CAIR Leader Nezar Hamze Is Now Deputy Sheriff

hamze

First Jewish Sheriff of Broward County picks representative of terror group to wear gun and badge.

Frontpage, by Joe Kaufman, July 24, 2015:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has its foundation in the terrorist organization Hamas. It has been named as a co-conspirator by the U.S. government for two federal trials dealing with the financing of Hamas, and it is recognized as an international terrorist group by the government of United Arab Emirates (UAE). Given this information, how is it possible that one of this group’s leaders, Nezar Hamze, could be considered for a position at one of the most prominent Sheriff’s offices in the United States? However, that is exactly what has happened.

The Broward Sheriff’s Office (BSO) is the largest fully accredited Sheriff’s office in the nation. As such, having the title of Sheriff comes with much fanfare and responsibility. The current Sheriff is Scott Israel; he was elected to office in November 2012. As Sheriff, Israel has made it a point to reach out to diverse crowds, including those who could be considered enemies of the U.S. and her allies.

Broward Sheriff Scott Israel’s 2015 radical Muslim tour began this past January, when he posed for photos with Sofian Abdelaziz Zakkout and a member of Zakkout’s Miami-based AMANA group at a local mosque. Zakkout is a big supporter of Hamas. On his Facebook page, one can find Hamas logos and photos of Hamas militants and leaders, including Hamas founders Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi and deceased Hamas bomb maker Yehiya Ayyash.

***

Can Sheriff Israel, the first Jewish Sheriff in Broward County, seriously believe that Nezar Hamze – a man who has spent years as a leader of a fanatic Muslim organization; a man who repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas when given numerous chances; a man who tried to make excuses for his murderer cousin, after his cousin had willfully ran over a woman, dragged her body for several miles, and then tried to flee the country – should serve as a Deputy Sheriff in one of the most prominent Sheriff’s offices in the nation?!!

By employing Nezar Hamze, Sheriff Scott Israel has compromised not only the Broward Sheriff’s office, but the security of the entire county and by extension U.S. national security. And with the intelligence information made available to someone in Hamze’s position and the misleading information Hamze has exhibited he is capable of providing, who knows how much damage this could cause!

If the situation is not corrected and Nezar Hamze is not dismissed from his position immediately, Sheriff Israel should resign from office immediately.

If you wish to contact Sheriff Israel, you can do so by sending an e-mail to:ask_the_sheriff@sheriff.org, or you can call the Broward Sheriff’s Office, at 954-764-4357. Please be respectful in any and all communications with this office.

Read more

Georgetown’s Bridge Initiative Partners with Think Tank linked to Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad and Hamas

1111091100Center for Security Policy, by Kyle Shideler, July 24, 2015:

Georgetown University’s “Bridge Initiative” will now be holding weekly classes to those interested in learning how to identify dreaded Islamophobes:

Students will learn about the history of the term “Islamophobia” and its earliest manifestations; its parallels with similar prejudices that have affected other groups through time; and creative ways to counter it. Classes will include a lecture that introduces basic concepts and expands on the recommended readings. The presentation will be followed by an opportunity to ask questions, engage with one another in small group conversations, and participate in group discussions to not only learn about Islamophobia, but offer ways about how to respond to and counter it. Upon completing this course, students will have a foundational understanding of Islamophobia that extends beyond daily headlines, and should feel empowered to address issues of prejudice and discrimination in their own communities and beyond.

The course will be held weekly at “The Fairfax Institute” in Northern Virginia. Despite the rather innocuous sounding name, The Fairfax Institute is in fact a school operated by a well known Muslim Brotherhood front, The International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT).

As the we wrote in the Center for Security Policy’s white paper entitled, “IIIT: The Muslim Brotherhood’s Think Tank,”

“The organization was founded following an international conference of major Muslim Brotherhood figures, including Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf Al Qaradawi, in Lugano, Switzerland in 1977. The conference was held under the auspices of the Association of Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS), which was its self an outgrowth of the Muslim Student’s Association, the first Muslim Brotherhood organization in the United States.”

IIIT was founded to promote an ideology of “civilizational battle” against the West, particularly in regards to western educational practice. From IIIT’s 1989 publication, “Islamization of Knowledge: General Principles and Work Plan,” written by IIIT founder, Abdulhamid AbuSulyman:

Unlike the past, the civilizational forces contending in this century can reach and overtake anyone without invasion or military occupation of his land. They can subvert his mind, convert him to their world view, neutralize and contain him as a puppet whether he is aware of it or not. Certainly these forces are contending with one another to dominate the world. And it is the decision of Muslims today whether Islam will be the victor tomorrow, whether Muslims will be the makers of history or merely the objects. Indeed, a civilizational battle now in progress in the world scene will not leave anyone unscathed.
Far from disowning AbuSulyman, IIIT continues to honor their Muslim Brotherhood founder, granting him the title President Emeritus in 2014.

In addition to promoting Muslim versus non-Muslim “civilizational battle”, IIIT has also been linked to supporting actual violence. In a sworn affidavit in support of search warrants on the IIIT property located on Grove Street (where students of the Bridge Initiative will be attending their Islamophobia course),  Special Agent David Kane noted:

“Based on the evidence in this affidavit, I know that they [IIIT’s founders] are ardent supporters of PIJ and HAMAS. They have repeatedly voiced their ideological support. I have seen repeated instances of their financial support, and believe that they have acted to conceal many other instances of their financial support.”

In addition to support Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hamas, IIIT also hosted an employee with ties to Al Qaeda.  IIIT:

“counted Tarik Abdulmalik Hamdi as one of its employees–entering the UnitedStates with the assistance of [convicted Palestinian Islamic Jihad organizer Sami] Al-Arian–who also provided assistance to Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Al-Qaida and Osama Bin-Laden, and used his house to hold property for Bin-Laden and other designated terrorists. He personally provided Bin Laden with the battery for the satellite phone that prosecutors at the New York trial of the East Africa Embassy bombers described as, “the phone bin Laden and others will use to carry out their war against the United States.”

The Bridge Initiative’s work to portray as islamophobic those who raise national security issues about the Muslim Brotherhood and its subversive efforts to support terrorism and wage “civilizational jihad”, would perhaps be better served if they did not themselves associate with organizations which supported terrorism, and promoted “civilizational jihad.”

SIGNS OF TAQIYYA

Deceitful Islamic signs scattered across an English city and the truth about Islam:

Photo by Paul Wilkinson

Photo by Paul Wilkinson

Cherson and Molschky, by Paul Wilkinson, July 13, 2015:

For some time there have been numerous Islamic signs popping up on the sides of Muslim-owned businesses and mosques in the neighbourhood in which I live.

I previously wrote a personal account of ‘How Nottingham Has Changed in the Last 15 Years’ regarding Islamisation due to a large population of Pakistani Muslims, but because these signs seem to almost sink into the subconscious, I decided to examine their messages further.

Firstly, these signs strike me as something from an authoritative state, for example George Orwell’s 1984. Daniel Greenfield highlighted in his article: ‘The Islamic Hijacking of George Orwell: Islam is peace, freedom is slavery.

“Islam is a religion of Peace. That is as certain as the three slogans of the Ministry of Truth; War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery and Ignorance is Strength. These three slogans of the Party in George Orwell’s 1984 are especially applicable to Islam; a religion of war that claims to be a religion of peace, whose political parties (such as the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party) use “Freedom” in their name but stand for slavery, and ignorance of its true nature creates an illusion of strength for industrialized nations that imagine that they are only battling a tiny handful of outmatched extremists.”

Unsurprisingly, the opposite of what is portrayed in the signs is true. Muslims rely on decades of empowering political correctness and the ignorance of Islam that most of the general public possess, for a variety of reasons, to spread Islam further. Those possessing an understanding of Islam are usually unable to challenge the signs’ presence or wording due to obstacles of political correctness, stigma and even lawfare from Muslim groups.

‘Fruit of Islam’
Photo by Paul Wilkinson

Photo by Paul Wilkinson

This sign apparently informs us that the following attributes are all components of Islam: Generosity, Kindness, Forgiveness, Justice, Gentleness, Patience, Courage, Gratitude, Humility and Honesty.

How does this fare with reality?

Indeed Muhammad’s ‘virtues’ included being a thief, waging war, having concubines, encouraging rape, having sex with a child, murder, etc. Muhammad was a brutal, unforgiving warlord and painting him in a different light is plain deception.

‘Read it! The Most Positive Book in the World’
Photo by Paul Wilkinson

Photo by Paul Wilkinson

This is utterly bizarre, the sign actually challenges people to receive a free Qur’an, and see the imaginary ‘positivity’ for themselves! Most Muslims spend their time playing on nonbeliever’s ignorance to further Islam but this project should open people’s eyes to what the Qur’an actually contains!

image005Source: Twitter @mattpope123

The Qur’an could be classified as hate speech, as ‘The Religion of Peace’ site illustrates:

  • The Qur’an draws a distinction between one’s own identity group and those outside it.
  • Moral comparison based on this distinction.
  • Devaluation or dehumanisation of other groups and the personal superiority of one’s own.
  • The advocating of different standards of treatment based on identity group membership.
  • A call to violence against members of other groups.

“The holiest book of Islam (61% of which is about non-Muslims) draws the sharpest of distinctions between Muslims (the best of people, 3:110) and non-believers (the worst of creatures, 98:6).  Praise is lavished on the former while the latter is condemned with scorching generalization.  Far from teaching universal love, the Qur’an incessantly preaches the inferiority of non-Muslims, even comparing them to vile animals and gloating over Allah’s hatred of them and his dark plans for their eternal torture.  Naturally, the harsh treatment of non-believers by Muslims is encouraged as well.”

How this book can remotely be described as being ‘positive’ is anyone’s guess. Only if the reader believes in Muhammad and Allah I suppose, whereas for nonbelievers there is a feeling of inferiority due to its supremacist nature.

When the Qur’an is laid out in chronological order, Muhammad’s last commands were open-ended war against nonbelievers and to spread Islam by any means possible. Chapter 9 is a huge inspiration to jihadists. What better way to be a good Muslim by following in Muhammad’s footsteps and waging holy war for Allah? Why the Qur’an is not banned in civilised countries is a mystery.

Read more

Legitimizing Censorship: ‘Islamophobia Studies’ at Berkeley

392Jihad Watch, by Cinnamon Stillwell and Rima Greene, May 23, 2015

“Islamophobia studies” is the latest addition to the academic pantheon of politicized, esoteric, and divisive “studies” whose purpose is to censor criticism of differing views by stigmatizing critics as racist or clinically insane. The University of California, Berkeley’s recent Sixth Annual International Islamophobia Conference—organized by the Islamophobia Research & Documentation Project (IRDP)—was titled, “The State of the Islamophobia Studies Field.” The fact that this “field” doesn’t yet formally exist in the U.S. may explain why speakers the first day of the conference barely mentioned it. As in years past, the conference featured victimology, academic jargon, and anti-Western rhetoric.

The audience, including a number of women in hijabs (headscarves), ranged from twenty to fifty students and faculty members. Because the conference was preempted by another event, it had to shift between two venues. Adding to the confusion, the schedule was made available online only days before. While IRDP director and Near Eastern studies lecturer Hatem Bazian bragged at the outset that the conference livestream had garnered “seven thousand” viewers in 2014, this year, visual and audio problems often rendered it unwatchable.

In his introduction, Bazian apologized for these mishaps before launching into a glowing report about the alleged state of “Islamophobia studies,” which, according to the IRDP website, “has witnessed rapid expansion in the past fifteen years.” He claimed that the field had “come of age” in that there is “no longer . . . a debate over whether we should use the term or not” or if “it is real or not,” except for “those who really don’t want to confront Islamophobia” or “don’t want to deal with the reality of what has taken place.”

In fact, there is no consensus on the existence of “Islamophobia” in the U.S., particularly in light of FBI statistics showing Jews experiencing the highest number of religiously-motivated hate crimes, with Muslims a distant second. Conflating legitimate criticism of Islam and the myriad human rights abuses occurring in its name all over the world with an irrational fear or prejudice towards all Muslims further obfuscates the matter.

Undeterred by such concerns, Bazian proudly noted the “broad range of fields” represented at the conference in order:

[T]o create as large a conversation as possible about Islamophobia with the intention of expanding the academic material that is available for individuals and classrooms.

He alleged that, “This is part of a series of conferences taking part internationally,” including Paris, London, the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Switzerland, and eventually India. Then again, he said as much at the 2014 “Islamophobia” conference and, at the time, IRDP did in fact co-organize a number of such international ventures. However, at this juncture, a search yields no evidence for IRDP-connected international conferences this year.

Munir Jiwa, founding director of UC Berkeley’s Center for Islamic Studies and assistant professor of Islamic studies at the Graduate Theological Union, followed with the talk, “Frames and Scripts of Islamophobia.” Jiwa maintained that the U.S. and the U.K. view Islam through the “frames” of the September 11, 2001 and July 7, 2005 terrorist attacks, respectively, and lamented that, “This forgets the long history of Muslims in the West” and “Muslim contributions to Western civilization.” Referring to the alleged shortcomings of the latter—including, ludicrously, the Enlightenment—he made the ahistorical assertion:

Much like Colonial and Enlightenment ways of dividing the world: us and them. It’s as if the West just came up with all these great ideas on its own.

Jiwa complained that Americans see terrorism as “barbaric,” “out of the blue,” and “related to Islam, rather than the most warring nation in the world”—i.e., America. He was perplexed that, “the violence that Muslims do” is viewed through the prism of “religion rather than the socio-political context,” despite the fact that this perspective merely takes Islamic terrorism at face value. As for the Islamic State (ISIS), he found it “amazing that they think it has nothing to do with our being in Iraq,” as if every GOP candidate for president isn’t required to state his opinion on the invasion. He never mentioned ISIS’s atrocities, only “our responsibility in creating the context for that violence.”

Jiwa then denied the systemic problem of “Islamic patriarchy” by claiming that the “oppression” of Muslim women was viewed as “not because of geo-politics, [but] because of Islam.” He bemoaned that, “millions of our dollars are going into saving Muslim women,” an outdated allusion to the war in Afghanistan. Rehashing a joke he made at the 2012 “Islamophobia” conference, he suggested Afghan women save American women from the perils of the “beauty industry.” Turning to gay rights, he decried “how sexual minorities are deployed” as a test to determine “if Muslims are regressive or progressive.” Nowhere did he acknowledge the responsibility of Islam for the sorry state of women’s and gay rights in Muslim-majority nations, but rather blamed the West.

Later, Jasmin Zine, an associate professor of sociology at Wilfred Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, spoke about “‘Embedded Academics’ and the Construction of Islamist Youth Radicalism.” Based on her work “studying the 9/11 generation of Muslim youth in Canada,” Zine concluded that it was not jihadist ideology that led to their “radicalization,” but the “politics of empire,” “Islamophobia,” and the “racialized security industrial complex.” Engaging in a moral equivalency, she added the disclaimer:

I’m saying this not to create a space of innocence for violence or terror perpetrated by Muslim bodies, but rather to situate these acts within a broader historical context . . . such as the racial violence of colonialism, genocide, slavery, occupation, and apartheid.

On the subject of “embedded academics,” or those whose research aids the military or intelligence services in counterterrorism, Zine stated, “I’m interested in how academic research is used in service of neo-imperial goals.” Such goals, she contended, include “racial and religious profiling” and “using culture to apprehend for the purposes of domination and annihilation.”

Employing a term coined by Columbia University Iranian studies professor Hamid Dabashi in his book, Brown Skin, White Masks, Zine asserted that, “This work is supported by the ‘native informer,” adding that, “In Canada, we have Tarek Fatah, Irshad Manji, Raheel Raza who fall into that category.” Singling out liberal Muslim-Canadian writers and activists for condemnation revealed the radicalism of her core beliefs.

So, too, did Zine’s avowal not to become an “embedded intellectual.” Referring to the Canadian government’s Kanishka Project which, as noted at its website, “invests in research on . . . terrorism and counter-terrorism,” including “preventing and countering violent extremism,” she admitted that:

I’ve been asked to apply for this funding and I generally haven’t because it’s offered by Public Safety Canada [the national security branch of the Canadian government], the same people who are profiling our youth, who are keeping migrants away from our borders, who are limiting immigration.

If contributing to the public safety of one’s own country constitutes an “ethical dilemma,” as Zine described it, her conception of citizenship is profoundly flawed.

While this year’s conference may have failed to usher in the dawn of an officially recognized “Islamophobia studies,” it wasn’t for lack of effort. Soon after, IRDP announced the latest edition of its politicized bi-annual publication, the Islamophobia Studies Journal. Perhaps following UC Berkeley’s lead, Georgetown University recently launched the Bridges Initiative, a project of the Saudi-funded Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding devoted to “protecting pluralism – ending Islamophobia.”

The subject is all the rage in the field of Middle East studies and throughout academe, which is doing its utmost to silence critics of the Islamic supremacism, systemic social problems, and total chaos plaguing the region. If and when “Islamophobia studies” becomes a reality, we can’t claim we didn’t see it coming.

Berkeley resident Rima Greene co-wrote this article with Cinnamon Stillwell, the West Coast Representative for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. Stillwell can be reached at stillwell@meforum.org.

Strategies of Denial Revisited

635646952311572593-EPA-ITALY-MIGRATION

Jihad Watch, by Hugh Fitzgerald, June 25, 2015:

Six years ago I delivered a talk I titled “Strategies of Denial.” As it did not appear at Jihad Watch but at another site, New English Review, many who come here may not have seen it. And since what I noted at that time does not date, I am taking the liberty of reprinting it here, in segments, with some updated comments interpolated throughout. There is really nothing new to say about Islam; it demands of commentators that they keep repeating themselves, in slightly different words, to put into context each new manifestation of Islamic behavior, whether it be an attack on Infidels, or something less dramatic. There are new attacks, new outrages, but there are no new explanations of Muslim behavior. Each new attack bears mentioning, and each new attempt to explain it away as “un-Islamic” deserves comment, but the generalizing about the subject — the overview — does not need revision, merely constant repetition and, where appropriate, new application.

My reason for breaking up the piece is simple: the new material throughout;  I have expanded on what was given in a somewhat lapidary fashion, appealing more to our common experience of what is happening all over the West today. And I would like it not to overwhelm or burden the readers at this website, but to be read.

Now let’s go to the original introduction to “Strategies of Denial”:

Strategies of Denial –the title is ambiguous. Possibly deliberately. What might it mean? It might refer to Muslims, and to all the ways that adherents of Islam, “slaves of Allah,” especially those living in the West, have managed so successfully to distract or confuse or intimidate, morally or intellectually or physically, so many non-Muslims, managed to keep those non-Muslims from finding out too much about what Islam inculcates, and to achieve this despite the fact that the Islamic texts —  Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira – are easily accessible, no more than a mouse-click away, and their meaning discussed at thousands of Muslim websites. And though not always a mouse-click away, there is the long record of Islamic imperialism, of the conquest through violence and the subsequent subjugation, also through violence and the threat of violence, of non-Muslims, which had always been known throughout the Western world, discussed by its outstanding figures (see John Quincy Adams, see Tocqueville, see Winston Churchill), and noted as a matter of course by Western travelers to Muslim lands, whose own experiences revealed the clear hostility of Muslims toward them (and toward all non-Muslims). When the great mass of Christians in earlier centuries thought about Muslims at all, they never doubted that those who had studied Islam and those who had encountered Muslims must surely be right: Islam was a ferocious and fanatical faith – for “faith” and not “religion” was the word used until the past century. It was American writers of books for children who first began to use that leveling phrase about “the world’s great religions,” and not until recent decades that the soothingly misleading phrase about “the three abrahamic faiths” began to be used. Never before in the history of the Western world would such a phrase have been invoked, never before would it have been taken seriously or used to convince non-Muslims that there was some kind of shared faith and shared traditions which bound Christians (and Jews) to Muslims. People once understood, even if they could not site sura and ayat, the Muslim injunction to “take not Christians and Jews as friends, for they are friends only with each other.” And even if Sura 9 and a hundred other Jihad verses in the Qur’an had not been read, and the hundreds or thousands of malevolent anti-Infidel hadiths were unknown, inhabitants of the Western world – the chief obstacle to the spread of Islam for a thousand years – did grasp, in the main, the nature of Islam.

But in the last few decades, the very decades in which the political and media elites of Europe have permitted millions of Muslim migrants, in an act of civilisational heedlessness and historical amnesia, to settle within their lands, those same elites failed to reconsider their earlier presumptions and negligence, failed to meet their solemn responsibility to study the texts and tenets of Islam, and their observable effect over 1350 years, from Spain to the East Indies, on the behavior of Muslims. They have instead avoided such study, and still worse, have attacked those who have engaged in such study and, armed with the knowledge of the meaning, and therefore the menace, of Islam, have begun to sound all kinds of tocsins.

It’s an amazing feat, really: the ability of millions of Muslims to settle within the non-Muslim lands, what in Islam is called Dar al-Harb, the House or Domain of War, where the writ of Islam does not yet run, and Muslims do not yet rule, and yet those Muslims have been able to prevent, to stave off, to deflect, any serious and widespread study of Islam, and hence to prevent the understanding of the threat that a large Muslim population unavoidably presents (for a handful of apostates, and a slightly-larger handful of those who become “cultural” Muslims or “Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only” Muslims, do not relieve us from worrying about the 90% or more of Muslims who remain True Believers and Defenders of the Faith).

And as of now — late June 2015 — the movement of Muslims into Europe has reached flood tide. They come from North Africa, but not all of North Africa. Their main point of departure is Libya, where the overthrow of Qaddafi meant that no one despot could control the flow of population, as he was willing to do for the right  payment, as from the Italian government under Berlusconi. Even if a Western power wanted to pay someone today to prevent Arab and sub-Saharan Africans from leaving in those boats that head toward Lampedusa (the Italian island where these boats often are taken, or the smugglers easily arrange to have then taken — deliberate sinking or half-sinking of vessels by the smugglers is a common tactic) who, exactly, would he pay? No one controls the coast of Libya anymore; at best, some militias might control in Benghazi, or in Misrata, but even they are so fractured, their leaders so changeable, the ability to make sure that a deal that is struck kept so difficult, that Libyan immigration cannot be stopped unless the boats themselves are destroyed, as has been suggested should be done, but for reasons one cannot fathom, this elementary measure of self-defense has not yet been taken.

Read more 

Stephen Coughlin’s “Red Pill” Q&A part 1

red pill brief 2

Published on Jun 25, 2015 by Vlad Tepes

This is the first part of the question and answer session after Stephen Coughlin’s Red Pill brief given in Austria in May 2015

***

For the rest of the briefing go HERE

Why Sharia Should Have No Place in America

20150301_shariawilldominatetheworldsign (1)Family Security Matters, by Eileen F. Topansky, June 22, 2015:

There are still far too many Americans who do not perceive the terrifying Nazi-like intentions of Islamic jihadists either through their outright destruction of the infidel and/or the implementation of sharia law as Allah has ordained it to be.

The alphabet-soup-named groups’ ultimate goal of extermination of Jews, Christians and any others deemed infidels has still not penetrated the consciousness of the media or academia.  And no matter how many ardent efforts are made to educate and raise awareness of the Islamists’ goals, people either ignore or minimize the dangers.

And, yet, like Churchill, there are those of us who feel a moral obligation to continue the clarion call and not bend, dhimmi-like, to the whims and wishes of those who deliberately abuse the freedoms of this country in order to abolish those very freedoms for the rest of us.

Which is why, freedom loving Americans need to support Pamela Geller, Ayanna Hirsi Ali, Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders, Nonie Darwish and other courageous souls who refuse to cower before the appalling attacks on freedom of speech.  Given the opportunity, Islam swallows the whole body politic. Thus it has been in the past and thus it will be going forward.  After all, “Hijab Day was imposed on citizens in Minneapolis” in 2014.

Author/neuroscientist Sam Harris in his article entitled “Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks” asserts that “[t]he position of the Muslim community in the face of all provocations seems to be: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn’t, we will kill you.”  Furthermore,” [o]nly Muslims hound and hunt and murder their apostates, infidels, and critics in the 21st century.”

Contrary to Muslims’ oft-repeated assertions of victimization, it is interesting to note that the latest FBI statistics indicate that Muslims are the least discriminated among groups in the United States.  In fact, “[t]here were 1,031 incidents inspired by religion last year, 625 (60.6 percent) of which were anti-Jewish” as compared to “anti-Islamic ones [which] constituted just 13.1 percent.”  Yet Muslims play the victim game with the result that “Muslim immigrants are systematically exempted from western standards of moral order in the name of paying ‘respect’ to the glaring pathologies in their culture.”

How many Americans understand the true import of the word “dhimmitude?”  Victor Sharpe describes it as the “parlous state of those who refused to convert to Islam and became the subjugated non-Muslims who were forced to accept a restrictive and humiliating subordination to a superior Islamic power and live as second-class citizens in order to avoid death.”

Secularists from India to Indiana must understand that “by being silent about the horrendous practices in Islam, they only help toward further subjugation of women.” The veil is but one of the many symbols of “a totalitarian political system and an ideology which declares war on the non-Muslims.”  It is as clear and potent as the Nazi swastika was in its declaration of war against civilization.  Yet, when Muslim women activists speak out against sharia and Islamic gender apartheid, they are ignored by the majority of so-called Western feminists.

One need only read the March 2015 report by Baroness Cox entitled “A Parallel World: Confronting the abuse of many Muslim women in Britain today” to see what jihadist ideology is doing to the land of Churchill who, in 1897, wrote “western civilization is face to face with militant Mohammedanism.”  Baroness Cox has written that the “suffering of women oppressed by religiously-sanctioned gender discrimination; and a rapidly developing alternative quasi-legal system which undermines the fundamental principle of one law for all” would “make the suffragettes turn in their graves.”

In 2014 in their publication entitled Sharia Law: Britain’s Blind Spot, Sharia Watch warned about the encroaching sharia law that was affecting “the treatment of women, freedom of speech, finance, and the marketplace.”

Yet the West continues to contort itself to ban Islamophobia, that completely false narrative that disguises and whitewashes the true intentions of the jihadists.  What every freedom-loving individual should be doing is demanding an “Islamist Apartheid Week” to show the “genocidal, totalitarian and racist states that operate under Islamic rule.”  In fact, it isChristianophobia and Judenphobia which are endemic across the Muslim world.

Is sharia law America’s blind spot as Joanne Moudy asserts? In her June 2014 article, Moudy explains that “. . . many states have already passed laws prohibiting the use of foreign religious law in their courts. Yet despite strong voter support for these measures, the ACLU is fighting to get them all overturned. Oklahoma was one such state and – sure enough – in 2013 a federal court struck down their efforts, ignoring 70% of the population’s wishes that the U.S. Constitution take precedence.”  Moreover, “[t]he ACLU claims it is necessary to consider religious law (Shari’a) when negotiating adoptions, custody of children, executing a will and/or settling disputes over private property rights, to name a few. What the ACLU fails to mention is that within Shari’a law, women are considered property and thus have no rights, which means they have no say in court.”

In addition, Bethany Blankley in her article entitled “What America Would Look Like Under Sharia Law” notes the disingenuousness and double standards that define Islamic organizations as they stealthily infiltrate American organizations.

Blankley’s most cogent point is that since Islamists say there is no conflict between sharia law and constitutional law, “why then [do these same Islamic groups] vigilantly advertise, lobby, award ‘educational grants,’ and fund political campaigns, to implement sharia compliant American law?”

In fact, one need only look at Saudi Arabia and other sharia-ordered countries to see that Jews and gays have no civil rights in Islam.  Thus, “like everyone else, they must either submit to Islam or die.  But they are especially forbidden and targeted for death — because the Qur’an instructs it.”  According to Uzay Bulut, born and raised a Muslim, “[t]he Muslim regimes, which do not know even the definition of liberty–and their systematic criminalization of free speech; their suppression of inquiry and creativity; and their unending intertribal fights–are the reason their people have remained in the seventh century.”

Amendment VIII in the Constitution states that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”  Yet, in sharp contrast, “every day, arrests, trials, floggings, torture and the murder of journalists, poets, students and human rights activists are a routine practice” in the world of sharia law.

In fact, “[i]n Islamic Sharia law, a free mind is the most inexcusable crime in the Muslim world.”

Under “sharia, no free exercise of religion exists, especially for Muslims who choose to leave Islam.”  Additionally, “blasphemy laws exist worldwide to criminalize offensive speech or actions related to the Qur’an, Allah, and Muhammad.” Thus, anything that is deemed “offensive” is illegal.  And finally, “inequality, slavery and murder are enforced through the Islamic construct of dhimmitude.”

To further understand what life would actually be like for women under an Islamic state, it behooves readers to study the manifesto on women by the Al-Khanssaa Brigade in the February 2015 piece entitled Women of the Islamic State. A propaganda piece to recruit young girls to ISIS, some highlights include a “lengthy rebuttal of the ills of Western civilisation [.]”  ISIS has proposed a curriculum that would ‘begin when [girls] are seven years old and end when they are fifteen, or sometimes a little earlier.'” In essence, “the role of women is inherently ‘sedentary’, and her responsibilities lie first and foremost in the house [.] This role begins at the point of marriage which, . . . can be as young as nine years old. From this point on, it is women’s ‘appointed role [to] remain hidden and veiled and maintain society from behind.'” In actuality, “the ideal Islamic community should refrain from becoming caught up in exploring [science], the depths of matter, trying to uncover the secrets of nature and reaching the peaks of architectural sophistication.”  Consequently, “the implementation of sharia,” and doing “jihad” is paramount.

In Wisconsin and Ohio public school female students are now being asked to pretend to be Muslims.  This subtle propaganda is a first step to indoctrinating American youth.  In fact, much of American life is now being tainted with militant and violent Islamic ideology, be it in public schools, hospitals, and mosques.

Concerning actual sharia incursions into American life, on the one hand, Elizabeth K. Dorminey in her March 2012 article entitled “Sharia Law in American Courts” asserts that “[s]o long as U.S. courts and the federal and state legislatures adhere to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, Sharia’s proscriptions and prohibitions cannot displace constitutionally-guaranteed rights in the United States.”  Likewise Eugene Volokh believes American jurists will halt sharia-like incursions.

But in reality, American courts are already using sharia to adjudicate cases; this is highlighted in the December 2014 booklet entitled Shariah in American Courts, which pdf is available here and whose blurb states that “[t]his monograph also suggests that the effort to invoke shariah in U.S. courts is expanding. Worse yet, the total number of such cases is surely far larger in light of the fact that the proceedings of the vast majority of them are not published.”

In fact, Frank Gaffney emphatically asserts the “need for state legislators to clearly define public policy related to foreign law and Shariah.”  Consequently, . . .  in every case where foreign law and Shariah emerge in the court of a state that has yet to define clearly this policy, it creates one more advance in the Islamists’ determined campaign to have us destroy ‘our house’ by ‘our own hands.'”

Moreover, Gaffney underscores that “Shariah is distinctly different from other religious laws, like Jewish law and Catholic Canon, and distinctly different from other secular foreign laws” because of the “fundamental Shariah doctrine that Islamic law must rule supreme in any jurisdiction where Muslims reside.”  This three minute you-tube is a short version of the article entitled “Shariah vs. Jewish Law and encapsulates the stark differences.

Most alarming is that in “146 cases found, the court upheld the use of Shariah in 27 cases. This means that, statistically, one out of five American judges fail[ed] to reject foreign law that violates U.S. and state public policy.”  Consequently, there is an “increasing effort to insinuate Shariah into American civilization.”  Multi-cultural tolerance is being turned on us. Being paralyzed by political correctness eliminates what self-preservation demands.

In the June 2014 booklet entitled “Siding with the Oppressor: The Pro-Islamist Left” published by One Law for All, the authors explain that “[f]undamentalist terror is predicated on “. . . controlling all aspects of society in the name of religion, including education, the legal system, youth services, etc. When fundamentalists come to power, they silence the people — they physically eliminate dissidents, writers, journalists, poets, musicians, painters – like fascists do. Like fascists, they physically eliminate the ‘untermensch’ – the subhumans -, among them ‘inferior races’, gays, mentally or physically disabled people. And they lock women ‘in their place [.]'”he Campaign La All

Why would we want to import any part of this to our shores?

Eileen has been a medical librarian, an Emergency Medical Technician and a Hebrew School teacher.  She is currently an adjunct college instructor of English composition and literature.  Active in the 1970’s Soviet Jewry Refusenik movement, she continues to speak out against tyranny.  Eileen is also a regular contributor to American Thinker. She can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com

Brigitte Gabriel Speaks at 2015 Watchmen on the Wall Conference

10441013_10152789305602581_5210403848035624314_n

Brigitte Gabriel recently addressed the gathering of pastors attending the annual Family Research Council “Watchmen on the Wall” event. She gave a fantastic speech about the dangers facing our country from radical Islam, and what we must do as a nation to confront this very real threat.

Blindfolded America

John-Brennan-CIA-660x350-1434704398
Crisis Magazine, by Wiliam Kilpatrick, June 19. 2015:

If you’ve ever noticed that U.S. policy in regard to the war on terror is confused, you’ll appreciate Stephen Coughlin’s just released book, Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad.

The confusion is no accident, says Coughlin, but is the result of a deliberate Muslim Brotherhood plan to influence decision-making at the highest levels of the government and the military. Coughlin is an attorney, intelligence officer, and an expert on Islamic law and ideology. He is well-known for his “Red Pill” briefings to the security and defense establishments and to members of Congress. The “Red Pill” is a reference to the pill which allowed the characters in The Matrix to see reality as it is and to leave behind the false virtual reality that had been constructed for them.

Coughlin discusses the Muslim Brotherhood’s penetration of the government, the military, the security establishment, transnational bodies, and even the interfaith community. Just as importantly he explains the overall strategy which guides the Muslim Brotherhood’s various influence operations. A major component of the strategy is deception. Thus, in America, Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups—who are anything but moderate—present themselves as the moderate experts on Islam who possess the knowledge to counter the radicals.

Of course, they don’t advertise themselves as the Muslim Brotherhood. But when American security agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security consult with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim American Society, or a dozen other such groups, they are in effect dealing with the Brotherhood. The connections between these organizations and the Brotherhood are well-established, but for various reasons our agencies ignore the evidence. One reason is that many in the government believe that the Muslim Brotherhood—the progenitor of almost all terrorist groups—is genuinely moderate. Another reason is that the Brotherhood-linked groups are practically the only game in town. They are well-organized, well-funded, and have been ingratiating themselves with successive administrations for decades.

coughlin-coverWhatever the reason, these are the groups our security leaders turn to for advice. And, according to Coughlin, it’s not just input that is sought, but also direction. In effect, he says, we have outsourced our understanding of Islam to groups who do not have the best interests of America at heart. The other side of the coin is that the advice of other competent experts is ignored. When the advice of the Muslim experts contradicts the advice of non-Muslim experts, the Muslim advice is favored and the non-Muslim expert might well find himself out of a job.

Why does Muslim expert advice consistently trump non-Muslim expert advice? According to Coughlin, the security-intelligence establishment is in thrall to the same multicultural and relativist dogmas that afflict the rest of us. One of these dogmas, elaborated in Edward Said’s 1978 book Orientalism, is that no culture can ever explain another culture. Each culture is the final arbiter of its own meaning. For an outside culture to try to explain Islam is therefore tantamount to an act of cultural imperialism. Thus, says Coughlin, Muslim cultural experts are not even required to provide evidence for their assertions: “Often, all that is required to halt an inquiry or analysis are the words, ‘Islam does not stand for this’ from a cultural expert.”

The upshot, says Coughlin, is that many of our critical decisions on homeland security and on military and foreign policy are guided by groups whose main objective is to turn all societies into Islamic societies.

According to Coughlin, a prime instance of a Muslim Brotherhood influence operation occurred in 2012, when the White House purged more than one thousand documents and presentations from counterterror training programs for the FBI and other agencies. This was done in response to a letter to John Brennan, then Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. The letter, which was signed by dozens of leaders of Muslim activist groups, complained about the “use of biased, false, and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam.” After the FBI training program was made Islam-compliant, the Department of Defense followed with what Coughlin describes as a “Soviet-style purge of individuals along with disciplinary actions and re-education.”

Coughlin contends that a similar kowtowing to Islamic interests has undermined our war efforts in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Rules of engagement that subordinate the safety of our troops to the overriding principles of “respect for Islam” have a profoundly demoralizing effect on soldiers and make them think twice about a career in the Army. Coughlin cites a survey of West Point graduates showing that nearly half of young officers think the current military leadership is weak, while 78 percent think that the high exit rate of good officers threatens national security.

According to Coughlin, such demoralization is among the chief aims of Islamic strategists. “The Islamic way of war,” he writes, “places substantial effort on the preparation stage, the object of which is to induce a collapse of faith in the cultural, political and religious institutions underpinning the target.” As an example of this strategy he cites The Quranic Doctrine of War, a book by Pakistani Brigadier General S.K. Malik. Malik stressed that the chief effort prior to actual warfare should be to “dislocate” the enemies’ faith:

To instill terror into the hearts of the enemy [it] is essential in the ultimate analysis to dislocate his faith. An invincible faith is immune to terror. A weak faith offers inroads to terror…. Terror cannot be struck into the hearts of an army by merely cutting lines of communication or depriving it of its routes to withdraw. It is basically related to the strength or weakness of the human soul. It can be instilled only if the opponent’s faith is destroyed.

Coughlin observes that the object of jihad, of both the stealth and armed variety, is the destruction of faith. Therefore, “jihad is primarily understood in terms of spiritual war … a form of warfare that the Pentagon is not disposed to recognize.”

There is, however, one organization that should be disposed to recognize spiritual warfare. Unfortunately, says Coughlin, the Church has proved no better at recognizing and resisting Islamic influence operations than the government and the military. The appendix to his book contains a sixty-three-page chapter titled “Interfaith Outreach.” While Coughlin’s main concern is the undermining of national security, he maintains that Islamic activist groups have taken the entire culture as their target. In “Interfaith Outreach,” he discusses the Muslim Brotherhood attempt to subvert the interfaith community—a process that parallels the penetration of the military and is likewise intended to result in a “dislocation of faith.”

Coughlin focuses in particular on the interfaith dialogue between Muslims and Catholics. Like the security establishment’s “dialogue” with Muslim representatives, the interfaith dialogue, he claims, is rigged to discourage any critical analysis of Islam. One of the principles that guides the dialogue process is that the participants “speak in a way that people of that religion can affirm as accurate.” This, of course, is simply an extension of Said’s contention that one culture has no business explaining another culture. It means that the Catholic dialogue participants should defer to Islam’s interpretation of Islam. Thus, if a Catholic had the temerity to bring up the subject of Islamic violence, it would be enough for his Muslim counterpart to state that Islam has nothing to do with violence, and perhaps to recite a couple of verses from the Koran, and that would be that.

Full and frank discussion is further inhibited by an overarching emphasis on trust and friendship. The ground rules stipulate that “dialogue must take place in an atmosphere of mutual trust.Moreover, to quote from Interfaith Dialogue: A Guide for Muslims, dialogue partners must pledge “to remain committed to being friends when the world would separate us from one another.” That sounds nice, but isn’t there a danger that the bonds of friendship might get in the way of objectivity? That friendship might actually undermine objectivity? Thus, writes Coughlin, “persons who undertake a reasonable effort … [of] performing a competent assessment of the ‘others’ religion could be characterized as lacking the requisite trust….” Too deep an inquiry might bring accusations that one is uncharitable, intolerant or Islamophobic. So, in order “to remain committed to being friends,” dialoguers tend to avoid the crucial questions in favor of discussing the common ground between Muslims and Christians.

Read more

Stephen Coughlin’s “Red Pill” Brief

red pill brief
Maj. Stephen Coughlin is a retired U.S. Army officer and one of the foremost experts on Islamic law in the United States. For years he was well-known inside the Beltway for his “Red Pill” briefings of military commanders and defense officials on the topics of jihad and sharia. He was so effective in his work that the Muslim Brotherhood successfully arranged to have him pushed out of the Pentagon.

More recently, he is the author of Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, which incorporates material from the “Red Pill” brief, as well as much additional material on the Muslim Brotherhood’s penetration of Western governments, transnational bodies, NGOs, and the “interfaith” industry.

The videos below are of a “Red Pill” briefing Maj. Coughlin gave to the Wiener Akademikerbund on May 23 under the auspices of Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa, following his participation with the team at the OSCE conference in Vienna.

Recorded by Henrik Ræder Clausen and edited by Vlad Tepes (h/t Gates of Vienna)

***

More with Stephen Coughlin:

Gülen Movement Presents Yet More Interfaith Bloviating

The setting of the Rumi Forum gives a idea of how “interfaith” it is.

The setting of the Rumi Forum gives a idea of how “interfaith” it is.

Religious Freedom Coalition, by Andrew Harrod, June 18, 2015:

Perhaps the naïve expected insightful discussion of modern Islamic violence worldwide at the April 12 Fairfax, Virginia, panel “Community and Faith Leaders’ Role in Countering Radicalization,” recently available online.  Befitting the panel’s banal title anddubious Gülen movement sponsors, however, the panel’s inane multicultural, politically correct platitudes whitewashed critical issues concerning political Islam before about 50 listeners.

The Institute of Islamic and Turkish Studies (IITS), a member of the Hizmet (Service) movement of the shadowy Turkish Muslim leader Fethullah Gülen, hosted the event along with another Gülenist organization, Washington, DC’s Rumi Forum.  In his introduction, IITS imam Bilal Ankaya explained that Hizmet is “always an advocate of moderation” before an audience that had respectfully removed its shoes inside IITS’ carpeted mosque space.  Hizmet seeks to “build bridges between communities,” just as diverse “people lived in peace and harmony” supposedly in the movement’s native Turkey.

Panel moderator and IITS Senior Research Associate, Dr. Margaret A. Johnson, opened the panel by addressing brutal jihadist groups like the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).  The veiled devout Muslim Johnson considered it “unfathomable that such crimes can be committed in the name of Islam.”  “This blessed mercy has become so maligned,” she said, and argued that with ISIS the Islamic “words are familiar but everything else is foreign.”

Declaring “I feel Allah’s presence here very, very strongly,” Rabbi Gerald Serotta, InterFaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington executive director, added to the panel’s emphasis on ecumenical moderation.  He referenced the oft-quoted Quran 49:13 (God “made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another… the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous”).  He blithely asserted that Judaism’s “daughter” monotheisms, Christianity and Islam, both possess divine covenants, but said nothing about Islam returning the compliment.  Yet well-documented, persistent Islamic anti-Semitism and condemnation of Christianity derive from Islamic orthodoxy’s claimed supersession of biblical scriptural corruption.

“In their origins” these three monotheisms “were peaceful and loving traditions,” Serotta stated.  Extremist phenomena like terrorism resulted from an ecumenical “tremendous ignorance” in all three Abrahamic faiths that necessitated “challenging texts which appear to be exclusionary.”  Jewish oral tradition (Talmud), for example, modifies Old Testament “genocidal texts” and declares, among other things, that purely idolatrous peoples deserving destruction no longer exist.  He offered, however, no parallel interpretation negating Islam’s violent canons.

Global Peace Foundation (GPF) Director of Interfaith Partnerships Gail Hambleton then explained GPF’s vision of “One Family under God” as announced on a slide.  “Our rights are endowed to us by our Creator,” she stated without mentioning the biblical origins of this proposition announced in America’s Declaration of Independence.  Such “universal principles that we all hold dear” are “incredibly powerful,” she asserted without recognizing that natural law does not rule the world as much as Americans like Hambleton might wish.

Hambleton asserted “deep, deep shared heritage” of humanity is an “essential reality more important than the divisions that separate us.”  While everyone has “unique doctrines & ways of faith” in their “Divine Focus,” her slides announced, a “Civil Focus” unites with “civic virtues,” Islamic sharia law’s (sharia) human rights violations apparently notwithstanding.  Such unity is important given that people often seek to “avoid those who are different” and “stay in our comfort zone,” such that “communication breakdown” causes conflict.  Nonetheless, she left uncommunicated GPF’s founder, Dr. Hyun Jin Moon, who in GPF has pursued some of the more benign ideas of the Unification Church cult founded by his bizarre father, Rev. Sun Myung Moon.

Notwithstanding “civic virtues,” some Muslims seek a “sense and purpose” by joining ISIS, analogous to “youth at risk” in gangs, Hambleton argued, an analysis continued by Talib Shareef.  The imam from Washington, DC’s Masjid Muhammad saw parallels between adolescents who “become beasts” in groups like ISIS out of “protest” against parental neglect and the youth from broken homes he encountered in anti-gang initiatives.  “Everybody is crying out for something” and “we really don’t have a nature that wants to disobey God,” he stated with implicit invocation of Islam’s rejection of biblical original sin.

Shareef added that a “deeper stuff goes back to the Crusades,” Western colonization of Muslim societies, and conflicts over “Palestine” in creating global Muslim hostilities.  “To have been at the top” among history’s civilizations only to fall to a modern “third world” status means that the Muslim world “has not overcome hurt.”  He also attributed to such Western incursions the damaging of supposedly enlightened Muslim educational institutions.

The Quran, by contrast, inspired Shareef to “stand firmly for justice,” his paraphrasing of verse 4:135.  Like many Islam apologists, he misquoted Quran 5:32 to suggest Quranic support for sanctity of individual human life.  “The Quran explains itself” and its more troubling verses upon further reading, he asserted, and Islam’s prophet Muhammad “was the Quran walking,” giving two supposed guides for moral enlightenment.  He therefore called Saudi Arabian Bible seizures contrary to Islam, although his “I love Turkey” praise of his travels to his Turkish hosts ignored that Turkey has its own de facto Islamic blasphemy prohibitions.

The discrete radicalism of planned panelist Zia Makhdoom, a northern Virginia imam from Afghanistan, would have provoked plenty of disturbing questions from critical observers.  Funerary duties prevented his appearance, although his nationally (in)famous-for-15-minutes congregant Saba Ahmed, omnipresent at Washington, DC-area events on Islam, attended.  Thus the one disquieting note in this multicultural lovefest for Islam came from an audience questioner from Uzbekistan.  He considered “fundamental and revolutionary reforms” in Islam such as religion-state separation necessary for stopping groups like Al Qaeda and criticized the undiscussed Islamic origins of today’s “most powerful terrorism.”

The questioner drew varying responses.  Shareef conceded suddenly that these issues were among the “primary problems,” but stated that about six Quran verses (Are they abrogated?) described God refraining from forcing people into one faith.  “I just bristle when I hear ‘Islamic terrorism,’” a “perversion of Islam,” Serotta however countered.  He found in a mythological past Islamic “Golden Age” a “very robust theory” about the “compatibility of Islam and democracy.”

So ended a potpourri of Islamic pious hopes, unsubstantiated ecumenism, Moonie-derived humanism, selectively picked and interpreted Quran verses, Islamic victimization, and deprivation-causes-jihad fallacies.  None of this serves to counter Islam’s authoritarian, aggressive, and doctrinally-derived elements that continue to dominate world events in the 2015 centenary of Ottoman genocide against Armenian and other Christian populations.  In contrast to other institutions, the panel’s Hizmet hosts have had no events concerning 1915 and the parallel roles of Islam then and now in Turkey’s bloody region.  Do such wasted educational efforts reflect ignorance, critics must ask, or intentional misdirection in the name of various ideological agendas?

Islam’s ‘Baby Jihad’

islam-will-dominate-the-world-450x295
Frontpage, by Raymond Ibrahim, June 12, 2015:

Islamic aspirations to dominate the world are set to happen—if not through might of arms, then apparently through sheer numbers.

In 1900, the Muslim population of the world was less than 200 million.  Conversely, the Christian population of the world was almost 560 million—almost three times the number of Muslims.

Times have changed.  According to the findings of a Pew Research Center in America:

The number of Muslims will increase at more than double the rate of the world’s population, which is expected to rise by 35 per cent in the next four decades.

There will be more Muslims than Christians in the world in less than sixty years, new research revealed.

The [Islamic] religion’s share of the world’s population will equal the Christian share – at roughly 32 per cent each – in 2070, analysis by the Pew Research Center showed.

[…]

By 2050 Muslims will make up around ten per cent of Europe’s population.

For a better idea of what is in store for Europe, simply look to the UK’s “Londonistan”—the apt name for London and other regions with a notable Muslim presence: Already with a 10 percent Muslim population, Londonistan is a reflection of Europe 35 years from now when it too is projected to be ten percent Muslim (and by which time the UK will likely have an even much larger Muslim population).

The same sorts of anti-infidel violence and sexual abuse that is a daily fixture in Muslim majority nations is already a normal feature of Londonistan with its mere 10 percent Muslim minority.

Put differently, if “ISIS” and other Islamic groups regularly behead “infidel” men and sexually enslave “infidel” women in the Middle East—so are “average” Muslims doing so in the UK:

Recall how in 2013, two Muslim men shouting “Allahu Akbar” beheaded a British soldier with a cleaver—in a busy intersection and in broad daylight no less.  They even boasted in front of passersby and asked to be videotaped.

Or recall how Muslims were recently busted for running a sex ring in Rotherham, England: 1,400 British children as young as 11 were plied with drugs before being passed around and sexually abused in cabs and kabob shops.

It was at least the fifth sex abuse ring led by Muslims to be uncovered in England—Muslims who only make 10 percent.

During the trial of an earlier Muslim-run sex ring “Several of the men on trial in Liverpool apparently told their victims that it was all right for them to be passed around for sex with dozens of men ‘because it’s what we do in our country.’”

In fact, that is exactly what some Muslim men do to infidel girls in their country.  Seemingly not a day goes by without Christian girls in Egypt, Pakistan, Nigeria, Iraq, Syria, and any number of other Muslim majority nations being abducted, enslaved, raped, and/forced to convert (See Crucified Again, pgs. 186-199 for a sampling, plus the doctrinal justification.)

When a Muslim man savagely raped a nine-year-old Christian girl in Pakistan, he told her “not to worry because he had done the same service to other young Christian girls.”  Commenting on this case, local human rights activists said,  “It is shameful. Such incidents occur frequently. Christian girls are considered goods to be damaged at leisure. Abusing them is a right. According to the community’s mentality it is not even a crime. Muslims regard them as spoils of war.”

Indeed, there is no end of patterns of abuse against Christian minorities in the Muslim world that are now occurring in the West.  While many are now aware that “ISIS” destroys churches and Christian cemeteries, few realize that Muslims—not “ISIS”—just average Muslims—are doing the same thing in the West.

Days ago in Canada, which has a miniscule Muslim population, a Muslim man vandalized and desecrated a church on several different occasions.  Among other things, he covered the Christ statue in front of the church with black paint and broke its fingers and tore up Christian books inside the church.

Weeks earlier in France, 215 Christian gravestones and crosses in the cemetery of Saint-Roch de Castres (Tarn) were damaged and desecrated by a Muslim man later described as follows:  “The man repeats Muslim prayers over and over, he drools and cannot be communicated with: his condition has been declared incompatible with preliminary detention.”

And last March in Germany, a potential jihadi attack on the cathedral and synagogue in Bremen was averted following action by police.

In short, along with all the other forms of jihad to be wary of—the sword jihad, the tongue jihad (deceit/propaganda), the money jihad (financial support to jihadis)—the West should also be aware of the baby jihad.

If the same sorts of crimes being committed against Christian minorities in Muslim majority nations are already being committed in Europe and North America—despite the fact that Muslims are currently minorities—how then when, as projected, Islam becomes the most adhered to religion in the world?

How Muslim Brotherhood Operates in Tennessee (Part 8 of 8)

tn Council 4 political justice, June 7, 2015:

After the Holy Land Foundation prosecution, the FBI severed its relationship with CAIR because of its associations with the HAMAS-support network. But some FBI field offices violated the restrictions.

In 2011, a continuing funding resolution signed by Obama included language that barred the FBI from partnering with unindicted co-conspirators like CAIR. Two years later, the DOJ Inspector General released a report documenting how the FBI violated the Congressional ban by working with CAIR.

Regardless of the FBI’s efforts, CAIR directors work to undermine law enforcement. Michigan’s Dawud Walid tells his listeners not to cooperate with the FBI because they are “agent provocateurs” that target Muslims.” Walid was brought to Tennessee by ACO’s director to train Muslim high school students in political activism.

CAIR spreads suspicion about the FBI and posted this flyer on their website:

poster-on-cair-site

On a broader scale, the Islamist organizations are working to sanitize law enforcement training materials by withholding pertinent information and thus, effectively neutering our national security agencies.

In 2013 Judicial Watch issued its detailed report about the purge of counterterrorism training materials used by different federal agencies. The identities of who decided which materials were offensive and needed to be removed, is unknown; 876 pages and 392 presentations were purged.

Kenneth Moore, the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Knoxville Office, signed the FBI memo detailing the information purged from the FBI training programs. Moore spoke at the Tennessee AMAC (American Muslim Advisory Council) event jn Manchester where Tennesseans were told what they could and could not say about Islam and Muslims.

In August 2014, Tennessee’s Muslim ACO (American Center for Outreach) along with CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood affiliate organizations, signed onto another letter demanding more purging of materials and retraining of personnel across government agencies.

Tennessee’s lead law enforcers work to appease Islamists

In 2009 James Cotter a TNDHS Regional Advisor said with regard to foreign threats, “anything that they do over there can happen here and will.”

Two short years later, Tennessee’s Islamists received a congratulatory letter from Bill Gibbons, TN Commissioner of Safety and Homeland Security, Cotter was promoted for helping AMAC to organize and AMAC members were included in department trainings. So, there is no reason to believe that Tennessee’s law enforcement personnel are receiving complete and fact based training about Islamist activity in the state.

The Muslim Brotherhood Plan specifically addressed subversion of the media. Tennessee’s Islamists are working aggressively to subvert any media effort to objectively and truthfully report about the Islamist agenda in our state. ACO’s director Paul “Iesa Galloway’s background is in PR & media. AMAC board member Sabina Mohyuddin supports Muslim Brotherhood organizations. They recently brought the Muslim Brotherhood’s media influence operation to the desk of The Tennessean editorial board.

aco-and-tennessean-copy

What should informed citizens do?

Continue to educate yourself and those around you. Our state and federal government will allow the subversion to continue until leaders with eyes wide open choose a different course. But informed citizens do not have to wait. Anyone willing to use factual and objective information can take steps now to counter the propaganda and media influence that is underway.

Right now Tennessee needs focused efforts to expose Muslim Brotherhood affiliates, ideologues and their fellow travelers operating in Tennessee, with particular attention paid to CAIR and those that promote its work in our state.

Suggested action steps using civil and factual information:

  • write well reasoned, factual based letters to the editor of your local paper exposing CAIR for its ties to HAMAS and its presence and ties to Tennessee’s Muslim Brotherhood
  • request that your local reporters ask hard questions. For example, what does it mean that Jamal Badawi was listed in the Muslim Brotherhood phone directory or that no Islamist organization has ever denied the authenticity of the Muslim Brotherhood plan? What about CAIR’s director’s statement that he supports HAMAS?
  • The Tennessean paper lists Tom Wilemon, as an investigative reporter. He just attended a national training conference put on by Investigative Reporters and Editors, a nonprofit dedicated to improving the quality of investigative reporting. The Tennessean claims “watchdog reporting” is a high priority for them and “serves the greater Nashville community is by doing impactful investigative journalism.” Contact Tom Wilemon – twilemon@tennessean.com.
  • expose CAIR operatives like Paul “Iesa” Galloway
  • make sure your state legislators know how the director of ACO is tied to CAIR and who and what CAIR is
  • dominate the comments section on any relevant articles in your local paper, blog and facebook posts
  • share information with your local sheriff’s office
  • read the posts on this blog about interfaith efforts and the groups involved and educate your clergy
  • the Tennessean newspaper – speak to advertisers; ask them why they use their advertising dollars to support a media outlet that is working with CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood supporters

Use the information provided in this series. Remaining silent is not an option.

View the entire series here (you have to scroll down)

Give Somalis in Minnesota What They Want – The Exit Door

somali
UTT, by John Guandolo, June 3, 2015:

Film-maker Ami Horowitz produced a 4-minute film that is gold, and gives us all a clear understanding of what we are up against in the Muslim community.

Horowitz walks around Minneapolis, Minnesota and asks simple questions of Muslims about America, Sharia, and Somalia.  The Muslims speak their minds freely.

They say that those who insult the Prophet Mohammed should be killed.

They say clearly that Sharia should be the law of the land, and they would rather live in Somalia than the United States.

Fine by us. The exit door is open.  Please leave.

Please take your entire families, your four wives, your culture of death, your hatred for all that is good, and your desire to conquer, and leave.

Take your Sharia, your hatred for homosexuals, your desire to kill Jews, and your love of death and leave.

Take your whining and your laziness and your desire to get from and not give to our society and go.

Take all of the Muslim Brotherhood leaders with you too.  Please take all the leaders of ISNA, ICNA, MAS, MSA, CAIR, NAIT, IIIT, MPAC, USMCO, AFP, and the other thousand organizations to Somalia with you.

While you’re at it, please take all of your allies with you.  Take the entire staff of MSNBC, Code Pink, the National Council of Churches, the USCCB, the entire State Department, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Mitch McConnell with you.  America will be better off without them.

We do not want you here destroying our nation and our way of life any longer.

Please, Muslims of Minneapolis, go back to Somalia as you desire.

***

Jonh Guandolo has just launched a beautiful new website with tons of resources! Go and check it out —> https://www.understandingthethreat.com/ 

CAIR’s Lawfare Jihad

Slide12

Victory Against “Civilization Jihad” – Court Slams CAIR One More Time: Pay AFLC’s Legal Fees!

American Freedom Law Center, June 2, 2015:

On June 1, a Michigan federal judge once again held that the Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas front group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), must pay legal fees and costs after the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) successfully “quashed” harassing and burdensome subpoenas issued by CAIR to Ms. Zaba Davis, a private citizen who received the subpoenas because she publicly expressed her opposition to the construction of an Islamic center in her neighborhood.  This was the third ruling by the court upholding what it termed a “sanction” for CAIR’s reckless violation of federal law.

“Apparently, hell hath no fury like a Muslim Brotherhood ‘civil rights’ organization scorned,” remarked David Yerushalmi, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC.  “This was CAIR’s third bite at objecting to the sanction.  You’d think they’d concede this one rather than continue to run up our legal fees with each new frivolous objection they file.”

Robert Muise, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, commented: “Private citizens have a fundamental First Amendment right to express to their elected officials their personal views on matters of public concern.  CAIR’s ruthless attacks demonstrate that its objectives are dangerously at odds with the Constitution.  Consequently, this reaffirmation by the court sanctioning CAIR’s lawless behavior was important not only for our clients, but for all private citizens who want to speak out against CAIR.”

“CAIR employs egregious lawfare tactics to frighten honest citizens so as to prevent them from exercising their constitutional rights,” Yerushalmi explained.  “Our clients opposed the new mosque construction, like many neighborhoods oppose new construction of any type, not because it was Muslim, but because it would wreak havoc on their neighborhood with un-remediated traffic and noise.”

Yerushalmi continued,  “CAIR’s abuse of federal subpoena power is analogous to Sharia-adherent jihadists threatening violence against anyone who, in their perverse view, insults their religion or Mohammed.  When you threaten people with enough violence or litigation, the media and the self-anointed talking heads on cable TV and radio begin to lecture us about ‘civility’ and ‘provocation’ not because criticisms of some fundamental aspects of Islam are wrong or in and of themselves uncivil or objectively provocative, but because these pundits are frightened themselves of standing up to these bullies—whether they be violent jihadists or lawfare jihadists like CAIR.”

In 2012, the Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor (MCA) requested that Pittsfield Township, Michigan, rezone a parcel of land to build an Islamic School and community center.  The Township denied the request, citing infrastructure and traffic concerns.  Nevertheless, CAIR, which bills itself as “America’s largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization” but is widely known in government circles as a Muslim Brotherhood front group, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the Township on behalf of the MCA, alleging that township officials denied the MCA’s rezoning application out of discrimination against Muslims.

The MCA’s rezoning request was opposed by a group of Township residents who live in the neighborhood of the proposed development.  The residents expressed concerns about the traffic congestion that the new construction would cause in their neighborhood.  Pursuant to their rights protected by the First Amendment, these private citizens circulated and submitted to their elected Township officials a petition expressing their opposition to the rezoning and several of them spoke out at public hearings held by the Township to discuss the matter.

As a result of the citizens’ involvement, CAIR served harassing subpoenas on a number of these citizens, demanding that they produce private emails and other documents, and in some cases, appear for a deposition.  In one instance, Township resident Zaba Davis and her husband came home to find several papers jammed in the crack of the front door of their home.  The papers included subpoenas demanding the production of personal emails and other documents and a subpoena commanding Ms. Davis to appear at a deposition.

In response to CAIR’s abusive discovery requests, AFLC, a national nonprofit Judeo-Christian law firm, which is representing seven of the targeted private citizens, filed a motion to “quash” and for a protective order against CAIR.  The court granted the motion, ruling that the subpoenas violated the First Amendment and caused undue burden.  According to the court’s ruling:

[CAIR] contends that its sole interest in deposing Davis stems from a genuine belief that she has what it believes to be relevant information, and not from any personal malice against her for her public opposition to the school.  This argument fails for a few reasons.  First, . . . the Court finds unpersuasive [CAIR’s] relevance argument.  Second, for the reasons noted in the preceding paragraphs, to the extent information possessed by Davis is relevant, that relevance is far outweighed by the chilling effect that allowing the subpoenas would have on speech, not only for Davis, but for all others who wish to be involved in public discourse on matters of public concern.

CAIR filed an objection to the magistrate judge ruling, which the district judge rejected on principle but asked the magistrate judge to clarify which of two possible sanction provisions he relied upon to sanction CAIR.  After the parties briefed the matter, the magistrate judge ruled quickly and decisively, sanctioning CAIR under both provisions.

CAIR objected to this ruling yet again, and the district judge ruled on Monday upholding the magistrate judge’s sanction against CAIR.

Muise concluded: “Discovery sanctions in federal court are rare.  They are typically reserved for the most egregious violations.  CAIR’s conduct in this case, not unlike other cases in which we have litigated against CAIR, almost always meets or exceeds this threshold.  Yet, only rarely are CAIR and their minions sanctioned.  We applaud the court for its courage and fidelity to the rule of law.”

***

For more on CAIR’s lawfare read this interview with Deborah Weiss:

And here are reports on the latest victory for CAIR: