|The Islamophobia Network|
Here is part of the synopsis of what this 2011 report had to say.
And it all starts with the money flowing from a select group of foundations. A small group of foundations and wealthy donors are the lifeblood of the Islamophobia network in America, providing critical funding to a clutch of right-wing think tanks that peddle hate and fear of Muslims and Islam—in the form of books, reports, websites, blogs, and carefully crafted talking points that anti-Islam grassroots organizations and some right-wing religious groups use as propaganda for their constituency.
Some of these foundations and wealthy donors also provide direct funding to anti-Islam grassroots groups. According to our extensive analysis, here are the top seven contributors to promoting Islamophobia in our country:Has PCG been reading and presenting as fact ideas presented by these persons identified by the Center for American Progress as being a part of this Islamophobia Network?
Altogether, these seven charitable groups provided $42.6 million to Islamophobia think tanks between 2001 and 2009—funding that supports the scholars and experts that are the subject of our next chapter as well as some of the grassroots groups that are the subject of Chapter 3 of our report.
- Donors Capital Fund
- Richard Mellon Scaife foundations
- Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
- Newton D. & Rochelle F. Becker foundations and charitable trust
- Russell Berrie Foundation
- Anchorage Charitable Fund and William Rosenwald Family Fund
- Fairbrook Foundation
Yes they have.
Here are some of the persons identified by the Center for American Progress as being a part of this Islamophobia Network who have been quoted by PCG's writers to present Muslims in a bad light.
I did not decide that these persons were part of this Islamophobia Network. That is the judgment of the Center for American Progress after their research. Among the individuals they cited are Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Steve Emerson, Representative Peter King, Pamela Geller, Frank Gaffney, Walid Shoebat and Walid Phares.
In truth, the assumption that Islamic terrorism is a product of poverty and deprivation has been proven false. Measuring wealth and economic trends nation by nation won’t tell you where Islamism will be weak or strong. Islamic terrorists are not opposed to wealth. But they are simply not interested in wealth in and of itself. “Economic assets for Islamists represent not the good life but added strength to do battle against the West,” wrote Daniel Pipes. “Money serves to train cadres and buy weapons, not to buy a bigger house or a late-model car. Wealth is a means, not an end” (National Interest, Winter 2001/2002). (David Vejil, Failed Car Bomb Plot Defies Conventional Wisdom, July 11, 2007.)
Daniel Pipes is dead-on in his assessment of Israel’s prospects for victory in its conflict with Hamas in his Jerusalem Post article today, “Israel’s Strategic Incompetence in Gaza.” While Hamas is taking hits, the outcome of this war still depends on the decisions the Israeli government makes from here, Pipes says. (The Weekend Web, January 11, 2009.)
Daniel Pipes, in a speech about radical Islamic methods at the World Summit on Counter-Terrorism at Herzliya, Israel, last month, noted that the Hamas terrorist organization—known for its refusal to negotiate with the West—took control of Gaza’s government through democratic elections. Then the group, which the West applauded for its democratization, took dictatorial control of the Strip with bullets. ... This “violence with lawful tactics” is the future of radical Islam, according to Pipes. ...
The vigilance needed to combat this warfare is woefully lacking in Britain. No number of counterterrorism conferences or speeches from enlightened thinkers like Daniel Pipes will change the decrepit mindset of Britain. (Victor Vejil and David Vejil, Radical Islam's Greatest Deception, October 7, 2008.)
Daniel Pipes, detailing these measures in his 2003 book Militant Islam Reaches America, concluded, “In adopting a determinedly apologetic stance, [federal officials] have made themselves an adjunct of the country’s Islamic organizations. By dismissing any connection between Islam and terrorism, complaining about media distortions, and claiming that America needs Islam, they have turned the U.S. government into a discreet missionary for the faith.” (Joel Hilliker, An Advocate for Islam, September 30, 2009.)
As Daniel Pipes observes, “Indeed, Allam and Wilders may represent the vanguard of a Christian/liberal reassertion of European values. It is too soon to predict, but these staunch individuals could provide a crucial boost for those intent on maintaining the Continent’s historic identity” (Jerusalem Post, op. cit.). (Ron Fraser, Europe: Reacting to the Push, April 6, 2008.)There are many other examples.
Robert Spencer is the main writer of the blog Jihad Watch. He has also been quoted by PCG's writers.
Persecution and harassment have led to over half of Iraqi Christians fleeing Iraq in the last few years, Robert Spencer reports. Just this past Sunday, five churches in Baghdad were bombed. Spencer says that Christians enjoyed relative equality under Saddam Hussein’s regime, but this has changed radically since his demise. “Groups dedicated to the imposition of Islamic law over the country began to victimize Christians on a large scale,” he says. And, “Now that Barack Obama is removing U.S. troops from Iraq, this resurgent Islamic supremacism will only gain momentum.” (The Week in Review, July 19, 2009.)
Meanwhile, some analysts are pointing out that the operation being carried out by Western forces may backfire, considering that eastern Libya, where rebel forces are based, is a hotbed of anti-Americanism and jihadist sentiment. There is considerable evidence that a Western-style democracy will not eventuate should Gadhafi be forced from office, writes Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch. (The Week in Review, March 25, 2011.)
Steve Emerson recently gained a lot of attention after he inaccurately claimed that Birmingham was now completely inhabited by Muslims and non-Muslims are not allowed to enter. He was widely ridiculed for this false claim. But he was not just any man, the Center for American Progress identified him as one of the main authors for what is called the Islamophobia Network. PCG's writers have also quoted him.
In yet another indication of Britain’s capitulation to radical Islam, England welcomed Abdul Rahman al-Sudais, the chief cleric at Mecca’s Grand Mosque, to preach August 4 at the East London Mosque. The “Saudi hate sheik,” as Steve Emerson of Newsmax describes him, has echoed Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda. (Brad MacDonald and Richard Palmer, The Weekend Web, August 9, 2009)
Representative Peter King held hearing on supposed Muslim radicalization. PCG's Joel Hilliker cited it as a source. But outside of PCG's information many people condemned the hearings as unfairly targeting only one group of people. Many found it odd that he should have held hearings of this nature considering how he was a sympathizer for the IRA. No acknowledgement of this controversy is admitted in PCG's presentation of those hearings.
Peter King, the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, last week testified that the greatest threat on American soil is not al Qaeda, but Hezbollah. King said there may be hundreds—even thousands—of Hezbollah agents in the U.S. capable of launching a terrorist attack. He also spoke of the 84 Iranian diplomats at the United Nations and in Washington who, “it must be presumed, are intelligence officers.” Add to this the fact that Hezbollah is known to be working with the powerful Mexican drug cartels, which are entrenched in cities all over America. (Joel Hilliker, The Iranian 'Push' Continues, March 28, 2012.)
As a recent article in the Trumpet explained, violent drug cartels have all but conquered Mexico and are now spilling into the U.S. To make matters worse, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Congressman Peter King, revealed last month that these cartels have cut a deal with the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah and are now smuggling hundreds of operatives into the U.S. This startling alliance is but one development that could be driving people to put their faith in firearms. (Joel Hilliker, U.S. Gun Sales Skyrocket, April 20, 2012.)
Pamela Geller gained wide spread attention after she ignited protests against the construction of the Park51 community center which was inaccurately labelled as the "Ground Zero Mosque".
Pamela Geller is quoted on page 5 of the April 9, 2011 issue of The Trumpet Weekly. It quotes an article she wrote for Human Events entitled, "Why War on Libya, When Iran Is the No. 1 Offender and Threat?"
“Evidently, the price demanded by his hosts is that the U.S. government get with the Islamist financial program,” says Frank Gaffney Jr., Washington Times columnist and president of the Center for Security Policy. (Robert Morley, Sharia Finance: Last Gasp of a Doomed American Economy, November 11, 2008.)That article cited The Washington Times. How appropriate.
When Daniel Pipes, a columnist who often writes pieces supporting Israel’s right to exist, spoke at the University of California–Irvine, dozens of students stood up and began yelling, bringing his lecture to a temporary halt. After leaving the room, the students gathered in the hall, where the staged protest’s leader condemned Pipes for hate speech and declared: “It’s just a matter of time before the State of Israel will be wiped off the face of the map.” Pipes often experiences such protests when he lectures at universities. Walid Shoebat, a former Palestinian Liberation Organization member who now supports Israel, has faced similar opposition and walkouts. (Mark Jenkins, Tyranny in Universities, June 2007.)
These are the blind alleys into which such unrealistic foreign policy can lead a nation. As Walid Phares correctly notes, “The problem is not the idea of ‘talking’ to any of the players, including the current foes; engaging in contacts is always an option and has always been practiced. The problem is the perception by the new U.S. officials (and even current ones) that we can simply and naively ‘create’ the conditions that we wish, regardless of the intentions of the other side. When reading these suggestions, one concludes that they were conceived on paper as unilateral designs lacking any strategic understanding of the enemy.” (Joel Hilliker, America's Future Foreign Policy is Already Here, November 19, 2008.)And so we see that PCG's writers have been listening to the Islamophobia Network and repeating their information to their own readers. In this way PCG's writers are connected to this Islamophobia Network, particularly with Daniel Pipes.
No wonder PCG can spew out so many inflammatory words against Muslims.
PCG, stop reading Daniel Pipes and these other people associated with the Islamophobia Network and read people who actually understand the topic. Stop just reading people you sympathize with. They are leading you astray.