Terrorist Professor Bill Ayers and Obama’s Federal School Curriculum

By: Mary Grabar
Accuracy in Media

Three years after the Department of Education announced a contest called Race-to-the-Top for $4.35 billion in stimulus funds, some parents, teachers, governors, and citizen and public policy groups are coming to an awful realization about the likely outcomes:

  • A national curriculum called Common Core
  • Regionalism, or the replacement of local governments by federally appointed bureaucrats
  • A leveling of all schools to one, low national standard, and a redistribution of education funds among school districts
  • An effective federal tracking of all students
  • The loss of the option of avoiding the national curriculum and tests through private school and home school

Working behind the scenes, implementing these policies and writing the standards are associates from President Obama’s community organizing days. In de facto control of the education component is Linda Darling-Hammond, a radical left-wing educator and close colleague of William “Bill” Ayers, the former leader of the communist terrorist Weather Underground who became a professor of education and friend of Obama’s.

When these dangerous initiatives are implemented, there will be no escaping bad schools and a radical curriculum by moving to a good suburb, or by home schooling, or by enrolling your children in private schools.

How was it that 48 governors entered Race-to-the-Top without knowing outcomes?

It was one of the many “crises” exploited by the Obama administration. While the public was focused on a series of radical moves coming in rapid-fire succession, like the health care bill and proposed trials and imprisonment of 9/11 terrorists on domestic soil, governors, worried about keeping school doors open, signed on. Many politicians and pundits praised Obama on this singular issue, repeating the official rhetoric about raising standards.

It stands to reason, though, that education policies would be consistent with Obama’s agenda. After all, one of his most controversial associations, highlighted during the 2008 presidential campaign, was with an education professor, Bill Ayers. As a terrorist, he and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, had dedicated their Prairie Fire Manifesto to Sirhan Sirhan, the convicted assassin of Robert F. Kennedy. It was for this reason that Kennedy’s son, Christopher Kennedy, chairman of the University of Illinois board of trustees, voted against bestowing “professor emeritus” status on Ayers after he retired. “I intend to vote against conferring the honorific title of our university whose body of work includes a book dedicated in part to the man who murdered my father, Robert F. Kennedy,” he said.


Back then, the former bomber and co-founder of the communist terrorist Weather Underground organization was Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. The two had worked together closely from the year Ayers hosted a political launch party for Obama, in 1995, to 2002. At the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, “the brainchild of Bill Ayers,” they funneled more that $100 million to radical groups like ACORN and Gamaliel, which used the funds to promote radical education.[i] This initiative was also promoted by Arne Duncan, now Secretary of Education. Also as board members of the Woods Fund, Ayers and Obama channeled money to ACORN and the Midwest Academy.[ii]

When initial White House visitor logs were released in 2009, the administration quickly dismissed speculations about visits by “William Ayers.” That was a different William Ayers Americans were told. The Obama administration is appealing an August 17 order to release the other visitor logs in response to a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch and others.[iii]

It appears, however, that “the” Obama-friendly Bill Ayers has been visiting Washington, D.C. for education-related matters.

In October 2009, the year before he retired, Ayers had an encounter with the “Backyard Conservative” blogger at Reagan National Airport. At that time, there was speculation about Ayers being the real author of Obama’s autobiography, Dreams from My Father. Ayers teased that he was indeed the real author.

Blogger and law professor, Stephen Diamond, noted that no one asked why Ayers would even be in Washington, D.C. It turns out that Ayers was one of three keynote speakers at a conference sponsored by the Renaissance Group, which, according to Diamond, was dedicated to problems of poverty, diversity, and multiculturalism—and the inability of white teachers to deal with them. The other two speakers were Secretary of Education Duncan and U.S. Under Secretary of Education, Martha Kanter.

It is not clear what Ayers spoke about at this particular conference. But my analysis of his courses and methods at the University of Illinois determined that his purpose is to radicalize future teachers—and by extension their students—for the purpose of sparking a revolution and overthrowing capitalism.

It is shocking that Obama Education Department officials would appear at a conference that also featured someone like Ayers. On the other hand, their boss, President Obama, worked with Ayers in Chicago, and this kind of collaboration is not entirely surprising. We are left, however, wondering about the precise nature of the role that Ayers is playing in the development of this federal education plan. But his participation in this conference clearly suggests he is playing a role of some kind.

At this three-day conference, Mr. Nevin Brown of Achieve, Inc., made a presentation on the “Common Core State Standards” Initiative. A recipient of the largesse of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Achieve would become a key player in revamping education under Common Core. Hence, Ayers was a major speaker at a conference that was involved in developing a new national curriculum. If Achieve has ever disavowed Ayers or his teaching methods, we could find no evidence of this on the public record.

The notion of a “Common Core” seems to recall E.D. Hirsch’s traditionalist Common Knowledge curriculum, which emphasizes the need for students to understand America’s cultural and national heritage. But Common Core is not that at all. Many have been fooled, and an estimated 80% of the public does not even know about Common Core.

Common Core is part of an effort to implement regionalism, the replacement of local governments by regional boards of federally appointed bureaucrats, who in turn are beholden to international bodies. Regionalism will eliminate the freedom parents now have in choosing neighborhoods with good schools because tax funds will be distributed equally. There will be no escape in home schooling or private schools either, because the curriculum will follow national tests. Students will be tracked through mandatory state records that will then be accessible to Washington bureaucrats. Ultimately, all students will be subject to education mandates implemented by Obama’s radical cronies.


“Race to the Top” required that states commit to yet-to-be-written Common Core standards in math and English/Language Arts (ELA). Today, Common Core has the support of Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, and was included in the platform of the Democratic National Convention. It was embraced by former Republican Florida Governor, Jeb Bush, much to the consternation of Tea Party groups, who see this as an unconstitutional federal takeover of education. The Republican Party is divided.

Emmett McGroarty and Jane Robbins, in their white paper “Controlling Education from the Top: Why Common Core Is Bad for America,” describe the pressure and sleight-of-hand that led governors to sign onto a commitment that was then changed before the ink had fully dried. They reveal that rather than being a state-led reform initiative, as touted, the new standards were written by a few well-connected, but non-qualified, education entrepreneurs. The history goes back decades, but in the most recent phase, the vision for Common Core was set in 2007, by the Washington-based contractor, Achieve, Inc., in a document entitled Benchmarking for Success.

The question is: Why was Bill Ayers keynoting a conference attended by the two highest officials in the Education Department and by Achieve, essentially the project manager of the nationalized education curriculum? It may be years before we know how often Ayers visited the White House, but the Ayers educational brand or philosophy is all over Common Core.

Some states are waking up. Virginia pulled out when Governor Bob McDonnell was elected. Georgia, Indiana, Utah, South Carolina, and others have begun the effort to extricate themselves.

When South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley said she would support a state legislative effort to block Common Core, which her predecessor had instituted, Education Secretary Arne Duncan dismissed her concerns about nationally imposed standards as “a conspiracy theory in search of a conspiracy.”

But it doesn’t take a conspiracy theorist to realize that Common Core will ultimately dictate the curriculum. Two consortia of states (SBAC and PARCC)[iv] have been given $360 million in federal funds to create national Common Core-aligned tests and “curriculum models.” Well-connected companies, such as Educational Testing Service (ETS) and the multinational textbook company Pearson, are in competition to design the test. David Coleman, a chief architect of the Common Core standards for English/Language Arts, recently was named President of the College Board, which administers tests, including those designed by ETS, like the SAT.

The Education Department on August 12, 2012, announced another competition for $400 million in Race-to-the-Top funds for local districts to “personalize learning, close achievement gaps and take full advantage of 21st century tools.” Such a competition cleverly bypasses recalcitrant states and lures individual districts into the federal web.

The feds’ announcement echoes Common Core’s emphasis on personalized learning and leveling of achievement through technology and collaboration (the “21st century skills”). Common Core emphasizes “in-depth” reading of short passages, rather than long fictional or historical narratives. The Publisher’s Criteria reveal that a focus on short texts will equalize outcomes. Text selection guide B mandates that “all students (including those who are behind) have extensive opportunities to encounter grade-level complex text” through “supplementary opportunities.” The strategy of gathering students into groups to collaborate on short passages ensures that no one advances beyond others.[v]

In the tradition of John Dewey, multiple “perspectives” and “critical thinking” are emphasized over the accumulation of “facts.” Common Core advertises itself as promoting “skills,” rather than content. The skills, though, do not promise to make students more knowledgeable about literature or history, but to make them “critical thinkers” in the tradition of the radical curriculum writers who are selectively critical of the U.S. and the West.

Continue reading


Why Are They Lying?

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

On the Letterman show, President Barack Obama once again blamed Middle East violence on a movie, adding that he was concerned about the “shadowy character” behind it. That “shadowy character” was picked up by the police, acting on behalf of the federal government, in order to begin the process of appeasing Islamic censors around the world who want to destroy our First Amendment rights.

Blaming a movie shifts the attention away from the fact that al-Qaeda is behind the violence and that Osama bin-Laden’s death hasn’t affected the global terrorist war against America. Indeed, as we have reported, the murders in Libya demonstrate that the Obama policy, backed by Senator John McCain, has emboldened al-Qaeda in an important Arab/Muslim country. Since the U.S. military intervention in Libya was illegal and unconstitutional, the shocking emergence of al-Qaeda in Libya is one scandal on top of another. It has been argued that the Libya intervention is an impeachable offense.

Politically, Obama has been beating his breasts about bin Laden’s death, in order to prove he can manage foreign policy. Since the economy is in the tank, this has been Obama’s only real hope of winning a second term. Polls have given him a significant edge over Romney in foreign policy expertise. All of this is now at risk.

The “shadowy character” behind the film apparently has legal problems and makes for a good villain. The propaganda that the film led to the “spontaneous” violence has also served to demonize Coptic Christians in Egypt, the U.S. and elsewhere, way beyond the few who may have had some role in producing the film. Some of them are going into hiding and facing death threats.

There are other explanations for the behavior of the Obama Administration as well.

Acknowledging the truth undermines the Obama policy of cooperating with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The truth that the Muslim Brotherhood is a violence-prone group that continues to sponsor or promote anti-American terrorism cannot be conceded by this administration because it has a policy of “engaging” with them and providing them foreign aid.

Acknowledging the truth also risks exposing the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood has significant influence over the Obama Administration, and that Rep. Michele Bachmann and others were correct to ask for a probe into the extent and nature of this influence. In this context, we may be dealing with top officials who have sold out American interests in a case that could rival that of Alger Hiss, the State Department official who spied for the old Soviet Union.

Who else benefits from the false narrative about the violence in the Middle East?

The most immediate beneficiaries are Iran, Russia and al-Qaeda, which is dominating the “new” Libya and engineered the violent attack and murder of four Americans in Libya on 9/11. It is significant that Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood president Mohamed Morsi was in Iran before the Middle East crisis unfolded. On Tuesday, Morsi held talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi and said, “There exists no problem between Iran and Egypt.”

Ayman al-Zawahiri, an Egyptian, is the current leader of al-Qaeda, and an identified former Soviet KGB agent. Russian President Vladimir Putin, a former KGB officer, has to have knowledge of this.

Al-Zawahiri’s KGB connection was documented by former KGB officers Alexander Litvinenko and Konstantin Preobrazhensky. Litvinenko was poisoned in London and killed after he wrote a book, Blowing up Russia, on how Russian agents are behind certain acts of alleged Islamic terrorism. Preobrazhensky has written about how the Russians, since the days of Lenin, have used Muslims as cannon fodder for the world revolution.

The Ayatollah of Iran, Ali Khamenei, was “educated” at the KGB’s Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow, along with the international terrorist “Carlos,” a convert to Islam and the cause of al-Qaeda who is now in in prison in France for terrorist crimes.

The fact that the Obama Administration is playing along with this strategy is shocking. It suggests that Obama wants America’s enemies to benefit from these developments. In addition to the obvious threat of terrorism, however, we also face the danger of losing our First Amendment rights in order to appease the terrorists determined to kill us.

In response to the orchestrated controversy over the film, the “Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission” of the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation has released a statement urging states “to fully implement the steps identified in the consensual Human Rights Council resolution 16/18 and United Nations General Assembly resolution 66/167.” These are U.N. attempts to silence criticism of Islam.

The OIC statement goes on, “There is a parallel necessity to reinvigorate the efforts to articulate an international code of conduct for media and social media to disallow the dissemination of incitement material…”

This is an obvious call for eliminating our First Amendment rights.

At the 9/11 conference sponsored by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, David Yerushalmi of the American Freedom Law Center spoke about this international effort and how it has already been seen on U.S. soil in the physical attacks that included rocks, cans, and water bottles thrown against Christians in Dearborn, Michigan, during an Arab-American festival in June. The bloodied Christians were preaching and protesting on a public street and acting lawfully but were nevertheless threatened with being arrested by the police if they did not leave the area.

He told the conference that the OIC is attempting to impose “their version of free speech—you can talk freely, you just cannot insult Islam or Muhammad.” He added, “They are pushing that through the U.N. through treaties. If the U.S. were to adopt that, and the State Department is getting dangerously close, the next question for the U.S. Supreme Court is…does the First Amendment trump a treaty? Well, it says in the United States Constitution that a treaty has the force of supreme law of the land. And that question hasn’t been fully adjudicated in our jurisprudence…It will be the next great battle space in this area of free speech.”

When Mitt Romney objected to the Obama Administration going down this road, calling its statement about the attacks an apology, he himself came under savage attack.

Romney was concerned about a statement that came out of the Embassy of the United States in Cairo which said the U.S. “condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims—as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.”

The embassy statement also said, “Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

In fact, religious freedom and freedom of speech are the cornerstones of the American constitutional republic. There is no prohibition on “hurting the religious feelings of Muslims.” There is no “universal right of free speech” but rather an American First Amendment that is unique in the world but which is now under global assault by those who stormed the embassy and then killed four Americans in Libya.

Citing the Cairo embassy statement and what happened in Dearborn, Yerushalmi said freedom of speech will not be preserved “as long as Dearborn, Michigan can engage in that kind of behavior, as long as the State Department can issue statements of this sort.”

He is currently defending Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer in their efforts to place anti-Jihad ads on public transportation vehicles or facilities in New York City and Washington, D.C. The ad says, “In Any War Between the Civilized Man and the Savage, Support the Civilized Man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”

In response to a lawsuit filed by the American Freedom Law Center, a federal judge has ordered the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) of New York to display the advertisements. The MTA had initially rejected the ads as “demeaning” to Islam.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected].


WEAPONS HUNTING: The Reason for the 9-11 Murders in Libya

Gulag Bound

The Chase in Benghazi

He and Ambassador Stevens, as well as the two other special operators from Wind Zero, were executing a CIA and State Department mission to track not only Qaddafi’s weapons, but to trace any and all weapons trafficking in the regions. Smith was the information officer at the Benghazi mission and likely was too close to having uncovered intelligence that pinpointed key players both in and outside of Libya. Intelligence was shared with the CIA, which does enforce the drone program, whether inside Libya, stemming from the mission to remove Qaddafi, or in other hot-spots in the Middle East.

by Denise Simon (@spongedocks) & Arlen Williams (@ArlenWms)

The Soviet occupation in Afghanistan was a long and stalwart war to install a subset of an overall communist footprint in the region. Military and ideological defeat were predictable and the CIA aided in the quest against the Soviets. Part of the original objective of the United States (credited to Zbigniew Brzezinski and adopted by Presidents Carter and Reagan) was to arm key factions to fend off the Soviets.

This was successful. But, as the full retreat by the Soviets was underway, al Qaeda and the Taliban were soon in full possession of weapons that the United States had provided over the years to the anti-Soviet opposition. And the greater part of weapons inventories were Soviet, including even tanks, amidst quite a full array of conventional weapons left behind in their hasty exit. The Afghanis being resourceful took full advantage and learned to repair, rebuild and clone weapons and ammunition, both.

This would soon become a major threat to the West. The cure was to dial up big dollars and go on a buy-back mission to get the weapons out of the hands of militants. Everyone in the nation was armed with virtual immunity; no checks and balances of force existed. Mutual failures to contain were nearly locked in. So, at least by the time of the Clinton administration, the U.S. had begun attempts at a buy-back program, to regain weapons sent to Afghanistan.


Looking over to Libya, Qaddafi during his reign, set on a quest to obtain his own arsenal. It came to include not only millions of weapons, from small arms and rocket propelled grenades, to Russian shoulder fired SA-24 missiles; it also carried a nuclear ambition. Foreign leaders pressed Qaddafi only on the nuclear ambition and there he capitulated, but all other weapons including the MANPADS among its surface to air missiles arsenal, was left out of the process and the arrangements made with him.

Last year, as the mission was underway to remove Qaddafi from power, a great deal of confusion set in and all armories were raided by unique militias across Libya. All weapons were stolen and taken to destinations unknown. Qaddafi had spent an estimated $30 billion in the span of twenty-five years, on conventional weapons from the USSR and China, via Algeria and even Belarus. Included in this stout purchasing campaign were planes and communications equipment.

In the realms of arms trafficking, black markets, and jihad, members of these groups know the movement of weapons and maintain a keen eye upon their vulnerability, either to steal or to purchase them at discounted prices. Such was the case during the regime change objective, to remove Qaddafi from power. Libya experienced a huge infiltration of underworld terror groups such as al Qaeda, Boko Harem, pirates from Somalia, and militias, all sneaking into Qaddafi’s inventory. Weapons did leave Libya, but it is unknown just what remained in country. Of particular importance are the 20,000 MANPADS of which today, only 5,000 have been recovered.

Enter the United States with a large purse of an allocated $40 million, to search for weapons and to buy-back in large numbers, while tracing and tracking the sources and associations of the groups. (To be sure, a few other countries did in fact donate much smaller dollars to support the mission.)

Transitional fighters and jihadis across the region have no loyalty to a country or flag, but only to their causes. They include AQIM, al Shabaab, AQAP, and Ansar al Sharia, to list only a few. The groups transit borders, from North Africa to Syria, with some number and variations of these weapons from Libya. Since the removal of Qaddafi, Libya has no cohesive government in place and Benghazi is a perfect product of lawlessness and confusion.

Libya during the overthrow of Qaddafi, March 20, 2011;
Benghazi became the center of opposition

It should also be known and understood that communications between and among the leadership of terror networks is performed on the Internet by means of dynamic chat rooms and similar websites. The most clandestine communications are found on the sites of video games and other computer games. Here, open chatter, instruction, and planning take place under the guise and cover of gaming. Such is the case in the matter of weapons and the terror attacks we are witnessing in the Middle East.

One of the four Americans murdered in Benghazi was Sean Smith, who was known for his online gaming and social media skills. He and Ambassador Stevens, as well as the two other special operators from Wind Zero, were executing a CIA and State Department mission to track not only Qaddafi’s weapons, but to trace any and all weapons trafficking in the regions. Smith was the information officer at the Benghazi mission and likely was too close to having uncovered intelligence that pinpointed key players both in and outside of Libya. Intelligence was shared with the CIA, which does enforce the drone program, whether inside Libya, stemming from the mission to remove Qaddafi, or in other hot-spots in the Middle East.

The single Obama regime method of processing the ‘kill list’ is to use drone strikes and having proven intelligence as provided by Sean Smith and the two retired SEALS via Wind Zero connecting the dots of weapons, money, and names, led to the violent event and their deaths in Benghazi. It was never about a video. That pretense was concocted as cover and the State Department, as well as radical Muslims had their hand in disseminating that disinformation.

Related observations

Ambassador Stevens spoke Arabic and French. He was a foreign service officer all his life and had spent significant time in Syria. Likely, he was drawn to the mission and to the high salary and benefits for taking this job.

Very likely, the fact of the homosexual U.S. Ambassador’s presence among the weapons hunting American operatives was icing on the cake.

As reported in numerous venues, the four murdered Americans were found in an apartment, not a recognized consulate, in the Jihadi rich city of Benghazi.

Al Qaeda in Libya and their ringleader, Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda bin Qumu, were trying to get rid of Gaddafi for 20 years. Ostensibly, Qunu has health problems and was released from Gitmo to Qaddafi in 2007. But, essentially, he was employed by Hillary Clinton, neck-deep in the instigation of Arab Spring unrest under the shadow-creating umbrella of the U.S. State Department’s “Civil Societies” initiative. See in Gulag Bound, “The Engineers of ‘Leaderless’ Arab Spring & Occupy Wall Street.” See in the New York Times, “Libyan, Once a Detainee, Is Now a U.S. Ally of Sorts.” Qumu essentially created or re-created the al Qaeda effort which successfully participated in ousting Qaddafi.

The Blind Sheikh was and is a major issue of Egypt and Muslim Brotherhood; this was Libya.

Egypt was a massive protest on 9-11-2012; this was a militia attack of Benghazi operators.

Further Articles of Reference

Denise Simon is Senior Research Analyst on Domestic and Foreign Policy for Stand Up America; also 3rd Officer for Watchmen of America, Public Affairs Officer, and an Intel Officer for Watchmen of Florida. Denise is a member of the International Association of Counterterrorism and Security Professionals and is a First Observer, in addition to an executive career in national and international telecommunications, and non-profit organization.


The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watchers Council Results – 09/21/12

The Watcher’s Council

Alea iacta est… the Council has spoken, the votes have been cast and the results are in for this week’s Watcher’s Council match-up. And it was a pretty close race in both categories!

President Barack Obama’s Middle East Foreign policy (if it can even be called that) is falling apart at the seams and yet, the usual suspects blame it on a silly video and what none other than our president called the violence, including the murder of four Americans, ‘natural protests.’ And of course, they make sure to add that the perpetrators are a ‘minority’ who aren’t practicing real Islam, the Religion of Peace.

This week’s winner by a nose, Joshuapundit’s Islam and Not Islam: Fantasy Vs. Reality In The West, takes a look at this topic, one I’ve written about before. Here’s a slice:

Where exactly do you draw the line between fantasy and reality? Or more importantly, where does a society as a whole draw it?

Increasingly, that line in our society is being drawn when it comes to how people perceive Islam.

The recent rise of Islamists and the outbreak of violent attacks on
U.S. embassies in the Muslim World has brought this into focus in almost
a surreal way, as various pundits and talking heads tap dance like
newly reborn Fred Astaires in a minefield trying to avoid stepping on
the real issue -is this sort of violent behavior due to Islam or is it
an aberration due to culture? And what can we do about it?

The way many of them attempt to deal with this without being fired from
their jobs or fear of being targeted for violence themselves is by
talking about a minority of ‘extremists’ who are practicing an
interpretation of Islam that of course, the majority of Muslims do not

Are they right?

Dutch politician Geert Wilders is someone who has forcefully addressed
that question, and he’s paid a heavy personal price for it. So his
opinion is of some interest.

The above interview with The Daily Caller’s Jamie Weinstein to promote his book, ‘Marked for Death: Islam’s War Against the West and Me’ serves as a useful signpost on where that line exist, where the delusions about Islam collide with adamant reality.

Wilder, being European, has seen first hand how multiculturalism combined with massive Muslim immigration and supine politicians willing to appease and accommodate the situation has changed a continent, literally making what was a free society far less free and much more violent and fearful.As Geert Wilders says during the interview, Europe was ten years ahead of America in that regard and he wrote the book, in part ‘as a warning to my American friends.’

Wilder’s opening point is to explain why Islam “should not be compared so much with other religions like Christianity or Judaism” but rather “to other totalitarian ideologies like Communism and Fascism. If we acknowledge that fact then you don’t have to treat it like a religion and a lot of problems can be solved far more easily..”

At which point, Weinstein interrupts and after a brief mention of Israel, brings the conversation to the far more ‘human interest’ level of Muslims as people…you know, all those ordinary, law abiding peaceful Muslims who aren’t harming anyone.

Wilder’s response is interesting. He says (as he always has all along) that he has nothing against anyone simply because they are Muslim, and that the majority of Muslims in our society are neither violent nor criminals. But he goes on to make an important distinction – that while there are moderate people that call themselves Muslims, there’s no such thing as moderate Islam. “Don’t let anybody fool you who says Islam can be moderated,” Wilders says. “There are not two Islams; there is only the Islam of the Koran, the Islam of the life of Mohammed, and the Islam of sharia law.”

Is Wilders correct?

In our non-Council category, the winner was The Diplomad 2.0 with We Are Not at War… Just Under Attack, submitted by The Glittering Eye. It’s a superb examination of exactly what’s happening in the Middle East and how it was a natural result of President Barack Obama’s policies. Do read it.

Okay, okay… here are this week’s full results:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

See you next week! Don’t forget to tune in on Monday AM for this week’s Watcher’s Forum, as the Council and their invited guests take apart one of the provocative issues of the day and weigh in… don’t you dare miss it.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that!