Connect with us


Why Can Muslims Be Anti-Semites Without Comment from Media?




It used to be that an American politician could not get away with smearing 6.3 million Jews as “evil”. But how times have changed since the 2018 election, which brought us two newly elected Muslim Congresswomen into office.

By the lack of media outrage, it appears that they can say just about anything about how Jews are just not so good for the world. Well, since 74 long years have now passed since Auschwitz was liberated on January 27, 1945—maybe the message of media silence today means that Jews should just be less sensitive to racial libel smears by now.

Or, is this media silence instead of outrage only granted as a Muslim “privilege?” Or a Democratic Party “privilege?” Or perhaps it is a double privilege, if the politician fits both categories?

On the other hand, if a demented old Holocaust-denier happens to run for Congress as a Republican, CNN and The Washington Post won’t leave him be. “Are you a Nazi?” Is the question asked of the elderly white supremacist? “You’re a Nazi,” is the mainstream media charge tossed at him. Well, if the shoe fits.

But, in the interest of full reporting, “This guy is a fringe candidate who has been doing this for over a decade with no real connection to the GOP,” wrote Jesse Hunt, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. So sanity returns to the election field, via the voice of the GOP, which is ready and willing to throw its own outrageous politicians under the bus, whenever mainstream media comes calling to ask about the outrage.

Now, on the other hand, what if you get elected as a lovely, albeit foul-mouthed, Palestinian Muslim woman from Michigan (side digression, with a frantically-waving red-flag: one who ran unopposed, and, according to her own father, registered to vote from a false address when she ran for office the first time)? Well, then if you are that kind of politician, you can accuse Senators of “dual-loyalty” if they dare to oppose your racist boycotts of Israel; you can cover the state of Israel on your Congressional office world map with a sticky note reading “Palestine” in red; you can be a member of Facebook groups which also deny the Holocaust, and call Jews “Satanic.

And the magic trick is that the mainstream channels CNN, MSNBC, HuffPo, The New York Times, Salon, Vox, and The Washington Post won’t even notice such outrageous things. When you are running under the banner of the Democratic Party, and your name is an Islamic one, like Rashida Tlaib, the mainstream media will grant you the magic powers of a master illusionist.

They will be completely blind to outrageous awards and donations you receive from terror-related groups, while you in turn praise their “invaluable” and “vital” “advocacy efforts.” They will not be outraged by your support of “a young girl” whose “voice should be lifted,” as you wrote to your followers—that girl being a terrorist whom Israeli authorities had recently incarcerated for assaulting an IDF soldier and for proclaiming that “everyone must” attack Israeli Jews by means of “stabbings, martyrdom-seeking operations [i.e. suicide bombings], throwing stones.”

But that’s only the warm-up act, from one Islamic master illusionist. If you’re a moderately conservative federal judge nominated to the Supreme Court and somebody out of the blue shockingly alleges that you tried to rape her in 1982, but she can’t remember enough basic facts to even begin to support her stunning claims, or to find any witnesses or evidence against you, then mainstream media will be awash in Leftist outrage, as the mob against you tries to break down the doors of the Supreme Court, to whatever end which comes by way of outraged mobs who won’t let facts or reason get in their way.

But, if you run for political office in America on the Democratic Party ticket as a charming, yet brother-marrying Muslim lady from Somalia, who wears a hijab, you can be the second headline act in the magic show. To your self-fooled mainstream media audience, you have become a master illusionist. You have them all so enraptured by the exotic charm of your foreign headcover that you can get away with all sorts of outrages.

For example, you can ask for clemency on behalf of men on trial for trying to join ISIS; you can say that “Drawing attention to the apartheid Israeli regime is far from hating Jews”; you can promote the illusion that you are the first “refugee” ever to be elected to Congress (when you were really only the fifth or so of a set which includes two Jews elected long before you, and the first was actually a Jew who escaped the Nazis); and you can bizarrely accuse Senator Lindsey Graham of being gay.

You are so good at pulling your civilization jihadist illusions on them, that you can make Poppy Harlow of CNN look just a little bit baffled, as she seems too hopelessly seduced by that anachronistic cloth wrapped about your head for no sanely explicable reason of feminist rights logic in the 21st Century. What’s more, if you pretend to apologize for the anti-Jewish things you have said, the blinded Anti-Defamation League will forgive you immediately, and Jewish Democrats on Capitol Hill will welcome you onto the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Your illusions are so seductive to a willfully blind mainstream media, that CNN, MSNBC, HuffPo, The New York Times, Salon, Vox, and The Washington Post will barely notice—minus an op-ed here and there—the jihadist things you say and do—things that should outrage our civilization. There seems to be little limit to the outrageous things you can get away with, when you are Ilhan Omar, a master illusionist performing to the mainstream media, as they fail to see the civilization jihad on stage in front of them.

So, are the illusions being performed by these elected civilization jihadis really that masterful? Or is the truth more that the mainstream media blindness is that willful? One interesting point is that, contrary to popular myth, The New York Times has exclusive inside information that Holocaust-deniers are not all Republicans.

Another point would be that journalists, beyond being Leftist Democrats, understand that criticizing Muslims gets you called racist. (Or slaughtered by jihad)

But on a more insidious level, while the Leftists of mainstream media are not inclined to be warned by the civilization threat of Qur’an 9:29, they are quite inclined to embrace at least the sentiment of it. In other words, they might agree entirely with the Islamic Movement that the traditions of the Western world must be destroyed, to be replaced by the utopian collective that they each fantasize can take its place. And so if hateful double standards help the society to get there, then, well, screw the Jews, if the Muslims openly express a problem with them.

In politics, everything is a tool, a means to an end—politicians and their journalistic compatriots will often have an endgame in mind, but they are not known for consistently applying any deeply held, humanistic moral principles to get there. Mainstream “journalists” today are clearly aligned with Leftist politicians on one side of the culture war. By application or exclusion of selective outrage, they have become adept at weaponizing morality against the culture they want to take down; and alternatively, to boost the alien elements they want to build up into power against their native culture.

So, the president can attempt to enact a temporary travel ban preventing unvetted people (not all of them Muslim) who originate from dangerous enemy nations from entering the country until the administration can figure out how to plausibly vet them. On the Left side of the culture war,  that’s deemed worthy of protests enough to immobilize airports, and is provided the requisite mainstream coverage to promote the narrative.

As a civilization jihadist, Islamic supremacist Congresswoman can outrageously accuse mildly pro-Israel politicians of not being loyal to the United States—but only a handful of Jews (or non-Jews) in the media will find themselves capable of being outraged by the antisemitism, or by the activist supremacy, or by the blatant jihad against our traditional way of life and freedoms.

The problem is not even that Islamic supremacists Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib are openly pushing their bigoted, supremacist Islamic agenda of conquest. It is not even that the Left has lowered the bar of tolerance to the point that almost anybody, domestic or foreign, can be an anti-American bigot in public and get away with it. The problem is that the people whose job it is in journalism to not cover up for them, are doing so, systematically with destructive intent, or willful blindness.

Muslims are commanded by Allah to wage civilizational war against our society; If hijab-wearing members of the Islamic Movement actually adhere to the system they publicly choose to represent, then Allah’s command of them, “To participate in Jihad in Allah’s Cause”, is not really a choice. But a Leftist, socialist journalist writing an article about “rising anti-Semitism” which doesn’t mention the civilization jihadist, Islamic supremacist Congresswomen in the room, is really quiet a choice that journalist does make. Our society will rise or fall on that choice.

By Aynaz Anni Cyrus, National Director of American Truth Project. Anni was sold for $50 as a child bride in Iran. Rebelling against a life of sex slavery, she escaped to America. Now an American citizen, she is a leading spokeswoman against the evils of Islam.


Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Have We Forgotten What Happened On 9/11?



Continue Reading


Sharia in the U.S. Judicial System?




The U.S. Senate’s recent confirmation of Zahid Quraishi as America’s first Muslim federal judge to a lifetime position on the District Court of New Jersey raises some concerning questions.

First and foremost, there is the question of his faith. Does it matter if Zahid Quraishi is a Muslim? The Left would, of course, maintain that raising the Muslim identity of Quraishi is racist, bigoted and “Islamophobic.” But those who understand the reality of Sharia – and the fact that Islam is not a race — understand that this matter is more complicated than what might first meet the eye.

It may very well matter if Quraishi is not just a Muslim “by name” – or just a “secular Muslim” by birth heritage. Indeed, if, as an adult adherent to Islam, he devoutly recites the Shahada — “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah” – then Quraishi’s Muslimness could matter very much. That’s because it could indicate whether or not Quraishi would ever uphold aspects of Sharia – Islamic law – in his legal rulings.

As a survivor of Sharia law, I can tell you: Sharia matters — and in the most horrendous and painful of ways.

It is vital to understand that in Islam, Allah’s Law is supreme for Muslims, above all other laws and legal systems. And that poses a problem for America when Islam resides on its territory, because Sharia is completely incompatible with the U.S. Constitution and the foundations of a free society.

Quraishi’s relationship to Islam, therefore, matters a great deal — seeing that his new position entails significant power and influence in America.

So let’s dig a little bit deeper on Quraishi.

The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) surprisingly did not come out and cheer Quraishi’s appointment — as one might have expected them to do. Instead, the Muslim “civil rights” organization appeared to be quite furious about him. Zahra Billoo, head of CAIR’s San Francisco branch, issued a statement affirming that she “would much rather have a white Christian judge with progressive values… It’s not enough that he is Muslim. In fact, it’s insulting.”

It appears that the problem for Billoo and CAIR is that Quraishi is not a Muslim from an apparent “list” of “20 to 50 Muslims who have been in the fight” for “social justice.” One unnamed Muslim politician who complained to Slate magazine about Quraishi’s appointment echoed the same theme: “We don’t know what his stances are on civil rights because you can’t find one article or anything that he’s written publicly about the Muslim struggle in the last 20 years post-9/11.”

For those concerned about Quraishi’s potential ties to Sharia, this negative disposition from the “Sharia camp” toward the Muslim judge might appear to be good news. But is it?

CAIR’s concern about Quraishi’s supposed lack of support for “progressive values” appears to be a good sign in light of CAIR’s own record of opposing counterterror measures and slandering opponents of jihad and Sharia tyranny. However, CAIR’s disposition toward Quraishi tells us little, if anything, about the key issue at stake: does the judge hold Islamic values or not?

The narrative takes another peculiar twist when we examine what transpired during Quraishi’s questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee: When asked by Committee Chair, Democrat Senator Dick Durbin: “What do you know about Sharia law?” Quraishi answered that he knew “nothing about Sharia.


Quraishi knows “nothing” about Islam or Islamic Law?

Christine Douglass-Williams has commented on Quraishi’s dubious answer:

“Virtually everyone knows something about the Sharia. In his position, Quraishi is likely to know a lot, and was probably fibbing, and not in an intelligent way, either. It isn’t possible that a man of his standing, who ‘has served as a military prosecutor and Army captain in Iraq, as an assistant U.S. Attorney who has tried cases of public corruption, organized crime and financial fraud, and as a white-collar criminal defense lawyer’, would know ‘NOTHING’ about Sharia.”

True indeed.

What makes the matter even more peculiar is that when one pulls up Quraishi’s questionnaire answers for the Senate Judiciary Committee, one finds that he is mentioned as a “Muslim” many times in his “Honors and Awards” list. So Quraishi is praised, rewarded and held in acclaim by the Muslim community for his achievements in light of his Muslimness, but he personally doesn’t know anything about Islamic law at all?

Could it be that Quraishi might actually not be the incidental Muslim he postures as being? Could it be that he has been recognized and awarded by important prominent Muslim organizations because they gauged that, among other things, he actually is somewhat of an adherent Muslim after all?

Is it possible that CAIR might really not be as upset as it is claiming to be about Quraishi’s appointment? Or maybe it is upset, but not for the reasons it has given? Could it also be that certain players involved in this narrative are engaging in some form of taqiyya – the command in Islam for Muslims to deceive non-Muslims?

Would it also be out of bounds to ask: even if Quraishi is not an adherent Muslim, is it legitimate to be concerned that he one day could become one?

It is vital to stress at this point that Islam is not just a “religion” the way that Christianity and Judaism are religions. Islam is much more than a “faith.” For example, like Judaism, Islam has a legal system — but Islamic Law extends far beyond any Judaic (or even secular) legal system. Sharia embodies all the commands of Allah and all the examples of Muhammad-as divine law that must be implemented in all areas of life.

Qur’an 33:21 is just one verse of many that confirms that Muhammad is “an excellent pattern” for Muslims to follow. It would do well for people to keep in mind that the “excellent” examples that Mohammed set for his followers included the following: marrying a six-year-old girl, A’ishah, and having sex with her when she was nine (Sahih al-Bukhari 5134); encouraging rape of female captives (Qur’an 4:24); stating that women are stupid (Qur’an 2:282) and that hell is comprised of mostly women (Bukhari 29); commanding men to beat their wives (Qur’an 4:34); and being merciless to a woman who had been beaten so brutally that her bruise was green (Bukhari 5825).

Muhammad also disparaged black people (Bukhari 7038). He murdered between 600 and 900 Jews in one battle, and then distributed the captive women as sex slaves (Ibn Ishaq, pp. 464, 511-512).

With some of these matters in mind, the question surfaces: would or could an American Muslim federal judge consider such material as a basis for his rulings? According to Islamic law, a Muslim judge must do so. Sharia mandates that no true Muslim is obligated to obey the laws of a non-Muslim country. Qur’an 33:1 commands to “not obey the disbelievers and the hypocrites.” Qur’an 4:60 says that those who “refer legislation” to the non-Muslims are led “far astray.” And Qur’an 9:3 says that “Allah is disassociated from the disbelievers, and [so is] His Messenger.” According to Islamic tradition, the revelation of that last verse allowed Muhammad to break the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyah.

Let us be clear: an American judge who follows Muhammad’s example can take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, and not really mean it. In fact, Muhammad instructs such a judge exactly what to do in this situation: “if I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.” (Bukhari 5518)

The supremacy of Islamic Law over all other laws still applies today. The Islamic website International Shariah Movement is run by certified Islamic scholars. Its post “Obey the Law of the Land?” cites Qur’an 33:1.

Under Sharia, if a woman is raped, a Muslim judge must disregard any forensic or non-witness evidence, because Qur’an 24:13 requires “four male witnesses” for a rape conviction.

A beaten woman may also easily be denied divorce, because Qur’an 4:34 commands that “Men are in charge of women,” and so may “strike them.”

That is exactly what a Muslim judge in an Iranian Islamic court told me personally when I was a 15-year-old child bride, desperate for a divorce to escape the beatings. In fact, a beaten woman who leaves Islam must be hunted down and murdered, according to Islamic law, because Muhammad said, “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.” (Bukhari 6922)

With all these realities in mind, it is clear that if we cannot at least ask Judge Zahid Quraishi some questions regarding his adherence, or non-adherence, to Islamic law, or even understand that the issue of Quraishi’s Muslimness is an important one to address, then America is in deep trouble.

As an individual who suffered under Sharia, and was able to escape its monstrous clutches, I strongly encourage my fellow Americans to ask the right questions in this vital – and troubling – narrative about America’s new federal judge.

Continue Reading


Iran Elects Mass Murderer as Next President




The ‘election’ for president is over in Iran. The grand ayatollah handpicked Ebrahim Raisi who was then ‘elected’. He’s not just a hardline jihadist, but he’s a mass murderer and a big-time one. And more importantly, he’s very proud of his background.

He’s accused by the world of having personally supervised the trials and executions of somewhere between 5,000 and 40,000 Iranians in the 1980s. He has personally been sanctioned by most of the world, including the United States, who cannot even legally talk to him.

Meanwhile, Raisi calls himself a defender of human rights when asked about the mass executions. The guy is a world-class war criminal. He ran the death panel that sentenced and executed tens of thousands of political prisoners at the end of the 1980s. He is now the leader of the world’s most notorious state sponsor of terrorism.

The first thing we have to know about Ebrahim Raisi is that these charges of mass murder as far as the Iranian mullahs are concerned, are not a problem but rather they are a bonus. It’s not that they picked him in spite of his terrible record. They picked him because of his terrible record.

Domestically, the ayatollah is sending a message to the Iranian people who remain discontented in large part with the Islamic regime. The message is simply put, “ you are not going to be able to dissent. There will be no ability to protest. Anybody who expresses any kind of public disagreement, it’s very clear what kind of treatment they’re going to get with Ebrahim Raisi as the President of Iran.”

Keep in mind, Raisi was not elected. He was selected. He was selected by the supreme leader of Iran, who is the real power in the country, and he is going to execute the policies of the supreme leader. The supreme leader’s disposition toward his own people and toward the world is revealed by the person he selects to be the President of Iran.

By picking Raisi, Ayatollah Khamenei is not only showing that he’s going to crack down harshly on dissent within Iran, but he’s showing that he understands that with Biden’s handlers running the United States, that the United States is weak, is not going to stand up to him and this is his time to step up Iran’s support for terrorism worldwide, supporting Hamas, supporting Hezbollah, supporting Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The Iranian regime has also in the past supported al-Qaida and the Taliban, and other jihadi groups as well as and this is much less known. It’s clear that Iran understands that leftism is corrosive to Western civilization, and they want to destroy Western civilization. Therefore Iran will support both the leftists and the Islamists around the world who are anti-America and anti-Israel.

From now on, we can expect to see increased belligerence on the part of Iran. And Raisi’s ascension to the presidency means that Iran is going to be strutting around and sponsoring terrorism around the world and cracking down on its own people within the country.

By Barry Nussbaum, Son of Auschwitz survivors, Founder American Truth Project, Foreign and Domestic Policy Commentator

Continue Reading
Subscribe For Free - To Enter Our MacBook Give Away

Subscribe to our weekly newsletter below and never miss the latest videos. By providing your phone number, you are consenting to receive SMS/MMS msgs, including automated texts, to that number from American Truth Project. Msg&data rates may apply. Terms & Conditions/privacy policy apply TextTerms