12 Conservative Women Speak Out Against Radical Islam

SPLC Issues Hit List of 12 Conservative Women Who Speak Out Against Radical Islam

From pjmedia.com,  by Debra Heine,  on June 23, 2015,  see the article HERE.

SPLC - making America non-white

So now making Europe and America “non-White” is the GOAL of the SPLC? I will never agreed to that – will you?

The Southern Poverty Law Center has posted a list of “Women Against Islam” which targets twelve prominent conservative women who are known to speak out against radical Islam, calling them “the most hardline anti-Muslim women activists in America.” Judicial Watch described the list as “a starter kit” for jihadists to go after the women like Floyd Corkins went after the Family Research Council in August of 2012.

A few years ago a gunman received a 25-year prison sentence for carrying out the politically-motivated shooting of the Family Research Council (FRC) headquarters after admitting that he learned about the FRC from the SPLC “hate map.” Prosecutors called it an act of terrorism and recommended a 45-year sentence.

The SPLC routinely smears conservatives as “haters” for holding positions that are contrary to those of SPLC on social or political  issues. Last February, for example, they put noted pediatric neurosurgeon and Republican candidate for president Dr. Ben Carson on an “extremist list” because of his pro-traditional marriage stance, opposition to ObamaCare, and support for a flat tax. They placed him alongside genuine extremists like the KKK, Neo-Nazis, and the Westboro Baptist Church and backed down only after a public outcry ensued.

Judicial Watch noted that the Obama Justice Department has partnered with the SPLC on diversity training.

A few years ago JW uncovered government records that show the DOJ Civil Rights and Tax divisions engaged in questionable behavior while negotiating for SPLC co-founder Morris Dees to appear as the featured speaker at a 2012 “Diversity Training Event.” JW pursued the records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to determine what influence the SPLC’s branding of hate groups has had on government agencies.

Until March of 2014, the FBI’s hate crimes webpage linked to the Southern Poverty Law Center, listing the leftwing group as a resource.

The SPLC describe the women on their hate list as “a mixed bag of bloggers, politicos, authors, TV personalities, radio talk show hosts, and leaders of anti-Muslim organizations.”

The profiles are accompanied by caricatures that make many of the women look evil or insane.

Many of them have other windmills to tilt at, from gay rights to communism to President Obama, but most have increasingly focused on attacking Muslims. That has been even truer in recent months, in the wake of the horrific Islamist attacks on the Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris and the many barbaric murders carried out by the Islamic State.

What follows are short profiles of a dozen of the most hardline anti-Muslim women activists in America. These are people who do not merely criticize radical Islam, but effectively describe all Muslims as part of a serious global problem.”

The women targeted by the SPLC are critics of radical Islam and Sharia law, which the European Court on Human rights has repeatedly ruled is “incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy.”

Via Judicial Watch:

Among those resisting this effort publicly are the high-profile women being targeted by the SPLC. Some of them are colleagues or friends of Judicial Watch and now they must fear for their safety simply for practicing their rights under the U.S. Constitution. The new hate list is titled Women Against Islam/The Dirty Dozen and includes illustrations and detailed information on all the women, who are branded “the core of the anti-Muslim radical right.” The new SPLC hate brochure further targets them by claiming that they’re “a dozen of the most hardline anti-Muslim women activists in America.”

Political activist and commentator Pamela Geller is branded the “country’s most flamboyant and visible Muslim-basher” for, among other things “smearing and demonizing Muslims.” Blogger Ann Barnhardt is identified as one of the “most extreme Muslim-bashers in the United States” and radio talk-show host Laura Ingram made the list for saying that hundreds of millions of Muslims were delighted that 12 people were massacred by Islamic terrorists in the Paris headquarters of a satirical magazine. Former CIA agent Clare Lopez, who runs a Washington D.C. think-tank focusing on national security issues, made the list for saying that the Muslim Brotherhood has “infiltrated and suborned the U.S. government to actively assist…the mission of its grand jihad.”

Others appearing on the anti-Sharia docket include television personality and former judge and prosecutor Jeanine Pirro, former chairwoman of the Texas Republican Party Cathie Adams, talk-show host Sandy Rios of the American Family Association, syndicated columnist Diana West, attorney and columnist Debbie Schlussel, blogger Cathy Hinners, ACT! for America founder Brigitte Gabriel and conservative writer and TV personality Ann Coulter. Among her biggest offenses, according to the SPLC, is proclaiming that “not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims—at least all terrorists capable of assembling a murderous plot against America.”

All of the women have made controversial remarks about Islam and one in particular is  known for “bashing Islam.”  For the most part, however, the women made the list because they speak frankly about problematic teachings found in the Koran and for opposing Sharia law. Which puts them in the company of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who called for a religious reformation of the Muslim faith in a speech before Muslim clerics on New Years Day

Pamela Geller reacted to her inclusion on the list on her blog:

With three jihadis dead and two jihadis jailed in attempts to kill me, this is just encouraging more jihadis to come after me — and the other women this Communist hate group names. At a time when jihad killers are moving actively against those whom they hate in the U.S., this is a quite literal hit list. If any of the people named on this list are attacked or killed by jihadis, the SPLC ought to be shut down and prosecuted for incitement — not that such a thing is likely to happen in Obama’s America. Instead, Obama will probably send the SPLC a letter of commendation the week after the killing, as he did with the Oklahoma mosque after a Muslim beheaded one of his coworkers there.



If you aren’t familiar with the SPLC, Google it and learn about the group’s gradual transition from a law group aiding blacks who needed representation in legal matters (which was laudable) to a left-wing advocacy organization who fights against anything conservative – thus the attack on the twelve women. The SPLC is now deeply into a gay agenda and fighting the good fight for “immigrants,” and we don’t mean the legal kind. In other words, a typical left-wing advocacy organization.

Just look at who is included in their list: Judge Pirro? Ann Coulter? And Dr. Ben Carson was originally targeted until public outcry overwhelmed their image and they relented. But that alone should paint a picture of this leftist organization that, among other things that conservatives don’t like, have become Muslim sympathizers as well.

 These women don’t deserve to be included among the KKK, Aryan Nations, Nation of Islam, and the New Black Panther Party, yet that’s the way the SPLC sees them – obviously a warped view.



Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to 12 Conservative Women Speak Out Against Radical Islam

  1. Kathy says:

    I say why wait? Shut them down and prosecute them now, preferably in a suit brought on by these 12 women.

    Uriel referenced this in her post on the SPLC a few days ago, and now we have Geller’s spot-on response. This is a hit list and those people need to be silenced. Free speech is one thing, but it stops at inciting attacks on a specific list of people.

    • CW says:

      While I can understand the temptation to call for shutting them down, that’s the wrong thing to do, just as it would be wrong for the gov’t to shut us down on the premise that our harsh and persistent criticisms might incite violence against those we criticize. People must be allowed to criticize, and people must be expected to abide by the laws even if they are angered by what they read or hear. Only if they openly call for illegal acts of violence should they be shut down, or else there is no such thing as free speech any more.

      • Kathy says:

        You’re right about the free speech, I’ll give you that, they are afforded that right just as ours is to offset it. But those threats are real, especially the ones on Geller, who’s blown the horn the most, so I think we’re past the point where we can flippantly say that being on that list is a badge of honor. These women are in read danger and the SPLC is fueling it.

        These are scary times. It’s no longer a battle of words or wits, because as we’ve seen more times than we care to count, there are nutjobs out there that take these things seriously and want their 15 minutes bad enough to die for it.

      • Uriel says:

        In my earlier post I did cite a case in point CW where the list from these people were the ignition trigger for a man killing others. So in this case free speech is understandable but highly dangerous, as was found out in the past. Where can we draw the line? Not on this, but certainly on investigating wrongdoing by SPLC and misuse or abuse of monies donated and earmarked to help those in need. Fraud carries it’s own lawful sentence totally apart from free speech. PC can not always be the answer.

      • Garnet92 says:

        I agree with what you’re saying CW although I would welcome any way to completely do away with the SPLC. We do need to allow criticism as long as it doesn’t go any further and actually encourages real violence.

    • Uriel says:

      Right there with you Kathy. Have to be non-partisan here lol. We know from all the press coverage Clinton Foundation has pulled some highly illegal tricks. (Including claiming humanitarian tax exempt status which has been disproved) so by all rights SPLC should be investigated as well. Especially given that many blacks have been harassed and left employment there and I doubt many in poverty range can give testimony to its willing and wonderful help on their behalf.

    • Garnet92 says:

      You’re right Kathy, it is a hit list and the SPLC doesn’t care who the executioner is, just that one or more of these twelve women is harmed for their statements and actions. The SPLC wants retaliation (by any group) so as to intimidate anyone who might speak out against radical Islam.

  2. CW says:

    The more you tell the truth, the greater the Left’s hate for you, and the greater their determination to shut you up and/or marginalize you. So I would consider it a badge of honor to be on their list and I think we should be a bit offended that some of our own resident H&F contributors who dedicate themselves to outing Islam didn’t make the list.

    • Garnet92 says:

      That’s true CW, but being on someone’s “hit” list is not anything that we should find comfort in – in this day and age, we can’t be sure that some easily swayed tool (like the two who went after Geller in Garland) won’t attempt to execute a list member ’cause that’s what the voice in their head wanted.

  3. These women are simply doing the job that the SPLC SHOULD be doing, which is to alert us to hate groups whose corrupt beliefs pose a significant danger to the freedoms – or even the lives – of others. This is something they USED to do when there were more clansmen and skinheads running around. But they now lack the courage they once had, since these days the SPLC seems unable to call out the most vile forms of modern day hate that pose the most serious threats, which of course is radical Islam.

    Instead, they cower in their liberal enclaves, tilting their impotent swords at the windmills of conservative “microaggressions”. Then along come women like Geller, Pirro, and the others on this list, who start doing the job that the SPLC should be doing, and rather than waking up to what should be its legitimate focus – radical Islam – the SPLC instead targets these women. I guess they are simply afraid of what might happen to them if they revealed the litany of violence, subjugation of women, child abuse and other evils that are spreading like wildfire because of this radicalized Islamic hatred. I guess these women make a much safer target for them.

    The SPLC – Profile in Cowardice.

    • Uriel says:

      Possible Michael — but a would say more about greed. For money, position, continued employment, and assisting an agenda certainly guaranteed to destroy the US from the inside by people filled with hate for all things not under their domination. Hmm sounds like others we know.

    • Garnet92 says:

      Thanks for joining the discussion Michael! You’re right, these women are helping to educate the public about those who would enslave the rest of us. I can’t say for sure whether it’s because of sympathy for the radical Muslims, or because they’re afraid of the violence that may come their way if they confront radical Islam, but the end result is the same. The SPLC is ignoring any dangers relating to radical Islam and instead, aiming their condemnation at twelve women who are merely warning the American public about the uneasy world we face when/if the Muslims have their way.

  4. Clyde says:

    The damned SPLC has become WORSE that the Ass Clown Lovers Union, which I have ZERO use for either. If these assmunches want to see HATRED, they need only to consult the nearest mirror.

  5. vonmesser says:

    SPLC – Democrat supported, tax exempt hate group given credence by the President, the leftist news media, and race-baiters.