The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is happily distributing a video of a U.S. State Department spokesman saying that the U.S. government does not consider CAIR and the Muslim American Society to be terrorists, as the United Arab Emirates has just done.
The State Department’s comment is not a vindication; it’s old news. The State Department reiterated what we already know: The U.S. government hasn’t labeled them as terrorist groups, just as it hasn’t labeled the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group (as the UAE, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have done).
However, the U.S. government has acknowledged their Muslim Brotherhood linkages. Here’s what the State Department said:
“The United States does not consider these two U.S. groups to be terrorist organizations, but we are seeking more information from the government of the UAE about why that designation was done by them and their background, what their information is.”
That’s not exactly a passionate defense of CAIR and MAS. It’s a statement of fact. It does not deny that these groups are linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, nor is it an endorsement of their supposed moderation.
The State Department’s comments also do not reflect the entirety of how the U.S. government views CAIR and MAS.
From 2006 to 2008, the FBI monitored the email account of Nihad Awad, CAIR’s Executive-Director and co-founder.
In 2007, the U.S. Justice Department designated CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation, a charity that financed Hamas. The Justice Department specifically listed CAIR as an entity of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee; its section devoted to covertly assisting Hamas.
In another 2007 court case, federal prosecutors said, “MAS was founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.”
That court filing also said: “From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists…the conspirators agreed to use deception to conceal from the American public their connections to terrorists.”
In 2008, the FBI changed its policy to officially bar field offices from using CAIR as an outreach partner.
In April 2009, the FBI Office of Congressional Affairs said, “Until we can resolve whether there continues to be a relationship between CAIR or its executives with Hamas, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner.”
In 2009, Judge Solis upheld the designation of CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator, but also ruled that its designation should not have been made public. Yet, he found that the U.S. government provided “ample evidence” linking CAIR to the Holy Land Foundation and Hamas to justify the designation.
In 2013, the Justice Department said the FBI ended its use of CAIR as an outreach partner “to ensure that the FBI is not supporting individuals who support extremist or terrorist ideologies.”
This single-sentence response by the State Department is not a summary of the U.S. government’s assessment of CAIR and MAS. It is an reiteration of the obvious fact that these groups are allowed to operate and have not been prosecuted.
When you look at the entirety of the U.S. government’s statements about CAIR and MAS, what you find is confirmation of what these groups deny: That they are Islamists with Muslim Brotherhood origins.
The Church of England has surrendered without so much as firing a shot. Vanquished. A senior Church of England bishop said yesterday that Prince Charles’s coronation service should be opened with a reading from the Koran. Why? Why not a Jewish prayer, a Hindu or Sikh prayer? Why Islamic — especially since so many bloody wars are being waged in the cause of Islamic imperialism?
Another nail in the coffin, another stake in heart of the once-great Britain. Islamic State of England.
People are just so disappointed when senior Church of England figures lose confidence in the claims of the Christian faith.’
Disappointed? They are crushed.
I am sure that Prince Charles sanctioned this craven act of submission. Oriana Fallaci, the Italian best-selling journalist who, with her book The Rage and the Pride was post-9/11 among the first to alert the West to the dangers of Islam, called him “babbeo,” a Tuscan term which could be reserved for the village idiot (source: Jihadwatch).
– See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2014/11/quran-should-be-read-at-prince-charles-coronation-says-top-bishop.html/#sthash.yznZ9UGS.dpuf
Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, the Canadian Muslim scholar, was born as a Christian in Jamaica in 1947 and grew up in Canada, where he accepted Islam in 1972. He completed a diploma in Arabic and a B.A. from the College of Islamic Disciplines (Usool ad-Deen) at the Islamic University of Madeenah in 1979. At the University of Riyadh, College of Education, he completed a M.A. in Islamic Theology in 1985, and in the department of Islamic Studies at the University of Wales, he completed a Ph.D. in Islamic Theology in 1994.
In recent years he was banned of entrance to or being deported of several countries, including Australia, UK, Germany, Kenya, Bangladesh and the Philippines, because of radical views or security reasons.
In his book “Contemporary Issues” from 2002, which was accessible for downloading in the online library of the website Muslims of Calgary, Bilal Philips among other things justified the rationale of early marriage in Islam, explained why the scenario of a wife being raped by her her husband is generally irrelevant to Muslims families and outlined the circumstances in which the husband is permitted to hit his wife.
Toronto transit ad for skin lightening cream draws criticism
Western’s longest-serving chaplain, along with four of his colleagues, has resigned in protest over the recently announced move of the Chaplains’ Services offices and a dedicated Muslim prayer space in the University Community Centre.
Rev. Michael Bechard, Western’s Roman Catholic chaplain, submitted his resignation and those of Janet Loo, Annette Donovan Panchaud, Melissa Page Nichols and Maija Wilson from the UWO Chaplains’ Association, to University President Amit Chakma on Friday.
The University announced last week that the current Muslim prayer room in University College would be moved along with the Chaplains’ Services offices to one space in the basement of the UCC. In addition, the current multi-faith space in the UCC will no longer be used.
Bechard’s concerns are two-fold. He explained that the principle behind having a dedicated space exclusively for one faith group is contrary to how the UWO Chaplains’ Association advocates for faith space on campus. Additionally, he claimed that the decision-making process was flawed and only included certain groups.
If this new Tiger Lily is not a person of color, why is her dad so dark?
A poster and movie trailer for Pan, the Peter Pan prequel planned for a summer 2015 release, is giving the public a first glimpse of actress Rooney Mara in the role of Tiger Lily, a Native American character in J.M. Barrie’s 1904 play. The visuals have reignited the controversy that broke out in March over the casting of Mara, a non-Native actress, in the role. Reporting on the choice touted the film’s “multi-racial” world and “a very different [Tigerlily] than was originally imagined.”
But there was concern and even outrage over Mara’s casting. An online petition was started to urge Warner Brothers to “Stop casting white actors to play people of color!” On Twitter and other social media, many people voiced disappointment in Mara for accepting the role.
Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/11/26/rooney-maras-tiger-lily-could-not-be-less-native-thats-problem-158028
If spreading religious intolerance is the goal, a Middle Eastern bank has scored by prompting Real Madrid to alter its world-famous logo so that a small cross does not appear on an officially-licensed credit card.
The Spanish soccer giant unveiled the adjusted logo that will adorn a new credit card issued by the National Bank of Abu Dhabi, reported The Algemeiner. The new logo looks exactly like the club’s 83-year-old trademark, except for the absence of a tiny Christian cross that normally sits at the top.
The logo change was agreed to by the world’s wealthiest sports team, valued at nearly $3.5 billion, in order to avoid offending Muslim sensibilities as the team and the bank enter a three-year “strategic alliance,” according to Real Madrid President Florentino PÃ©rez.
“I know that the local people experience every match in a special way and that our links with the UAE are constantly growing stronger,” Perez said recently. “This agreement will help the club to keep conquering the hearts of followers in the United Arab Emirates.”
Noted Spanish soccer website Marca: “from the looks of things, the club is willing to compromise on aspects of its identity in pursuit of these new fans.”
However, it was not the first time the soccer juggernaut tweaked its crest to avoid offending Islamic sensibilities.In the oil-rich Emirates in 2012, Real Madrid made the same change to smooth the way for a partnership with a UAE resort.
Real Madrid’s most recent decision to cave into Muslim religious intolerance comes at a time of growing concern for Christians in the Middle East, where Islamic State terrorists have massacred and ethnically cleansed ancient Christian communities in Iraq and Syria, noted The Algemeiner, citing a recent State Department report highlighting several violations of international standards on religious freedom in the United Arab Emirates, of which Abu Dhabi is a part.
“The government prohibits proselytizing and the distribution of non-Islamic religious literature under penalty of criminal prosecution, imprisonment and deportation,” the report observed. “The law prohibits churches from erecting bell towers or displaying crosses on the outside of their premises; however, the government does not always enforce this law, and some churches display crosses on their buildings.”
that MP on parliament hill should have visited an escort to avoid false accusations.
Here’s the scene: One of your colleagues is a married guy. You both play on a recreational sports team. One day after a game, he asks you back to his hotel for a drink. (He commutes to work from another city.) He makes clear that he wants to have sex with you, but you don’t want to have sex with him. What do you do? (a) tell him no, and leave? Or (b) join him on the bed, say nothing and hand him a condom?
Even in our brave new age, where consent to sex is supposed to be explicit, most people would agree that if you get on a bed with a guy and silently hand him a condom, he could reasonably infer that you’re willing to have sex. And if he’s wrong, it’s hard to complain that he misread your intentions.
But that’s exactly the complaint (as we understand it so far) made by an anonymous female New Democratic MP about Massimo Pacetti. He’s one of the two Liberal MPs who were summarily banished by Leader Justin Trudeau for serious but unexplained “personal misconduct” involving unnamed female MPs.
Now, in a series of interviews with the media, including The Globe and Mail, one of the two female complainants has explained what the misconduct was. Mr. Pacetti had sex with her, but without “explicit consent.” She didn’t tell him “no” and she wasn’t drunk. She didn’t leave because she “froze,” having been assaulted on another occasion, years before. She doesn’t want her name to be made public because she wants to “heal.” She doesn’t think Mr. Pacetti should be punished (it’s a little late for that) and she hasn’t gone to the police (in any event, as any lawyer will tell you, she doesn’t have a shred of a legal case). But she does want the incident to be investigated, providing she remains anonymous. She thinks Mr. Pacetti should apologize and get counselling. Mr. Pacetti says he’s innocent of wrongdoing.
The details should make everybody cringe. Although I have no sympathy for married men who cheat, Mr. Pacetti is actually the bigger victim here – it sounds like his first apology should be to his wife. Mr. Trudeau (and, by extension, his party) should be cringing because he’s recklessly trashed the career of a man who seems to be guilty of nothing more than boorishness and infidelity. The NDP should be cringing because Ms. Anonymous has embarrassed the caucus and trivialized the seriousness of genuine sexual assault. This complainant is no intern or some star-struck groupie exploited by a powerful older man – she’s an elected federal politician.
Anita Sarkeesian has recently entered the public conscious as something of a new Sandra Fluke, riding the wave of controversy to her fifteen minutes of fame and assuming the role of a de facto representative of feminism in the GamerGate controversy. Her participation has mainly been as an impressively successful foil, redirecting the narrative away from one of a consumer base betrayed by media collusion and portraying them as potentially violent misogynists, with what has been so far the most persistent messaging.
Anita Sarkeesian is quite possibly the closest thing to a “face” that feminism has had for a generation, if one discounts Beyoncé’s over-sized sign onstage at the VMAs and Emma Watson’s United Nations’ “HeForShe” hashtag launch. Sadly, her fit for the role is reflective of the superficial aspect of feminism in recent years, that it often comes across as a “name” for the Hollywood crowd to drop more so than an egalitarian movement for social equality. Anita Sarkeesian, for all of her recent flirtation with fame, is definitely a person with skeletons in their closet.
The story, in terms of the earliest event supported by evidence, begins in January of 2005. It is from that time that Anita Sarkeesian’s name appears as the contact for a press release  published by PRWeb entitled, National Handwriting Week Jan 23-29th Brings Attention To Your Signature. The document appears to be a sham advertisement disguising itself as a press release, which is a familiar annoyance to many journalists. The most relevant element of this document is that it serves to chronicle the first indication of a relationship between Anita Sarkeesian and an individual known as Bart Baggett, a B list actor (possibly lower; he appeared in at least three films rated 2.5 or less out of 10 by IMDb.com)  and self-professed handwriting analysis expert.
I use the characterization “self-professed” because of the startling complications in regards to his professional education. On Handwritingexpertusa.com, a site which appears to be promotional in nature for Mr. Baggett, an odd pdf document  in the style of a third-person hyperbolic resume purports to list Baggett’s education, qualifications and experience. At a cursory inspection, Mr. Baggett (no professional title claimed) appears to have founded more schools than he has attended. Also of concern is that the primary education he does claim comes from undocumented “apprenticeships” with persons who have been deceased since 1994 and 2000 respectively, and are therefore unable to either refute or corroborate Mr. Baggett’s claims.  Coincidentally, claiming apprenticeship would provide convenient cover to explain the appearance of any potential plagiarism between books published by himself and his “mentors.”
I cannot effectively express to the readers of this post how deep this rabbit-hole goes. Suffice to say that I spent an entirely sleepless night chasing links between seemingly endless abandoned clone sites, all with permutations of handwriting expertise or education related phrases forming the URLs. This post simply cannot encompass the entirety of Mr. Baggetts’ adventures, but I do encourage readers to follow up on their own. His broader story involves fascinating and peculiar intersections with Judge Judy and the case of Jon Benet Ramsey. 
Returning to the matter at hand, Anita Sarkeesian’s professional relationship with Mr. Baggett seems to have lasted at least into the later part of 2007, as a phone number registered to Sarkeesian appears on multiple websites created to hawk Mr. Baggetts’ wares. On her own early site, Neonandchrome.com,  Anita lists a “Curriculum Vitae” of her experience in event planning, consisting of being a Seminar Manager/Coordinator for events tied to Mr. Baggetts’ snake oil sales in 13 out of the 15 entries. Allow me to clarify the “snake oil” remark; the handwriting analysis that Bart Baggett sold with Anita Sarkeesian’s help carried at times the claim that teaching people to pay attention to the way they wrote could improve their love lives.Mr. Baggett was even listed as an author on a Pick-up Artist directory.  Strange company for an ardent feminist like Anita Sarkeesian to keep, in consideration of how concerned she is over the potential of animated, fictional women in video games being objectified.
Why the lengthy, years-long professional relationship with a man who wrote books on how to use things like the oft-debunked Neuro Linguistic Programming pseudo-science to convince women to sleep with people in the absence of meaningful consent, while referring to them as “sluts?”  Why would Anita Sarkeesian manage and coordinate seminars on the topic?
Further collaboration between Baggett and Sarkeesian appears in the form of both their relationships to a man named Alex Mandossian, evidenced by their video testimonials in support of Mandossian’s web seminars.  While there is doubtlessly more to the Mandossian angle, I doubted the necessity of pursuing it further. The business relationship between Sarkeesian and Baggett seemed damning enough, and it takes a toll on a person to spend that long neck-deep in internet scam marketing.
In an effort to correlate her past in shady marketing to her approach in representing feminism, I will borrow from and paraphrase a post made to Medium.com by contributor @cainejw.  The user’s post was, in fact, where I became emboldened to characterize Anita Sarkeesian’s contribution to modern feminism as “snake oil,” by means of becoming convinced and co-opting the language of the article. @cainejw discredits Sarkeesian’s Feminist Frequency videos in one regard by speaking of “conceptualization,” or the process in the academic discussion of a subject where an author defines terms and jargon to familiarize their audience with the subject matter. Sarkeesian, along with her “partner” John McIntosh,  routinely forgoes defining ubiquitously recurrent terms such as patriarchy and sexism in her videos, despite claiming the opposite, while she has expressed the intent to be used as educational materials. 
While topically convincing her audience that she is providing a valuable educational experience, under scrutiny it appears instead that Anita Sarkeesian is applying her extensive experience in marketing to gain exposure, successfully I might add, by weaponizing feminist rhetoric to undermine and demean first video games, and then the people who play them.
Of further interest is how her Kickstarter project to fund the production of 12 videos met its funding goals on June 16, 2012, and appeared to suggest a completion date for the videos of Dec. 2012, although to date only videos one, five and eight are now complete. This is in spite of the fact that her project vastly exceeded the $6,000 it originally sought, ultimately raking in nearly $160,000 before closing,  and that she did not actually need to use that money for as much “research” as she claimed, due to unlicensed, unpaid use of copyrighted artwork and other intellectual property. 
One might fairly question where, exactly, the six-figure sum has gotten off to. I am getting seriously tired of tacking on addendums to the litany of tasteless offenses committed by Anita Sarkeesian, but here is another one for my intrepid reader, for making it this far into my post. Despite the claims of Feminist Frequency being a non-profit that were made in the introductory video on her Kickstarter project page, which officially closed the funding for the project in June of 2012, a search of the IRS website reveals that it only received 501(c)3 status in May of 2014.
I am just going to wrap it up here. If the above has not succeeded in convincing a reader to use a skeptical eye towards Anita Sarkeesian, several more paragraphs would not either. I would like to leave off on this thought: If the equality of genders is an important principle that you care deeply for and are willing to fight for, is Anita Sarkeesian who you want as your spokesperson? For feminism to regain a status deeper than occasional flashes across the zeitgeist it is going to have to vet its representatives better.
Read more at http://guardianlv.com/2014/11/anita-sarkeesian-unmasked-feminist-icon-or-con-artist/#oj4jtRSlFUwtzgPm.99
music for the week
by Matt Forney
Sarah Lacy is the owner of Pando, a tech news site that bills itself as “the site of record for Silicon Valley.” For the past couple of years, Lacy and her colleagues have been waging a war against the ridesharing company Uber based primarily on the supposed “misogyny” of its CEO, Travis Kalanick. Pando’s campaign came to a head recently after Uber’s Emil Michael revealed that the company was planning to fund investigations into Lacy and other SJW journalists known for leading harassment campaigns:
According to BuzzFeed News, Uber’s Emil Michael was at a dinner in New York on Nov. 14 where he detailed a plan to spend “a million dollars” to hire a team that would help it fight bad press. Michael reportedly said Uber would be justified in looking into the personal lives and families of journalists in order to strike back. The executive apparently believed the dinner was an off-the-record event, though BuzzFeed said it was never told not to report on the dinner.
In the typical fashion of SJWs, Lacy panicked, claiming that Uber was targeting her children, and even went so far as to hire a bodyguard. The story has become so big that Senator Al Franken (D-MN) sent a letter to Kalanick demanding to know more about Uber’s “smear campaign” against Pando. The SJW tech media has closed ranks around Lacy; even Valleywag, whose scrapes with Pando are well known, came out against Uber.
Lacy’s histrionics are yet another example of the hypocrisy of SJW journalists. It’s perfectly acceptable for writers like Lacy, The Washington Post’s Caitlin Dewey, Jezebel’s Jia Tolentino, or Gawker’s Dayna Evans to ruin peoples’ lives with politically correct lynch mobs, but when their own tactics are turned against them, these fearless reporters suddenly cry foul. While there are fair criticisms to be made of the way Uber and other Silicon Valley start-ups do business, Lacy’s conduct suggests she and Pando are leading this witch-hunt for more sinister reasons.
Sarah Lacy has a long record of making bigoted comments against men, white men in particular. A month ago, she published an article decrying Uber’s “asshole culture,” prompted by a French advertising campaign in which Uber used attractive, scantily-clad women to push their service:
We shared this in our News Ticker already, but I still can’t believe that an office of Uber — a company valued at $18 billion and held up as a bastion of modern entrepreneurship — posted an ad that encouraged, played on, and celebrated treating women who may choose to drive cars to make extra money like hookers.
Lacy hysterically claimed that the campaign was evidence that Uber didn’t take the safety of its female drivers and passengers seriously—because men who enjoy attractive women are apparently a threat—and huffily declared that she was deleting the Uber app from her phone because of it:
So, I’m turning that advice on myself: I’ve finally deleted Uber from my phone. For one thing, I increasingly don’t feel safe as a woman taking it, frequently late at night and alone. I’ve got a good solid alternative in Lyft, and life is too precious for me to put mine at risk.
And at some point, an asshole culture just goes too far.
Indeed, Lacy has a well-documented hatred and fear of normal male sexuality. She and other Pando writers have frequently whined about Travis Kalanick’s comments on how Uber has helped him get laid with numerous girls:
…Or maybe people talk about Uber in a douchey way because, when talking to journalists, the CEO of Uber says things that make him sound like a tremendous, unapologetic douche.
Lacy is yet another in the long line of female reporters who complain about the “sexist” or “bro” culture of Silicon Valley startups. In a PandoQuarterly article on “the great big Silicon Valley asshole game,” she attempted to shame Snapchat founder Evan Spiegel for “sexist” comments he made in private emails to his friends. She also harped on the claims of sexual harassment against Tinder CMO Justin Mateen, among other things. In another article, Lacy also praised notorious man-hater Sinead O’Connor’s comments on the so-called “woman problem” in tech.
Paul Carr, Pando’s editorial director and a close friend of Lacy’s, also appears to be motivated by SJW ideology. For example, in an article last month, Carr referred to the owners of Mack Tactics, a Mystery Method ripoff PUA firm, as “gross” (a term used by SJWs for anything that upsets their delicate feelings), and also took umbrage at the firm’s advice that “every encounter with a woman is an opportunity.” Indeed, Carr spent more time attacking Mack Tactics and PUAs then discussing co-founder Ronen Olshansky’s legitimately objectionable public behavior:
Today, Macktactics.com points to a gross-but-unremarkable “dating tips” website but, when Olshansky went in to business with the site’s authors, it had one purpose: to teach men how to use the methods of police hostage negotiation to pick up women. (If you have a strong stomach, you can find most of the previous versions of the site on Archive.org)
It’s clear that both Lacy and Carr’s primary motivation in attacking Uber is not the company’s questionable business practices, but their own hatred and discomfort with healthy male sexuality. Additionally, they also seem to be motivated by envy that they themselves can’t achieve the level of success that Kalanick has. This must be especially bruising to Carr, whose most recent start-up, the subscription magazine NSFWCORP, had to be bought out by Pando after failing to turn a profit in two years of operation.
Lawrence Otis Graham on November 6th 2014 confessed to the Washington Post, and therefore to the nation, that, “I taught my black kids that their elite upbringing would protect them from discrimination. I was wrong.”
He is a New York lawyer with degrees from top universities – Princeton and Harvard Law. He works for a top law firm and lives on the Upper East Side, a rich, White part of Manhattan.
He and his wife taught their children the ways of upper-class White folks, dressed them in preppy clothes, gave them perfect diction and “that air of quiet graciousness”.
He gave them rules like:
4. Never leave a shop without a receipt, no matter how small the purchase, so that you can’t be accused unfairly of theft.
5. If going separate ways after a get-together with friends and you are using taxis, ask your white friend to hail your cab first, so that you will not be left stranded without transportation.
8. If you must wear a T-shirt to an outdoor play event or on a public street, it should have the name of a respected and recognizable school emblazoned on its front.
No hoodies. And no sunglasses, ever!
And yet, somehow, his 15-year-old son was still called the N-word by Whites! In broad daylight! At a leafy New England boarding school! The White gentlemen were not even drunk. His son had done nothing wrong. Nothing!