News Ticker >
[ October 16, 2019 ]

WATCH Pamela Geller, Eagle Council: “The Most Important Civil Liberty of All Is The Right...

[ October 16, 2019 ]

Supreme Court refuses to hear case of Christian student forced to recite the Islamic prayer...

[ October 16, 2019 ]

British teacher told 10 year-old Jewish students they’d be sent to ‘GAS CHAMBERS’ if they...

[ October 16, 2019 ]

Muslim migrant driving around London before he tried to ‘kill as many people as possible’...

[ October 16, 2019 ]

Axis of Evil: Jew-Hating Jihad Squad to Endorse Self-Hating Jews Bernie Sanders for President

[ October 16, 2019 ]

Canada: Imam orders Muslims NOT to vote for filthy Jewish and Christian candidates

[ October 16, 2019 ]

British Museum exhibit explores the influence of Muslim culture on the West

[ October 16, 2019 ]

Hunter Biden Admits: Of Course My Dad Being Vice President Benefited Me Financially, Admits “Poor...

[ October 16, 2019 ]

Sharia France: French Union to Punish Journalist for Stating Jihad Motive of Terrorist

[ October 15, 2019 ]

20,000 Sign Petition Demanding BBC Remove ‘Pleasure Marriages’ Expose On How Iraqi Muslim Clerics Sell...

Daisy Shrugged

23

Covered Daisy. The con this month in MORE magazine.

Daisy the khan

The dhimmedia is so completely in love with its own delusion and deception that they herald and laud the mosquerade of Daisy the Khan, of Ground Zero mosquetrosity infamy. If you read the lengthy MORE magazine piece, even a five-year-old could discern the conflicting assumptions, positions and opinions. The journalist and Daisy count on the lazy American's reluctance to critically think. This nonsensical piffery puffery best illustrates what we are fighting in the informational battlespace.

The "moderate" Khan wrapped up in headdress has a seven-page propaganda piece in More magazine. The piece is revealing on many levels. The irony is not lost on me that these magazines are women's magazines putting a shiny, happy face on the most radical, extreme and hostile ideology towards women on the planet. They would never do a piece like this on any of my fellow women warriors in the counter jihad movement. Khan was born into a devout Muslim family in the war-torn region of Kashmir,  a result of the relentless religious mandate of Islamic imperialsim. Her grandparents were wed, in an arranged marriage, when they were nine and 12. One of her sisters had already been given away, adopted by Daisy’s maternal grandmother, who wanted to spare her child, Daisy’s mother, the social ostracism that was meted out to women who bore too many daughters. And now she fronts for this.

What does Daisy actually do to fight Islam's bitter hatred for females? In the region where she grew up, a woman returning home from an ultrasound was chained up, beaten and poisoned by her husband and father-in-law because she was carrying their third daughter.

….a recent poll of WISE’s [an organization Khan founded]  members on the subject of female genital cutting [clitorectomy] was announced. The question was, “Is cutting harmful to women?” Khan was standing when she heard that four women had responded no.

Who are those four?” Khan asked sharply, and then, seeing the discomfort on several women’s faces, she smiled, rolled her eyes and shrugged.

Daisy shrugged.

Despite the fact that both she and radical Rauf have been fired from the Ground Zero victory mosque project, they refuse to go, so addicted to the limelight are they. The media adores them for this one thing — a Ground Zero Islamic supremacist mosque, and Daisy loves the love of the dhimmedia right back. "We can’t step down from our very own creation. We are the vision behind it.” Uh, you've been fired.

I think she comes off quite horribly, quite deceptive, quite transparent and narcissitic here — breathing in the putrid air of her own bubble.

UPDATE: Just as our profile of activist Daisy Khan, the woman behind the so-called ground  zero mosque, was about to hit the newsstands, the controversy took another turn. On January 14, in what the New York Times described as a rift among the players behind the proposed Islamic community center, the project’s developer announced the appointment of a different imam—not Khan’s husband, the imam Feisal Abdul Rauf—as the center’s senior advisor (Rauf is still on the board). The developer, Sharif el-Gamal, also said the couple would no longer “be speaking on behalf of Park51, nor will they be raising funds for the project.”

This change in the imam’s status came as a complete surprise to Khan, who says the couple was not told about it in private or in advance; she says they only learned of it when reporters began to call. And she insists that the couple’s plan for a large, interfaith, Muslim-run community center near ground zero “will still be realized.”

"While we were traveling, the developer changed the name [from Cordoba House] to Park51. [But ours] is a big vision, not just an address,” Khan tells MORE.COM, adding that while they may have their differences with el-Gamal—his  focus is more local, theirs more global—“We can’t step down from our very own creation. We are the vision behind it.”

 Khan says the press is making too much of the so-called split, that the move was simply to insure “continuity” for Friday services during her husband’s hectic travel schedule (the new imam will conduct those services at the temporary mosque that's been set up where the center is planned).  It’s understandable that they’d need a different “point person” to handle the “day-to-day functions" of the facility, she says. And, “If [my husband] chooses to go in and do services, of course there would be no objection.” But Khan bemoans the “timing, the tactics, the way the change was announced.” She and her husband are about to embark on separate speaking tours to promote their vision of moderate Islam and the interfaith center, and “the nation is in mourning right now” over the Arizona shootings. So to announce these changes on Friday was in “bad taste,” Khan says.

She and her husband are "embarking" on a ground zero mosque tour — what will they talk about? Her bogus women's initiatives that do nothing but put money in her pocket?

As for fundraising, Khan says it would have been premature anyway. “You have to have a complete board, you don’t want to jump the gun. Important behind-the-scenes decisions have to be made” before fundraising starts. She is confident that any differences with the developer will be ironed out over the next month or so—differences that should not be worked through “in the public eye,” she adds. Meanwhile, despite el-Gamal's statement that the couple will no longer speak about Park51, Khan maintains that she is very much “still speaking about the Cordoba House vision my husband and I created.”

“The supporters are there. The partners are there,” Khan says resolutely.  “My husband and I are completely committed to building Cordoba House as we envisioned it.”

Yes, they just have to figure out a way to wash the money. 

Who is Daisy Khan and how did she become the face of one of America's most controversial building projects? More magazine's February 2011 profile, by Suzanna Andrews, starts here.

Until last summer, Daisy Khan’s life was a study in compromise. As a teenage immigrant from India, she unbraided her hair and donned bell-bottoms to fit in at her Long Island, New York, high school. As a successful corporate interior architect, she translated her creative vision into designs acceptable to her more conservative clients. As an imam’s wife, she counseled young Muslim couples on how to balance Islamic traditions with American customs. Later, as an advocate for Muslim women’s rights, she sought to reconcile feminism with the Koran. And as a self-described bridge builder between Islam and the West, she sought to forge alliances and eradicate fear. But now, at 52, Daisy Khan is shocked—some say naively so—to find herself in the middle of a raging national controversy surrounding a Muslim community center and prayer space that she and her husband, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, want to build two blocks north of where the twin towers fell. Opponents have asked the couple to stop the project or at least move it elsewhere. But on this point, Khan insists there can be no negotiation and no concession. The compromiser is refusing to budge. The question is, why?

It is early November, and a warm afternoon light bathes the conference room of Khan’s offices on Manhattan’s Upper West Side. Filled with books and photographs, the space is cozy, a sanctuary from what she refers to as “six months of an onslaught” since the couple’s plans to turn a shabby, four-story building worth about $4.5 million into a 15-story, $100 million complex first exploded in the headlines in May. Nothing, Khan says, prepared her for the vehemence of the reaction: the death threats, the vicious blog posts, the public statements from opponents darkly questioning the couple’s motives, some even suggesting that they are a front for radical Islamists bent on imposing Sharia law on U.S. soil. These days she hesitates before turning on the TV or getting on the Internet. “I mean, like, I’m scared to see some of the stuff that’s out there,” she says.

Crocodile tears. Khan doesn't know what vicious is. Crybaby.

Khan has handled even her sharpest critics calmly—for the most part. “So far I haven’t really seen her rattled,” says her good friend Ann Nicholas, who was Khan’s boss in the design department at Shearson Lehman. But everyone has a breaking point, and Khan seemed close to reaching hers on Amanpour’s show when the Somali-born writer and activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a fierce critic of Islam who is living under police protection, lashed out at Khan for presenting herself as a victim.“Stop calling me that!” Khan snapped. “You’re the one running with all the bodyguards.” It was a stunning reaction, this swipe at a woman who fled an arranged marriage and her homeland and whose filmmaking partner, Theo van Gogh, was assassinated by a Muslim extremist after the release of their movie about the abuse of women in Islamic societies. But the exchange offered a window into the complexity of Daisy Khan, because today it is not just the Islamic center that polarizes people; it is Khan herself.

Oh yes, Daisy, that was very brave, yelling and speaking contemptuously at Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who is targeted for death by devout Muslims.

Admired for her courage, vision and sheer savvy—her ability, as one New York real estate investor notes with a laugh, “to take a $4.5 million building, wrap it in the American flag and get the whole country involved”—she is also criticized for her tin ear, for what some perceive as her tendency toward self-promotion and solipsistic righteousness, or as Thane Rosenbaum, director of Fordham University Law School’s Forum on Law, Culture and Society, puts it, “a one-way track on victimhood, a one-way track on sensitivity, a one-way track on tolerance.”

Admired for her courage. Outrageous — admired only by dhimmi journalists like the Vanity Fair writer of this article, Suzanna Andrews.

The criticisms sting. “Have you looked into my heart?” Khan challenged Peter Gadiel, whose son died in the World Trade Center, when he suggested in the “Holy War” debate that Khan’s claim that she was a moderate Muslim might be a lie. “Have you cut my chest and looked into my heart to see what my intention is?”

Yes, very brave, Daisy. Attack a man who lost his 23-year-old son in the Islamic attack on New York.\

And she’s still smarting over a barb by a Muslim fundamentalist who mocked her on the same program for not wearing a veil.“He said, ‘And this woman here, she’s not even covering herself,’ ” she recalls. “That was a big, big stab at me. He was saying, ‘You are not even a Muslim.’” Because she does not veil herself except when praying—believing that public veiling for women is a matter of personal choice and not required by the Koran—it’s a remark she took very personally. But for Daisy Khan, a woman who has taken a long and sometimes painful journey to find not only her faith and her mission but also her identity, the fight is a very personal one. Perhaps more so than she realizes. Almost certainly more than she lets on.

Awww. poor baby. But she's covered up in the accompanying picture to the article. Muslima of a thousand faces, or veils, or whatever.

If Khan triggers so many conflicting emotions in people, it may be because so much of her life has been made up of conflicting parts. Born in 1958, in Srinagar, the capital of the northern Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, Khan was raised in a prosperous Muslim family that was both traditional and remarkably progressive. Her grandmothers, she says, wore the burka; her paternal grandparents were wed, in an arranged marriage, when they were nine and 12. Daisy—whose given name is Farhat—was her parents’ third daughter, and her birth, she says, “was not welcomed by everyone.” One of her sisters had already been given away, adopted by Daisy’s maternal grandmother, who wanted to spare her child, Daisy’s mother, the social ostracism that was meted out to women who bore too many daughters. And Daisy, too, might have been given away—or worse—if it hadn’t been for her father’s father, ­Ghulam Hassan Khan.

The extended Khan family all lived in his home. Daisy was born there, so prematurely that her grandmother dressed the house in mourning and left her alone to die. As Khan has told the story, it was her grandfather who, on arriving home from work, demanded to know what was going on, then ran into the baby’s room, picked her up and said she was a “gift from God.”

[…]

In 1988, what Khan has called a “very, very dark” stage of her life began. Salman Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses had just been published, triggering riots and book burnings in several Muslim countries. Death threats were made against the author, and a fatwa calling for his assassination was issued; eventually he went into hiding. “I was moving around in intellectual circles. I loved books. I was very troubled by that. It upset everything internally, everything I believed in,” Khan says. “I didn’t know how to deal with that. There were no blogs, no chat groups. There were very few Muslims that I engaged with. It was a very lonely existence.” None of her colleagues in New York knew she was a Muslim: “If you were working in an office in those days, you didn’t discuss politics and religion.”

It was a crisis of identity for which there seemed to be no easy resolution. “I had to make a choice: Am I going to be associated with this thing [Islam] or disassociated? It was easier to just abandon my religion, to leave the whole faith thing. But there was something constantly calling.” Desperate for answers, Khan stopped into the Masjid al-Farah mosque in Tribeca one day during her lunch break. The imam was Feisal Abdul Rauf, 10 years her senior. The Kuwaiti-born son of a prominent Egyptian cleric, Rauf studied physics at Columbia University and then became a Sufi, shedding his father’s conservative Islam for a more spiritual, liberal form of the religion.

In Rauf, Khan found the compromise—a way of practicing Islam that she could embrace, one that fit with her view of the world and of herself. Khan immediately “fell in love with his sermons,” and then with Rauf himself.

Did wife number three work her stuff from the pew floor of the segregated mosque? How lovely.

[..]

In an effort to promote their vision of a more progressive form of Islam, in 1997 the couple established the nonprofit group that is now called the American Society for Muslim Advancement. Today Khan runs ASMA, which has a staff of 10 and an annual budget of about $1 million. But for many years, while she worked full time, it was her husband’s project. “I had no real leadership role,” she says. “I was just the imam’s wife.” It wasn’t until 9/11 that Khan emerged from her husband’s shadow and became an activist in her own right.

If not for that earlier, Rushdie-related phase of soul searching, Khan says, she isn’t sure how she would have gotten through the horror of 9/11. “Everything changed,” she says. Some people she knew abandoned their religion completely, as did Tiffany, whose cousin was on United Airlines Flight 175 with his wife and two-year-old daughter when it was flown into the south tower of the World Trade Center—and whose uncle Lee Hanson is today a vocal opponent of the community center Khan and her husband want to build. Meanwhile, Khan found herself in demand after 9/11 as calls asking her to speak about Islam “as a Muslim woman” came rolling in from churches, synagogues and organizations around the country.

“There was a lecture every night,” she says. “It was overwhelming, the kind of outreach we had to do because Americans were so confused. They wanted to know what Islam is and ‘Why do you hate us?’ ” Khan also oversaw a handful of interfaith art and performance projects in Manhattan, including the Cordoba Bread Fest, a gathering of Muslims, Jews and Christians at St. Bartholomew’s Church. “One imam wouldn’t come because one of the Christian women was going to do a liturgical dance,” she recalls, laughing. “He could not be convinced that it wasn’t a belly dance. But two days before the event, the woman tripped and broke her leg. So we called the imam and told him we decided the dance was not so important. We never told him she broke her leg.”

At first Khan was tapped because of her husband’s connections: After 9/11 he was enlisted by the State Department and the FBI to consult on Islamic issues. But she soon developed a reputation in her own right, giving interviews, lecturing at the Aspen Institute, traveling to the World Economic Forum.

Dawah (proselytizing), a religious mandate in Islam.

“I kind of got defined as a Muslim woman by 9/11,” Khan says. “Until then I just thought of myself as a career girl who’s an imam’s wife whose name is Daisy who is a New Yorker and an American. Muslim was just my own spiritual identity.” In 2005, Khan quit her corporate job and turned to full-time activism as she and her husband became leaders in what some have described as the industry of moderate American Islam. After 9/11, says one American Islamic specialist, the money from governments and foundations came pouring in to groups that promoted dialogue and moderation. Rauf had his consulting contracts, and there were grants for ASMA from such donors as the United Nations, the Carnegie Corporation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Dutch and Qatari governments—amounting to some $1.37 million in 2009, according to the group’s financial report for that year, the latest that is publicly available. Such funding enabled ASMA to expand; in 2004 it started the Cordoba Initiative, a ­subsidiary focused on improving relations between Islam and the West.

They sure do know how to scam the system.

Two years later, Khan founded the Women’s Islamic Initiative in Spirituality and Equality, or WISE, a group whose stated mission is to “empower” Muslim women around the world. The idea had come to her suddenly. She was 48 and had never thought of herself as a feminist. “I was never disempowered by anyone,” she says. But she had grown increasingly disturbed by the questions people kept raising about the treatment of women in the Islamic world—the stonings, honor killings, forced marriages, restrictions on women’s education. Her response was that these practices were un-­Islamic, a distortion of the Koran by patriarchal societies and governments. She says her wake-up call came when a woman approached her in a church and said, “You tell us this is a distortion of your faith, but what are you doing about it?” Says Khan: “I realized if I, sitting in America, don’t do something, then who will?”

[….]
Today WISE is still in its infancy. But there have been some noteworthy accomplishments. A website ­highlights Muslim women’s achievements through­out history, disseminates information and relevant news and helps Muslim women communicate with one another.

A website! You don't say!

So far, with its limited budget, WISE has been able to fund two significant on-the-ground projects, both faith based. In Afghanistan the organization is working with village imams, creating study groups and providing sample sermons in an attempt to expose clerics to interpretations of the Koran that endorse rights for women. In Egypt, WISE is working in several villages to eradicate the practice of female genital mutilation.

96% of the girls/women in Egypt have been clitorectomized.

Backed by an incentive program to provide new jobs for practitioners of genital cutting—often the village midwife or even a barber—WISE is using the Koran to convince people that cutting violates Sharia law. There are many, including members of WISE, who question the validity of this strategy, arguing that accepting the Koran as the framework buttresses the very system that oppresses women. But the idea of using civil law and U.N. resolutions to protect women and fight cultural oppression is, for Khan, a Western strategy that will not work.

“The human rights argument falls on deaf ears,” she explains. “It doesn’t translate into what people believe. When you use faith-based language, Koranic language, people understand that. They trust it. They see it as the highest authority for Muslims.

“We don’t shy away from faith,” she adds. “We deploy it.”

Yes, use the book that oppresses the women. 96% of the women have been mutilated. Daisy knows this. This ruse is part of her deception.

But not every opinion of the Shura Council or its members reflects Khan’s views. At the council’s October meeting at the Union Theological Seminary in New York, she seemed distracted—texting, reading e-mails, taking cell phone calls—as 18 women sat around a table in an oak-paneled room for nearly 10 hours straight, parsing the Koran in excruciating detail. Then the result of a recent poll of WISE’s members on the subject of female genital cutting was announced. The question was, “Is cutting harmful to women?” Khan was standing when she heard that four women had responded no. Khan was so stunned, she almost dropped her cup of coffee. “Who are those four?” she asked sharply, and then, seeing the discomfort on several women’s faces, she smiled, rolled her eyes and shrugged.

[…] Take polygamy, a problem she has encountered even in New York, where it is practiced secretly, she has said, mainly by conservative Muslim immigrants from Africa and Asia.

Love when they use the word "conservative" to describe the most repulsive aspects of Islam.

Still, her reform-from-within approach has earned kudos. WISE’s project in Afghanistan has been cited as groundbreaking by the Clinton Global Initiative; she has won several awards from small interfaith groups extolling her work; Newsweek put her on its cover in 2007, along with other progressive Muslims. The White House Project’s Marie Wilson calls Khan “a very original and visionary thinker” and credits her with pushing the organization to reach out to the large population of Muslim women in Dearborn, Michigan, to train them to run for office. […]

Cover girl. Duped media darling.

That rosy outcome was certainly what she expected for the community center [Ground Zero mosque.]

[…]

The public relations woman—and perhaps the romantic—in her immediately saw the proximity to the World Trade Center site as a symbol of “much-needed healing,” a chance to show that American Muslims shared the country’s grief and were also part of the recovery, helping to revitalize the neighborhood. Khan did virtually no advance research or community organizing. She didn’t imagine that anyone would object.

If that sounds incredibly naive now, she says the big mistake was going public too soon, “not getting our board lined up, the people who would be able to speak on our behalf.” In Khan’s telling, the opposition came from a hard core of virulently anti-Islamic activists. And to a certain extent that is true. The first frenzy of protest was whipped up by two bloggers—Pam Geller and Robert Spencer—who head an organization called Stop Islamization of America. They hit the television shows and organized protests.

Oh yes, Dazey. Blame us and ignore the 70% of all Americans who fiercely opposed this mosque and the desecration of Ground Zero. Extreme is a measure — extreme in pursuit of the good, of freedom, of truth is righteous.

In May a contentious community-board meeting resulted in a vote in favor of the project, but in the weeks and months after that, Geller and Spencer’s heated rhetoric helped define the debate in its extremes—good versus evil, religious tolerance versus bigotry, First Amendment rights versus the rights of those in pain. In the middle, however, were a considerable number of opponents and undecideds who were not so extreme. Among them were many Muslims, including Prince al-Waleed bin Talal, the Saudi billionaire, who has supported ASMA financially but who objects to the center, not only because the 9/11 “wound” is still healing but also because he feels that a mosque should not be built in a neighborhood that also houses bars and a strip club.

They just make this garbage up as they go along. As if…… mosques all over the NYC area are built near bars and clubs.

And there were many Americans wrestling with legitimate concerns about Islamic extremism and how to balance rights to free expression in a democracy with emotional sensitivities. All questions that Daisy Khan herself had wrestled with.

In 2005 a Danish newspaper published a series of cartoons that portrayed the Prophet Muhammad unflatteringly and linked Islam with terrorism. Muslims around the world rioted, and more than 130 people were killed. Khan struggled. “As an artist, I believe in complete freedom of creative expression,” she says. As an American, she believed in freedom of the press. But as the head of a Muslim organization, she agonized about what public position to take. In the end, she decided that publishing the cartoons was wrong. “Freedom of expression comes with social responsibility,” she says, explaining her stance against the cartoons. “There are some things we don’t do. We don’t yell ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater. So is it wise to do what we are doing? Does one have to provoke?”

Ah, so Miss America is against freedom of speech.

There is more than a little irony in Khan’s remark, because her argument—that emotional sensitivities are important—is precisely the argument that people have made against the Islamic center. “There are no legal impediments to putting up a mosque,” says Fordham Law School’s Thane Rosenbaum. “But just because you can do it, does it mean you should?”

If Khan has grappled with the sensitivity question raised by the center’s proximity to ground zero, she does not show it. Although she has expressed deep sympathy for the pain of 9/11 families, in person and in public she generally dismisses those who oppose her as “uninformed.” And although she has struggled with the issues of Islamic extremism and the violence done in the name of the Koran, trying to resolve her own conflicting emotions, she bristles when those subjects are brought up in debates about the center. She often seems to dodge and weave when the subject of jihadi violence is raised, deflecting the problem onto the American media or her opponents’ prejudices. When I ask her how much of the controversy over the center has to do with Islamophobia—she has often said the two are connected—and how much has to do with real fears raised by incidents like the Fort Hood killings and the bomb planted in Times Square last May, just one week before the furor over the center erupted, she looks at me with a blank stare. Her lips are pursed. She is silent for a long moment and then blinks, arranges her face in a tight smile and responds: “It is a huge burden, because that is the image of Islam that is presented to the American public. What is not fair is that there is no portrayal of what Muslims are doing about it.”

“Islamic terrorism,” especially against the United States, “is very difficult for people like Daisy,” observes a colleague. “Like a lot of immigrants, she very much wants to be ‘American,’ and this puts a painful shadow over the narrative. And Daisy compartmentalizes, so she doesn’t address it.” But that reluctance, coupled with the aggrieved tone she often marshals, has led people, including Muslims in the West, to accuse her of soft-pedaling the problem of terrorism. Which, when all the noise and shouting are put aside, is not what Daisy Khan wants. What she wants, she says, is for people to see “that Muslims are part of the solution, that they are fighting side by side with non-Muslims, that our collective enemy is extremism.”

Close to 20,000 Islamic attacks since 911, each one with the imprimatur of a Muslim cleric. She has never spoken to that. Daisy cons with the "tiny, fringe." Those six Muslims sure are busy, Daze.

“I think that the center has become so public,” she says with a laugh, “that fund raising is now much easier than we thought.” So much easier, it seems, that in recent weeks Khan and her husband have increased their fund-­raising target, to $150 million.

Told you.  $150 million — a mega-mega mosquestrosity.

So here we have it. The world according to Khan. She's against the publishing of the Danish cartoons, she's against Freedom of Speech, she's against candor and criticism of Islam because it may inflame the Muslim world. And yet, shes absolutely no problem with a 15 story Islamic-supremacist mosque on the hallowed ground of our beloved dead that has ripped this nation apart limb from limb.

Read the whole thing (seven pages) and do keep a motion sickness bag closeby. Sheesh.

We have invited Daisy, Rauf and Gamal repeatedly to dialogue with us at CPAC. They are always preaching about inter-faith dialogue. But it seems only when the deck is stacked and the dhimmis have been sufficiently subdued.

PROTEST THIS MOSQUESTROSITY

NEW YORK: February 3rd, Protest the Ground Zero mosque at NYC Council hearings, 49-51 CHAMBERS STREET 12:45PM

WASHINGTON DC: February 11th, CPAC FOR DEBATE AND WORLD PREMIERE SCREENING OF AFDI/SIOA'S DOCUMENTARY: The Ground Zero Mosque: The Second Wave of the 911 Attacks 3pm Maryland Ballroom. R.S.V.P GROUNDZEROMOSQUE@AOL.COM

NEW YORK PREMIERE of FDI/SIOA film  The Ground Zero Mosque: The Second Wave of the 911 Attacks in Manhattan at the St. Luke Theatre 7:30 pm. Refreshments and Q&A will follow.

Texas, California, Florida and other  screenings to be announced shortly.

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute to our ground-breaking work here.


Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

Contribute Monthly - Choose One

Have a tip we should know? Your anonymity is NEVER compromised. Email tips@thegellerreport.com

Pin It on Pinterest