The Anatomy of Advertising Deception Using Muslims

Where to begin? Let's start with the advertisement itself. One that has "stirred controversy" yet according to the company who put out the ad, SnoreStop, their new campaign is supposed to be about diversity while it purposely stirs controversy. They have chosen to portray "couples" Couples who you "don't see but which exist"


"As a snoring solution company, we're in the business of keeping people together," said Melody Devemark, spokeswoman and member of the family that owns the Camarillo, California-based company, in a press release. "So we found the most polarized couple and thought: 'If we can keep them together, we can keep anybody together.'"

The company said the ad is inspired by a real life couple -- veteran Jamie Sutton and his wife Aleah, who is Muslim. (source)

Note the spokeswoman says the ad was "inspired by". She does not claim the couple portrayed on the billboard is an actual couple. Or do they? Five days ago "Stefanianne" who claims to be part of the promotion claimed on her Instagram (note the comment by SlexyDayz and various hashtags)

Read what is purported in this San Diego FOX News report on the ad. "Officials said the models, U.S. soldier Paul Evans and his Muslim girlfriend are also a real couple."

Read more: http://fox5sandiego.com/2013/10/30/head-turning-billboard-coming-to-san-diego/#ixzz2jV6aHkGW

Are they? Let's see. Starting with the female in the ad whose name is Lexi Panterra, "slexydayz" First question. Is Lexi a niqabi? Is this how she normally dresses as a conservative Muslim? You can judge for yourself from her own WEBSITE. HERE is a music video of Lexi's. Is niqab her attire as a conservative Muslim? Absolutely not.

Now ask yourself these questions:
1. While the FOX News article claims Lexi is Paul Evans' girlfriend. Ask yourself "do niqabis" have boyfriends? Besides, look at that wedding ring she is prominently showing on her finger on the billboard. The indication is that they are married.

2. Do conservative Muslim women marry non-Muslims? Answer is "no" they don't.Per Islam, Muslim women marry Muslim men. Do mixed marriages occur sometimes between Muslim women and non-Muslim men? Yes. Among secular Muslims, not conservative Muslims who wear niqab, absolutely not. Can a non-Muslim male convert (actual proper term in Islam is REvert) to Islam and marry a Muslim woman? Yes, it happens often.  So the billboard might lead a thinking person to "assume" that since they are a "couple" as the company claims, Paul Evans must also be Muslim which is a very reasonable assumptioin due to the fact that there are many Muslims serving in the US military. Of course the woman in the ad is identified easily as a Muslim because she is wearing niqab. Paul Evans however is only portrayed as a soldier with no religious identity indicated in any way. Is this purposeful on the part of the advertising company and SnoreStop? I would say "definitely" otherwise the company would have clearly stated this is a Muslim COUPLE, not just a soldier, Paul Evans with a niqabi who has stated ""You know, as soldiers, that's really what we fight for right there; I mean, we just want our freedoms, we just want that equality," . (source) I ask Mr. Evans, did the US have to fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, occupy those countries, in order for you and others to marry or DATE a conservative Muslim niqabi? Shades of WWII occupied Japan and Germany. Why not go further back and portray a US Calvary soldier with a Native American woman? After all, you became a soldier for "freedom" right?

3. Are Paul Evans and Lexi Panterra (who is not a niqabi) a couple as both the company and Paul Evans claim? One needs to go no further than Lexi's Instagram and Tumbler accounts to find the answer. On Halloween she posted an Instagram video "boyfriend's makeup" Is that Paul Evans in the video? No it is not. It is a man named Sebastian Praga. How long have Lexi and her boyfriend Sebastian Praga been together? That can be documented per her Tumbler account to some degree by the pictures she has posted of him there. October 18,2013 "My boyfriend does my makeup tag". You know conservative Muslim niqabis change out "boyfriends" easily right? They also take niqab on and off easily, one day making  sexy music videos, another day donning niqab as an ACTRESS in an ad to "keep couples together" by stopping snoring. 

SnoreStop must not work as claimed to "keep couples together" because if Paul Evans and Lexi Panterra were ever a couple in the first place, they sure aren't now! #product fail #advertising deception #fighting wars so you can have the freedom to DATE slexidayz who dresses up as a niqabi and is NOT a niqabi #using deception in advertising to "stir controversy" when your product does not work as advertised LOL.

To note, none of the above addresses the use of CONCOCTED political controversy when the US invasioins of Iraq resulted in the deaths of millions of Muslims and countless refugees, the longest US occupatiion of any country, Afghanistan which is an utter fail, the use of drones which have killed countless innocents.

That's a whole different aspect of this DECEPTIVE advertisement which is easily documented.

Hat's off to SnoreStop. You pulled a fast one all right.  Sleep tight! Don't let the bed bugs bite.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Video on the making of this ad can be found in THIS article at Huffington Post.

The Anatomy of Islamophobia: Rehash an OLD Story as New: Set LOSE in Internet Land: How the Clarion Project Did It

To open, what this story is not about. It is not about the Qatif Girl. She is but a prop in this instance, used by an organization that has rightfully been named as one of the top propagators of Islamophobia, The organization is the Clarion Fund, founded in 2006 by Canadian-Israeli Raphael Shore. Read about this organization HERE giving their history, and their agenda.

Now for the unfolding of the Anatomy of Islamophobia: the REHASH of an old news story, set lose on the Internet. How I saw this unfold (and it's still unfolding as more and more sites are posting this "news")

On Thursday Sept 26 Nick Kristoff posted the following on his Facebook page, linking to an article at Examiner.com by Timothy Whiteman (who Loonwatch wrote about in a very interesting article) Note how many followers Nick Kristoff has (623,734) Notice how many likes he received for the post.(1,084)

Then commenters, including myself, did just a bit of digging and realized that the article he had linked to, the story, had an uncanny resemblance to the story of the Qatif Girl. However, what the Whiteman article failed to note was that the Qatif Girl story was old news, she had been pardoned in December 2007 by King Abdullah. Whiteman's  story is alarming! It is NOW and the girl has had her punishment increased to 200 lashes just this week! Due to  proof of how this story seemed eerily similar to the Qatif Girl, Nick Kristoff wrote:

More comments ensued, namely by myself, noting that the Whiteman article that he had posted, sourced an article on the Clarion Fund website as the only source of his "news".  Note the date Whiteman says Clarion posted the article: Sept 22, 2013. 

I asked Kristoff to look into the the organization that had rehashed an old story as "news", leaving out the resolution of the story, the Qatif Girl's pardon. I asked him to look into the Clarion Fund because they are a top propagator of Islamophobia. He ignored me and eventually deleted the entire post writing: "

Nicholas Kristof Folks, I don't have confidence in this article any more, and I'm going to delete this post. I think it's the 2007 Qatif Girl case, just recycled.

When I tried linking to the Clarion Project link Whiteman gave, it didn't work (at that time). So I went to The Clarion Project's Facebook page and lo and behold it was there. That link worked. The article has since been removed from the Clarion Project's Facebook page. As well, the article date on the Clarion Project's website has been changed from September 22, 2013 to November 15, 2007 (in keeping with when the news was actually news) As well an UPDATE has been added at the bottom which reads

"Update: Since publishing this article it has been reported that Saudi King Abdullah took note of the negative media coverage surrounding this case and that resulted in his direct intervention in the case and the pardoning of the woman." 

That update was added yesterday morning after I left a comment there that has been deleted, calling them "Liars", this isn't news, and the Qatif Girl was pardoned in December 07. 

Unable to find the article in cache with the original date of Sept 22, I have found other proof that Clarion published the article as "news" on Sept 22, 2013. As well, since they did, this "news" has spread to page after page of Whiteman's article and Clarion's original article. Here is the screenshot of Googling this phrase "Clarion Saudi Arabia lashing: Note the date.

Now, here is what I would like you to do, read the comments on Whiteman's article. It's the usual, Saudi Arabia of course is mentioned, but most of the comments (as usual) are bashing all Muslims. Why? Because this is how it works in the Islamophobe Industry, search out every single thing you can find negative regarding Muslims and then paint all Muslims with that brush. Paint them all as women abusers. (and in Whiteman's case call the Clarion Project a "women's rights news portal which is beyond laughable) Yes Saudi Arabia is rife for use by the Islamophobe Industry but this is NOT about the Qatif Girl or Saudi Arabia, this is about smearing all Muslims any chance you can get, even if it means rehashing OLD news and omitting that the woman in question has been free since December 2007 and never received ANY lashings and lashings are certainly not imminent for her NOW. Indeed it is Whiteman's article that is spreading like wildfire across the internet, now on page after page NOT saying she was pardoned, but rather she is in danger NOW. Shark chum, and boy oh boy are they biting. They always do.

Now, just as Whiteman picked up Clarion's Sept 22nd "news" story, another journalist has also picked it up through other sources writing after Clarion's article and written his own story at opposingviews.com. Jonathan Vankin has listed his sources as New York Times, Daily Bhaskar and AP. Note the dates on the sources. The NYT article is from 2007, the AP article is from 2007 but the Daily Bhaskar article is dated Sept 27, 2013 and gets it ALL wrong saying the woman was raped on Sept 22 just last week! Notice that the Daily Bhashkar article sites the Clarion Project as the source. (apparently not reading it very thoroughly because Clarion states the case goes back to 2006) How could Jonathan Vanig who has so many credits to his name get it so wrong? Answer, he did, and he didn't put two and two together that the 2007 articles had an entirely different date on which the woman was raped! I have emailed Mr. Vankin but as of this moment he has not responded to me. How many times is Mr. Vankin's article now going to be shared in Internet Land? How many times is it going to be used NOW as shark chum to bash all Muslims? 

This latest shark chum all started with the Clarion Fund on Sept 22.  They have attempted to cover their tracks, but it doesn't work, for the proof is there above, they published on Sept 22 and since then one more "incident" has hit Internet Land. A woman is going to be lashed 200 times! Look at those EVIL Muslims who are doing this. 

That old saying, "Everything old is new again" applies.

To liars.

(I will post updates as they occur)

Read: Fear Inc.

Read CAIR's Sept 2013 report 

Islamophobia and its Impact in the United States

Why was this radical Saudi anti-female cleric invited to the US?

His name is "Sheikh Ayed Al-Qarni" He was invited here and sponsored by Islamic Relief USA whose director, Belkacem Nahi lamented the thousands of dollars lost on hotel rooms for the various events he had been scheduled to speak at in this article in Arabic (Run it through Language Tools for simple translation) .

He says Belkacem Nahi Coordinator Development of the Organization of your Islam reliving in an interview for "Elaph": "" We feel regret bitterly to prevent Sheikh Ayed Al-Qarni of attendance for charity ceremony which will be held in the states of Washington, DC and California and New Jersey, Chicago, and all the sons of the Muslim community spread in the United States was a great longing to meet him. "

The organization spent your Islam reliving tens of thousands of dollars to rent rooms in plush hotels U.S. where he planned Qarni delivering his speeches in front of the crowd.

According Belkacem Nahi that "his organization has invited to the sons of the Muslim community in America because they know the weight of the volume of Sheikh Al-Qarni Islamic as an advocate large and unpopular massive, has been renting rooms within months hotels U.S. and room for five thousand people in the lecture" one, adding that being Muslim Reliving has lost all financial and insurance developed in order to book those halls after the ban.

Al-Qarni was denied entry by Homeland Security. Islamic Relief's attorneys failed to successfully intervene on his behalf. CAIR's Nihad Awad also stated that CAIR was willing to offer their legal services on Al-Qarni's behalf should he request.

" We defend all Muslims who are exposed to arbitrary measures In this sense we But we will not officially Ntraf but Ada got agency thereof. "

No doubt Al-Qarni was not denied entry due to his stance on women driving, However Islamic Relief and   MSA-ICNA both had this "sheikh" scheduled to speak at their events that stated the following in regards to why the women of Saudi Arabia should not be allowed to drive:

“One: I do not see women driving cars in our country because of the consequences that would spring from it such as the spread of corruption, women uncovering their hair and faces, mingling between the sexes, men being alone with women and the destruction of the family and society in whole.

“Two: Sadd Al-Dharaie principle (the closing of doors which could lead to corruption or sinful actions) is one of the values in our religion. Women driving cars is a sinful thing. It is used by those who want to wage a war against purity and hijab.

“Three: One of the principles of our religion is protecting honor and moral values. Women driving cars would threaten these principles because of the dire consequences resulting from it.

“Four: Such public issues must be brought up with the certified religious institution who have the say in such matters as I have said many times before.”

*source of above quotes http://www.arabnews.com/node/243514

On the website for the MSA-ICNA event Al-Qarni's "bio" was posted without one word regarding his stance on women. LINK.

When his visit was denied they posted THIS announcement. Again, without a word regarding his "sheik's" stance on women driving in Saudi Arabia where it is these very clerics who speak such words about women.

"Sheikh" Al-Qarni was also scheduled to speak at THIS Islamic Relief event Jan. 30

My open question to the above entities is very simple, why would a Saudi cleric who has this stance on women be invited as a guest to the United States to speak at several events, thousands of dollars spent on him?

Is this something that any of the above entities wish their interfaith partners (which are many) to know? Why on God's green Earth would this man who is an integral member of the very apparatus that oppresses Saudi women be sponsored by Islamic Relief, invited to speak by MSA-ICNA and defended by CAIR simply because he is Muslim?

Facebook Activism per Urban Dictionary

From Urban Dictionary:

Facebook Activism

413 up, 15 down

The illusion of dedication to a cause through no-commitment awareness groups. Specifically in reference to Facebook groups centered around political issues. Dave: Man, this genocide in Darfur is terrible. I sure wish I could make a difference. Jenna: Well, I made a facebook group about it. We have almost one million members! Dave: That's great! Are you all going to donate money to refugees or something? Jenna: No, but now those murderers will really know how sad we are! Dave: Sounds like you're really into your Facebook activism! ^^^^^^^ Question: Are you really an activist in real life? Who are you friending on Facebook ? Are you able to verify your "friend" on Facebook is real and is an activist for REAL? Stupid question of the day. If the answer to the above question does not fit within the peramerters of REAL LIFE activism and REAL LIFE precautions any sane person would take, what the hell are you doing on Facebook? Enquiring minds would like to know......

How to become a "Palestinian" activist on Facebook

1. Come up with a decent enough sounding name.

2. If you are on Timeline, put up a nice banner.  Using the Palestinian flag as your profile picture comes in handy.

3. Post some articles on your wall about Palestine.  This may take a little while, actually not long at all, if you have pro-Palestinian articles on your wall, you must be pro-Palestinian. Everyone with any brains knows that right?

4. To gain credibility choose some high profile activists to send friend requests to. These folks have thousands on their lists, certainly all those folks must be real right?  You know this because you have heard of them other places OR they also have outward appearances of being pro-Palestinian.  This is KEY to getting your foot in the door due to ........... #5

5. The key is "mutuals". You know how that one goes. If you have a whole lot of "mutuals" with someone, especially high profile Palestinian activists, then BINGO this person sending you a friend request must be legitimate. (hint hint, that high profile activist has no time for this sort of baloney, it's "only facebook" and they're so busy with all their real stuff they don't have time to check anyone out, if they want to be their friend then that is really REALLY "nice")

6. Once you get your foot in the door, the sky's the limit.  The more friends you make, the more friends you are able to make because gee whiz, if someone has that many friends they must be real!

7. Now what can you do once you are "in" as a pro-"Palestinian" FACEBOOK  "activist", gee whiz, I can't think of anything at all harmful can you?

Now that you know the basics of "How to become a pro-"Palestinian" activist on Facebook, HAVE FUN. There's a whole world out there for you to meander through. On any given day you can make more "friends", join Facebook groups, hell you might even get made an administrator on some of these groups and then you are REALLY "in".  This last part is just a perk that may or may not occur.  This may take some patience on your part but ya know that saying, who won the race, the tortoise or the hare?

Stay low, enjoy all your new friends just like they are enjoying you when they don't even know who the hell you are! But you have Facebook friends and a whole lot of them too so you must really be somebody. Oh, one thing, make sure you at least try to continue to appear pro-Palestinian. Any cracks in your appearance and some of these "activists" may notice, but hey, not necessarily cuz to each their own who they friend on Facebook.

Thus is the land of Facebook activism.  It's "only Facebook" right?

Why oh why did I ever stop blogging?  I miss it here.  I need some inspiration.............. The entire format of blogger has changed since I was last here. I used to write, I really did.  I didn't think I could get back in here.  Now..... let's see. Can't come up with anything at the moment. I miss my old blogging friends!

Martyr's Funeral Jawaher Abu Rahmah-Bilin 01.01.2011

The Last Bastion of Acceptable Racism in the US, Islamophobia, MUST GO!

Racism in America, a touchy touchy subject these days. With our nation electing it's first African American president, it would be utterly foolish to say that it has not flared again. As the underlying and often outright tone of many of the attacks against Obama are noticeably racist (not legitimate debate on policy disagreements), it would also be undeniable to say that racism against African Americans has become totally unacceptable. Unacceptable because racism in ANY form is unacceptable.

Or is it? Unquestionably the last bastion of racism in the US which is acceptable to spout is racism against Muslims. Witness the wild flurry leading up to 911 this year concerning the Park51 project. Not racist you say? All one needs to do is watch the videos of the protest against Park51, the nature of the signage and the crazed rantings of so many of Park51's opponents to see that at best the opposition was thinly veiled racism and at worst full-blown racism against Muslims.

There it was for all to see, with FOX News leading the pack of commentators to

tell us all why a multi-faith cultural center built by Muslims which would contain

a Muslim prayer space should not be built anywhere near "hallowed ground"

911 came and went this year, "Pastor" Terry Jones of Florida backed down from burning the Koran and the news seemed to settle down a bit. Then came Juan

Williams, his statement on the Bill O'Reiley Show that he gets nervous boarding a

plane with people in "Muslim garb who first and foremost identify themselves as

Muslim". Would he be more comfortable boarding planes with Muslim travelers

who showed no outward sign of their religious identification? He wouldn't be able

to tell they were Muslim would he? Perhaps identifying themselves is a GOOD thing

for Mr. Williams so he can be aware he needs to be afraid.

Note: none of the 911 hijackers whose actions have been condemned soundly by statements and fatwas from Muslim organizations world wide were "dressed in "Muslim garb". Note also that the myth is still perpetuated that Muslims have not condemned these horrendous acts when this simply is NOT the case.

As we all know, Juan Williams was fired following his statement on FOX. Subsequently CAIR has been blamed erroneously for the firing when the only thing CAIR did was ask

NPR to address Juan Williams' statement. CAIR did NOT ask for him to be fired, it was NPR who terminated his contract with him. Immediately following and since his firing

CAIR has been under attack. By threatening emails sent to them and public reaction

the firing of Juan Williams and support of his right to make the statement he did has

far outweighed those who agree he should have been fired.

However, there is much more to this story than what is apparent on the surface. There

are also questions that need to be asked of Juan Williams himself. Today an article was published which does ask Juan Williams a pointed question:

"Were he to get pulled over by a cop who made him get out of his car and submit to a full body-search, would he say “That’s OK officer. I know you’re just expressing your honest feeling that most black people driving nice cars are criminals”?

Unfortunately Juan Williams himself perpetuated the idea in his own statement that he was fired by NPR BECAUSE he did not fit NPR's mold as a Black liberal.

Mold? What mold Juan?

You were already on notice from NPR for other infractions and this time as stated by NPR you were fired due to breach of your employer's ethics code. A reminder of what those codes are which Juan Williams agreed to follow in signing his contract with NPR:

http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/ethics/ethics_code.html

Now, lets compare Juan Williams' statement about being frightened of getting on planes with people in "Muslim garb" to the point made by the author of this article, would Juan Williams have a problem being pulled over for driving while Black simply because the police officer had an "honest feeling that most black people driving nice cars are criminals"? Note, it doesn't have to be "nice cars", it can be any car can't it? The point being that this Black man is in the wrong neighborhood, he must be up to no good, he doesn't belong here, reason for suspicion.

While racism against African Americans has become RIGHTFULLY politically incorrect in this country to publicly espouse, it hasn't stopped die hard racists from continuing to flaunt their racism. Take the case of White Nationalism which exists here til this day. Leading the pack of US White Nationalists is David Duke. What is he up to these days besides announcing his potential run for the presidency in 2012? Well David Duke has glommed on to a recent news item about a cheerleader in Texas who was raped at a drunken party in 2008. Evidently the rapist was allowed to continue playing football while the girl was kicked off her cheer team for refusing to cheer him. The story is outrageous, but what aspect of the story did David Duke hone in on? The fact that the rapist was Black, and that these sort of things didn't occur in Silsbee, Texas until Blacks started moving in.
This is important, watch David Duke's video HERE: at 4:40 he states,

"There was a time when Silsbee High School was entirely European American, parents never had to worry about their teenage girl getting raped at school or at a school party, much less gang raped, during that time gang rapes of 16 year old girls was simply inconceivable"

Student while Black. Before these non-White Europeans moved in there was never anything to worry about at Silsbee High. Got that? White Europeans don't do such things, never in Silsbee. Silsbee was the perfect little White hamlet at one time wasn't it Mr. Duke?

There's just one problem with Mr. Duke's statement (besides the point that it is utter RACISM), while unable to find evidence of past gang rapes in Silsbee which I am SURE have occurred since gang rape in this country crosses all socio-economic and racial boundaries and does not stop at any municiple border, I was able to find the list of registered sex offenders for the town of Silsbee, and surprise surprise NOT, there are White registered sex offenders a plenty in this priorly perfect little hamlet. Note: the term "aggravated sexual assault"=rape.

http://www.city-data.com/so/so-Silsbee-Texas.html

Now back to Juan Willliams being frightened of those in "Muslim garb". Just as David Dukes utter racism paints Blacks as the criminal element bringing "this sort of thing" to what used to be the perfect little White hamlet of Silsbee, Texas, so is Juan Williams statement that he is fearful of those in "Muslim garb" RACIST. To collectively hang the tag of criminal on ANY group of people is RACIST. Juan Williams would NOT accept being pulled over for "driving while black" any more than he would accept David Duke's assertion that Silsbee, Texas was just a wonderful place to live before the undesirables (Blacks) moved into town.

Just as David Duke's racism is unacceptable, so was Juan Williams' statement and those supporting his right to have this "feeling" are both unacceptable.

Fear of those in "Muslim garb" or Muslims in general=fear of those "driving while Black"/fear of "undesirables" (African Americans) in the neighborhood.

While it is RIGHTFULLY politically incorrect and WRONG to harbor racist sentiments against African Americans in this country, it must ALSO become unacceptable to harbor racist sentiments towards Muslims.

NO TO RACISM no matter what form it takes.

NO TO RACISM against Muslims, it is time to bury the acceptance of this vile sentiment.