and manipulate how people think. (Related: Former Google engineers warn the evil corporation must be stopped.)
Google refuses to be held accountable to First Amendment standards

Google is not a neutral platform, so search results are engineered to highlight the viewpoints that matter most to Google executives and their cult culture. Rich and influential people, emboldened by their special interests, practically lobby Google to push their agendas while suppressing any dissent or competition on the web. While some ideologies are popularized by Google, others are pushed to the shadows, de-monetized and mocked.
Google is under fire for censoring conservative website PragerU. Very few organizations have the legal firepower to fight back against Google, but PragerU has taken Google to court. Google’s true intentions are being exposed. In a statement filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Google argues that government regulation would have “disastrous practical consequences.”
In their statement, Google makes it clear they do not want to be held to the standard of the First Amendment. 
Google refuses to change for its users; Google refuses to guarantee users an equal platform for freedom of speech. The anti-American behemoth refuses to enforce the First Amendment across their services because this “would undermine important content regulation.” Google stated, “If they are bound by the same First Amendment rules that apply to the government, YouTube and other service providers would lose much of their ability to protect their users against offensive or objectionable content — including pornography, hate speech, personal attacks, and terrorist propaganda.”
U.S. should appoint third-party judicial commission to review censorship cases
Google should still remain in control over its own content regulation, but the United States should appoint a third party commission to review Google’s actions when complaints of political, business, and ideological censorship are brought forth. With so much power over information and with mounting complaints of censorship coming against Google, it is imperative that a judicial review committee hold Google accountable when they are violating the free speech rights of people on the internet.
According to their legal statement, Google still believes their company can discriminate on the basis of political viewpoints, because they “can’t be forced to change.” What Google does not understand is that, with the proper legal oversight, their monopoly can be forced to operate more fairly, without engaging in anti-competitive practices that benefit their own agendas and the goals of their highly influential friends. People and organizations that are censored by Google deserve the right to bring forth their case and have their voice be heard. Google can be forced to respect people’s First Amendment rights and can be legally required to correct their algorithms when they are using their technology to abuse content creators, advertisers, and search engine users. The rule of law should be upheld.
Sources include:


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
 Urgent Message To Trump!
 Alex Jones and Roger Stone deliver a critical message to the 
president urging him to preserve online freedom of speech in the wake of
 the midterm election results.
Also, listen to the former Trump campaign manager’s analysis of the 
president’s firing of Jeff Sessions, and the steps he must take to 
expose the Obama Deep State Justice Department.