Archive for anti-Muslims

Mind-Boggling: Fake Ex-Terrorists Still Profiting Off of Lies

Posted in Loon Politics with tags , , , , , , , , , , on January 23, 2012 by loonwatch
Kamal Saleem has his scared face on

For a long time the Islamophobia Industry has been pushing fake ex-Muslims and fake ex-terrorists. The insanity went as far as having the charlatan Walid Shoebat teaching security officials about the “dangers of Islam.”

Kamal Saleem is one such fake ex-terrorists whose been banking on the hate and fear of Islam. We have exposed him several times before,

A political organization by the name, “Constituting Michigan-Founding Principles” is hosting Saleem along with Rep. Dave Agema who has introduced something along the lines of an “anti-Sharia” bill which he is passing off as legislation against “foreign law.” How much do you think they are paying Saleem to speak?

There is no doubt that Rep. Dave Agema is trying to curry favor with the radical right, but he should be ashamed of himself for participating in an event alongside a well known liar and charlatan like Saleem.

Alleged former terrorist Kamal Saleem to speak in Allegan

by Joe Stando (mLive.com)

ALLEGAN — Allegan County political organization Constituting Michigan-Founding Principles will host a self-proclaimed former terrorist on Thursday at the Allegan High School Events Center.

Kamal Saleem claims to have been a former Islamic radical and terrorist before converting to Christianity. He has since published a book detailing his experiences and makes regular tours speaking about his life and views.

”He had entered the U.S. and gotten in an accident, and received medical care,” said Carol Dannenberg, of Constituting Michigan-Founding Principles. “He thought, ‘Wait a minute, I don’t want to hurt these people.’ He was raised to believe that there was no hope, that killing was a good thing.”

”I met Saleem in my travels to Lansing,” said Bill Sage, one of the co-founders of Constituting Michigan. “He’s here to talk about keeping American law in American courts, to make sure that the Constitution is what we’re drawing from.”

Sage characterizes the organization’s main focus as education reform and a return to focusing on the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights in schools. Sage will also be speaking at the event, as will state Rep. Dave Agema, according to organizers. Agema is one of the sponsors of House Bill 4769, which seeks “to restrict the application of foreign laws” in Michigan. Opponents have characterized the bill as discriminatory towards Islam.

Saleem himself is also the subject of controversy. Questions have been raised regarding the authenticity of his claims, as well as the goals of his speeches.

”I believe he’s a complete fraud, and his claims are bogus,” said Dawud Walid, executive director of CAIR-Michigan, an American-Islamic relations council. “He says he’s been reformed by the Holy Ghost. If he were an actual former terrorist who snuck into the U.S., the FBI or immigration services would’ve detained and deported him by now.”

Walid claims that Saleem’s real name is Khodor Shami and that many details of his background do not add up.

”He’s profiting off the cottage industry of Islamophobia,” Walid said. “If he thinks that I’m lying, that I’m trying to falsely discredit him, he should sue me for defamation.”

Sage claims much of the controversy surrounding Saleem is the result of media bias.

”People don’t like his message, they don’t want him out there,” said Sage. “But if you listen to Kamal, you’ll understand.”

Walid encourages caution.

”Individuals should research his claims, and form their own opinions,” said Walid. “Don’t be taken in just because it sounds interesting.”

Contact Joe Stando at jstando@kalamazoogazette.com or 269-388-8553.

Joe Lieberman Says U.S. Should Cut Social Security To Pay For Fighting ‘The Islamist Extremists’

Posted in Loon Politics with tags , , , , , , on August 9, 2011 by loonwatch

Joe Lieberman Says U.S. Should Cut Social Security To Pay For Fighting ‘The Islamist Extremists’

This past April, right-wing war hawk John Bolton suggested during an interview on Fox News that the United States should cut Social Security and Medicare to finance the defense budget.

During debate over the debt deal today on the Senate floor, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) appeared to endorse this call. Lieberman explained that he is working with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) on a Social Security spending reduction plan and that “we can’t protect these entitlements and also have the national defense…to protect us…with Islamist extremists”:

LIEBERMAN: I want to indicate today to my colleagues that Senator Coburn and I are working again on a bipartisan proposal to secure Social Security over the long term, we hope to have that done in time. To also forward to the special committee for their consideration. So, bottom line, we can’t protect these entitlements and also have the national defense we need to protect us in a dangerous world while we’re at war with Islamist extremists who attacked us on 9/11 and will be for a long time to come.

Watch it:

As ThinkProgress’s Ben Armbruster notes, the Bolton-Lieberman plan is “is basically a reverse Robin Hood scheme: robbing the poor to pay the rich, or really, the Military Industrial Complex on steroids.” As Ambruster points out, a “recent Reuters poll found that Americans would rather cut defense spending than raid social services in order to solve the debt and deficit problems.” Americans do not appear to have the priorities of these two war hawks.
Original post: Joe Lieberman Says U.S. Should Cut Social Security To Pay For Fighting ‘The Islamist Extremists’

Pamela Geller’s Followers Go Nuts (Or Are Nuts, or Something)

Posted in Loon Politics with tags , , , , , , , on August 2, 2011 by loonwatch

Even Jeffrey Goldberg is dishing it out to Geller’s followers.

Pamela Geller’s Followers Go Nuts (Or Are Nuts, or Something)

Jeffrey Goldberg

Please, nutty people, leave my e-mail inbox alone! I’ve been flooded with mail from defenders of Pamela Geller, the shrieking bigot who thinks all Muslims are evil, that Muslims live under her bed, that Muslims short-sheeted her bed at summer camp, and so on. Here is one such letter:

Pamela Geller is right, you want to see America and Israel destroyed. Why do you love Muslims so much? Are you a secret Muslim?

You got me! I am a secret Muslim. Well, not a secret one anymore. I’m actually known in Occupied Palestine as Abu Tsuris. I was a summer intern with Hamas (in the press office) and I’m hoping to get my M.A. in Shari’a from al-Azhar University, where I also play for the lacrosse team.

It is amazing to me how Geller’s followers think of Islam the way they believe Islam thinks of Christianity and Judaism. For the record: I’m a proud Jew, not observant enough, but trying, and I also admire many aspects of Islam. I don’t believe this to be a contradiction. I love Islamic art and architecture and poetry, and I appreciate the manner in which Islam provides meaning and solace to its followers. I appreciate Islam’s firm stand against idolatry, and I also find comfort in Islam’s stunning diversity. Included in this diversity, of course, are streams of Islam I find disagreeable, and one or two I find repugnant. But Islam, like Judaism, and like Christianity, is a universe. It is not a monolith, as Pamela Geller and her ilk would have you believe. Some of the best people I know are Muslim, and some of the worst are Muslim. The same holds true for Judaism. Pamela Geller is a terrible bigot because she believes that Islam is an intrinsically evil system, and that everyone who adheres to this system is intrinsically evil..

Study finds that news of Osama Bin Laden’s death led Americans to be more fearful of Muslims

Posted in Anti-Loons, Loon-at-large with tags , , , , , , , , , on July 22, 2011 by loonwatch

Study finds that news of Osama Bin Laden’s death led Americans to be more fearful of Muslims

Matthew C. Nisbet on July 20, 2011, 3:53 PM

My brother Erik Nisbet, a professor at The Ohio State University, has a study out that casts important new light on how Americans reacted to the news of the death of Osama Bin Laden.  Below is the write up from Jeff Grabmeier of the OSU Research News Service. You you can read the full survey report here.

COLUMBUS, Ohio – Instead of calming fears, the death of Osama bin Ladenactually led more Americans to feel threatened by Muslims living in the United States, according to a new nationwide survey.

In the weeks following the U.S. military campaign that killed bin Laden, the head of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda, American attitudes toward Muslim Americans took a significant negative shift, results showed.

Americans found Muslims living in the United States more threatening after bin Laden’s death, positive perceptions of Muslims plummeted, and those surveyed were less likely to oppose restrictions on Muslim Americans’ civil liberties.

For example, in the weeks before bin Laden’s death, nearly half of respondents described Muslim Americans as “trustworthy” and “peaceful.”  But only one-third of Americans agreed with these positive terms after the killing.

Most of the changes in attitude happened among political liberals and moderates, whose views shifted to become more like those of conservatives, the survey found.

The shift in views can be explained by the fact that bin Laden’s death reminded some Americans of why they may fear Muslims in the first place, saidErik Nisbet, assistant professor of communication at Ohio State University, and one of the leaders of the survey project.

“The death of bin Laden was a focusing event.  There was a lot of news coverage and a lot of discussion about Islam and Muslims and Muslim Americans,” Nisbet said.

“The frenzy of media coverage reminded people of terrorism and the Sept. 11 attacks and it primed them to think about Islam in terms of terrorism.”

In fact, while prior to bin Laden’s death only 16 percent of respondents believed a terrorist attack in the United States was likely in the next few months, 40 percent believed an attack was likely after the killing.

“That is going to have a negative effect on attitudes,” Nisbet said.

The researchers’ ability to find out how American attitudes changed after bin Laden’s death was accidental, Nisbet said.  Nisbet and Ohio State colleagueMichelle Ortiz, also an assistant professor of communication, had commissioned the Survey Research Institute of Cornell University and the University of New Hampshire Survey Center to jointly conduct a national telephone poll of Americans beginning in early April.  The survey focused on perceptions and attitudes about Muslim Americans.

Interviews started on April 7, 2011, and 500 interviews were conducted prior to May 1, when bin Laden was killed.  The remaining 341 interviews were conducted following the death.

Many of the survey responses changed significantly after the killing, Nisbet said.

After bin Laden’s death, 34 percent of Americans surveyed agreed that Muslims living in the United States “increased the likelihood of a terrorist attack.”  That was up from 27 percent prior to the killing.  The percentage of respondents agreeing the Muslims in the United States are supportive of the country dropped from 62 percent to 52 percent.

Americans were less likely to oppose restrictions on Muslim American civil liberties after the killing, Nisbet said.  For example, public opposition to profiling individuals as potential terrorists based solely on being Muslim dropped from 71 percent to 63 percent.  Likewise, opposition to requiring Muslims living in the United to register their whereabouts with the government dropped from two-thirds of respondents to about one-half.

Changes in attitudes were not related just to preventing a possible terrorist attack, but also included attitudes about religious tolerance of Muslims.  For example, nearly one in three respondents surveyed after bin Laden’s death agreed that “Muslims are mostly responsible for creating the religious tension that exists in the United States today.”  That was up from about one in five respondents before the killing.  Correspondingly, opposition to a nationwide ban on mosque construction in the United States fell to 57 percent from 65 percent.

The negative feelings even carried over to personal relationships.  The percentage of respondents who said they were unwilling to have a Muslim as a close friend doubled after the death, going from 9 percent to 20 percent.

“That’s important because research has shown that the best way to reduce prejudice and improve intergroup relations is through personal contact,” Nisbet said.  “That won’t happen if people avoid contact with Muslim Americans.”

Many of the changes in attitudes after Bin Laden’s death were almost entirely due to political liberals and moderates changing their opinions about the threat posed by Muslims in the United States, the survey found.

The percentage of liberal respondents who agreed that Muslims in the United States “make America a more dangerous place to live” tripled after bin Laden’s death, going from 8 to 24 percent.  The percentage of moderates believing this increased from 10 percent to 29 percent.

In contrast, the percentage of conservatives who believed this were essentially unchanged – 30 percent before bin Laden’s death and 26 percent following.

“Liberals and moderates essentially converged toward conservatives in their attitudes about Muslim Americans,” Nisbet said.

Nisbet said it is unclear whether these changes in attitudes would last long-term or not.  But research suggests these negative feelings can be dangerous even if they are short-lived.

“Every time these anti-Muslim feelings are activated by media coverage, it makes them that much easier to get reactivated in the future,” Nisbet said.  “These feelings and attitudes become more constant the more you experience them.”

The telephone survey involved adults in the continental United States, including cell-phone only homes, and was designed to be representative of the U.S. population.  All percentages reported here were adjusted to control for differences in the characteristics of survey respondents interviewed before and after bin Laden’s death.  The researchers controlled for age, gender, race, education, political ideology, whether the respondents were evangelical Christians, and their knowledge about Islam.

That means any differences in attitudes between respondents polled before and after the death are not the results of any difference on these personal attributes.

In addition to Nisbet and Ortiz, the survey was conducted by Yasamin Miller, director of the Survey Research Institute at Cornell and Andrew Smith, associate professor and director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center.

A copy of the researchers’ survey report is available here:http://www.eriknisbet.com/files/binladen_report.pdf

#

Contact: Erik Nisbet, (614) 247-1693begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              (614) 247-1693      end_of_the_skype_highlighting; Nisbet.5@osu.edu Written by Jeff Grabmeier, (614) 292-8457 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              (614) 292-8457      end_of_the_skype_highlighting; Grabmeier.1@osu.edu

Original post: Study finds that news of Osama Bin Laden’s death led Americans to be more fearful of Muslims

Peter King and “Prislam”: Round 2 of Muslim American Radicalization Hearings

Posted in Feature, Loon Politics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 15, 2011 by loonwatch

Rep. Peter King held his second round of Homeland Security subcommittee hearings on the radicalization of Muslim Americans. This time the focus was on radicalization in our prison system and the threat it poses to the USA, some witnesses and Congressmen termed the concept “prislam,” a silly neologism that gives me headaches just hearing. Here’s hoping the word doesn’t take off.

It must be repeated from the very beginning that King is tarnished by his past Islamophobic and anti-Muslim comments. A point which has been made by countless journalists as well as by fellow Congressmen/women during the first hearing. He hasn’t apologized for, or retracted, any of those comments, which makes the present populist exercise he is involved in even more deplorable.

King also lacks all credibility considering he supported IRA terrorists for over a decade. Only in the magical realism world of Washington politics would someone who supported terrorists be the chairman of a committee discussing homegrown terrorism and radicalization, unless King is now going to argue that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter?”

Now that we’ve established the serious problems with King chairing such a committee, lets get to today’s hearing. The hearing was less of a circus than the first one in March, mainly due to the absence of such clowns and non-experts as Zuhdi JasserMelvin Bledsoe, and co., but that doesn’t mean that it was any better.

Aside from the contribution made by Prof. Brent Useem much of the testimony was unsubstantial. Prof. Useem essentially summed it all up when he said, “Prisons are infertile ground for the growth of radicalization.” He had a mountain of evidence to back this quote up, which he submitted to the committee.

The most eloquent, touching and thoughtful questions and comments came from Rep.Hansen Clarke, Rep. Jackson Lee and Rep. Richardson, who did excellent jobs in questioning the premise of the hearings, highlighting its discriminatory nature and also providing perspective when it comes to violence and radicalization at large in our prison system.

Here are some choice cuts:

Rep.Hansen Clarke:

“You know what pisses me off? It’s not about Islam. It’s about the prison system,” …”It’s about the prison culture. We’ve got to change it.”

Rep. Jackson Lee:

“If we look to the informational, we should include an analysis of how Christian militants are intending to undermine the laws of this nation.”

“My political correctness is based on this document, ‘the Constitution’”.

Rep. Laura Richardson:

“I disagree with the scope of this committee, I deem that these hearings are discriminatory.”

Patrick Dunleavy:

“In the Attica and Sing-Sing prison riots, Muslims helped decrease violence and stem deaths.”

The WTF comment of the day from Michael Downing:

“Gangs as urban terrorists, the distinction is that they don’t target innocent civilians”

Peter King attempted to defend these hearings and the scapegoating that him and his colleagues are parlaying by saying,

“I have repeatedly said the overwhelming majority of Muslim Americans are outstanding Americans”…“Yet, the first radicalization hearing which this committee held in March of this year was met with much mindless hysteria — led by radical groups such as the Council of Islamic Relations and their allies in the liberal media personified by the New York Times.”

He thereby effectively made it about CAIR once again, which actually stands for Council on American Islamic Relations not Council of Islamic Relations. By doing so he dodged addressing the core criticisms leveled at him and the premise of these hearings, by not only CAIR, but a wide range of groups.

Such a hearing, aside from stigmatizing a whole group of people is also a waste of time, resources and energy,

Last year, the bipartisan Congressional Research Service determined that only a single example of homegrown terrorism stemmed from an individual who was radicalized in prison. CRS concluded that prisons, “while seen by some as potential hotbeds of radicalization, have not played a large role in producing homegrown terrorists.”

So whats all the fuss about?

Peter King wants to sharpen his hawkish GOP credentials, pander to the anti-Muslim base of his party and present an image of being tough on terror, while also continuing the scapegoating and fear-mongering of Muslim Americans.

These hearings only reinforce the point that Muslim Americans have been making the past few years, they are being unfairly targeted and feel besieged as a community. Rep. Mike Honda, a Japanese-American sympathizes, drawing on his own experience of having been interned by the USA during World War II,

Make no mistake. Growing up in internment camp Amache in Colorado was no joy ride — just look at the pictures. We were treated like cattle in those camps…We look back, as a nation, and we know this was wrong. We look back and know that this was a result of “race prejudice, war hysteria and a failure of political leadership.” We look back and know that an entire ethnicity was said to be, and ultimately considered, the enemy. We know that internment happened because few in Washington were brave enough to say “no.”

We know all this, and yet our country is now, within my lifetime, repeating the same mistakes from our past. The interned 4-year-old in me is crying out for a course correction so that we do not do to others what we did unjustly to countless Japanese-Americans.

This time, instead of creating an ethnic enemy, Rep. King is creating a religious enemy. Because of prejudice, war hysteria and a failure of Republican leadership, King is targeting the entire Muslim-American community. Similar to my experience, they are become increasingly marginalized and isolated by our policies.

Mike Honda’s words are like a clarion call to our political elites to recognize the dangerous path this nation is headed toward. Lets hope it won’t take another internment camp scenario for our leaders to wake up.

Pastor who gave controversial Senate prayer bought anti-Muslim ads

Posted in Loon Pastors, Loon Politics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 23, 2011 by loonwatch

There is no problem with anyone calling to their Faith, or trying to win converts, that is part of Freedom of Religion. Unfortunately both Rep. Arlon Linder and Pastor Campbell have crossed the boundaries of interfaith harmony and peace in to the territory of bigotry. Imagine if this were a Muslim Imam and Rep. Keith Ellison saying such words, you would never hear the end of it from Islamophobes. We would be inundated with threats that our Constitution was being desecrated and that the evil Mooslims were trying to take over and must be stopped.

Pastor who gave controversial Senate prayer bought anti-Muslim ads

By Andy Birkey

The Associated Press reports that a Christian prayer on the Minnesota Senate floor on Monday made non-Christian members of that body uncomfortable. Pastor Dennis Campbell’s prayer was highly Christian, as opposed to the nonsectarian prayers that were commonplace under DFL control. It’s not Campbell’s first controversy; last summer he took out ads in the St. Cloud Times that were viewed as anti-Muslim.

“We pray, lord, that you help us show reverence to the Lord Jesus Christ,” Campbell prayed. “Jesus said, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ our savior, we pray.”

That prayer sparked non-Christian members of the Senate to cry foul, the Associated Press reports.

The controversy mirrors that of one in 2000, when the Republicans last took over the Minnesota House. Previously, the DFL has allowed non-sectarian prayer in the House, but when Republicans took control, many of the chamber non-Christians protested the overtly Christian prayers.

Rep. Arlon Lindner, instead of acquiescing, instead attacked those members.

“You know, we’re told there’s one God and one mediator between God and man. That man is Jesus Christ. And most of us here are Christians. And we shouldn’t be left not able to pray in the name of our God… And if you don’t like it, you may have to like it. Or just don’t come. I don’t come sometimes for some prayers here… We have that privilege, and you need to exercise it. But don’t impose your irreligious left views on me.”

Following that statement, an ethics complaint was filed against Lindner, one of many in his career in the Minnesota Legislature.

Pastor Campbell came under fire for religious intolerance last summer when his church took out ads in the St. Cloud Times.

“What happens when Moslems take over a nation?” asks Campbell in the ad. “They will destroy the constitution and force the Moslem religion on the society, take freedom of religion away, and they will persecute all other religions.”

The ad also said, “Moslems seek to influence a nation by immigration, reproduction, education, the government, illegal drugs and by supporting the gay agenda.”

He later said he is not a racist and that he was simply trying to convert Muslims to Christianity.

Robert Spencer Downplays Right Wing Extremist Threat

Posted in Feature, Loon Blogs with tags , , , , , , , , , , on April 7, 2010 by loonwatch
As his arguments become exposed, so does he.As his arguments become exposed, so does he.

It is baffling how Robert Spencer downplays the fact that members of a Christian militia group, the Hutaree, were arrested and charged with planning to wage ware against the United States. In his post, he writes:

For years now we have heard, in the indelible formulation of Rosie O’Donnell, that “radical Christianity is just as dangerous as radical Islam,” and yet proponents of this exercise in wishful thinking and ignorance have had precious little evidence to adduce in support of it. But now it is certain that for years to come this Hutaree group will be thrown in the face of anyone who takes note of jihad activity in the United States and around the world, as if this group in itself balances and equals the innumerable Islamic groups that are waging armed jihad all around the world today.

This is in direct contrast to the report issued by the Department of Homeland Security that documented the rise of right-wing extremism, one which many right-wing commentators attacked vigorously. The much maligned DHS report was recently corroborated by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate groups in the United States. Clearly, the intelligence and data has led authorities to believe that there is real reason to be concerned about these groups, but Spencer pays it no mind because they are not Muslims.

But, he bemoans the fact that there are no quotations in media reports from Christian leaders denouncing this Christian militia:

Meanwhile, in the Detroit News story on the raids, which as tendentious, superficial, and slanted as all the mainstream media coverage of the Hutaree’s downfall, the Hutaree is matter-of-factly identified as Christian. Yet there are no quotations in the story from Christian leaders explaining how they condemn this “Christian militia,” and saying that Christianity doesn’t condone such violence, and that these militiamen have twisted and hijacked their peaceful faith. Why didn’t the News take care to gather such quotes? After all, they always include such quotes from Muslim leaders in every story about Islamic jihad terror activity. Why is the practice different in this case?

The reason for this is that most everyone knows, including us here at LW, that the actions of a radical few do not reflect upon the nature of the majority. These alleged “Christian soldiers” do not represent the mainstream. We here at LW know that. Most resonable people understand this basic fact.

We here at LW know that the actions of a few pedophile priests do not reflect upon the overwhelming majority of the good people who are Catholic priests, men who have sacrificed a great deal to minister to their flock. Would it be right and proper to smear all of Catholic Christianity with the stain of pedophilia and sexual abuse because of the actions of a relatively small number of priests? Of course not. We here at LW know this.

Spencer, however, does not share such logic. He continually cherry picks bad news stories from among the 1.2 billion Muslims in the world to somehow smear the entire group. Notice how he calls the Hutaree a “self-proclaimed Christian group,” which they are, to dismiss them. But, when a self-proclaimed Muslim group does something bad, according to Spencer, Geller, and Co., it is because of Islam itself. What fallacy.

Spencer calls the Hutaree, a group that allegedly planned on killing a cop and then bombing the funeral to kill more cops, a “dream come true” for the mainstream media. Actually, this group (and the others like them) is a nightmare come true. They must be fought against with as much vigor as is needed in the fight against radical Muslims who wish to do Americans harm.