Posts Tagged ‘Geert Wilders’


Lord Pearson: Free Speech| Geert Wilders

February 23, 2010

Mark Steyn: The Absurd Trial of Geert Wilders

February 19, 2010
Canada’s only national weekly current affairs magazine.

The absurd trial of Geert Wilders

Feb 18, 2010 by Mark Steyn

The absurd trial of Geert Wilders

At a certain level, the trial of Geert Wilders for the crime of “group insult” of Islam is déjà vu all over again. For as the spokesperson for the Openbaar Ministerie put it, “It is irrelevant whether Wilders’s witnesses might prove Wilders’s observations to be correct. What’s relevant is that his observations are illegal.”

Ah, yes, in the Netherlands, as in Canada, the truth is no defence. My Dutch is a little rusty but I believe the “Openbaar Ministerie” translates in English to the Ministry for Openly Barring People. Whoops, my mistake. It’s the prosecution service of the Dutch Ministry of Justice. But it shares with Canada’s “human rights” commissions an institutional contempt for the truth.

As for “Wilders’s witnesses,” he submitted a list of 18, and the Amsterdam court rejected no fewer than 15 of them. As with Commissar MacNaughton and her troika of pseudo-judges presiding over the Maclean’s trial in British Columbia, it’s easier to make the rules up as you go along.

And in Amsterdam the eventual verdict doesn’t really matter any more than it did here. As Khurrum Awan, head sock puppet for Mohamed Elmasry, crowed to the Canadian Arab News, even though the Canadian Islamic Congress struck out in three different jurisdictions in their attempt to criminalize my writing, the suits cost this magazine (he says) two million bucks, and thereby “attained our strategic objective—to increase the cost of publishing anti-Islamic material.” Likewise, whether Mijnheer Wilders is convicted or acquitted, a lot of politicians, publishers, writers and filmmakers will get the message: steer clear of the subject of Islam unless you want your life consumed.

But at that point comparisons end. Had the CIC triumphed at our trial in Vancouver, the statutory penalty under the B.C. “Human Rights” Code would have prevented Maclean’s ever publishing anything on Islam, Europe, demography, terrorism and related issues by me or anybody of a similar disposition ever again. I personally would have been rendered legally unpublishable in Canada in perpetuity. But so what? I’m an obscure writer, and my fate is peripheral to that of the Dominion itself.

Geert Wilders, by contrast, is one of the most popular politicians in the Netherlands, and his fate is central to the future of his kingdom and his continent. He is an elected member of parliament—and, although he’s invariably labelled “far right” in news reports, how far he is depends on where you’re standing: his party came second in last year’s elections for the European Parliament, and a poll of the Dutch electorate in December found it tied for first place. Furthermore, if you read the indictment against him, you’ll see that among other things Wilders is being prosecuted for is proposing an end to “non-Western immigration” to the Netherlands: the offending remarks were made in response to a direct question as to what his party would do in its first days in office. So the Dutch state is explicitly prosecuting the political platform of the most popular opposition party in the country, and attempting to schedule the trial for its own electoral advantage. That’s the sort of thing free societies used to leave to Mobutu, Ferdinand Marcos and this week’s Generalissimo-for-Life.

To put it in Canadian terms, it’s like the Crown hauling Michael Ignatieff into court. Well, except for the bit about being the most popular politician in the country and ahead in the polls and whatnot. But imagine if Iggy was less tin-eared and inept and his numbers were terrific—and then the Ministry of Justice announced it had decided to prosecute him for his policy platform. That’s what’s happening in the Netherlands.

It gets better. The judge in his wisdom has decided to deny the defendant the level of courtroom security they afforded to Mohammed Bouyeri, the murderer of Theo van Gogh. Wilders lives under armed guard because of explicit death threats against him by Mr. Bouyeri and other Muslims. But he’s the one put on trial for incitement. His movie about Islam, Fitna, is deemed to be “inflammatory,” whereas a new film by Willem Stegeman, De moord op Geert Wilders (The Assassination of Geert Wilders), is so non-inflammatory and entirely acceptable that it’s been produced and promoted by a government-funded radio station. You’d almost get the impression that, as the website Gates of Vienna suggested, the Dutch state is channelling Henry II: “Who will rid me of this turbulent blond?”

There’s no shortage of volunteers. In the Low Countries, whenever anyone seeks to discuss Islam outside the very narrow bounds of multicultural political discourse, they wind up either banned (Belgium’s Vlaams Blok), forced into exile (Ayaan Hirsi Ali) or killed (Pim Fortuyn).

It’s remarkable how speedily “the most tolerant country in Europe,” in a peculiarly repellent strain of coercive appeasement, has adopted “shoot the messenger” as an all-purpose cure-all for “Islamophobia.” To some of us, the Netherlands means tulips, clogs, windmills, fingers in the dike. To others, it means marijuana cafés, long-haired soldiers, legalized hookers, fingers in the dike. But the contemporary reality is an increasingly incoherent polity where gays are bashed, uncovered women get jeered at, and you can’t do The Diary of Anne Frank as your school play lest the Gestapo walk-ons are greeted by audience cries of “She’s in the attic!” Speaking as a bona fide far-right nutcase, I rather resent the label’s export to Holland: Pim Fortuyn wasn’t “right-wing,” he was a gay hedonist; Theo van Gogh was an anti-monarchist coke-snorting nihilist; Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a secular liberal feminist; Geert Wilders says he’s opposed to Islam because of its hostility to gay equality, whereas the usual rap against us far-right extremists is that we want the godless sodomites to roast in hell.

It’s not “ironic” that the most liberal country in western Europe should be the most advanced in its descent into a profoundly illiberal hell. It was entirely foreseeable. Geert Wilders is stating the obvious: a society that becomes more Muslim will have fewer gays. Last year, the Rainbow Palace, formerly Amsterdam’s most popular homo-hotel (relax, that’s the Dutch word for it), announced it was renaming itself the Sharm and reorienting itself to Islamic tourism. Or as the website put it: “Gay Hotel Turns Muslim.” As a headline in the impeccably non-far-right Spiegel wondered: “How much Allah can the Old Continent bear?” It’s an interesting question, albeit if an increasingly verboten one. The Wilders show trial is important because it will determine whether the subject can be discussed openly by mainstream politicians and public figures, or whether it will be forced underground and manifest itself in more violent ways.

Yet, despite its significance, the trial has received relatively little coverage in the Western media, in part because, for those of a multiculti bent, there’s no easy way to blur the reality—that this is a political prosecution by a thought police so stupid they don’t realize they’re delegitimizing the very institutions of the state. Still, the BBC gave it their best shot, concluding their report thus: “Correspondents say his Freedom Party (PVV), which has nine MPs in the lower house of parliament, has built its popularity largely by tapping into the fear and resentment of Muslim immigrants.”

Gotcha. This democracy business is all very well, but let’s face it, the people are saps, gullible boobs, racist morons, knuckle-dragging f–kwits. One-man-one-vote is fine in theory, but next thing you know some slicker’s “tapping into” the morons’ “fears and resentments” and cleaning up at the polls.

Strange how it always comes back to a contempt for the people. Whenever the electorate departs from the elite’s pieties, whether in the Netherlands or in Massachusetts last month, it’s because some wily demagogue like, er, Scott Brown has been playing on the impressionable hicks’ “fears and resentments.” To the statist bullies at Canada’s “Human Rights” Commissions, their powers to regulate speech are necessary to prevent hate-mongers like me tapping into the fears and resentments of the Dominion’s millions of birdbrained boobs. Yes, that would be you, Mr. and Mrs. Joe Schmoe of 22 Dufferin Gardens. Sure, you’ve voted for the Liberals every year since Expo, but c’mon, in your heart you know even you might be…susceptible…impressionable.

In the old days—divine right of kings, rule by patrician nobility—it was easier. But today’s establishment is obliged to pay at least lip service to popular sovereignty. So it has to behave more artfully. You’ll still have your vote; it’s just that the guy you wanted to give it to is on trial, and his platform’s been criminalized.

To return to where we came in, what does it mean when the Ministry of Justice proudly declares that the truth is no defence? When the law stands in explicit opposition to the truth, freeborn peoples should stand in opposition to the law. Because, as the British commentator Pat Condell says, “When the truth is no defence, there is no defence”—and what we are witnessing is a heresy trial. The good news is that the Openbaar Ministerie is doing such a grand job with its pilot program of apostasy prosecutions you’ll barely notice when sharia is formally adopted.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , printed on Feb 19, 2010


Mosque University | Geert Wilders

February 3, 2010

Mosque University
Mike Adams
Monday, February 01, 2010

Dutch politician Geert Wilders is being tried in Amsterdam over some controversial remarks he made about terrorism and Islam. I’m glad I live in the United States of America, where such a trial would be prohibited by the First Amendment. I’m also glad I don’t teach at Temple University in Philadelphia, where students now have to pay an unconstitutional after-the-fact security fee levied by the university. This fee was for hosting none other than Geert Wilders.

The notion that it is permissible to charge a student group extra fees for security simply because a speaker’s views are controversial (read: not approved of by university administrators) might be acceptable at the University of Havana or the University of Beijing. But it should never happen in America.

Geert Wilders came to Temple University on October 20, 2009. Wilders was invited in the wake of a controversy surrounding his film “Fitna” which was released in 2008. The film was controversial because it features passages of the Koran interspersed with scenes of violence on the part of Muslims. The movie was shown during the presentation at Temple. Extra security was provided and there was no disturbance.

On December 3, Temple University Purpose (TUP) – the group that hosted Wilders -was surprised with a bill from Temple for $800 for a “Security Officer.” This came with the explanation that the charge was for the costs “to secure the room and building.”

TUP Interim President Brittany Walsh pointed out that Temple had said – prior to the event – the university would pay any extra security costs. But, after repeated emails, she has received no substantive reply. This is odd because, as one can see from their mission statement, TUP is not a conservative group – the type most likely to be singled out for such treatment:

“The mission of Temple University Purpose is to advocate for justice and equality of oppressed and underrepresented populations. The Temple University Purpose welcomes the whole of the student body of Temple University’s Main campus schools. Demonstrated through advocacy, on behalf of vulnerable populations, towards the eradication of oppression, and guided by the NASW Code of Ethics, the Temple University Purpose honors diversity and is dedicated to social change, social justice, and social unity. The Temple University Purpose provides an open forum in which conventional and unconventional views are exchanged and challenged to enhance understanding of and appreciation for others’ strife, values, devotions, and passions. The voice of every member is most valued, shall always be heard, and genuinely considered, as it is the foundation of the Temple University Purpose. Through active participation in the community, it is possible to contribute to the development of not only one as an empathic human being but, also, to the growth of our immediate and surrounding society. The Temple University Purpose firmly believes in embracing and challenging scholarly discussion of most-critical issues and debates on present developments concerning the open field of social work and society in all parts of our country and world.”

Obviously, this group is being punished financially because it hosted a speaker likely to offend a particularly volatile segment of the population. As a consequence, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has written to the president of Temple. In that letter, FIRE cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement (1992), which says, “Speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob.”

Temple is a public university and is bound by the Supreme Court’s decisions. If they are smart, they will go the way of four other public universities—the University of Colorado at Boulder; University of Massachusetts Amherst; University of California, Berkeley; and University of Arizona—and abandon such security fees before they get sued.

Two years ago, Temple’s speech code was struck down by the Third Circuit. That lawsuit was handled by my friends at the Alliance Defense Fund. If the university does not begin to respect the First Amendment, additional humiliation and litigation are certain to follow.

My message to Temple University President Ann Weaver Hart is simple: You have been warned. Reverse your course of action or face the consequences. If you do not think I am serious, just ask former Georgia Tech President Wayne Clough.


Video: Muslims Threat to Geert Wilders

February 3, 2010

Video: Refresh: Geert Wilders’ Warning to America

February 3, 2010

Geert Wilders Dutch Trial Update (21 Jan. 10)

January 21, 2010


UPDATE: Here is a translation of Wilders’ compelling remarks. Contribute to Wilders’ legal fund. He fights for all of us.

Geert Wilders’ personal speech at pre-trial hearing

Mister Speaker, judges of the court,

I would like to make use of my right to speak for a few minutes.

Freedom is the most precious of all our attainments and the most vulnerable. People have devoted their lives to it and given their lives for it. Our freedom in this country is the outcome of centuries. It is the consequence of a history that knows no equal and has brought us to where we are now.

I believe with all my heart and soul that the freedom in the Netherlands is threatened. That what our heritage is, what generations could only dream about, that this freedom is no longer a given, no longer self-evident.

I devote my life to the defence of our freedom. I know what the risks are and I pay a price for it every day. I do not complain about it; it is my own decision. I see that as my duty and it is why I am standing here.
I know that the words I use are sometimes harsh, but they are never rash. It is not my intention to spare the ideology of conquest and destruction, but I am not any more out to offend people. I have nothing against Muslims. I have a problem with Islam and the Islamization of our country because Islam is at odds with freedom.

Future generations will wonder to themselves how we in 2010, in this place, in this room, earned our most precious attainment. Whether there is freedom in this debate for both parties and thus also for the critics of Islam, or that only one side of the discussion may be heard in the Netherlands? Whether freedom of speech in the Netherlands applies to everyone or only to a few? The answer to this is at once the answer to the question whether freedom still has a home in this country.

Freedom was never the property of a small group, but was always the heritage of us all. We are all blessed by it.

Lady Justice wears a blindfold, but she has splendid hearing. I hope that she hears the following sentences, loud and clear:

It is not only a right, but also the duty of free people to speak against every ideology that threatens freedom. Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States was right: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

I hope that the freedom of speech shall triumph in this trial.

In conclusion, Mister Speaker, judges of the court.

This trial is obviously about the freedom of speech. But this trial is also about the process of establishing the truth. Are the statements that I have made and the comparisons that I have taken, as cited in the summons, true? If something is true then can it still be punishable? This is why I urge you to not only submit to my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of freedom of speech. But I ask you explicitly to honour my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of Islam. I refer not only to Mister Jansen and Mister Admiraal, but also to the witness/experts from Israel, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Without these witnesses, I cannot defend myself properly and, in my opinion, this would not be an fair trial.

Here’s what happened today in the kangaroo court…………report from Evelyn Markus from Holland:



Geert Wilders wants to bring in 17 witnesses, from Holland, UK, Israel, and US, among them Wafa Sultan, Robert Spencer, Andrew Bostom, Afshin Ellian, Arabist Hans Jansen, Sheikh Al-Qaradawi (who put a fatwa on Wafa), Mohammed Bouyeri (who killed Theo van Gogh) and imam Fawaz from Holland, who put a fatwa on Ayaan. The public prosecutors asked the judges to downsize the list and to skip Andrew Bostom, Mohammed Bouyeri and some others.The public prosecutors only want to bring in Geert Wilders as their witness, to which Wilder’s lawyer objected. Geert wants to make a statement in court, but doesn’t want to be interviewed by the public prosecutors. He has the right to keep silent when they interview him.

The session has just ended. At the end of the session the judges gave Geert the opportunity for closing remarks. Geert spoke from the bottom of his heart and passionately askedthe court to defend freedom in the Netherlands . He also stated: if expressions reflect the truth, how could they be criminal? So I ask this court to allow me to bring all my witnesses, so I will have the chance to prove I speak the truth in my expressions [about Islam].

The judges will get back with their decision on the number of witnesses, the timetable and the exact location of the trial in a public session on February 3.


Geert Wilders Trial Update

January 20, 2010


Dutch far-right MP on trial over anti-Islam remarks

Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:24pm IST

By Aaron Gray-Block

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) – Right-wing Dutch MP Geert Wilders said on Wednesday that freedom of speech in his country was threatened, as he went on trial in Amsterdam charged with inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims.

The Freedom Party leader, who has faced death threats over his political views, made the film “Fitna” in 2008 which accused the Koran of inciting violence and mixed images of terrorist attacks with quotations from the Islamic holy book.

He was also charged because of his outspoken remarks in the media, such as an opinion piece in a Dutch daily in which he compared Islam to fascism and the Koran to Adolf Hitler’s book “Mein Kampf”.

“I believe in my heart and soul that freedom in the Netherlands is being threatened,” Wilders told the court. “It is not only our right, but our obligation as free people to speak out against every ideology that restricts freedom.”

In a five-minute speech to the court in which he also quoted Thomas Jefferson, author of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, Wilders predicted future generations would ask how “we in 2010, in this place, in this room” defended freedom.

The prosecutor, reacting to the many complaints about Wilders, originally said he was protected by the right to free speech, but a court overruled him and ordered that Wilders be charged. The MP faces a maximum of one year and three months imprisonment if convicted on both counts.

Both prosecution and defence said the case lies at the heart of the constitutional state, exploring the line between the right to freedom of speech and the ban on discrimination in the traditionally tolerant Netherlands.

Defence lawyer Bram Moszkowicz challenged the court’s jurisdiction and the prosecution’s case, saying that the Supreme Court should handle the case because Wilders was a politician.

“Wilders has made all his comments in his capacity as a member of parliament,” Moszkowicz said, adding that Wilders had the right to comment on developments in society.

Prosecutor Birgit van Roessel said Wilders’ remarks must be tested against the “existing legal framework.”


A fierce opponent of Islam in European culture, Wilders — with his trademark blonde hair — is popular among Dutch voters worried about immigration and its impact on Dutch society.

The Freedom Party became the second-largest Dutch party in the European Parliament last year, and recent polls indicated it could become the biggest party in the Dutch parliament in national elections due in May 2011.

“I remain combative and still convinced that this political process will only lead to an acquittal,” Wilders has said.

Outside the court, a crowd of protesters gathered behind police barriers to voice support for Wilders, carrying banners saying “Freedom Yes” and “Wilders trial, a political trial”.

An anti-racism group placed 100 comments by Wilders online at to back its allegation that he is responsible for xenophobia and discrimination and that his remarks are not only criticism of a religion.

Official figures show Muslims made up about 5 percent of the Dutch population in 2007-08.

The court must now rule on the challenge to its jurisdiction and adjourned the case to Feb. 3 when it will decide how to proceed.

Besides expert witnesses, Moszkowicz plans to call Mohammed Bouyeri, the convicted killer of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh. Wilders has said Bouyeri is “living proof” that Islam inspires violence, but the prosecution is opposed to Bouyeri giving evidence.

(Additional reporting by Svebor Kranjc and Ben Berkowitz; editing by Tim Pearce)

© Thomson Reuters 2010. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters and its logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Thomson Reuters group of companies around the world.

Thomson Reuters journalists are subject to an Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.

// // 0)
Rapt_Track(“,as=” + raptAs);
// ]]> // //


// printer > article”);
// ]]>


Geert Wilders Dutch Trial

January 20, 2010

Why I Stand with Geert Wilders | January 19, 2010
He represents all Westerners who cherish their civilization.

By Daniel Pipes

Who is the most important European alive today? I nominate the Dutch politician Geert Wilders. I do so because he is best placed to deal with the Islamic challenge facing the continent. He has the potential to emerge as a world-historical figure.

That Islamic challenge consists of two components: on the one hand, an indigenous population’s withering Christian faith, inadequate birthrate, and cultural diffidence, and on the other an influx of devout, prolific, and culturally assertive Muslim immigrants. This fast-moving situation raises profound questions about Europe: Will it retain its historic civilization or become a majority-Muslim continent living under Islamic law (the Shari’a)?

Wilders, 46, founder and head of the Party for Freedom (PVV), is the unrivaled leader of those Europeans who wish to retain their historic identity. That’s because he and the PVV differ from most of Europe’s other nationalist, anti-immigrant parties.

The PVV is libertarian and mainstream conservative, without roots in neo-Fascism, nativism, conspiricism, antisemitism,
or other forms of extremism. (Wilders publicly emulates Ronald Reagan.) Indicative of this moderation is Wilders’s long-standing affection for Israel that includes two years’ residence in the Jewish state, dozens of visits, and his advocating the transfer of the Dutch embassy to Jerusalem.

In addition, Wilders is a charismatic, savvy, principled, and outspoken leader who has rapidly become the most dynamic political force in the Netherlands. While he opines on the full range of topics, Islam and Muslims constitute his signature issue. Overcoming the tendency of Dutch politicians to play it safe, he calls Muhammad a devil and demands that Muslims “tear out half of the Koran if they wish to stay in the Netherlands.” More broadly, he sees Islam itself as the problem, not just a virulent version of it called Islamism.

Finally, the PVV benefits from the fact that, uniquely in Europe, the Dutch are receptive to a non-nativist rejection of Shari’a. This first became apparent a decade ago, when Pim Fortuyn, a left-leaning former-Communist homosexual professor began arguing that his values and lifestyle were irrevocably threatened by the Shari’a. Fortuyn anticipated Wilders in founding his own political party and calling for a halt to Muslim immigration to the Netherlands. Following Fortuyn’s 2002 assassination by a leftist, Wilders effectively inherited his mantle and his constituency.

The PVV has done well electorally, winning 6 percent of the seats in the November 2006 national parliamentary elections and 16 percent of Dutch seats in the June 2009 European Union elections. Polls now generally show the PVV winning a plurality of votes and becoming the country’s largest party. Were Wilders to become prime minister, he could take on a leadership role for all Europe.

But he faces daunting challenges.

The Netherlands’ fractured political scene means the PVV must either find willing partners to form a governing coalition (a difficult task, given how leftists and Muslims have demonized Wilders as a “right-wing extremist”) or win a majority of the seats in parliament (a distant prospect).

Wilders must also overcome his opponents’ dirty tactics. Most notably, they have finally, after two and a half years of preliminary skirmishes, succeeded in dragging him to court on charges of hate speech and incitement to hatred. The public prosecutor’s case against Wilders opens in Amsterdam on January 20; if convicted, Wilders faces a fine of up to $14,000 or as many as 16 months in jail.

Remember, he is his country’s leading politician. Plus, due to threats against his life, he always travels with bodyguards and incessantly changes safe houses. Who exactly, one wonders, is the victim of incitement?

Although I disagree with Wilders about Islam (I respect the religion but fight Islamists with all I have), we stand shoulder-to-shoulder against the lawsuit. I reject the criminalization of political differences, particularly attempts to thwart a grassroots political movement via the courts. Accordingly, the Middle East Forum’s Legal Project has worked on Wilders’s behalf, raising substantial funds for his defense and helping in other ways. We do so convinced of the paramount importance of talking freely in public during time of war about the nature of the enemy.

Ironically, were Wilders fined or jailed, it would probably improve his chances to become prime minister. But principle outweighs political tactics here. He represents all Westerners who cherish their civilization. The outcome of his trial and his freedom to speak have implications for us all.

— Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. © 2010 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved. (


This is my contribution to the International Free Press Society symposium on Geert Wilders. Read the full symposium here:

Give me liberty or …

Paris January 18 2010

Nidra Poller

“…the statements of Wilders are un-Dutch, they don’t belong to our Christian-Judaic culture…. He discriminates Moroccans because of their race and causes hate against them…. His desire to ban the Koran brings fear and terror into peoples homes… The laws against hate crimes were made in 1934, to protect the Jews in a reaction to what was happening in Germany. That is telling. Prudently, parallels can be made –these laws had a clear cut political context.” Fokko Oldenhuis, Groningen University professor of Religion and Law (Elsevier December 17, 2009)

Dutch prosecutors are going after Geert Wilders with an axe, madly determined to hack him up–mind, heart and body politic—and bury the parts under the ashes of six million exterminated European Jews. Look how far we have come since a confused UK hid Salman Rushdie under its skirts, acting on remnants of principles and hardly aware of what was at stake. Today, the courts of a European nation proudly assume the role of hatchet man for conquering Islam.

There is no justification for the persecution of Geert Wilders. He is a legitimate political figure who speaks for a growing sector of the Dutch population and represents a hope for citizens of other European countries struggling to defend civilized values on the battlefields of a frankly declared war–the jihad– which their leaders and opinion-makers are determined to hide from view. European citizens are asking their governments to set limits on Islamic encroachment–the minaret construction freeze voted in a Swiss referendum—and the will of the people sometimes reaches the ears of their elected representatives– forthcoming law against full facial veiling in France, cancellation of permit for a mega-mosque at London’s 2012 Olympic site.

Geert Wilders has played an essential role in this transmission. Precisely because the “far right extremist populist” label written up for him by jihad sources and repeated by mindless journalists does not apply. When men and women of integrity stand up to confront the Islamic assault on our civilized values, they attract broad public support. The danger in Europe today does not come from the last dredges of retrograde extreme right forces, it comes from the jihad friendly Left. Communists, socialists, and ecologists in France shamelessly court the Muslim vote and accuse the Sarkozy government of pétainisme for daring to deport illegal immigrants.

Is this the lesson Europe has drawn from the Shoah? What could be more obscene than enrolling 6 million exterminated Jews in a battle to deprive one honest upstanding legitimate popular Dutch MP of the freedom to oppose the spread of an ideology that blatantly plans the extermination of the remaining Jewish population of the world? And actively promotes the plan here and now in Europe?

If every last Muslim immigrant were deported from every European country… if Muslims to the second and third generation were stripped of their citizenship and deported… many decent people would be unfairly deprived of their acquired rights, but… the wave of violent Jew hatred that is plaguing Europe would come to a sudden halt.

Many analysts who recognize these truths regret “extreme” positions taken by Geert Wilders. They believe he would better serve the cause, and avoid prosecution, if he would tone down his rhetoric. I disagree. Pulling punches, rounding out the angles, applauding the “majority of Muslims who are moderates” though they never appear in public, making false distinctions between Islam and Islamism is getting us nowhere. The fact that the prosecution has stooped to barring the press from a landmark trial that will determine the limits of free expression is an indication of their fear of the eloquence and clarity of Geert Wilders.

We do not want to be faced in this day and age with the choice of liberty or death. But moderation is not the answer. Give me liberty or send me to bed without supper is not a rallying cry for the defenders of freedom.

Nidra Poller .AOLWebSuite .AOLPicturesFullSizeLink { height: 1px; width: 1px; overflow: hidden; } .AOLWebSuite a {color:blue; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer} .AOLWebSuite a.hsSig {cursor: default}



Geert Wilders’ at Columbia University TEXT

November 9, 2009

It was a triumph for free speech tonight at Columbia University. Despite resistance from Columbia University administration and Columbia security efforts to limit access to the event, Wilders packed the house and was allowed to speak freely.

I watched Wilders this evening and reflected upon the whole journey that got this man to this moment. I was so grateful to this man for taking on this global encroaching monster against all odds. I have uploaded his remarks. Watch the videos. There was a little hissing and a random heckle, but they let him speak — and in the age of jihad that is huge.

And it was good.


Geert wilders 003
Waiting to get in ……….who’s the guy with the sign?

Geert wilders 001

The Islamist Rabbi (who threatened litigation jihad, remember?). He was at the Islamist day parade last Sunday. What a tool.

Geert wilders 011

Fleur Agema, an MP as well and vice-floor leader (she is  the number two in the party)

Geert wilders 008

The wonderful Jerry Gordon, who was instrumental in putting this together. His coverage here.
Geert wilders 009

David Horowitz of the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Simon Deng, ex-Sudanese slave and director of the Sudanese Freedom Walk.

Geert wilders 012

Pamela and Simon Deng

Geert wilders 015

The crowd

Geert wilders 013

Muslim propaganda ……check out the source, loon watch, the new smear site. Someone big is financing Loon Watch ……….. it is very Soros. There is a a lot of time, money and resources behind it.
Geert wilders 020

Geert Wilders about to take the stage

Geert wilders 023

Wilders answering questions — all contrarians, all looking to score points (one clown called Wilders a clown), all rationally and logically debunked by the man.
Geert wilders 025



Q+A Session


Text of the Speech Geert Wilders MP / Columbia University

Speech Geert Wilders MP / Columbia University New York, October 21, 2009

Ladies and gentlemen, it is a privilege and a great honour for me to speak at this fine academic institution, which gave the world so many Nobel Prize winners. As a Dutchman, I am proud that your first Nobel laureate, in 1906, was of Dutch descent: The youngest President of the United States: Theodore Roosevelt.

I thank Columbia University for inviting me, and I also thank the US border police for allowing me to enter this great country of democracy, liberty and free speech. Ladies and gentlemen, today, the dearest of our many liberties is under attack all throughout Europe. Free speech is no longer a given. What we once considered a natural element of our existence, our birth right, is now something we once again have to fight for.

I would not qualify myself as a free man. 5 years ago I lost my personal freedom. Since then I am under 24-hour police protection. In addition some people tried to rob my freedom of speech: A Dutch Islamic organization tried to stop the appearance of my documentary ‘Fitna’. Because of ‘Fitna’ the most radical Dutch imam claimed 55.000 Euros in compensation for his hurt feelings. The State of Jordan is possibly going to issue a request for my extradition, to stand trial in Amman. I have been charged in France.

In my own country, the Netherlands, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal overruled the decision of the Dutch public prosecutor not to prosecute me. So, now I have to stand trial in my own country, next January.

But, it is not about me. I am not the only European who fights for freedom of speech, there are so many more: The Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard made a Muhammad-cartoon and all of a sudden we were in the middle of the so called ‘Danish cartoon crisis’. The Italian author Oriana Fallaci had to live in fear of extradition to Switzerland because of her book ‘The Rage and the Pride’. An Austrian politician, Susanne Winter, was sentenced to a suspended prison sentence because she spoke bluntly about the prophet Muhammad. The Dutch cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot was arrested by 10 police men because of his drawings. And the Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered in the streets of Amsterdam by a radical Muslim.

Last February, I was invited by 2 brave members of the British House of Lords – Lord Malcom Pearson and Baroness Caroline Cox – to show ‘Fitna’ in the British Parliament. But upon my arrival at Heathrow airport I was denied entry into the UK, on grounds that I would threaten community harmony and therefore public security.

Of course that was a ridiculous and politically motivated claim by the UK government. I was allowed to show ‘Fitna’ and deliver a speech in the US Senate, in New York, in Florida, in California, in Copenhagen, in Rome, in Jerusalem and next month in the Senate of the Czech Republic. But the British government refused my entrance into the UK, a fellow EU-country. Well, I think it was a splendid American idea, back in the 18th century, to kickthe British out.

Last week, my appeal against the refusal by the British government, took place in London; and I won. Freedom finally prevailed! A UK Court ruled that the decision of the British Home Secretary to ban me was unjust, illegal and a violation of freedom of speech. Fortunately the British judges are a lot wiser than the British government. So, last Friday I went to London and met with my friends Lord Pearson and Baroness Cox and we agreed to show ‘Fitna’ in the House of Lords, next March.

But let me tell you what also happened during our press conference. A Muslim mob demonstrated outside, shouting: “Shariah for the Netherlands”, “Enemy of Islam Geert Wilders deserves capital punishment”, “Freedom go to hell” and “Islam will dominate the world”. Welcome to Europe today!

You can see all this for yourself on YouTube. This is exactly what we are fighting against. And it gets even worse. A few days ago British newspaper The Daily Telegraph reported that an Islamic group indeed launched a campaign to impose shariah law in Britain, they will meet later this month in London for a procession to demand the full implementation of shariah law.

Before I want to speak about Islam, I first would like to say this: I have nothing against Muslims. There are many moderate Muslims. The majority of Muslims in our Western countries are law abiding people, who want to live a peaceful life. I know that. Therefore, I make a clear distinction between the people and the ideology, between Muslims and Islam.

What is happening in Europe should not come as a surprise. The reality is that where Islam roots, free speech dies. There is not a single Islamic country in het world where people are really totally free to say what they think. Ever since the so called prophet Muhammad ordered his men to kill the poet Asma bint Marwan, the brave woman who warned her people against this murderous cult, radical Muslims think they have a license to kill anyone, who dares to criticize Muhammad’s word or actions.Free speech is Islam’s enemy. Islam is a threat to the Europe of Socrates, Voltaire and Galileo.

As I said, there are many moderate Muslims. But there is no such thing as a moderate Islam. Islam’s heart lies in the Koran. The Koran is an evil book that calls for violence and murder – Sura 4, Verse 89 and Sura 47, Verse 4 -, terrorism – Sura 8, Verse 60 – and war – Sura 8, Verse 39. The Koran describes Jews as monkeys and pigs – Sura 2, Verse 65 / Sura 5, Verse 60 and Sura 7, Verse 166. It calls non-Muslims liars, miscreants, enemies, ignorant, unclean, wicked, evil, the worst of creatures and the vilest of animals.

The problem is that the provisions in the Koran are not restricted to time or place. Rather, they apply to all Muslims, from all times. Apart from the Koran, there is also the life of Muhammad, who fought in dozens of wars, who spread Islam with the sword, sold imprisoned women and children as slaves, who was in the habit of decapitating Jews and who married and consummated the young girl Aisha before she was ten years of age. The problem is that, to many `Muslims, Muhammad is ‘the perfect man’, whose life is the model to follow. But the facts show that the so called Prophet was not a perfect man but a murderer and a pedophile. And inspired by him jihadists with the promise of a carnal paradise slaughtered innocent people in Washington, New York, Madrid, London, Amsterdam, Bali and Mumbai.

Ladies and gentlemen, some time ago an interview was held in France with the French Muslim student Mohamed Sabaoui, who said the following, and I quote: “Your laws do not coincide with the Koran, Muslims can only be ruled by shariah law”, and “we will declare the town of Roubaix an independent Muslim enclave and impose shariah law upon all its citizens, and “we will be your Trojan Horse, we will rule, Allah Akbar”. End of quote.

Make no mistake: Islam has always attempted to conquer Europe. Spain fell in the 8th century. Constantinople fell in the 15th century. Vienna and Poland were threatened, and now, in the 21st century, Islam is trying again. This time not with military armies, but through migration and demography.

For the first time in world history there are dozens of millions of Muslims living outside the Dar al-Islam, the Islamic world. Europe now has more than 50 million Muslims. It is expected that one fifth of the population of the European Union will be Muslim within 40 years.

In 1974 no one took the Algerian President Boumédienne all too serious when he said to the UN general assembly: “One day millions of men will leave the southern hemisphere of this planet to burst into the northern one. But not as friends. Because they will burst in to conquer, and they will conquer by populating it with theirchildren. Victory will come to us from the wombs of our women”. End of quote.

And Libyan dictator Gaddafi said: “There are tens of millions of Muslims in the European continent and the number is on the increase. This is the clear indication that the European continent will be converted to Islam. Europe will one day be a Muslim continent”. End of quote.

Indeed Gaddafi is telling the truth here, through the Islamic concept of migration – called Al Hijra – Europe is in the process of becoming Eurabia. In Europe churches are emptying out, whereas mosques are shooting up like mushrooms. Muhammad is the most popular name among boys in many European cities. Medieval phenomena as burkas, honor killings and female genital mutilation are becoming more and more prevalent. In the UK, by now 85 shariah law courts are active, the same country where Islamic organizations asked to stop the commemoration of the Holocaust, and a minister is pleading to change the Red Cross logo, because it might offend Muslims. In Austria, history teachers avoid teaching on the Austrian wars against the Islamic invaders. In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire. In Norway, children are made to sing Islamic songs as “Allah Akbar” and “Little Muslim, do you pray?” In Belgium, a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims, because he was drinking during the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. The rise of Islam also means the rise of shariah law in our judicial systems. In Europe we have it all: Shariah testaments, shariah mortgages, shariah schools, shariah banks, as I said in the UK there are even 85 shariah courts. Islam regards shariah law to be above all man-made laws, including our constitutions. As you know, shariah law covers all areas of life, from religion, hygiene and dietary laws, to dress codes, family and social life and from finance and politics to the unity of Islam with the state. Shariah law does not recognize free speech and freedom of religion.

According to shariah law, killing apostates is a ‘virtue’, but the consumption of alcohol is a crime. The introduction of shariah law elements in our societies creates a system of legal apartheid. Shariah law systematically discriminates groups of people. I never understood why the leftish and liberal politicians are ignoring all this. Historically they were the ones fighting for the rights of women, gays, non-believers and others. All groups that would be the first to pay a high price if and when Islamic values would become dominant. Their silence is frightening. Now, I am fighting their fight. I fight to protect those groups. I fight against the Islamization of our societies and therefore for the protection of the rights of women, homosexuals, Christians, Jews, apostates, non-believers and kafirs: the non-Muslims. I want to protect these victims for shariah law. And we all should. If we ignore the problem it will not go away, if we don’t act now, shariah will be implemented more en more, slowly but gradually and that would mean the end of freedom of speech and democracy in Europe. This is what is at stake, nothing less than our freedom and democracy.

And please make no mistake: Islam is also coming for America. Last July, during a conference in Chicago, organised by Hizb-Ut-Tahrir, the international movement aiming to create an Islamic state under shariah law across the world, the American imam Jaleel Abdul Adil promised to fight “until Islam becomes victorious or we die in the attempt”. When asked: “Would you get rid of the United States Constitution for shariah?” he answered: “Yes, The Constitution would be gone”.

America is facing a ‘stealth Jihad’, the Islamic’ attempt to introduce Shariah law bit by bit. Allow me to give you a few examples of Islamization in the United States: Muslim taxi drivers at Minneapolis airport refused over 5,000 passengers because they were carrying alcohol; Muslim students are demanding separate campus housing; Muslim women are demanding separate hours in gyms and swimming pools; schools are banning Halloween and Christmas celebrations – indeed, schools are taking pork off their cafeteria menus to avoid offending Muslim students. Ladies and gentlemen, be aware that this is only the beginning. If things continue like this, you will have the same problems as we are currently faced with in Europe.

It is my opinion that Islam is more an ideology than a religion. To be precise, Islam is a political, totalitarian ideology, with worldwide aspirations, just like communism and fascism, because like those ideologies Islam does not intend to assimilate in our societies but wants to dominate and submit us all. In Islam there is no room for anything but Islam. I think the great Winston Churchill was fully right when he, in his book The Second World War, called Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf the new Koran of faith and war.

But, ladies and gentlemen, Islam is not the only problem. There is a second problem, a problem that is called cultural relativism. Our entire Western elite, whether they are politicians, journalists or judges, has lost its way. Their sense of reality has vanished. Those cultural relativists believe that all cultures are equal. They think that the Islamic culture is equal to our culture which is based on Christianity, Judaism and Humanism. Our culture adheres to freedom, human rights and the equality between men and women and not to violence and hatred.

To the cultural relativists, I proudly say: Our Western culture is far better than the Islamic culture. And we should be proud of that and defend it. Unlike most countries where the Islamic culture is dominant, we have a rule of law, a democracy, a functioning parliament, freedom of speech and a constitution that protects us against the government.

It is clear that not everyone sees the danger. I quote a prominent American, who recently won a Nobel Prize: “Throughout history, Islam had demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance”, and “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism, it is an important part of promoting peace”, and “We celebrate a great religion, and its commitment to justice and progress”. End of quote. I strongly have to disagree with this assessment. Islam has nothing in common with tolerance or peace or justice!

President Obama also celebrated the fact that when the first Muslim-American was elected to Congress, he took the oath using the same Koran that one of the Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library. It is interesting to know that Thomas Jefferson in 1801 was about to wage war against the Islamic ‘Barbary’ states of Northern Africa to stop the pillaging of ships and enslavement of more than a million Christians.

The ambassador of these Muslim nations told Thomas Jefferson and John Adams that Muslims find the justification for their slaughter and enslavement of kafir in the Koran. Now I ask you, dear friends, could it be that Thomas Jefferson did not keep a copy of the Koran because he admired Islam but because he wanted to understand the ruthless nature of his enemies?

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe in democracy, I believe in the American people and the choices it makes, and normally, as a politician from Holland, I would never judge your President. But these remarks of President Obama, do not only affect America, but Europe too. I am afraid that President Obama’s remarks could be a turning point in history. I fear that serious geo political changes are looming, changes that will alter our foreign policies, our view on free speech, changes that will alter the West, our way of life, and for the worse and not for the better.

In a matter of fact, it is already happening right now. Recently the United States joined Egypt in sponsoring an anti-free speech resolution in the UN Human Rights Council. You know that council that itself is an insult to human rights since the worst human rights offenders of the world like Cuba, Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan are members. The Obama-administration and Europe supported a resolution to recognize exceptions to free speech to any negative religious stereotyping. This appeasement of the non-free Arab world is the beginning of the end. An erosion of free speech and your own First Amendment. This UN resolution is an absolute disgrace.

As Professor Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University yesterday so rightfully stated in the newspaper USA Today, and I quote: “Criticism of religion is the very measure of the guarantee of free speech – the literal sacred institution of society” – end of quote. That the weak leaders of my own continent Europe supported such a terrible resolution does not come as a surprise to me. But it’s a sad thing that for the first time in history, the American administration has taken a leading role against our right to free speech.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is one Western country that has been forced to fight the forces of jihad for its values since the very first day of its existence: Israel, the canary in the coal mine. Let me say a few words about that wonderful country. I had the privilege of living in Israel. However, in Europe being pro-Israel makes you an endangered species. Israel is a beacon of light in an area – the Middle East – that is pitch black everywhere else. Israel is a Western democracy, while Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Egypt are medieval dictatorships.

The so-called ‘Middle East conflict’ is not about land at all. It is a conflict about ideologies; a battle between Islam and freedom. It is not about some land in Gaza or in Judea and Samaria. It is about Jihad. To Islam the whole of Israel is occupied territory. They see Tel Aviv and Haifa as settlements too.

I am very much in favor of a two-state solution. I mean Churchill’s 1921 two-state solution, when Palestine was partitioned in a Jewish and an Arab part. Arab Palestine is now called Jordan, and therefore, there is already a Palestinian state. With eighty percent of the population having roots on the other side of the Jordan, there is no doubt Jordan is truly the state of Palestine.

Islam forces Israel to fight, and Israel is not just fighting for itself. Israel is fighting for all of us, for the entire West. Just like those brave American soldiers who landed in Sicily in 1943 and stormed the Normandy beaches in 1944, young Israeli men and women are fighting for our freedom, our civilization.

Ladies and gentlemen, Europe ought to fully back Israel to the hilt in its relentless fight against those that threaten it, whether it is Hezbollah, Hamas or a nuclear Iran. Also, because of its history, Europe certainly has the moral obligation to prevent at all cost another Holocaust against the Jewish people. But most important of all: Israel is fighting the jihad that is meant for all of us. So we all should defend Israel. We all are Israel.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is good news also! Europe might slowly be awakening. More and more people are fed up with cultural relativism and politicians ignoring the negative effects of mass-immigration and the creeping Islamization of Europe. During the European elections last June the worst cultural relativists, the socialists, lost nearly everywhere: In the Netherlands, in Belgium, in Germany, in Austria, in France, in Spain, in Italy and, perhaps best of all, in the UK.

But, my party, the Dutch Freedom Party was the winner in the recent elections for the European Parliament. Right now, in the polls, we even are number 1. If there would be elections in the Netherlands tomorrow, whether you like it or not, I could very well become the next Prime Minister of The Netherlands.

Ladies and gentlemen, time is running out, we need to act. As I already said, we need less Islam, and more freedom. We have to protect our most important right, our right to free speech. We have to protect our liberties. That is why I propose the following measures, measures to preserve our freedom:

First. We have to end all forms of cultural relativism. For this purpose we need an amendment to our Western constitutions stating that our cultural foundation is the Judeo Christian Humanistic culture, and not Islam.

Second. We have to stop the mass immigration from Muslim countries. Because more Islam means less freedom.

Third. I have a clear message to all Muslims in our societies: If you subscribe to our laws, our values and our constitutions you are very welcome to stay and we will help you to assimilate.

But, if you cross the red line and commit violent crimes or the implementation of shariah law and start practicing jihad, you are not welcome anymore, then we will expel you if possible the same day.

Fourth. We have to strengthen our laws regarding freedom of speech. In Europe we urgently need some kind of American First Amendment. And we have to resist UN-resolutions that intend to weaken our right of free speech in another attempt to appease the Islamic world.

Fifth, last but not least. We have to elect brave leaders. Real leaders. We enjoy the privilege of living in a democracy. Let us use that privilege by replacing weak leaders with heroes. Let us have fewer Neville Chamberlains and more Winston Churchills! In short, ladies and gentlemen, my main message of today is that we have to start fighting back. No defence, but offence. We have to fight back and demonstrate that millions of people are sick and tired of losing, of giving in, of appeasing. We must make clear that millions of freedom loving people are saying: enough is enough.

Ladies and gentlemen, I leave you with this: I will never give in nor give up. And we should never surrender nor compromise about freedom, the most important right we still have in our free western societies. We have to win, and I am confident: we will win! Thank you very much.


VIDEO: Geert Wilders’ Life Threatened

November 6, 2009

This is from the United Kingdom, London, Great Britain – Muslims openly threatening Geert Wilders’ life. This is Sharia Law.  This is the heart of Islam.  Hate, NOT Peace.

Muslims threaten to kill Geert Wilders in UK.


VIDEO: Geert Wilders’ Life Threatened

November 4, 2009

This is from the United Kingdom, London, Great Britain – Muslims openly threatening Geert Wilders’ life. This is Sharia Law.  This is the heart of Islam.  Hate, NOT Peace.

Muslims threaten to kill Geert Wilders in UK.



Geert Wilders: Free Speech Wins Against British Ban

October 14, 2009

Dutch right-winger Geert Wilders wins challenge against British ban

Geert Wilders, the Dutch far-right politician, has won his appeal against the Government’s refusal to let him enter Britain.

Published: 1:24PM BST 13 Oct 2009 | Daily Telegraph

Geert Wilders leads Dutch polls

Wilders was due to show his short film Fitna, which criticises the Koran at the House of Lords in February Photo: EPA

Wilders challenged the decision by then home secretary Jacqui Smith which led to him being turned back at Heathrow Airport.

The ruling by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal means the head of the Freedom Party, who is accused of Islamophobia, could now be allowed into the country.

He was due to show his short film Fitna, which criticises the Koran as a ”fascist book”, at the House of Lords in February.

But Ms Smith said his presence had the potential to ”threaten community harmony and therefore public safety”.

A Home Office spokesman said the Government was ”disappointed” by the ruling.

He said: ”We are disappointed by the court’s decision today. The Government opposes extremism is all its forms.

”The decision to refuse Wilders admission was taken on the basis that his presence could have inflamed tensions between our communities and have led to inter-faith violence. We still maintain this view.”


Geert Wilders in Philadelphia

October 13, 2009



Will America Stand with israel?

October 5, 2009




Look, I don’t care if you voted for McCain, Obama, or Mickey Mouse.

2rhf_tomTRENTOIf you have any interest in the geopolitical game of Israeli chess that nations of the world are playing, you must attend the David Horowitz Freedom Center  – FREE SPEECH NOW TOUR – in Philadelphia, featuring the Honorable Geert Wilders, Member of Parliament of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as he personally address the issues of free speech, Islamic terror and the future of Israel.

Face facts …Israel is considered a “pawn to be expended” by nations and world leaders who have little interest in her future or security.

When a defender of Israel like Wilders, is personally in Philadelphia to show his controversial film FITNA and explain how he will fight European anti-semitism, you better have a real good reason to stay home and not participate in this ground-breaking event.

Please attend our event with Mr. Wilders and other national leaders that will be joining Mr. Wilders, as the proponents of FREE SPEECH gather for an afternoon of food, drinks, entertainment, education and focused activism!

Geert Wilders – Philadelphia Oct. 09

October 1, 2009

Who is Geert Wilders?

Geert Wilders is a 45 year old Dutch politician, member of Parliament in the Netherlands and leader of the Party for Freedom. He has been outspoken on the issues of Islamic extremism and freedom of speech.

His provocative 2008 film about Islam in the Netherlands, FITNA, has received international attention and condemnation. For his views, he has been forced into guarded isolation, banned in the UK, indicted in his own country for violating “hate-speech” laws, and wanted in Jordan.

Why is Geert Wilders so important?

The Islamization of Europe brought with it the prohibition of criticizing Islam as a religion, ideology or political system. As European radical Islam became increasingly powerful, the Western doctrine of free and open speech came under sustained attack. Quickly, this totalitarian movement to suppress Free Speech gained momentum in the Islamic world culminating with a Member of the European Union, Mr. Wilders, being charged by his own country with illegally criticizing Islam, thus violating the “hate-speech” laws of the Netherlands. Mr. Wilders is the prototypical “poster-boy” of the decline of Western civilization … if Western civilization still requires open and free speech? Is the attack on free and open speech marching to America? Yes, it is. Mr. Wilders is in Florida to sound the alert to those who still value the fundamental principle of Free Speech, codified by our Framers, articulated in Amendment # 1, and practiced in our lives.

What has Geert Wilders done that is so “bad”

Mr. Wilders has dared to open his mouth to criticize Islam as a totalitarian ideology. Be careful here. The issue is not whether Islam is a totalitarian ideology, but the issue is whether someone can speak freely and claim that a religion, any religion … stinks! The casual observer can list scores of occasions in America where the religions of Christianity and Judaism have been mocked, scorned, ridiculed and, yep, even criticized as being totalitarian. Civil, progressive, educated Americans must decide if Islam occupies a “special status” in America, as it does in Eurabia, or if Islam … stinks … if that is what someone wants to conclude. This decision ought not be influenced by the fear of 10,000 angry Muslims demonstrating in London, but by blood, real blood, not imaginary, metaphorical blood, but warrior blood, shed at places like Normandy, blood dedicated to inalienable rights, not alienable religions.

What’s the big deal with this movie – FITNA?

The “big deal” with FITNA is that many Muslims, worldwide, simply did not like the movie!

Did you understand that last sentence? Muslims don’t like FITNA.

Usually, when someone doesn’t like a movie they figure out a way to avoid promising to kill the film maker. Conversely, the global success of the message of FITNA has only intensified the desire of many Muslims to welcome the death of Geert Wilders. Even the boys over at Al Qaeda Incorporated, dragging out some cave-dwelling cleric, issued a death FATWA, which is like pouring petrol on the “youths” burning up democracy throughout London, Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam and the rest of Europe – now referred to by many analysts, as “Eurabia”.

The reason why Muslims did not like the movie differs among the group, but in light of the totalitarian demands of Islam and the global fear of criticizing Islam, it naturally follows that their supremest script requires “a morally righteous indignation” over the verbal and visual abuse of their “special status” faith. Though some in the USA think this Islamist reaction is ridiculous nonsense, the many in America better realize the experience of Mr. Wilders is quickly marching into American culture and law. The irresistible force of Islam is confronting the immoveable object of American democracy … and the outcome remains to be seen?

{FITNA – “disagreement and division among people” or a “test of faith in times of trial”}

Why is Geert Wilders in Philadelphia?

Because some of us in Philadelphia enjoy those crazy ideas that our early “white-hairs” came up with like, democracy, free speech, freedom of (any) religion, freedom of no religion and freedom to criticize all religions. We have a lot to learn from the courageous Geert Wilders.


Geert Wilders – Warning to America

August 19, 2009

Coral Ridge Ministries: ISLAM

August 14, 2009

Produced by Coral Ridge Ministries:

Radical Islam on the March:: A Christian Response to Modern Day Jihad.

The website is now up and can be viewed at


Isarael is West’s First Line of Defense

June 22, 2009

I too am proud to call Geert Wilders my friend and colleague.  Wilders certainly does understand the greater issues.  Pray for this man who is threatened for his viewpoints that the free world suports.
Donald E. Van Curler
Ann Arbor
I am proud to call Geert Wilders my friend and colleague.  Wilders understands the greater issues.
Rabbi Jonathan Hausman
Stoughton, MA
Dutch anti-Islam MP: ‘Israel is West’s first line of defense’

Israel will be a major part of Geert Wilders’ next film on Islam, the rightist Dutch legislator said last week in an interview for Haaretz.   He praised Avigdor Lieberman, observing “similarities” between Yisrael Beiteinu and the Party for Freedom – a small movement which has grown to become Holland’s second most popular.

Wilders, a controversial anti-immigration politician, rose to international fame last year when he released a 14-minute film entitled Fitna, which attempts to portray what he considers as Islam’s “violent nature.”   The film, which has been viewed by millions online, provoked mass protests throughout the Muslim world.

In April Wilders announced he was working on a sequel. Just as Fitna focused on genocidal anti-Semitism in the Muslim world, Wilders said that the sequel – which focuses on “Islamization in the West” – will show “how the forces of Islamization are specifically targeting Israel in a fight against all free societies.”

He added:  “The film will demonstrate that the fight against Israel is not territorial, and hence Israel is only the first line of defense for the West.   Now it’s Israel but we are next.   That’s why beyond solidarity, it is in Europe’s interest to stand by Israel.”

Wilders is facing criminal charges for allegedly inciting hate by comparing the Koran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf in the original Fitna film. His party’s dark horse achievement in the European Parliament elections earlier this month, he said, is connected to the judicial system’s decision to prosecute him.

The Party for Freedom – which has only nine seats in Dutch parliament – won five seats in the June 4 European elections, making it the second largest of all Dutch parties in Brussels. A recent poll shows that if elections were held now, the Party would become the country’s largest or second largest.

“The appeals court’s decision in January to prosecute me angered many people, as did the decision by the government of the U.K. not to let me enter Britain,” Wilders told Haaretz. He added some of the anger manifested itself in the European Parliament election.

According to Wilders, his party’s rise in popularity is reminiscent of how Lieberman’s party grew to become Israel’s third largest. “Our parties may not be identical, but there are certainly more similarities than dissimilarities, and I am proud of that,” Wilders said about Yisrael Beiteinu.

“I’ve met Liebrman and called to congratulate him after the Israeli elections,” said Wilders, who visits Israel frequently to meet with leading Israeli politicians, defense officials and opinion-shapers. “Lieberman’s an intelligent, strong and clever politician and I understand why his party grew in popularity.”

Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu is, according to Wilders, safer because it doesn’t automatically accept the two-state solution. But he added: “I am more concerned now about Israel’s situation because of the positions of U.S. President Barack Obama.”

The president’s speech in Cairo “shocked” Wilders, he says. “Until now Israel could rely on the U.S. for support even when the Europeans failed to offer it. Now Israel will have a tougher time,” he added.

“The two-state solution is an internal Israeli matter and I hesitate to interfere. But my personal belief is that there is a two state solution for the Palestinians. One of those states is called Jordan,” he added.
Wilders also said that Obama’s preference for dialogue with Iran despite its ongoing drive to obtain nuclear weapons – according to Western intelligence reports – is “intolerable.”

The Party for Freedom will not join any bloc at the European Parliament, Wilders said. “We will not join an rightist party with anti-Semitic or xenophobic inclinations,” he explained. “The attempts to classify us as such are the result of our rivals’ panic.”

Wilders’ party believes in halting immigration to the Netherlands, and banning the construction of mosques in that country. While defending gay rights and supporting animal welfare bills, the Party holds a hardliner assimilations stance on the integration of existing immigrants into Dutch society, and is consistently Eurosceptic.

“Our achievement in the European Parliament owed partly to a protest vote by people who do not accept that their tax monies are funding highways in Portugal and subsidizing Polish farmers. They want their money back – approximately five billion euros.”

Described by some as “fascist” and “ultra-nationalist,” other Dutch parties have shunned the Party for Freedom, treating it as a pariah movement. However, as its political power climbs, leading centrist politicians are advocating an alliance with Wilders, touching off a heated debate in their parties’ ranks.

“We have no power but a lot of influence, and are now a serious force which cannot be ignored,” Wilders said. “I think the stale political establishment of the Netherlands doesn’t quite know how to close the window that let in our party, like a cool draft of wind.”


FSC Sues Delray Beach Marriott

June 19, 2009

Please click link for more information on the suit that has been filed against the Delray Beach Marriott for violating the meeting event for Geert Wilders contract.

Or click here:

DELRAY BEACH MARRIOTT SUED – Possible Submission to Radical Muslim Groups from J. Mark Campbell on Vimeo.



Florida Security Council Press Release

June 16, 2009



MIDNIGHT EDT, June 16, 2009
Contact: Tom Trento / / 561-582-1424

Delray Beach, FL.  June 16, 2009:

On Wednesday, June 17, 2009 in West Palm Beach, the Florida Security Council will file a lawsuit against the Delray Beach Marriott, owned and operated by Ocean Properties, Ltd.

The basis for the lawsuit is a breach of contract by defendant Marriott against the plaintiff, the Florida Security Council (FSC). The Florida Security Council will hold a press Conference at the “Old” Palm Beach County Courthouse at 11am on June 17.

Lead Counsel for the FSC, Peter Feaman of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler believes, “This is a very clear-cut case of corporate breach. There was a binding contract between parties and the Marriott unilaterally cancelled the contract and damaged my client. It’s hard to find a breach as overtly outrageous as that!”

The Florida Security Council was the sponsor of a Free Speech Summit on April 27, 2009, honoring the controversial Dutch Parliamentarian Mr. Geert Wilders. In addition to a major banquet, the FSC was renting a significant number of rooms. The breach of contract and cancellation of the event came as a complete surprise to the FSC Director, Tom Trento who stated, “The fact that the Marriott sent me an email, at 7pm on a Friday night, cancelling our well-planned event, made it very plain to me that something was up. I suspected there was more here than a breach of contract.”

An immediate investigation by the FSC began to reveal a possible situation whereby outside agents may have persuaded the Marriott to cancel the Free Speech Summit because some believe the message of the event was critical of Islam.

According to south Florida Radio talk show personality, Joyce Kaufman, a prime organizer of the Summit, “Any efforts by any outside groups, Muslim or not, to suppress our right to free speech, will not go unanswered. We simply will not allow anyone to repress our first amendment rights, regardless of who they may be. Let’s see if we can get to the truth of why the Marriott cancelled our contract through the prosecution of this law suit.”

The Florida Security Council intends on using its extensive investigative capabilities to determine if this breach originated with Marriott officials or if they were influenced by others individuals or organizations.

The Press Conference will address the following:

The Marriott breached the FSC contract.

Why did the Marriott commit this illegal act?

The Marriott gave in to pressure from groups/individuals opposed to Mr. Geert Wilders and the FSC Free Speech Summit.

Who are those groups and are they doing this in other parts of the USA?

Muslim groups tried to stop Rep. Adam Hasner from participating with Mr.
Geert Wilders in the Free Speech Summit by demanding Mr. Hasner’s resignation. Mr. Hasner is the Majority Leader of the State of Florida Legislature and one of the most powerful politicians in Florida. Mr. Hasner is Jewish.

In late May 2009, the Loews Vanderbilt Plaza Hotel, in Nashville, TN., also unilaterally cancelled a contract with an organization that was holding a conference addressing the subject of Islam, which featured two of the Free Speech Summit participants, and Mr. Geert Wilders.

Is there an external unifying cause to these events or are they coincidental?





Tom Trento, Director, Florida Security Council

Contact: /  561-582-1424

Joyce Kaufman, Radio talk host, 850 WFTL
Contact: /  954-315-1580
For Interview Contact: Brennan Forsyth

Peter Feaman, Lead Counsel for the FSC, Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler
Contact: /  561-582-1424



Wilder’s Gains Four EU Seats In Dutch Vote

June 5, 2009
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A6

Dutch voters gave a populist, anti-immigrant party its first four seats ever in the European Parliament, sending a warning to incumbent European governments, according to exit polls.

The triumph for the Party for Freedom and its leader Geert Wilders kicked off four days of European Union-wide elections involving more than 12,000 candidates competing for more than 730 seats.

Mr. Wilders’s party was expected to win four of the 25 seats allocated to the Netherlands, according to exit polls by Dutch news agency ANP.

EU leaders fear nationalist parties are gaining ground by exploiting anxieties over job losses brought on by the financial crisis. Nationalist fringe parties are expected to pick up seats in the U.K., France, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Austria and Belgium. Other groups fear they could form a disruptive alliance. Still, such parties are unlikely to tip the balance of power in Brussels.

U.K. voters also went to the polls Thursday to elect European and local representatives, but full results weren’t immediately available. The Czech Republic and Ireland vote Friday, and the rest of the 27-nation bloc goes to the polls this weekend.

The European Parliament has little power, and turnout is expected to be low. But mainstream politicians and analysts have cast these elections — the first since the onset of the recession — as a political bellwether.

[Geert Wilders]
Party for Freedom leader, Geert Wilders. AP

No politician exemplifies establishment fears more than Mr. Wilders, a charismatic orator whose platinum-blond hair has been compared to Mozart’s wig. He is a polarizing figure in European politics who has been banned from entering the U.K. under hate-speech laws. He travels with bodyguards and keeps where he sleeps a secret.

Mr. Wilders, 45 years old, has sat in the Dutch Parliament since 1998. In 2004, he left the conservative People’s Party over a dispute about whether Turkey should be allowed to join the EU. (It isn’t a member but has applied to join.) He founded the Party for Freedom and discovered a knack for tapping into Dutch xenophobia.

The Netherlands has 800,000 Muslims, mostly Turks and Moroccans, in a population of 17 million. Mr. Wilders has progressively ramped up his anti-Islamic rhetoric, calling the Koran a “fascist book” and making a movie depicting Islam as inherently violent. The British government cited the movie, “Fitna,” as grounds to ban Mr. Wilders from visiting the U.K. earlier this year.

Mr. Wilders added a strong anti-EU plank to his platform during a 2005 Dutch referendum on a new EU constitution. He helped defeat the measure, effectively scuttling the project.

His party, known by its Dutch acronym, the PVV, won nine of 150 seats in parliament in the 2006 national elections. Polls now show that roughly one-fifth of Dutch voters support Mr. Wilders, making the PVV the most popular political group in the country and its leader a long-shot candidate for prime minister. The next general election, however, isn’t until 2011.

Mr. Wilders favors a style straight from the populist playbook. “He’s like Ross Perot or George W. Bush in his ability to connect to ordinary people,” says Catherine de Vries, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Amsterdam.

The party’s platform in this election promises to fight crime, deport illegal immigrants and dilute the power of EU institutions in Brussels.

“He’s been successful in taping into real fears about the economy and foreigners taking away jobs,” says Emine Bozkurt, a Dutch member of the European Parliament who is of Turkish origin.

Mr. Wilders is running but says he won’t take a seat in the European Parliament, which sits in Brussels and Strasbourg. He prefers to focus on building a coalition in national politics, says an aide. A deputy, Barry Madlener, will lead the party’s parliament delegation.


Write to John W. Miller at


Nidra Poller – Geert Wilders Up Close

May 26, 2009

Geert Wilders Up Close

Hudson Institute New York – Nidra Poller

May 22, 2009 12:28 PM | Nidra Poller

DSCN0939If elections were held in the Netherlands today, polls predict that Geert Wilders, chairman of the Party for Freedom, would be Prime Minister. Since breaking away from the Liberal Party, he has rapidly drawn support from all sectors of the population. And yet, the 45 year-old MP–sentenced to death for blasphemy by offended Muslims–has been living under 24/7 protection for the past three years. Far from defending Wilders right to free speech, the Dutch government is allowing a lawsuit against him for hate speech to be heard in the courts. And reputable media of all stripes commonly present Wilders as a “far right extremist xenophobe.” His offenses are ticked off—he disseminated “Fitna,” a “provocative” film that links terrorism to Islam; he says Islam is not a religion, Muslim immigration should be halted and if Mein Kampf is banned in Holland the Qu’ran should be banned too.

Is the “extremist” label useful? Does it help us evaluate Wilders’ credibility on the issues he addresses or does it serve to hide the essential truth of a life and death struggle between Islam and the free world? If Wilders is an extremist, the dangers he warns about can be downgraded. If his objections to Islam are motivated by xenophobia, wouldn’t it be normal for Muslims to react with indignation?

Let us peel off the label and take a close look at the man. Wilders, a frequent visitor to the United States, was the guest of honor at the April 25 – 28 Free Speech Summit organized by the Florida Security Council [] where he spoke to enthusiastic standing-room audiences. Wilders is not a rabble-rouser. He handles a red hot issue – Islam – with dignity. His arguments are rational, not emotional. They are based on ample documentation and broad experience, and he formulates them with political acumen. Wilders stands in defense of liberty against what he calls the totalitarian ideology of Islam and the cowardly surrender of European leaders. Shouldn’t he be allowed to speak freely?

Lord Nazir Ahmed threatened to send 10,000 Muslim protestors into the streets of London if Wilders–invited by Baroness Caroline Cox and Lord Malcolm Pearson–were allowed to present his film, “Fitna” in the House of Lords last February. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith got the message. Wilders was refused entry.

Wilders never fails to mention his gratitude toward American authorities who place no obstacles to his frequent visits to the United States, a country he loves for its freedom. But Islamic intimidation emerged in Florida. Citing “security issues,” the Delray Beach Marriott franchise, owned by Michael and Mark Walsh of Ocean Resorts, broke its contract with the Florida Security Council two weeks before a scheduled dinner. After the Florida Security Council president, Tom Trento, investigated and found that no security threat had been detected, the Marriott replied, “We just don’t want you here.” A CAIR front organization, “United Voices for America,” approached the Florida GOP with a request for the removal of House majority leader Adam Hasner as punishment for attending a private dinner with Wilders. And the ADL upbraided the Dutch MP with a barrage of misguided respect for Islam.

What does Wilders have in common with other victims of death threats– Somali-Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, French professor Robert Redeker (, Indian writer Salman Rushdie, Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard? None of them is an extreme right wing fanatic. What they share are negative opinions about Islam. Such opinions are permissible in the free world. And prohibited by Islam. Are Dutch citizens, voting in ever greater numbers for Wilders’ Party of Freedom, right wing fanatic extremists? Or honest people concerned about the rapid Islamization of their native land?

The massive influx of Muslim immigrants into Europe over the past three decades cannot be compared, either culturally or demographically, with the diverse waves of immigration that have shaped European–and American– societies. Apologists for Muslim immigration, who remind us that earlier waves of refugees suffered from discrimination and have now blended into our nations, are missing the point. Yes, immigrants were often slandered, mocked, and rejected. They were, even in the best of times, subjected to limitations, quotas, sanitary screening, financial and occupational requirements. And citizens of our democratic nations who opposed immigration were free to thrash out the issues in public and defend their positions. They were not stabbed, slaughtered, bombed, or silenced by death threats.

Whether one believes that Muslim immigration is another beautiful opportunity for diversity or an existential threat to Western civilization, there can be no doubt that western European nations are fast reaching a demographic tipping point on the path to becoming Muslim-dominated societies. These countries have already undergone a radical transformation of daily life. Again, some sing the praises of this Islamization, others warn of its dire consequences, but no one can deny that it is underway. Drawing on the works of Bat Ye’or and former imam Samuel Solomon, Wilders reminds us that this immigration fulfills a sacred obligation for Muslims to immigrate and transform host societies until the entire world submits to Allah.

Holland’s permissive social policies—open drug use in “coffee shops,” shop-window prostitution, euthanasia, gay rights, sexual freedom, live and let live tolerance–have collided with the sharia ethics espoused by a large and growing Muslim immigrant population. It is the realities on the ground—the assassination of Pim Fortuyn, the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the death threats to Ayaan Hirsi Ali and to Wilders himself, and the constant intimidation and widespread criminality– and not some shameful rejection of “others” that leads Dutch voters to support the Party of Freedom.

Geert Wilders may represent a new breed in European politicians, capable of mobilizing the forces of self-defense in a country known for its progressive values. His strength lies precisely in placing the issue of Islamization at the center of his political platform. He does not apologize for his ideas, does not try to disguise them or tuck them in surreptitiously while singing the praises of diversity and pretending we are all alike. He forthrightly rejects cultural relativism, unashamedly defends Western civilization, and unambiguously supports Israel.

Unlike his European counterparts–and it would seem the current American administration–Wilders does not condition his support for Israel on painful concessions and forced surrender to questionable peace plans that would in fact spell the death of the Jewish state. His opposition to Islam is based on values, not on the rejection of Muslims as people. His defense of Israel and the United States—highly unpopular in Europe– is not opportunistic pandering to Jewish voters and influential Americans; it is based on shared values and a clear sense of right and wrong. At Free Speech Summit events Wilders elicited standing ovations from Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, blacks, whites, Asians…

In a private conversation I asked Geert Wilders the European question: “tell me about your family.”  It means: “where were they during WWII and the Holocaust.” Wilders was born in the southeastern town of Venlo, population 60,000. The east bank of the Maas River that divides the town is a few miles from the German border. Wilders’ father was in the Resistance. His grandfather was arrested.

And what took him to Israel at the callow age of 18? He was attracted by the beautiful Israeli girls. He lived for several years near Jericho at a time when cross-border attacks from Jordan often sent residents into the shelters. He returned to Holland, studied, worked, and became interested in politics when he saw things “going in the wrong direction.” His association with the Liberal Party, first as speech writer for Frits Bolkestein, then as a Member of Parliament, gave him the opportunity to travel extensively in the Middle East. As a young MP in 1998 he proposed legislation to curb Muslim immigration. “People thought I was crazy, but after 9/11 some remembered…”

We talked about the situation in other European countries. Cautious, well-informed, and determined to maintain his integrity, Wilders concentrates on coalescing power in his home base and avoiding questionable alliances. He has more to gain by developing his vibrant trans-Atlantic contacts than in seeking alliances at this point with any European party.

One of Wilders’ most virulent French critics, Noël Blandin of La République des Lettres, lumps him with “Islamophobes such as Oriana Fallaci, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Robert Redeker.” Accusing Wilders of “actively defending ‘Western values’ in his diatribes,” Blandin call him a “militant Zionist,” with ties to the Israeli secret services, who often visits Jerusalem, and regularly proposes legislation inspired by “racist Israeli laws.”

Europeans who saw enraged Muslims march through their streets in January shouting Death to the Jews, who see their police retreat and their governments surrender under Islamic pressure, are not convinced that the danger comes from a leader like Wilders who stands firm in the defense of Western values; the danger comes from European politicians who recklessly court the Islamic vote to the detriment of all citizens, whatever their origin or beliefs.

Free Speech Summit organized by the Florida Security Council

Boca Raton & Palm Beach

April 25-28, 2009

Introductions to Geert Wilders by Nidra Poller

I.                   Dinner at Mar Largo, Palm Beach, Florida

One of the most stunning lessons of history is how the unacceptable so quickly becomes inevitable, implacable,  unavoidable.

Western civilization is the triumph of liberty. And today, the life of a man can be threatened because he exercises his right to freedom of speech.

This is unacceptable.

When Islam reigns supreme infidels do not have the right to read the Qu’ran.

That is the meaning of death threats against Geert Wilders.

Geert Wilders stands before us. Stands up for us.

And that is why we are here tonight,

To stand with him.

2. Talk at Palm Beach synagogue (Rabbi Sheiner)

My role as writer is to shed light, underline, highlight certain aspects of reality, to restore elements that have gone into hiding precisely so that we will not grasp them and act on them.

The role of a politician is to provide leadership, to draw out of a society forces, ideas, and values that would slip away like rain water if it were not collected, harnessed, and applied for the general welfare.

This evening I want to focus on the unbelievable threats against the life of Geert Wilders. In the year of 2009 this man, this Dutch citizen, is the target of murderous hostility for speaking freely about the future of his own society.

Those who would silence Wilders accept no limits on their own freedom to speak and act. This you already know. There is no need to spell out the details.

But we must constantly exclaim: it’s unbelievable. Unbelievable that the multitudes in Europe have not stood up to defend Geert Wilders and, so doing, to defend their own rights.

Now we are hearing good news from Holland. The increasing success of Wilders’ Party of Freedom. This is a beacon of hope for other European countries. This is what we need to see—leaders who have been threatened by Jihadis and slandered by the faint-hearted step up, take over, and show how decent we are!

3. Republican Jewish Coalition


I have lived in France for 35 years, but I am American, and I will always be American. I am a Zionist, and I will always defend Israel. I am free, and I will not be enslaved.


Worst media of any nominally democratic modern country.

Don’t laugh. It can happen here too.


Proud of enlightenment philosopher Voltaire, who said:

Je ne suis pas d’accord avec ce que vous dites, mais je me battrai jusqu’à la mort pour que vous ayez le droit de le dire.”

But they are not quoting Voltaire these days.

And the Réseau Voltaire is the home town of Thierry Meyssan, best-selling author of the 9/11 conspiracy theory.


Largest Muslim population of any European country…and growing. Largest Jewish population…and dwindling.

350 recorded anti-Semitic acts in January.

Shrugged off with a circumstantial argument: it’s because of the violence in Gaza.

So it doesn’t count.

Tell it to Jonathan Guez, his neck slashed within 2 milimeters of the carotid artery.

If the Israelis would stop persecuting the Palestininians, the unnamed, unidentified, faceless, featureless “youths” who attack French Jewish citizens in the streets of their country would fade into the background and the statistics would be beautiful again.

This is blackmail. Chantage, in French.


Most severe laws against anti-Semitism. Ask your local Consul Général. He will be sure to wave that magic wand in your face and banish your fears for Jews in France.

France doesn’t have laws specifically meant to punish anti-Frenchism. But many citizens are begging for recognition of and protection from this form of persecution.

France has laws. France has incidents. And never the twain seem to meet. Who committed those acts in January? How were they punished?

Let us not fool ourselves. The issue of freedom of speech that is staring down our throats today concerns one kind of speech: speech about Islam.

In France, you can say anything you want about Americans, Jews, Israelis, CEOs, and our own president.

But if you speak about Islam in such a way as to ruffle exquisite Islamic sensitivity, you put your reputation, your career, and in some cases your life on the line. Robert Redeker has been in hiding for two years, because he wrote critically about Islam in a major French newspaper.

The French prefer to forget him. I brought his case to light again in a Standpoint, February, article.

His op-ed was published in the wake of a worldwide Muslim rampage in protest against the Danish cartoons.

His words were condemned. The rage was allowed to make its point. A warning to those who would follow in Redeker’s footsteps and dare to speak freely.

Has our honored guest, Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, been welcomed by French intellectuals? Has his cause been joined to that of Redeker? Where are today’s Voltaire’s, prepared to defend his right to freely express his opinions, his judgments, his program for the defense of European values?

No. Wilders is not defended in French media. He is wiped out with a few adjectives: extreme right wing xenophobic MP. Pam!

He is dismissed with a sigh of exasperation. The extreme right wing xenophobic MP says the Qu’ran should be banned. Pam!

The Bible is banned in Saudi Arabia. That does not disturb our European opinion-makers. It apparently does not disturb our American government either.

Why would a Christian nation bow down to extreme Islamic xenophobic Saudi Arabia, where the Bible is banned?

Jews are not welcome in Muslim countries. Jews who lived in those lands long before the jihad conquest were forced to flee. Why are those nations where Jews have been expelled and Christians are persecuted, not graced with the epithet “extremist Islamic xenophobic…”?

Free speech, like every other sacred value, can be withdrawn in the blink of an eye. And when you realize it has been withdrawn, how can you retrieve it, without freedom?

Free speech is not only the freedom to speak your mind. It is the possibility of making yourself heard. When the media fall under the spell of a political crooner and withhold vital information in the course of a crucial political campaign, free speech is drowned out by lethal lullabies.

Free speech, listen my fellow Americans, must be intelligent speech, delivered with reason, with logic, with sophisticated arguments. When every message is reduced to a cheap slogan, free speech is cancelled by idiotic mumblings.

Free speech demands courageous support for those whose freedom is curtailed by murderous enemies of our civilized values. This defense cannot be slow, lazy, distracted. It must be an immediate snap to attention, and mobilization of concerned citizens.

That is why we are here today to honor and defends Geert Wilders. How ever many stand by his side today, we will be multiplied tomorrow, and again and again until we become a majority of free citizens who stand proudly, with uplifted heads, hearts, and minds.

We will not be intimidated.

Nidra Poller


South Florida Jewish Journal

May 20, 2009

Re: “Not Wild About Wilders” by Shani McManus – Staff Writer for – Palm Beach South Jewish Journal

I was at the Palm Beach Synagogue.  I heard Member of Parliament, the Netherlands, Geert Wilders’ speech.

I attended all of these “Free Speech Summit” venues that Jewish Journal identified (and several others that were not identified) – There was no “hate speech”.

When I see the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in bed together,  I’m ashamed – but not shocked.  The ADL gets it wrong way too many times.  The ADL can’t differentiate their friends from their enemies.

For Andrew Rosenkranz, ADL Florida regional director, to call Wilders’ words “hate speech” just shows everyone that Rosenkranz wasn’t listening very carefully.  And to find ADL and CAIR together in this instance makes me sick.

Carol Flatto, chairperson of the South Florida Chapter for Americans for a Safe Israel – also attended.  She got it right.  ADL got it backwards.  “The ADL should honor (Geert Wilders) instead of dishonoring itself….by defaming Wilders”.

Your readers should watch the 17 minute film “Fitna” – to learn where the hate speech comes from.


Donald E. Van Curler


Story text:

Not wild about Wilders

The old maxim, “politics makes strange bedfellows,” definitely came to mind this past week when two, philosophically divergent civil rights organizations joined forces in condemning a controversial, pro-Israel and anti-terrorist speaker who visited South Florida.

While not exactly in the same bed …, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which calls itself “the world’s leading organization fighting anti-Semitism,” and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a controversial Muslim civil liberties and advocacy group, certainly seemed to be on the same page in blasting Dutch politician and filmmaker Geert Wilders for his outspoken views on Islamic extremism.

The brouhaha came on the heels of Wilders’ April 26 speech at Palm Beach Synagogue, one of three venues in Palm Beach County that hosted Wilders, and where he received a standing ovation.

“Islam is not a religion. Islam is a totalitarian political ideologue,” Wilders told the packed synagogue.

“Islam[s] heart lies at the Quran, and the Quran is a book that calls for hatred, that calls for violence, for murder, for terrorism, for war and submission,” he noted. “We should also stop pretending that Islam is a religion.”

The Dutch parliamentarian and leader of the Party for Freedom also called for stopping immigration from Muslim countries and urged “voluntary repatriation” to those countries. Wilders’ 2008 film “Fitna” (Arabic for “test of faith”), about Islam in the Netherlands, has received international attention, along with a number of death threats for the filmmaker. Unperturbed, Wilders is planning a sequel. And due to his outspoken views on Islam, he was recently banned from entering the United Kingdom, prompting him to embark on a speaking tour of the United States.

Prior to his Palm Beach Synagogue appearance, Wilders gave a similar address at a “Free Speech Summit” in Delray Beach, attended by Florida Sate Rep. Adam Hasner, R – Delray Beach, who was strongly criticized by CAIR for hosting Wilders. CAIR also called for Hasner to step down as majority leader of the Florida House.

“It is unconscionable that a top leader of an American state legislature would host a gathering at which the faith of millions of Americans is denigrated and their rights denied,” CAIR national communications director Ibrahim Hooper said in a statement. “Republican Party leaders in Florida and nationwide must demand that [Rep.] Hasner step down from his leadership post because of his support for Geert Wilders’ Nazi-like message.”

Following Wilders’ speech and a screening of his film at the synagogue, CAIR issued another statement calling on members of the Jewish community to “condemn the anti-Islam hate of a speaker who was recently given a standing ovation at a Florida synagogue.”

The ADL quickly responded by issuing its own statement blasting Wilders remarks.

“The ADL strongly condemns Geert Wilders’ message of hate against Islam as inflammatory, divisive and antithetical to American democratic ideals,” Andrew Rosenkranz, ADL Florida regional director said. “This rhetoric is dangerous and incendiary, and wrongly focuses on Islam as a religion, as opposed to the very real threat of extremist, radical Islamists.”

Next, CAIR issued yet another statement commending the ADL for its statement condemning Wilders.

“We commend the ADL for its repudiation of Geert Wilders’ Islamophobic views and ask all those who promoted his message of hate to recognize the negative impact such intolerance has on our society,” Hooper said.

The statements of both organizations did not sit well with Carol Flatto, chairman of the South Florida Chapter for Americans for a Safe Israel, who attended one of Wilders’ venues. But Flatto aimed her strongest criticism at the ADL.

“Geert Wilders has put his life on the line to expose Islam’s existential threat to Israel and America,” she said. “When speaking of his frequent and extended visits to Israel, Wilders proclaims, ‘I love it. I do love Israel.’

“The ADL should honor him instead of dishonoring itself and its once noble history by defaming Wilders.”


Photo Update: Geert Wilders

May 4, 2009

Photos from recent events in Florida (Free Speech Summit) with Geert Wilders


Don and Geert


Angela T. | Lord Pearson | Janet Porter




Geert Wilders and Don


Bjorn, Don, Carol at table


Don, Carol & Dr. Fishman


Don and Carol


Don and Dr. Fishman talking


Listening to Geert Wilders’ speech.  Mar-a-Lago


Carol & Don clapping | Geert Wilders’ speech


Photos: Free Speech Summit

May 1, 2009

Scenes from a Free Speech Summit –

Florida Free speech 018

Hindus are our great ally in the fight against the jihad.

Wilders co

Florida Free speech 028

The Dutch Freedom Party and Lord Pearson

Florida Free speech 001

The line to get in – Joe Kaufman, right

Florida Free speech 020
Florida Free speech 006

Joyce Kaufman and Mort Kuff

Florida Free speech 012

Lord Pearson and Pamela

Florida Free speech 016

Joe Kaufman


Florida Free speech 036

Allen West talking to voters 🙂

Florida Free speech 007

Great Americans


Fleur Agema, an MP as well and vice-floor leader (she is  the number two in the party), Geert Wilders, Pamela, Allen West

Florida Free speech 019

Geert and the media

Florida Free speech 035

Reverend Dozier

courtesy of