Last Friday I wrote about a fallacious story by Rosie Gray in Buzzfeed, claiming that I did not receive the flag described in the certificate above.

Now a Marine Corps spokesman at the Pentagon has quietly taken issue with the Buzzfeed piece, saying that it "isn't actually the case" that I wasn't awarded this flag, and that the story was "mischaracterized."

"The flag's origin has not been researched by the Marines, according to Flanagan." Nor was it researched by Rosie Gray. Let her contact Lt. Commander Rachel Oden and Commander Master Chief Russell Folley and Brigadier General Michael G. Dana, and find out the real story.

It's a shame that the left is so bent on discrediting me and my work that they would fabricate a fallacious story like this. It shows just how desperate they are to silence voices of freedom.

USMC: Marines 'Mischaracterized' in Story on Geller by Rich Jacques, Great Neck Patch, April 8, 2013

Friday's Buzzfeed headline: "Marine Corps: We Didn't Give Pamela Geller A Flag As A Gift," isn't exactly the case, a Marine Corps spokesman told Patch.

"I think it was sort of mischaracterized," said Capt. Eric Flanagan at the Pentagon. "Its unfortunate that it appears they are trying to use us to get into the middle of this situation."

Certification states the flag was flown over Camp Leatherneck amid the battlefields of Afghanistan during decisive operations against enemy forces in Helmand province on Sept. 11, according to Geller. 

In response to the Buzzfeed article, Geller posted pictures of the flag and it's [sic] certification on her blog to prove authenticity, according to Geller. 

"The enemies of freedom are on a crusade to destroy champions of freedom by any means necessary," said Geller April 5.

The flag's origin has not been researched by the Marines, according to Flanagan. 

"I guess it would depend on the date and who signed it for us to track that down," said Flanagan.

On her blog, Geller said the flag was presented by Lt. Cmdr. Rachel Oden.

The certification is signed by Brig. Gen. Michael G. Dana and Command Master Chief Russell W. Folly, of the 2nd Marine Logistics Group, Regional Command Southwest, according to Geller.

The USPTO did NOT label your organization racist or bigoted. It simply ruled, incorrectly, that the trademark would insult Muslims who understood (incorrectly) that you wished to "stop" peacful Muslims/Islam versus political sharia driven Islam (i.e., Islamisation).

Spencer takes him down again today:

Reza Aslan rebuked: "Those abusive emails you sent [to Robert Spencer] were far below what most educated people would expect" Jihadwatch

I asked the question just a few days ago: have you ever noticed that Islamic supremacist spokesmen in the U.S., including those who claim to be "moderate," are generally arrogant, foul-mouthed creeps whose idea of a discussion is to hurl adolescent insults? A few years back the Islamic supremacist pseudo-moderate and media darling Reza Aslan demonstrated this vividly when he sent me a series of emails full of abuse more worthy of a sixth-grade playground than what one would expect from the serious academic he claims to be.

I got such a kick out of them, and out of his ridiculous attempts to distance himself from them by claiming that they were automated, that I posted them as a free verse poem to go into the literary anthology that he was hawking at the time.

Now a Jihad Watch reader has asked Aslan about them. Aslan first tries to deflect the question by trotting out the same old tired smears (SPLC! ADL!), and then lies outright by claiming I sent him "about hundred abusive emails" -- and yet he produces none of the emails, because he can't, because they don't exist.

The reader is right: the abuse is unworthy of what one would and should expect from a scholar of Aslan's stature. But that's just the thing: Aslan doesn't hold his academic position because of the quality of his scholarship. The guy is completely out of his depth -- witness his basic grammatical errors below, and astounding errors of fact such as his claim that Turkey is the second most populous Muslim country (it's actually the seventh most populous, in terms of Muslim population). Aslan is lionized and respected because he holds the proper politically correct opinions: contempt for America, hatred for Israel, and endless justification for Islamic supremacists and jihadists. In our debased age, an immature mediocrity like Reza Aslan can rise very high, as long as he tells the Leftist elites what they want to hear.

You can read the emails that the reader is asking Aslan about here.

1. Reader to Aslan:

Dear Mr Aslan

I was interested to read on Jihadwatch that you are able to send personalised insulting automatic responses to people who email. Is that correct?

thanks

2. Aslan to reader:

From: Reza Aslan
Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 15:29
Subject: Re: automated response

And I assume you trust what you read on a site that's run by a man labeled a hate group leader by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League.

Sent from my iPhone

3. Reader to Aslan:

Thanks Dr Aslan

I try not to take everything on trust. I don't know anything about these two organisations you name, so I can't go by what they say.

But it does seem unlikely that a scholar like yourself should have descended to such crude abuse that Robert Spencer quotes. Did he make them up?

On the other hand, it is surely quite unbelievable that those abusive emails (if they exist) were generated by some personalised automatic system. Surely we do not have the technology to do this!

That is what interested me. Do you think that Spencer made up the reply from your associate Roshi?

thanks again

4. Aslan to reader:

From: Reza Aslan
Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2013, 13:22
Subject: Re: automated response

All you need to know about Robert Spencer and his cohort Pamela Geller is that the Anti-Defamation League labels them anti-Semitic, the SPLC labels them an official hate organization, and the US Trademark organization has refused to acknowledge their organization because it labels it as racist. But they've still made millions spreading hate and lies. There's really nothing more to say.

Sent from my iPhone

5. Reader to Aslan:

Thanks

As I said, I don't know anything about these organisations you cite (I am British), so I cannot judge on the basis of what they say.

With respect, I don't think you answered my questions

Did Spencer make up the abusive emails that he says you sent him?

Do you think he made up the email that he says Roshi sent him, and which described the abusive emails as 'automated'

Please remember I am a bit of an outsider in this, and want to make an objective assessment. This whole business is intriguing, and, as a truth-lover, I would like to see the truth come out.

Thanks and best wishes

6. Aslan to reader:

From: Reza Aslan
Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2013, 21:03
Subject: Re: automated response

I have no idea what he has on his site bc I refuse to visit it. I don't know why anybody would. what i know is that he sent me about hundred abusive emails so in order to make him stop I and my staff began making fun of him. spencer is a clown and clown's are meant to be laughed at.

7. Reader to Aslan:

Thanks Dr Aslan

Oh I see

So you are saying that you did actually send him the abusive emails and that you or your associate made up the 'automated' tag as a joke.

May I say that, considering your academic qualifications and scholarship, those abusive emails you sent were far below what most educated people would expect.

Perhaps you would say that the abusive emails that he sent you would justify such a tasteless and crude response. I would disagree, thinking that scholars should never descend to the language of the gutter. Nevertheless, to satisfy my curiosity and the interests of justice, perhaps you could send me a sample of the abusive emails you say he sent you? There is a wider audience that should be aware of what Mr Spencer is up to.

By the way, I hope you don't mind me pointing out that the plural of 'clown' is 'clowns' with no apostrophe. Apostrophes are never added to plurals.

Best regards

The reader shouldn't expect too much of Reza Aslan. He was just imitating Muhammad, the "excellent example" of conduct according to the Qur'an (33:21). Consider these hadiths (thanks to Sam Shamoun):

Ubayy b. Ka‘b told that he heard God’s messenger say, “If anyone proudly asserts his descent in the manner of the pre-Islamic people, tell him to bite his father’s penis, and do not use a euphemism.” It is transmitted in Sarah [sic] as-sunna. (Mishkat Al Masabih, English Translation With Explanatory Notes By Dr. James Robson [Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Booksellers & Exporters, Lahore, Pakistan, Reprinted 1994], Volume II, Book XXIV – General Behaviour, Chapter XIII. Boasting and Party-Spirit, p. 1021)

And:

… Then ‘Urwah said: “Muhammad, tell me: if you extirpate your tribesmen, have you ever heard of any of the Arabs who destroyed his own race before you? And if the contrary comes to pass, by God I see both prominent people and rabble who are likely to flee and leave you.” Abu Bakr said, “Go suck the clitoris of al-Lat!” – al-Lat was the idol of Thaqif, which they used to worship – “Would we flee and leave him?” … (The History of al-Tabari – The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael Fishbein [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany 1997], Volume VIII (8), p. 76)

And in the words of Abu Bakr As-Sideeq to 'Urwah: "Suck Al-Lat's clitoris!" – there is a permissibility of speaking plainly the name of the private parts if there is some benefit to be gained thereby, just as he [Muhammad] permitted a plain response to the one who made the claims of the Jahiliyyah (i.e. claims of tribal superiority), by saying: "Bite your father's penis!" And for every situation there is a (fitting) saying. (Provisions for the Hereafter (Mukhtasar Zad Al-Ma'ad), by Imam Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah, summarized by Imam Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab At-Tamimi [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, First Edition: September 2003], Chapter. Regarding the Story of Al-Hudaibiyyah, p. 383; source; words within brackets ours)

As for Aslan's charges themselves, Aslan consistently uses the SPLC and ADL to avoid having to respond to the real charges I have brought against him (see below) and to dodge debate with me. But as Juvenal (not juvenile -- that's Aslan) said, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? the Southern Poverty Law Center, while it may have once done good work against racism, has now degenerated into a well-heeled propaganda machine that smears conservatives for cash and is an integral part of the ongoing Leftist effort to demonize and destroy those who oppose them by labeling them "hate groups." The SPLC richly deserves its place on AFDI's Threats to Freedom Index. See the new takedown of them here.

And regarding the Anti-Defamation League, Aslan is lying: the ADL didn't label us anti-Semitic, but "Islamophobic." Charles Jacobs and Ilya Feoktistov said (thanks to Pamela Geller) that the ADL “has adopted a policy, consistent with the progressive agenda, not to speak up much about the global tsunami of Muslim anti-Semitism, but instead to campaign against ‘Islamophobia.’ This while FBI statistics show that hate crimes against Jews in America are five times the number of hate crimes against Muslims.” ADL leader Abraham Foxman’s “policy has led the ADL to stand with people and organizations whose mission it is to defame and harm Jews. To defend its policy of ‘outreach,’ the Anti-Defamation League vigorously defames as ‘bigots’ citizens who question radical Islamists’ true aims.”

As for the trademark, that's just more political correctness -- rendered bitterly ironic by the tenacity with which many Egyptians are currently resisting Islamization. We just filed a Notice of Appeal today. It says that we are using the word "Islamization" to refer to attempts to "'[t]o cause to conform to Islamic law or precepts' (as defined at Dictionary.com) and '[m]ake subject to Islamic law: to cause people, institutions, or countries to follow Islamic law' (as defined at Encarta.com)." That's what they're fighting in Egypt these days, but we can't fight it here.

Remember also: far from being a "moderate," Aslan is an Islamic supremacist who is a Board member of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC). NIAC has been established in court as a front group for the Islamic Republic of Iran. Aslan is an enemy of the freedom of speech, having called for the vandalism of our AFDI ads.

Aslan's has tried to pass off Iran's genocidally-minded President Ahmadinejad as a liberal reformer and has called on the U.S. Government to negotiate with Ahmadinejad himself, as well as with Hamas -- that is, with two of the most barbaric, genocide-minded and murderous adherents of Sharia. Aslan has even praised the jihad terror group Hizballah as "the most dynamic political and social organization in Lebanon," as well as the anti-Semitic, misogynist, Islamic supremacist Muslim Brotherhood, which is dedicated in its own words, according to a captured internal document, to "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within." Aslan wrote: "The Muslim Brotherhood will have a significant role to play in post-Mubarak Egypt. And that is good thing." He has not revised this view despite the Muslim Brotherhood regime's increasing authoritarianism and brutality toward its opponents, or its escalating persecution of Egyptian Christians.

UPDATE: David Yerushalmi writes in with yet another refutation of another Aslan lie: "The USPTO did NOT label your organization racist or bigoted. It simply ruled, incorrectly, that the trademark would  insult Muslims who understood (incorrectly) that you wished to 'stop' peaceful Muslims/Islam versus political sharia driven Islam (i.e., Islamisation)."

SECOND UPDATE: From three days ago -- this is the man who is teaching your children:

SB58 by Senator Alan Hays, American Laws for American Courts, passed the Senate Committee on Children, Families, and Elder Affairs and is now set to move to the Rules Committee, the final committee in the process for SB58. SB58 previously passed the Judiciary Committee and Governmental Oversight and Accountability Committee. Congratulations to Senator Hays. Well done, freedom lovers. (hat tip to Chris H)

No foreign law, (Jewish, Italian, Swahili or other) trumps the U.S. Constitution. There is no compulsion in Jewish or Catholic law. Jewish law doesn't assert authority over non-Jews, Canon Law doesn't assert authority over non-Catholics. But the sharia is a complete legal system asserting authority over non-Muslims, denying them basic human rights.

HB1060, American Laws for American Courts, by Rep. Sally Kern of Oklahoma passed the full Oklahoma State Senate today by a vote of 40-3. It had previously passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives by a vote of 81-11. Congratulations to Representative Sally Kern and her 3-year fight to get American Laws for American Courts through the Oklahoma legislature. (thanks to Chris H)

No foreign Law, (Jewish, Italian, Swahili or other) trumps the U.S. Constitution. There is no compulsion in Jewish or Catholic law. Jewish law doesn't assert authority over non-Jews, Canon Law doesn't assert authority over non-Catholics. But the sharia is a complete legal system asserting authority over non-Muslims, denying them basic human rights.

Anti-Israel Jews are trying to ban me from speaking at a local synagogue next weekend, leftwing JINOs (Jews in names only), but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Now uber-left Jews (cultural Jews, not spiritual Jews) at Yeshiva University are stooping so low as to honor a man who has written a whole book (Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid) validating the Islamic supremacist blood libel against Israel -- that it is an apartheid state. For those who may think that Carter is a defender of the Jews because of the Camp David Accords should consider how much Israel was made to give up in those agreements, in exchange for promises that have been broken again and again -- notably, that Egypt would not allow antisemitic rhetoric to flourish in that country, that Sinai would not become a base for jihad attacks against Israel or for aid to the "Palestinian" jihadists, etc.

And now the Camp David Accords are on their last legs because of the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt, and Carter is a full-bore spokesman for the jihad. And they're honoring him now?

Yeshiva University is supposed to set the standard. The shuld be the architects of Jewish pride. You want to honor someone at Yeshiva University, how about a real Zionist like John Bolton or Jose Aznar? Or even Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld.

Who's up for this award next year? Khaled Meshaal? Such asshattery is without peer.

Outrage as Yeshiva University's Law School Honors Jimmy Carter Breibart,

by Joel B. Pollak 8 Apr 2013, 4:23 AM PDT

On Wednesday, the Journal of Conflict Resolution at Yeshiva University's Cardozo School of Law will bestow an award on former president Jimmy Carter. The award, chosen by the students who run the journal, has stirred intense controversy at the historically Jewish institution, given Carter's embrace of the anti-Israel movement in recent years and his eager association with openly antisemitic leaders in the Arab and Muslim world.

A group of Cardozo alumni, calling itself the Coalition of Concerned Cardozo Alumni, has established a website, shameoncardozo.com, that summarizes the case against Carter, including an image of him interacting warmly with Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas leader in Gaza and Palestinian Authority prime minister who is responsible for ongoing terror attacks targeting Israeli civilians. Carter's error-filled 2006 book Palestine: Peace not Apartheid blamed Israel for the flagging peace process and placed him on the margins of debate on the issue.

Yeshiva University and Cardozo administrators deny any association with the decision to grant Carter an award. Lori Lowenthal Marcus of The Jewish Press reports that despite reassurances by Dean Matthew Diller that he would not be at the ceremony, "a letter obtained by The Jewish Press that was sent by Dean Diller to certain 'high roller' alumni inviting them to the event made clear...Diller plans to be front and center at the event."

The school's Journal of Conflict Resolution has stirred controversy in the past. Broadcaster and Cardozo alumnus Yishai Fleisher recalls that ten years ago, the journal chose to honor Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who had taken a vitriolic, and in some respects antisemitic, stance against Israel. Fleisher encouraged opponents of the Carter award to mount a vigorous protest against the ceremony rather than shut down the event itself.

 

Billions of your taxpayer dollars to fund the imposition of sharia savagery:

Gaza Hairstyle Crackdown Sees Heads Shaved SKY News, April 8, 2013

Young men deemed to have "indecent" hairstyles were beaten, abused and had their hair cut off, a human rights group says.

Police in the Gaza Strip have been grabbing young men off the streets and shaving their heads in a crackdown on hairstyles, according to a human rights group.

The Palestinian Center For Human Rights said a number of men had been beaten and detained by police who stated that their hairstyles were "indecent".

House painter Ayman al Sayed said his shoulder-length hair was shaved off by police on Thursday.

He said he had just finished work in Gaza City and was waiting for a shared taxi when a police jeep approached.

The 19-year-old said he was thrown into the back with more than 10 others while police officers shouted and swore at them.

When they arrived at a police station, the detainees were lined up and an officer began shaving their heads.

He shaved two lines, from front to back and from one ear to the other, telling the young men they could finish the job at a neighbourhood barber shop.

Those who resisted were beaten, Mr al Sayed said.

"The only thing I want to do is leave this country," he added. "I am scared. They just take you from the street without reason. I don't know what they are going to do next."

High school student Tareq Naqib said he was taken by police outside his home.

"They said, 'we want you to respect our tradition,'" the 17-year-old said. "They made a cross on our heads and asked us to leave and finish the shaving at a barber shop."

Another Gaza teen, who spoke to AP on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution, said he saw police beat three young men in Gaza City for wearing tight, low-rise trousers.

The witness said the policemen used clubs to beat the three on the backs of their knees and told passers-by watching the scene to move along.

The human rights group called for the "attacks, cases of arbitrary detention, and violation of civil rights of citizens" to be investigated by the authorities in the Palestinian Territory. 

However, officials from the Hamas-led government played down the concerns.

Ziad al Zaza, the deputy prime minister of Gaza, said the head-shaving "was a very limited, isolated behaviour of the police and is not going to continue".

Hamas took full control of the Gaza Strip six years ago and has overseen the imposition of more conservative practices in the territory, including legislation mandating separate classrooms for girls and boys.

Annette Funicello, "America's Sweetheart," has died. Funicello, one of the first child stars to emerge out of the Mickey Mouse Club, went on to star with Frankie Avalon in the "Beach Party" films (source: NPR).

Another tombstone for America's golden years. Her passing is highly symbolic, as is Thatcher's. One a warrior for freedom, another iconic of the freedoms we enjoy.

“I don’t think religion has a role to play in a public pool.” ...banned father. Of course it doesn't, but this is sharia implementation in Western societies. Anywhere Western law and Islamic law conflict, it is Western law that has to give way.

Toronto dad upset he's not allowed to watch daughter's swim class Toronto Sun, April 6, 2013 (thanks to Chai)

TORONTO - When a single dad signed his nine-year-old daughter up for female-only swim lessons, he didn’t realize he — as a man — was going to be banned from watching her practice.

Chris (who didn’t want his last name published) was shocked when he had the blinds to the viewing area of the Dennis R. Timbrell Recreation Centre pool in Flemingdon Park shut on him and then was told by staffers it was for “religious reasons.”

“I spoke to a staff member and she told me that it’s because of Muslim women, that we’re not allowed to look at them or whatever,” Chris, 38, told the Toronto Sun Friday. “I don’t think religion has a role to play in a public pool.”

Remember, every AFDI/SIOA ad we ran was a response to vicious attack ads on Jews, on freedom, ...

The quisling "rabbi" Jill Jacobs, the executive director of T’ruah, which spent $10,000 on ads last fall to oppose my pro-Israel ads, said "I wish that none of this had ever started." Really, "Rabbi"? Jacobs will answer to higher authority. Jacobs was silent when vicious anti-Israel ads ran in cities across the country. Jacobs only got involved to condemn me for standing up against the vicious anti-semitic ad campaigns running on transit platforms from NY to California. Jacobs is not a rabbi -- Jacobs is a quisling, an enemy with a Mona Lisa smile. She should be stripped of any rabbinical status (I am sure she's of the ridiculous "reformed" movement -- which no practicing Jew takes seriously).

Jill Jacobs is a disgrace to rabbinical leadership. She is everything Jews should not be -- cowed and compromised, yet self-reverential in her cowardice.

Nicole Bengiveno/The New York Times

An ad for pro-Palestinian issues is on display at the 125th Street Metro North station in Harlem.

M.T.A. Ad Space Becomes Contentious Forum for Mideast Politics NY Times, Matt Flegenheimer, April 7, 2013

There was the campaign more than two years ago against a proposed Islamic center near the World Trade Center site, when about 20 city buses bore the message: “Why there?”

Or perhaps the tipping point was last fall, when the word “savage,” seemingly used to denigrate Islam, appeared in a widely disseminated subway advertisement from a pro-Israel organization.

And then came the rebuttals — from a Methodist group, a social justice advocate and a collection of rabbis, who advised travelers to “choose love.”

On two matters, at least, all parties seem to agree. The give-and-take did not begin last month, when a group espousing Palestinian independence delivered its latest message at a series of commuter railroad stations: “Stop U.S. aid to Israel.”

And it will not end this month, when the pro-Israel group has planned to display its retort in those same stations: “Stop U.S. aid to Islamic states.”

Long the advertising domain of retail chains, community colleges, and one ubiquitous Midtown skin doctor, the trains, buses and stations of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority have come to assume an unusual role: sounding board for Middle East policy debates.

Though the ads have often attracted — and actively courted — controversy, they have also provided the authority with an unlikely, if modest, revenue source in an age of fare increases, unwieldy capital projects and frequent turnover at the top.

“We don’t have a category of controversial ad revenue,” Allen P. Cappelli, a member of the authority’s board, said. “But that thought did cross my mind as I’m looking for revenue streams to increase services.”

According to estimates from advertisers, campaigns focused on the politics and religion of the Middle East in recent months have cost them well into the six figures, a figure which makes up a considerable portion of the authority’s so-called viewpoint advertising revenue.

The authority and its advertising partners shared more than $120 million in ad revenue last year. The agency estimates that about 1 percent came from viewpoint ads.

But unlike many viewpoint ad campaigns, which are often aimed at public health issues about which there is little disagreement, the controversial ads seem to have a multiplying effect: one ad begets a response which begets a response.

Initially, the authority wanted neither the attention nor the revenue associated with the ads. When the pro-Israel group, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, submitted its “savage” ad, transit officials rejected it, citing its demeaning language.

But after the group sued the authority, and won its federal court case on First Amendment grounds, the agency voted last fall to amend its policy, allowing such ads, with written disclaimers, as long as the agency did not expect the ads to “imminently incite or provoke violence.”

Pamela Geller, the executive director of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, said in an e-mail last month that the group had spent “well over” $100,000 on advertising in New York’s transit system. She said in December that the group had spent about $70,000 on one purchase alone: ads placed beside each of the subway station’s roughly 220 clocks.

In other cases, transit system advertising has proved attractive, in part because it is relatively inexpensive. Some purchases, for the placement of 10 posters inside stations, can cost as little as $5,000.

Hatem Bazian, the chairman of American Muslims for Palestine, whose ads were installed at some Metro-North stations last month, said the purchases were easier to justify given the authority’s perpetual financial challenges.

“They are cash-strapped,” he said. “Much better to go to a public agency than a private agency.”

But some religious leaders, even those who have advertised on the system, acknowledged the inherent risks of distilling teachings into ad slogans.

“I wish that none of this had ever started,” said Rabbi Jill Jacobs, the executive director of T’ruah, a human rights organization, which spent $10,000 on ads last fall in response to Ms. Geller’s group.

Unfortunately, she added, “You can’t put an essay up on a subway ad.”

Jeffrey Dunetz of the The Lid weighs in on the sharia push in Great Neck. Here's a sneak peek at his column this week for The Jewish Star:

"The Real Truth About Pamela Geller," Jeffrey Dunetz, The Lid

Pamela At a Rainy Pro Israel Rally in 2008

Its incredible how one Jewish woman speaking to one Long Island synagogue’s men’s club can generate the wrath of so many progressive-first “Jewish” organizations. As soon as the word spread that Pamela Geller, blogger and fighter of radical Islam would be appearing at Great Neck Synagogue on April 14 The PC Police began an e-mail and phone campaign seeking to get the talk canceled. 

In the spirit of full disclosure I should let you know that Pamela Geller has been my friend for six plus years, ever since I was a newbie blogger and she was already the famous proprietor of blog Atlas Shrugs.

I will also tell you the anti-Muslim “monster” portrayed by the mainstream media and progressive Jewish organizations has no relation to the real Pamela Geller. 

She fights against radical Muslims a fight that grew out of her love for Israel and her frustration with the Anti-Semitic, Anti-American and Anti-Israel sermons and commentary originating from the radical Muslim community.

One of the leaders of the stop Geller from talking movement is the “Jewish Voice For Peace” (JVP). The group sent an email to its members on April 3rd, urging them to contact the Great Neck Synagogue and ask it to cancel the event. Rebecca Vilkomerson, JVP’s executive director, told the Forward on April 4 that at least 50 people had contacted Great Neck Synagogue at the group’s behest.

“Our hope is that the synagogue will cancel her appearance,” Vilkomerson said. “The kind of venom that she spews against Islam is completely inappropriate for a synagogue.”

That the JVP is leading the charge should tell you all you need to know about who is trying to stop Pamela from speaking the truth.

In a rare moment of putting its mission before progressive politics the ADL once called the JVP one of the 10 most anti-Israel organizations in America (Top ten? I am sure their mothers are so proud).

According to the ADL analysis the JVP:

“…calls for an end to U.S. aid to Israel, accuses Israel of "apartheid" policies, and supports divestment campaigns against Israel. Like other Jewish anti-Zionist groups, JVP uses its Jewish identity to shield the anti-Israel movement from allegations of anti-Semitism and provide a greater degree of credibility to the anti-Israel movement. JVP recognizes its role as such, specifically noting that the group's Jewish nature gives it a "particular legitimacy in voicing an alternative view of American and Israeli actions and policies" and the ability to distinguish "between real anti-Semitism and the cynical manipulation of that issue." JVP activists regularly attend anti-Israel events wearing t-shirts and holding signs proudly broadcasting their Jewish identity. In March-April 2010, leaders of JVP unsuccessfully lobbied for the passage of a divestment resolution at the University of California, Berkeley, targeting companies that do business with Israel.”

Here is the truth about Pamela Geller. There are people in the world who see a wrong, give a quick "oh that's so sad" and get on with their lives. Then there are others who see a wrong and go all out to right it. That’s Pamela-- someone who goes out of her way to do what we call in Hebrew, Tikun Olam, repair the world.

On the morning of December 10, 2007 Aqsa Parvez huddled in a Missis­sauga, Candad bus shelter with another Grade 11 student, a girl she had been staying with for the past couple of days. They had plenty of time to make it to their first class at Apple­wood Heights Secondary School. As they waited, Aqsa’s 26-year-old brother Waqas, a tow-truck driver, showed up at the bus stop. He said that she should come home and get a fresh change of clothes if she was going to be staying elsewhere. Aqsa hesitated, and then got into his car.

Less than an hour later, Muhammad Parvez phoned 911 and told the dispatcher that he had killed his daughter. Within minutes, police and paramedics arrived at 5363 Longhorn Trail, a winding suburban street near Eglinton and Hurontario, and found Aqsa unconscious in her bedroom. The 16-year-old wasn’t breathing. The para­medics started CPR, found a faint pulse, and rushed her to Credit Valley Hospital, 10 minutes west. She died just after 10 that evening. The official cause was “neck compression”—strangulation.  

Aqsa was buried in an unmarked grave. Her family refused to acknowledge her life, because she "dishonored" them. In defiance of her devout father she began taking off her hijab, the traditional Islamic headscarf, when she went to school, and would put it back on when she returned home. Her dad would go to her school during school hours and walk around trying to find her, trying to catch her not wearing Islamic garb, talking to boys or hanging out with "non-Muslims".

Pamela grabbed that wrong by the neck and did what she could to eradicate the evil. She raised money (and threw in her own) for a tombstone for Aqua’s grave.  When the family refused to allow the memorial stone, she did not give up: “.. we inquired as to purchasing a plot near Aqsa's body, we could not. Not a tree. Not a rock. Not a bench. All the plots were owned by the Islamic Society of North America. I tried to contact the family at that time, but they would not take my calls -- I spoke to the them once, but they pretended not to speak English. And they were adamant: the family refused to allow the headstone to be put on Aqsa's grave, and according to the cemetery, could remove it if it were placed there by others.”

Feeling that this Muslim girl’s memory shouldn’t be tossed out like the trash, Pamela found a way to honor her memory— Aqsa  grove and plaque in the American Independence Park in Nes Harim, Israel.

This is only one of many examples of the hard work of Pamela Geller to protect and honor Muslims, how she has provided safe-houses for Muslim girls threatened with honor killings, how she has fought against those who would destroy Israel. = I called Pamela today and asked about the leftist groups trying to stop her Great Neck appearance.  She told me that I wasn’t about her—not at all personal, they were fighting against her pro-Israel, pro-Israel, anti- radical message. 

Perhaps she is right, but I do take it personal because I know the real Pamela Geller, not the twisted stereotype created by the progressive attack force.  There are very few people that I have met in my life who risks as much as she does to help others.  

None of those who brand her as anti-Muslim have done one tenth of what she has done to help Muslims (and others) in distress.   Pamela’s heart is larger than the Empire State Building which is why she invests so much of her own time and resources to help others (not that one would know any of this by reading the mainstream media).

RIP: Two world leaders who instinctively and unthinkingly knew that their job was to keep the West safe. (thanks to George)

UPDATE:

MAGGIE THE GREAT

[Note by Tom Gross] 

In many respects, Margaret Thatcher, who died today, was one of the greatest 
political leaders of our lifetime. She was certainly the greatest British Prime 
Minister since Churchill, and one of the most important leaders of the Western 
world.

Obviously her attitudes towards Israel and Jews were not the most significant 
aspects of her legacy, but they were notable nonetheless.

In January last year, I sent out a dispatch about her, which those interested, 
can read again here:

www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/001250.html

Among the points in it:

* "When asked about her most meaningful accomplishment, Margaret Thatcher did 
not typically mention serving in the British government, defeating the Argentine 
invasion of the Falklands, taming runaway inflation, or toppling the Soviet 
Union. The woman who reshaped British politics and served as prime minister from 
1979 to 1990 often said that her greatest accomplishment was helping save a 
17-year-old Austrian Jewish girl from the Nazis."

* Thatcher had no patience for anti-Semitism. "I simply did not understand it," 
Thatcher wrote in her memoirs. Indeed, she found "some of my closest political 
friends and associates among Jews." Aghast that a golf club in her district 
[Finchley in north London] consistently barred Jews from becoming members, she 
publicly attacked her own Conservative party members for supporting the policy. 
"The Jews of Finchley were her people," Thatcher remarked � certainly much more 
so than the wealthy land barons that dominated her party until then.

* Lord Young of Graffham, who served as a senior cabinet minister under Mrs. 
Thatcher (and is also a subscriber to this email list) said: "I remember years 
later, when we were reminiscing with her and her husband Denis, I asked her 
which was her most memorable overseas visit. 'Israel,' she replied instantly, 
'it was, Denis, wasn't it?'"

***

ADULTS AND CHILDREN RUN FOR COVER DURING HOLOCAUST DAY SERVICE

A rocket fired from Gaza by the terror group Hamas strikes the south of Israel 
while a community mourns for lost relatives at a Holocaust memorial service last 
night.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXLF5sZM_98

***

COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE IDF LEADS "MARCH OF THE LIVING" IN AUSCHWITZ TODAY

Today, the "March of the Living" at the site of the Auschwitz death camp in 
Poland was led by the Commander in Chief of the Israeli army, Benny Gantz. 
Gantz, whose mother Malka was a child survivor of Bergen-Belsen death camp, 
walked into Auschwitz hand in hand with his counterpart, the head of the Polish 
army, and vowed that Israel's army would prevent the Jews from ever suffering 
another Holocaust.

Gantz was joined by Tel Aviv's Chief Rabbi Israel Meir Lau, himself a child 
survivor of Auschwitz, and some 10,000 other participants, many of them young 
people, on the three-kilometer walk from Birkenau this afternoon.

Earlier, participants watched a video message from Israeli President Shimon 
Peres, who said that the Jewish population of the world has not recovered from 
the Holocaust, and its numbers are still less than they were on the eve of World 
War II. "The pain, the wound, the lacking is still there. They live inside us. 
We live from what happened to them," Peres said.

(Yesterday's Holocaust memorial dispatch can be read here:

A rare BBC recording from 1945: Survivors in Belsen sing Hatikvah (& "No Place 
on Earth")

"Hindu girl's stalker 'Anwar Khan' guns down her father" Hindu Jagruti.org

Nagpur (Maharashtra) : Professor Yogesh Dakhore was murdered by a fanatic named Anwar Khan. Khan shot him by entering professor’s house as also attacked his wife with knife and iron rod. Mrs. Dakhore has been seriously injured. It may be noted that Prof. Dakhore’s daughter had earlier lodged a complaint with the police against Khan for harassing her but indifference on the part of police led to Prof. Dakhore losing his life. 

1. Anwar Khan used to harass daughter of Professor Dakhore. He used to be after her seeking her love. She got fed up of these things and went to the Hudkeshwar Police Station along with her brother on 19^th February to lodge complaint against Anwar Khan.

2. Police registered non-cognizable offence against Khan and released him. (Police, who left Anwar without taking any action, are equally responsible for this offence and action should be taken even against police ! – Editor, Dainik Sanatan Prabhat)

3. Some construction work was going on in Shrinagar area where Porf . Dakhore was staying. Anwar laid there in ambush. From this building, he went to the terrace of Prof. Dakhore and broke the door. Prof. Dakhore got up due to the noise when Anwar shot him in his head.

4. His neighbours heard the noise and called police immediately. Police went to Prof Dakhore’s house and arrested Anwar.

As per the report published in Times of India,  Khan also took Dakhore's daughter to the terrace and threatened to push her off if she did not accept her friendship proposal, police said.

Neighbours later overpowered Khan and handed him over to police, an official said.

Read more at: http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/16002_anwar-khan-guns-down-hindu-girl-s-father.html

Here is the latest on the US Patent and Trademark Office's refusal to register our trademark, "Stop the Islamization of America." The USPTO had rejected SIOA's trademark because it found it "disparaging" to Muslims. We are arguing that no law-abiding Muslim could possibly be disparaged by a trademark that reflected our goal to "stop" the Muslim Brotherhood's civilization jihad, which is what we proved that "Islamization" means. More here and here.

Today our ace lawyer, David Yerushalmi of the American Freedom Law Center, filed our Notice of Appeal, appealing the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB)'s affirmance of the denial of our SIOA trademark application. We are appealing directly to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a special federal court in D.C. set up to hear patent/trademark appeals.

The key argument:

Applicants advocate that Muslims do not use the term “Islamisation” “in the broad generic way consonant with ‘Islamic’.” Rather, applicants argue there is a second definition of “Islamize” which conveys another meaning. That is, as set forth in the foregoing definitions, “Islamize” also means “[t]o cause to conform to Islamic law or precepts” (as defined at Dictionary.com) and “[m]ake subject to Islamic law: to cause people, institutions, or countries to follow Islamic law” (as defined at Encarta.com). This definition, i.e., to cause to be in conformity with Islamic law, more closely corresponds to the meaning of “Islamisation” proffered by applicants, namely, a sectarianization of a political society through efforts to “make [it] subject to Islamic law.”

UPDATE: Here's the AFLC's statement on the case.

Here is the full notice of appeal:

NOTICE OF APPEAL

PAMELA GELLER & ROBERT SPENCER, Appellants,
v.
DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE, in his official capacity (“Director”),

Serial No. 77940879

Appellee. Notice is hereby given that Applicants Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer hereby appeal
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the Opinion rendered in their ex parte appeal to the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board (“TTAB”), which upheld the denial of the trademark application by the United States Patent & Trademark Office. Applicants- Appellants seek a review of the TTAB’s Opinion (No. 77940879 issued February 7, 2013) in its entirety, which held that Applicants’ mark was properly refused pursuant to § 2(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a). (See a true and correct copy of the TTAB Opinion attached hereto as Exhibit 1). The TTAB Opinion was received by Applicants-Appellants by email service on February 7, 2013.

Dated: April 8, 2013

Respectfully submitted, AMERICAN FREEDOM LAW CENTER

/s/ David Yerushalmi David Yerushalmi, Esq. (DC Bar No. 978179) 1901 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 201 Washington, D.C. 20001 dyerushalmi@americanfreedomlawcenter.org Tel: (646) 262-0500; Fax: (801) 760-3901

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on April 8, 2013, I served the original of this Notice of Appeal (with Exhibit 1) to the Director of the United States Patent & Trademark Office by USPS Express Mail pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 104.2 & 2.1989, 2011, addressed to Office of the General Counsel, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.

I hereby also certify that on April 8, 2013, I served a copy of this Notice of Appeal (with Exhibit 1) to the TTAB by electronic filing through the ESTTA.

I hereby also certify that on April 8, 2013, I caused to be filed with the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit three copies of this Notice of Appeal (with Exhibit 1), together with all filing fees, by hand-delivery.

AMERICAN FREEDOM LAW CENTER
/s/ David Yerushalmi David Yerushalmi, Esq.

EXHIBIT 1

THIS OPINION IS NOT A PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB

Hearing: June 19, 2012    Mailed: February 7, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board _____

In re Pamela Geller and Robert B. Spencer _____
Serial No. 77940879 _____
David Yerushalmi, Esq. for Pamela Geller and Robert B. Spencer. Maria-Victoria Suarez, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 102 (Karen M. Strzyz, Managing Attorney). Before Cataldo, Taylor and Kuczma, Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Kuczma, Administrative Trademark Judge: Pamela Geller and Robert B. Spencer, (“applicants”), filed an application under § 1(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), seeking registration of the mark: in standard character form for “providing information regarding understanding and preventing terrorism,” in International Class 45.11 Application Serial No. 77940879, filed on February 21, 2010.
Serial No. 77940879
Registration of the mark was refused under § 2(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), on the ground that the applied-for mark consists of or includes matter which may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute persons, institutions, beliefs or national symbols. Applicants timely filed a notice of appeal.
Applicants and the examining attorney submitted briefs, and appeared at the oral hearing.

A.    Disparagement

Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act prohibits registration of a mark that “consists of or comprises . . . matter which may disparage . . . persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.” As noted in University of Notre Dame du Lac v. J.C. Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1376, 217 USPQ 505, 509 (Fed. Cir. 1983), § 2(a) embodies concepts of the right to privacy and publicity, that is, the right to protect and to control the use of one’s identity. In effect, this provision of § 2(a) protects against appropriation of one’s identity by another and subjecting it to contempt or ridicule. See Greyhound Corp. v. Both Worlds Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1635, 1639 (TTAB 1988).

In In re Lebanese Arak Corp., the Board restated the test for disparagement where the party alleging disparagement is a member of a non-commercial group, such as a religious or racial group, as follows:
1) what is the likely meaning of the matter in question, taking into account not only dictionary definitions, but also the relationship of the matter to the other elements
2 The application was examined by Examining Attorney Maria-Victoria Suarez. Senior Attorney Brian Brown represented the USPTO at the oral hearing.
Serial No. 77940879
in the mark, the nature of the goods or services, and the manner in which the mark is used in the marketplace in connection with the goods or services; and
2) if that meaning is found to refer to identifiable persons, institutions, beliefs or national symbols, whether that meaning may be disparaging to a substantial composite of the referenced group.
In re Lebanese Arak Corp., 94 USPQ2d 1215, 1217 (TTAB 2010) (citing In re Heeb Media LLC, 89 USPQ2d 1071, 1074 (TTAB 2008); In re Squaw Valley Development Co., 80 USPQ2d 1264, 1267 (TTAB 2006); Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc., (“Harjo I”) 50 USPQ2d 1705, 1740-41 (TTAB 1999), rev’d on other grounds, (“Harjo II”) 284 F.Supp.2d 96, 68 USPQ2d 1225 (D.D.C. 2003), remanded, 415 F.3d 44, 75 USPQ2d 1525 (D.C. Cir. 2005), on remand, 567 F.Supp.2d 46, 87 USPQ2d 1891 (D.D.C. 2008), aff’d 565 F.3d 880, 90 USPQ2d 1593 (D.C. Cir. 2009)).
1.    Meaning of the Mark
Applicants and the examining attorney agree, as do we, that the test set forth in Lebanese Arak is the applicable test, so we turn to the first prong of the test to determine the meaning of the applied-for mark as used in connection with the services identified in the application.
The examining attorney introduced several dictionary definitions for the term “Islamize”3 which were consistent in indicating the term “Islamization” (alternatively spelled “Islamisation” according to applicants) would be generally understood to mean “converting or conforming to Islam”:4
3 The definitions indicate that “Islamization” is the noun form of the transitive verb “Islamize.”
4 See attachments to April 28, 2010 and January 19, 2011 Office Actions.

Serial No. 77940879
Dictionary.com Unabridged based on the Random House Dictionary: 1. To conform to Islam. 2. To bring into a state of harmony or conformity with the principles and teachings of Islam; give an Islamic character or identity to. http://dictionary.reference.com
Merriam-Webster: to make Islamic; especially: to convert to Islam http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/islamization
EncartaWorldEnglish Dictionary: 1. Convert to Islam: to convert people or countries to Islam. 2. Make subject to Islamic law: to cause people, institutions, or countries to follow Islamic law. http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary
Webster’s New World College Dictionary: to convert or conform to, or bring within, Islam http://yourdictionary.com/Islamize
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language Fourth Ed.: 1. To convert to Islam. 2. To cause to conform to Islamic law or precepts.
http://yourdictionary.com/Islamize
The examining attorney also submitted the following definition for the word “stop”:5
1. to cease from, leave off or discontinue: to stop running
2. to cause to cease; put an end to: to stop noise in the street http://dictionary.reference.com
and a definition for the word “terrorism”:
Dictionary.com Unabridged based on the Random House Dictionary: 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce,
5 See attachments to April 28, 2010 Office Action.

Serial No. 77940879 esp. for political purposes
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/islamize
Applying these definitions in the context of applicants’ STOP THE ISLAMISATION OF AMERICA mark, the mark in its entirety would be understood to mean that action must be taken to cease, or put an end to, converting or making people in America conform to Islam. Considering the mark in connection with the nature of applicants’ services namely, “providing information regarding understanding and preventing terrorism,” conveys the further message that the conversion or conformance to Islam must be stopped in order to prevent the intimidating threats and violence associated with terrorism.
In addition to analyzing the definitions relative to applicants’ services, it is appropriate for us to consider the manner in which applicants’ mark is or will be used in the marketplace in connection with the services. Heeb Media, 89 USPQ2d at 1075 citing Harjo I, 50 USPQ2d at 1739, 1742. To do this, we have reviewed the portions of applicants’ website and blog (located at sioaonline.com) that are in the record. The subject matter of the articles published on applicants’ website and comments posted on applicants’ blog are consistent with the theme that the spread of Islam in America, i.e., converting new members to the Islam religion, must be stopped. For example, an article on applicants’ website entitled: SIOA Mosque Manifesto: All Mosques are Not Created Equal, A Handy Guide to Fighting the Muslim Brotherhood reports on communities in the United States that have taken action against the building of mosques and provides a step-by-step guide for people who find themselves “faced with a huge monster mosque proposal in their small
Serial No. 77940879
towns.” The article begins: “As we have been reminded time after time after grisly Islamic terror plots have been exposed, there is always a mosque, and the imprimatur of a cleric, behind every operation.” The articles entitled Geller, Spencer in Big Government: The 9/11 Mosque’s Peace Charade and SIOA Condemns Obama’s Blessing of Ground Zero Mega-Mosque; Bolton, Wilders to Speak At 9/11 Rally raise strong objections to the proposed building of a mosque and Islamic Center near the site of the former World Trade Center in New York City that was destroyed as a result of a terrorist attack in September 2001. The article entitled Detroit Transit Sued for Nixing SIOA ‘Leaving Islam?’ Bus ads reports on a lawsuit filed by applicant Geller against the Detroit-area bus authority for refusing to run ads that offer assistance to those considering leaving Islam.

There is no doubt that the underlying theme in the articles which are featured immediately underneath the website’s STOP THE ISLAMIZATION OF AMERICA7 banner is that the spread of Islam in America is undesirable and must be stopped.
Comments submitted to applicants’ blog by readers of applicants’ website also reflect the website’s message of stopping the spread of Islam in the United States:8
􏰀    [The trademark] implies that Islam is associated with violence and threats.” IMPLIES??? Hell no! IT IS
6 See copies of webpages from www.sioaonline.com attached to January 19, 2011 Office Action.
7 Although the word “Islamisation” as identified on the trademark drawing and in the application is spelled “Islamisation” (with the letter “s”), the banner at the top of applicants’ website spells the word with the letter “z.” According to applicants, the word “Islamisation” is an alternative spelling for “Islamization,” Applicants’ Appeal Brief p. 5.
8 See unnumbered attachments at pp. 54, 57-58 and 83 of January 19, 2011 Office Action. The spelling and punctuation in the readers’ comments are presented as contained in the postings.

Serial No. 77940879
ASSOCIATED WITH VIOLENCE AND THREATS— examples of that TRUTH ABOUND-ISLAM is a terror group defined by their own Korana [a]nd imams what PC and Muzzies have infiltrated the patent office? [Comment by Whata buncha bull on April 29, 2010 at 10:36 AM in response to article entitled “Sharia Trademark Enforcement.”]
􏰀    Very few Americans are willing to educate themselves on what Islam teaches – it is not love and peace. They only know the propaganda the media and Islamic organization indoctrinate them with each day. This is why we are doomed to experience what every country that has allowed it to exists, has experienced – evil in its purest form.
If people only knew the truth, Islam would not be allowed to exist in the USA or any other country. Franklin Graham was right in saying, “Islam is evil.” [Comment by Rick Holloway on May 12, 2010 at 10:59 AM in response to article entitled “Sharia Trademark Enforcement.”]
􏰀    This    closeted    Muslim    President    MUST    be impeached, removed, and defeated before he continues to take the USA down the worst path it has ever encountered. Stop Islam Now, look at its history, lets not let The USA face the same Islamic issues our brothers in Europe are facing. [Comment by Erik on August 22, 2010 at 1:38 PM in response to article entitled: “SIOA Condemns Obama’s Blessing of Ground Zero Mega- Mosque.”]
Other comments reflect the public’s association of “Islamization” with “Islam:”9
9
􏰀    . . . here’s only one thing you can do and that’s say no to Islam and the islamization of America. [Comment by ‘nuff already on June 6, 2010 at 8:14 am]
􏰀    . . . Islamisation of America spells far more danger than what once Nazism did. Islam is like a giant python that can coil around you slowly and steadly before you even know that you have been annihilated. [Comment by Vedam on August 17, 2010 at 12:33 AM]
See unnumbered attachments at pp. 59 and 81 of January 19, 2011 Office Action.

Serial No. 77940879
One reader specifically commented that applicants’ mark implies that applicants wish to stop Islam:10
􏰀    I agree that radical islam is the number one threat to this country’s, and most country’s, security. That said, the name you chose does imply that you wish to stop islam in this country. . . . [Comment by Alexandra on May 17, 2010 at 3:48 PM]
It is noted that the foregoing is not a complete list of the comments; the evidence in the record contains several additional inflammatory and/or negative readers’ comments relating to the Islamic faith and its followers that were posted to applicants’ blog, and we have no indication whether all comments to the blog have been submitted as evidence. While the probative value of the blog comments submitted by readers of applicants’ website is less than that of the articles themselves due to the anonymity of the authors, they provide additional insight into the public’s perception of and reaction to applicants’ STOP THE ISLAMISATION OF AMERICA mark and services as used in the marketplace.
The evidence comprising dictionary definitions and the manner in which the mark is used and reacted to in the marketplace, taken together with the nature of applicants’ services, provide probative evidence supporting the meaning of the mark proposed by the examining attorney, i.e., to stop the conversion or conformance to Islam in America in order to avoid terrorism.
Applicants advocate that Muslims do not use the term “Islamisation” “in the broad generic way consonant with ‘Islamic’.” Rather, applicants argue there is a
10 See unnumbered attachment at p. 59 of January 19, 2011 Office Action.

Serial No. 77940879
second definition of “Islamize” which conveys another meaning. That is, as set forth in the foregoing definitions, “Islamize” also means “[t]o cause to conform to Islamic law or precepts” (as defined at Dictionary.com) and “[m]ake subject to Islamic law: to cause people, institutions, or countries to follow Islamic law” (as defined at Encarta.com). This definition, i.e., to cause to be in conformity with Islamic law, more closely corresponds to the meaning of “Islamisation” proffered by applicants, namely, a sectarianization of a political society through efforts to “make [it] subject to Islamic law.”11
According to applicants, Muslims understand “Islamisation” to mean the “term of art to incorporate the political-legal movement to convert a society or politic into a political society predicated upon and governed by Islamic law (i.e., Shariah).”12    In support of this meaning, applicants cite to uses of the term “Islamisation” by professionals, academics and religious and legal experts. We refer to the following excerpts from applicants’ evidence which provide some insight into the use of the term “Islamization” and its propagation by Islamists, i.e., those that promote Islamization as political ideology (emphasis added below):
Islamism is ultimately a long-term social engineering project. The eventual “Islamization” of the world is to be enacted via a bottom-up process. Initially, the individual is Islamized into becoming a true Muslim. The process requires the person to reject Western norms of pluralism, individual rights, and the secular rule of law. The process continues as the individual’s family is transformed, followed by society, and then the state. Finally, the entire world is expected to live and be
11 See Applicants’ Appeal Brief p. 8 and Applicants’ Reply Brief p. 4. 12 See Applicants’ Appeal Brief pp. 8-9.

Serial No. 77940879
governed by Islamic principles. So it is this ideological machinery that works to promote separation, sedition, and hatred, and that is at the core of Islamic violent extremism. [Testimony of Zeyno Baran, Senior Fellow and Director of Center for Eurasian Policy, Hudson Institute, to U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on July 10, 2008]13
Now what I would like to address very quickly is what I believe i[s] the way to differentiate between Islamists and normal ordinary Muslims . . . the four core elements that I think are common to all Islamists regardless of the methodology they employ–and the first one I identify is that Islamists believe that Islam is a political ideology rather than a religion . . . the second core element that Islamists will all share is the notion that the Shariah religious code, which is a personal code of conduct, must become state law. . . [Testimony of Maajid Nawaz, Director, The Quilliam Foundation, London, to U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on July 10, 2008]14
What needs to be countered is Islamism, the political ideology, not Islam, the religion . . . The political ideology, however, is diametrically opposed to liberal democracy because it dictates that Islamic law, Shariah, to be the only basis for the legal and political system that governs the world’s economic, social, and judicial mechanisms and that Islam must shape all aspects of life . . . Of course, not all Islamists will one day become terrorists, but all Islamist terrorists start with non-violent Islamism. [Testimony of Zeyno Baran, Senior Fellow and Director, Center for Eurasian Policy, Hudson Institute, to U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on July 10, 2008]15
Thus, today we can say that the broad ideological current of Islamism manifests itself in activist agendas that span the complete spectrum from democratic politics to violent efforts aimed at imposing Shariah law worldwide.
13 See Exhibit 3(a) p. 15 attached to applicants’ July 26, 2010 Response to Office Action. 14 See Exhibit 3(a) p. 6 attached to applicants’ July 26, 2010 Response to Office Action. 15 See Exhibit 3(a) p. 14 attached to applicants’ July 26, 2010 Response to Office Action.

Serial No. 77940879
[Testimony of Peter P. Mandaville, PhD., Associate Professor of Government and Politics, George Mason University, to U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on July 10, 2008]16
In understanding what the ideology of Islamism is, it would help to begin with the name. The suffix “ism” has been added to Islam so as to draw attention to the political nature of the subject matter. Islam is a faith; Islamism is an ideology that uses Islam the faith as a justification. Some of you may be reluctant in calling this ideology Islamism. There exists an understandable concern of not wanting to alienate Muslims. . . . [Written Testimony of Maajid Nawaz, Director of the Quilliam Foundation, London, to U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on July 10, 2008]17
The foregoing evidence originated from written testimony and transcripts of record before the U.S. Senate Committee investigating “The Roots of Violent Islamist Extremism and Efforts to Counter It.” Applicants submitted additional evidence including course materials authored by applicants’ counsel and others for continuing legal education, a doctoral dissertation entitled “Islamization in Pakistan: A Political and Constitutional Study from 1947-1988” submitted to the University of Karachi (Karachi, Pakistan) in October 2004, and a list of law review articles with limited excerpts from a selection of the articles. Given the nature and intended audiences of this evidence it is less widely available and therefore, is not necessarily reflective of the general public’s understanding of the meaning of
16 See Exhibit 3(a) p. 10 attached to applicants’ July 26, 2010 Response to Office Action. 17 See Exhibit 3(a) p. 52 attached to applicants’ July 26, 2010 Response to Office Action.

Serial No. 77940879
applicants’ mark. Indeed, applicants concede their evidence supports how Muslims themselves actually use the term “Islamization.”18
We agree with the examining attorney that the several online dictionary definitions are more reflective of the public’s current understanding of the term “Islamisation” than applicants’ evidence, particularly because the public’s access and exposure to applicants’ evidence is not readily apparent. Based on the evidence, we conclude that one meaning of the mark is that the spread of Islam in America is undesirable and should be stopped in order to avoid or reduce terrorism. Although applicants’ evidence is less probative of the meaning of the mark to the general public or to the American Muslim population at large, it evidences a second meaning of the mark at least to academic, professional, legal and religious experts based on the more narrow definition of the term “Islamisation” espoused by applicants.
As acknowledged by applicants, both Harjo I and Harjo II make clear that a term that has multiple meanings must be understood–for purposes of the “meaning” analysis–in the context of how it is used in the public domain relevant to the mark. If more than one meaning is established, both meanings advance to the second phase of the analysis, i.e., does the group at issue consider the term as used in the context of the services disparaging?19    With this in mind, we consider whether applicants’ mark is disparaging.
18 See Applicants’ Appeal Brief pp. 8-9. 19 See Applicants’ Reply Brief p. 3.

Serial No. 77940879
2. Whether Mark Disparages Substantial Composite of Referenced Group
Addressing the second prong of the test, the definitions of Islamization submitted by the examining attorney clearly identify the referenced group as those who have converted or conformed to Islam, i.e., followers of the Islamic religion, who are also known as Muslims. Applicants also acknowledge that the referenced group is American Muslims.20    Accordingly, we find both meanings of the mark refer to Muslims in the United States.
Trademarks may disparage if they “dishonor by comparison with what is inferior, slight, deprecate, degrade, or affect or injure by unjust comparison.” Harjo II, 68 USPQ2d at 1247; Harjo I, 50 USPQ2d at 1738. The question now, is whether either meaning of the mark is disparaging to a substantial composite of the referenced group, i.e., Muslims in America.
Applicants argue that if the word “Islamisation” refers to only those groups and movements which seek to compel a political order to adopt Islamic law as the law of the land, law abiding and patriotic Muslims, who are not members of such groups, would not be disparaged by the mark.21    The difficulty with applicants’ argument is twofold: it assumes a substantial composite of Muslims understands the meaning of “Islamisation” asserted by applicants and that they would not be offended by the mark STOP THE ISLAMISATION OF AMERICA.
20 See Applicants’ Appeal Brief pp. 14-15; Reply Brief p. 7. 21 See Applicants’ Appeal Brief p. 12.

Serial No. 77940879
There is no evidence showing a substantial composite of the Muslim population in the United States understands the word “Islamisation” to have the meaning asserted by applicants. Applicants concede “[T]he only Muslims who actually use the term ‘Islamisation’ in any public or published fashion are those adherents to Islamisation known in the literature as Islamists, Muslim professionals dealing with counterterrorism, and Muslim academics who study the phenomenon of Islamisation within varied disciplines such as law, political science, and the study of terrorism.”22    The evidence submitted by applicants to support their specific definition of the term includes a doctoral dissertation submitted to a university in Pakistan, written and oral testimony presented to the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs during a hearing on the “Roots of Violent Islamist Extremism and Efforts to Counter It,” course materials for a legal seminar entitled “Shariah-Compliant Finance: Benign or Benevolent,” U.S. Department of Justice Sentencing Press Release, a “theoretical” paper by a Shariah scholar entitled “The Process of Islamization” published in 1976 and later published online, and printouts from various websites for Muslim-based organizations that do not show use of the term Islamization.23    While such evidence
22 See applicants’ July 26, 2010 Response to Office Action p. 5.
23 See applicants’ Exhibits 1-12 submitted with applicants’ July 26, 2010 Response to Office Action. Included as Exhibit 10 is a list of 246 articles that were represented to be the results of a search of the Lexis-Nexis database. Inasmuch as the list of articles contained snippets from the articles showing use of the term “Islamization” in some identifiable U.S. publications, the list evidences use of the term in U.S. publications. However, the vast majority of articles were published in law reviews and appear to relate to the history and extent of Islamization activities in countries outside of the United States, with several articles addressing the same countries or geographic regions. Of the twenty-four excerpts from these articles provided in applicants’ Exhibit 11, twenty-one of the excerpts appear to

Serial No. 77940879
provides some insight into the use of the term “Islamization,” and the process of “Islamization,” they do not establish whether or how the term is perceived by the general Muslim population in the United States.
Even if a substantial composite of the U.S. Muslim population understands “Islamisation” to have the more specific meaning asserted by applicants, the mark is disparaging because the term “Islamisation” has another more general meaning relating to conversion to Islam. Moreover, a substantial composite of Muslims regardless of their personal understanding of the term “Islamization” would be disparaged by the mark if the general non-Muslim population understands the term “Islamization” to relate to converting or confirming to Islam, endowing the mark with the more likely meaning of stopping the spread of Islam in America.
The confusing overlap in terminology is likely to exacerbate the public’s understanding of applicants’ mark and its disparaging connotation. Muslim followers of “Islam,” “Islamism” and its “Islamist” proponents, and “Islamization,” are all centered on the Islamic religion. The foregoing terms share the root word “Islam” and are encompassed by the term “Islamic.” “[F]or most Americans, dealing with Islamism is extremely difficult because it is associated with Islam . . . What needs to be countered is Islamism the political ideology, not Islam, the religion.”24 That this confusion exists is supported by the statement of one of the experts
discuss Islamization outside of the United States; it is not possible to tell whether the remaining articles specifically address Islamization in the United States.
24 See Testimony of Zeyno Baran, Senior Fellow and Director, Center for Eurasian Policy, Hudson Institute, to Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs United States Senate on July 10, 2008 attached as Exhibit 3(a) p.14 to applicants’ July 26, 2010 Response to Office Action.
15
Serial No. 77940879
testifying before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs that “I firmly believe that by claiming the word Islamism, and helping shape how it is used, one can direct the debate in the right way with the intention of distinguishing the ideology from the faith.”25
The admonition in the mark to STOP sets a negative tone and signals that Islamization is undesirable and is something that must be brought to an end in America. In light of the meaning of “Islamization” as referring to conversion to Islam, i.e., spreading of Islam, use of the mark in connection with preventing terrorism creates a direct association of Islam and its followers with terrorism.
There is sufficient evidence that the majority of Muslims are not terrorists and are offended by being associated as such. The following articles provide some pertinent examples:
Offended Muslims Speak Up
At a time of growing tensions involving Muslims in the United States, a record number of Muslim workers are complaining of employment discrimination, from co- workers calling them “terrorist” or “Osama” to employers barring them from wearing head scarves or taking prayer breaks. . . . [T]he rising number of complaints by Muslims, which exceeds even the amount filed in the year after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, comes as tensions rise between Muslim Americans and those of other faiths. 9/24/2010 The New York Times, Late Edition-Final.26
25 See Appendix to July 10, 2008 Hearing before US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs written testimony of Maajid Nawaz, Director of the Quilliam Foundation, London, attached as Exhibit 3(a) p.52 to applicants’ July 26, 2010 Response to Office Action.
26 See unnumbered attachment at p.12 of January 19, 2011 Office Action. 16
Serial No. 77940879
Show of support for Muslims; Religious leaders call for tolerance amid tensions Ammal Khateeb, a Tinley Park resident at Friday’s prayer service, said she has grown tired of what she sees as anti-Muslim sentiment that automatically associates Islam with terrorism. “That is why I don’t wear the (hijab) scarf. It’s never been good after 9/11. I’m scared,” she said. “I don’t want my kids to go through this racism.” 9/12/2010 Chicago Tribune Sunday Early Edition.27
Arab culture and Muslim stereotypes
The press . . . regularly uses the terms “Islamic” or “Muslim” as adjectives for terrorists. . . . [I]t is time . . . that the Western press, politicians, and public stop thinking of Islamic as another word for terrorism. 6/21- 6/27/2008 The Arab American News.28
Muslims say terrorists have hijacked their faith
. . . People make assumptions that all Muslims are terrorists, (county spokeswoman Afsheen Shamsi said). . . We believe [Islamic terrorist] is not the right terminology to use, because it links something very positive, like Islam, with the word “terrorist.” 6/2/2008 Courier News (Bridgewater, New Jersey).29
Muslim victims of 9/11 deserve a mosque
By conflating the 9/11 terrorists and Islam, the opponents of the mosque are telling Muslim Americans: Do not bother; through your shared religion, you and the terrorists are the same. 9/10/2010 The Star-Ledger (Newark, New Jersey) State/ROP Edition30
. . . one must remain cognisant [sic] of the fact that the majority of Muslims are not Islamists . . . [Written Testimony of Maajid Nawaz, Director of the Quilliam Foundation, London, to U.S. Senate Committee
27 See unnumbered attachments at pp. 17-18 of January 19, 2011 Office Action. 28 See unnumbered attachments at pp. 13-15 of April 28, 2010 Office Action. 29 See unnumbered attachments at pp. 19-20 of April 28, 2010 Office Action. 30 See unnumbered attachment at p. 23 of January 19, 2011 Office Action.
17
Serial No. 77940879
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs United States Senate on July 10, 2008]31
The only true allies in countering an ideology that is fundamentally opposed to America and its ideas are those Muslims who share American ideas, or at the very least do not work to undermine them. This group includes the pious and practicing, the liberal, the secular, and the cultural ones; the quiet but still the overwhelming majority of American Muslims. . . . [S]o in closing, I would like to underline that to effectively counter the further spread of violent manifestations of Islamism, the United States needs to seriously engage in countering the Islamist ideology. . . [Testimony of Zeyno Baran Senior Fellow and Director of Center for Eurasian Policy, Hudson Institute, to U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on July 10, 2008]32
In view of the foregoing, applicants’ mark used in connection with their services would be disparaging to a substantial composite of Muslims in America. Notably, the use of a similar name in England, “Stop the Islamisation of Europe,” has been objected to as being disparaging and threatening to non-Islamist Muslims. In that instance, in response to a demonstration outside of a mosque under the banner “Stop the Islamisation of Europe,” British Muslims for Secular Democracy (BMSD), a group which “do[es] not wish to Islamicise Britain or Europe,” published a letter dated November 20, 2009, directed to the group utilizing the name “Stop the Islamisation of Europe” in England.33    The letter by BMSD states that Muslims “end up feeling threatened” by such a demonstration and also explains that the Stop the Islamisation of Europe campaign “is fueling the notion that somehow
31 See Exhibit 3(a) p. 52 attached to applicants’ July 26, 2010 Response to Office Action. 32 See Exhibit 3(a) p. 18 attached to applicants’ July 26, 2010 Response to Office Action. 33 See unnumbered attachments at pp. 120-121 of January 19, 2011 Office Action.
18
Serial No. 77940879
organizations such as [Stop the Islamisation of Europe] are against Muslims and the religion Islam in itself.” While the foregoing took place in Britain and therefore would not usually be considered probative evidence of the reactions by Muslim Americans to applicants’ mark, it nonetheless is illuminative of the impact that the use of applicants’ strikingly similar STOP THE ISLAMISATION OF AMERICA mark would have in the United States, which like Britain, is an English-speaking Western-based democratic society.34
The mark is also disparaging in the context of applicants’ definition of “Islamisation.” According to the definition urged by applicants and supported by their evidence, “Islamization” refers to a political movement to replace man-made laws with the religious laws of Islam.35    Notably, the process of “Islamization” is not defined nor described by applicants’ evidence to mandate the use of violence or terrorism (emphasis added below):
34 As shown by the evidence, applicants’ website contains links to Stop the Islamization of Europe and Stop the Islamization of England, as well as similarly named groups in numerous other countries. Although the copy of the letter from BMSD submitted by the examining attorney as an attachment to the January 19, 2011 Office Action does not contain the URL information or the date it was printed, the Office Action issued January 19, 2011 indicates that the letter may be found at http://www.bmsd.org.uk/pdfs/islamification.pdf. Inasmuch as applicants have not objected to the admissibility of this letter and have in fact used it to support their position (see Applicants’ Appeal Brief pp. 12-15), we have considered the letter for whatever probative value it may have. See In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1835 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (depending on the record, information originating on foreign websites or in foreign news publications that are accessible to the U.S. public may be relevant to discern U.S. consumer impression of a proposed mark) and In re Remacle, 66 USPQ2d 1222 (TTAB 2002) (Board found professionals in certain fields such as medicine, engineering, computers and telecommunications would be likely to monitor developments in their fields without regard to national boundaries, and that the internet facilitates such distribution of knowledge, so evidence from an English language web site in Great Britain held admissible).
35 See Applicants’ Reply Brief p. 7.
19
Serial No. 77940879
Islamists believe that Islam is a political ideology rather than a religion.... Now, these shared elements, though common between all Islamists, this doesn’t imply that Islamists are all of one shade. Islamists do differ in their tactics and methodologies. I have identified three types of Islamists. They are first either political Islamists, who are those who use entry-level politics and tactics by working within the system through the ballot box to try and bring about this ideology. These are, by and large, people who are non-violent, yet they have an ideological agenda. . . The second type of Islamist, again, from these four shared elements, are the revolutionary Islamists . . . and their methodology is to infiltrate the militaries, to overthrow the regimes of the Middle East thorough military coups, and those in this category do not believe in using the ballot box or working through the system. And the final category of Islamists are the militant Islamists, or the jihadists, who believe in an armed struggle against the status quo. [Testimony of Maajid Nawaz, Director, The Quilliam Foundation, London, to U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs United States Senate on July 10, 2008]36
Not all Islamists employ terrorism as a tactic . . . [Written Testimony of Maajid Nawaz, Director of the Quilliam Foundation, London, to U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs United States Senate on July 10, 2008]37
Thus, today we can say that the broad ideological current of Islamism manifests itself in activist agendas that span the complete spectrum from democratic politics to violent efforts aimed at imposing Shariah law worldwide. . . . [W]e were asked to address the question of how a more in-depth understanding of the ideology of violent Islamism can improve America’s national security. We need to recognize that violent Islamism is part of a wider ecology of Muslim and Islamist thought and
36 See Exhibit 3(a) pp. 6-8 attached to applicants’ July 26, 2010 Response to Office Action.
37 See Exhibit 3(a) pp. 52, 54 attached to applicants’ July 26, 2010 Response to Office Action.
20
Serial No. 77940879
practice. [Testimony of Peter P. Mandaville, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Government and Politics, George Mason University to U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on July 10, 2008]38
The starting point has to be distinguishing between Muslims and Islamists, and between Islam (the religion) and Islamism (the political ideology). Islam, the religion, deals with piety, ethics, and beliefs, and can be compatible with secular liberal democracy and basic civil liberties. Islamists, however, believe Islam is the only (emphasis original) basis for the legal and political system that governs the world’s economic, social, and judicial mechanisms. Islamic law, or sharia, must shape all aspects of human society, from politics and education to history, science, the arts, and more. It is diametrically opposed to liberal democracy. . . . This is not to say that all Islamists will one day become terrorists; the vast majority will never engage in violence and in fact are likely to abhor terrorist acts. [Comments of Zeyno Baran Senior Fellow and Director of Center for Eurasian Policy, Hudson Institute, to U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on July 10, 2008]39
A further flaw in applicants’ argument that their mark is not disparaging is that it fails to take into account the nature of the services identified in their application. Applicants’ use of the STOP THE ISLAMISATION OF AMERICA mark in connection with services to provide information regarding understanding and preventing terrorism creates an association with terrorism that would be disparaging to a substantial composite of Muslims whether or not they embrace
38 See Exhibit 3(a) pp. 10, 12 attached to applicants’ July 26, 2010 Response to Office Action.
39 See Exhibit 2 pp. 1-2 and Exhibit 3 p. 68 to applicants’ July 26, 2010 Response to Office Action.

Islamization. It is certainly clear that an association with terrorism is disparaging to Muslims who are not adherents of violent or terrorist activities.
The anti-Muslim social climate in the U.S. reflected in the articles excerpted below amplifies the disparaging impact of applicants’ mark:
Americans remain conflicted about the Muslim faith . . .
[an] ABC/Washington Post poll found 49 percent with an unfavorable view of Islam . . .40
A Time magazine poll . . . found that 43 percent of Americans hold unfavorable views of Muslims . . . Although the overall level of anti-Muslim sentiment hasn’t shifted much . . . the change in tone has been striking . . . The reasons are myriad: rising fears of homegrown terrorism after the Fort Hood shootings and the attempted Times Square bombing. . . . Residents worry that ‘the Muslims coming in here will keep growing in numbers and override our system of law and impose sharia law . . .41
Still other Muslims, citing what they say is increasing anti-Muslim sentiment in America, have come to view such efforts as useless.42
. . . what many observers see as a growing anti-Islam fervor . . .43
. . . a recent uptick in anti-Muslim acts nationally . . .44
40 See article entitled: “Anti-Muslim tensions roil the melting pot” published in The Dallas Morning News on September 11, 2010, attached to January 19, 2011 Office Action.
41 See article entitled: “Nowhere near Ground Zero, but no more welcome” published in The Washington Post Suburban Edition on August 23, 2010, attached to January 19, 2011 Office Action.
42 See article entitled: “Muslims work to retake ‘jihad’ from extremists” published in the Times-Picayune (New Orleans) on May 24, 2008, attached to April 28, 2010 Office Action.
43 See article entitled: “Mosque furor, Quran burning: Anti-Islamic fervor mobilizes US Muslims” published in The Christian Science Monitor on September 10, 2010 attached to January 19, 2011 Office Action.

The Bay Area, known for its multicultural diversity and acceptance, is not immune to the anti-Muslim sentiment that has infected the country. . . . Life is mostly normal for Burrell, who feels both devoutly Muslim and quintessentially Californian. But anti-Muslim sentiment, whether it’s in the news or on the sidewalk, can take a toll on her and her Muslim friends, she said.45
In view of the foregoing, we find that under either meaning of applicants’ mark, when the mark is used in connection with the services identified in the application, namely providing information for understanding and preventing terrorism, the mark is disparaging to Muslims in the United States and is therefore not registrable.
3.    First Amendment
Applicants’ argument that the USPTO’s refusal to register their mark violates their free speech rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is unavailing. Regardless of whether applicants’ mark is protected free speech, our decision does not impact their rights under the First Amendment. The refusal to register applicants’ mark does not impede their right to use the mark. As such, it imposes no restraint or limit on their ability to communicate ideas or express points of view, and does not suppress any tangible form of expression. See In re Boulevard Entertainment Inc., 334 F.3d 1336, 1343, 67 USPQ2d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Mavety Media Group Ltd., 33 F. 3d 1367, 1374, 31 USPQ2d
44 See article entitled: “Center an anti-Islamic target” published in the Los Angeles Times Home Edition on January 3, 2010, attached to January 19, 2011 Office Action.
45 See article entitled: “For an American Muslim, stares, misunderstandings come with the territory” published in the San Jose Mercury News on September 14, 2010, attached to January 19, 2011 Office Action. 1923, 1928-29 (Fed. Cir. 1994); and In re McGinley, 660 F.2d 481, 484, 211 USPQ 668, 672 (CCPA 1981). Therefore, applicants’ rights are not abridged by the refusal to register their mark.
Decision: The refusal to register applicants’ mark under Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act is affirmed.

If the ADL and the other Jewish so-called defense organizations were doing what they were supposed to be doing and not partnering with Hamas supporters like CAIR, while Jewish money goes to fight imaginary "Islamophobia," we would be so much better off.

DEFENDING THE WEST
War on free speech comes to Long Island
Exclusive: Pamela Geller invites 'freedom lovers' to join her at Great Neck synagogue

You know things are bad when a little Jew can’t even give a talk at a synagogue on Long Island.

Here is the latest on Habeebgate. In my WND column last Monday, I reported on a coordinated leftist/Muslim campaign to intimidate the officials of a Long Island synagogue where I am scheduled to speak on April 14 into canceling my talk. But the Great Neck Synagogue refused to kowtow to intimidation: The talk is still set to go on, and now the Islamic supremacist commissioner of the Nassau County Human Rights Commission, Habeeb U. Ahmed, is in hot water for using the power of his position to try to strong-arm the synagogue into canceling

Almost immediately after learning that I was scheduled to speak, Ahmed wrote to a group of area leftist leaders. Apparently he used his position on the Human Rights Commission as if he were a mob boss, deploying a small coterie of leftists and Islamic supremacists in a covert effort to intimidate the Great Neck Synagogue into canceling my scheduled speech there. Habeeb and his accomplices ordered their minions to strong-arm the shul, make calls and get the synagogue leaders to cancel a proud Jew scheduled to speak at their synagogue. (More here.)

As a result of this egregious violation of the public trust, now the Nassau County Attorney’s office has opened an investigation into Habeeb Ahmed’s conduct. According to Brian Nevin, a senior policy adviser to Nassau County Executive Edward Mangano, the investigation is attempting to determine whether Habeed Ahmed “misused his title” to strong-arm the synagogue into silencing free speech and enforcing the Shariah. Nevin said: “They are looking to see if any rules in the county charter were broken. It may be that there is no policy – and he has apologized.” (More here.)

He apologized – good. But that is hardly enough. I welcome this investigation and hope the imposition of Shariah blasphemy laws using public office will be punished to the full extent of the law – American law for American courts. Nassau County Executive Edward P. Mangano should conduct a complete ethics probe and an investigation of Habeeb Ahmed’s abuse of power.

I urge Mangano to remove this thug from office. Habeeb Ahmed must go. Ahmed is attempting to deny our First Amendment rights, using his political power to bully and intimidate. Further, how is the Chairman of the Board of the Human Rights Commission Zahid Syed handling Habeeb Ahmed’s strong-arming using the power and influence of his political office?

Habeeb must go.

But he has allies among compromised leftist Jews. The Forward reported: “New York activist groups Jewish Voice for Peace, Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, and Jews Say No! announced their opposition to a speech set for April 14 by Pamela Geller, an activist known for her extreme anti-Muslim rhetoric, at the Modern Orthodox Great Neck Synagogue. In an email sent to JVP activists on April 3, the organization called on members to contact the Great Neck Synagogue and ask it to cancel the event. Rebecca Vilkomerson, JVP’s executive director, told the Forward on April 4 that at least 50 people had contacted Great Neck Synagogue at the group’s behest.”

These are not Jewish groups but anti-Jewish groups which, when they are not attacking Jews, are calling for a kristallnacht against the tiny Jewish state. They promote and sponsor the vicious boycott, divest and sanction (BDS) movement designed to alienate and cut Israel off from the rest of the world.

The Great Neck Synagogue should be proud that it incurred the ire of the viciously anti-Israel cabal of craven quislings – lapdogs for annihilationists.