Obama Terrorism Advisor’s Book Confuses and Distorts

By Raymond Ibrahim:

Reading CDR Youssef Aboul-Enein’s book, Militant Islamist IdeologyUnderstanding the Global Threat, published by the Naval Institute Press (2010), one can see why U.S. leadership is far from “understanding the global threat”; why the Obama administration is supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood; and why so many U.S. politicians rose up in condemnation when one obscure pastor threatened to burn a Koran.

book2According to the jacket cover, Aboul-Enein is “a top adviser at the Joint foIntelligence Task Force for Combating Terrorism” and “has advised at the highest levels of the defense department and intelligence community.”

What advice does he give?

He holds that, whereas “militant Islamists” (e.g., al-Qaeda) are the enemy, “non-militant Islamists” (e.g., the Muslim Brotherhood), are not: “It is the Militant Islamists who are our adversary. They represent an immediate threat to the national security of the United States. They must not be confused with Islamists.”

This theme, sometimes expressed in convoluted language—at one point we are urged to appreciate the “nuanced” differences “between Militant Islamists and between Militant Islamists and Islamists”—permeates the book.

Of course, what all Islamists want is a system inherently hostile to the West, culminating in a Sharia-enforcing Caliphate; the only difference is that the nonmilitant Islamists are prudent enough to understand that incremental infiltration and subtle subversion are more effective than outright violence. Simply put, both groups want the same thing, and differ only in methodology.

Whereas most of the book is meant to portray nonviolent Islamists in a nonthreatening light, sometimes Aboul-Enein contradicts himself, for instance by correctly observing that “the United States must be under no illusions that the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood includes limiting the rights of women” and other anti-Western aspects.

How to explain these discrepancies? Is the Brotherhood a problem for the U.S. or not?

The book’s foreword by Admiral James Stavridis clarifies by stating that the book is a “culmination of Commander Aboul-Enein’s essays, lectures, and myriad answers to questions.” In fact, Militant Islamist Ideology reads like a hodgepodge of ideas cobbled together, and the author’s contradictions are likely products of different approaches to different audiences over time.

His position on appeasing the Muslim world—a fixed feature of the current administration’s policies—is clear. Aboul-Enein recommends that, if ever an American soldier desecrates a Koran, U.S. leadership must relieve the soldier of duty, offer “unconditional apologies,” and emulate the words of Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Hammond: “I come before you [Muslims] seeking your forgiveness, in the most humble manner I look in your eyes today, and say please forgive me and my soldiers,” followed by abjectly kissing a new Koran and “ceremoniously” presenting it to Muslims.

Likewise, after rightfully admonishing readers not to rely on skewed or biased accounts of Islam, he presents Islamic apologist extraordinaire Karen Armstrong—whose whitewashed writings on Islam border on fiction—as the best source on the life of Muhammad.

Then there are Aboul-Enein’s flat out wrong assertions and distortions, examples of which this review closes with:

  • He asserts that “militant Islamists dismiss ijmaa [consensus] and qiyas [analogical reasoning].” In fact, none other than al-Qaeda constantly invokes ijmaa (for instance, the consensus that jihad becomes a personal duty when infidels invade the Islamic world) and justifies suicide attacks precisely through qiyas.
  • He insists that the Arabic word for “terrorist” is nowhere in the Koran—without bothering to point out that Koran 8:60 commands believers “to terrorize the enemy,” also known as non-Muslim “infidels.”
  • He writes, “when Muslims are a persecuted minority Jihad becomes a fard kifaya (an optional obligation), in which the imam authorizes annual expeditions into Dar el Harb (the Abode of War), lands considered not under Muslim dominance.” This is wrong on several levels: a fard kifaya is not an “optional obligation”—an oxymoron if ever there was one—but rather a “communal obligation”; moreover, he is describing Offensive Jihad, which is designed to subjugate non-Muslims and is obligatory to wage whenever Muslims are capable—not “when Muslims are a persecuted minority.”

Islamic State Worried Media Will Cover Up its Terror Attacks as “Random Killings”

it-is-ok-they-died-for-diversity-450x299Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield:

I’m honestly not sure things can get any stranger.

Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood Jihadist, can only get FOX News to report his terror statements in support of ISIS because the rest of the media still keeps pretending that it was a case of workplace violence.

Meanwhile ISIS is urging its supporters to kill people in its name and make sure that it gets the credit because it knows that the media will do its best to pass off the attacks as random violence.

We’re in a deeply strange place in which the people trying to kill us are also trying to get past the media’s digital wall of denial about them. Imagine if Japan kept bombing America during WW2, only to have the media refuse to recognize that it was happening.

All terrorist attacks should clearly be attributable to “patrons” of Islamic State so they cannot be described by media as “random killings”, the new article said.

“It is very important that attacks take place in every country that has entered into the alliance against the Islamic State, especially the US, UK, France, Australia and Germany,” an article in the magazine said.

“Every Muslim should get out of his house, find a crusader, and kill him.

“It is important that the killing becomes attributed to patrons of the Islamic State who have obeyed its leadership … otherwise, crusader media makes such attacks appear to be random killings.”

Not that it will make much of a difference. At this point nearly any Islamic act of terror will be attributed by the media to personal pathology, economic problems or airborne PTSD.

When top politicians deny that the Islamic State is Islamic, it’s not hard to deny that its killers are Islamic. It’s a race between the butchers and the deniers.

How many people can Muslim terrorists kill and how hard can the media and its liberal followers deny what happened?

AP Flushes Much of What Is Known About Okla. Beheading Down the Memory Hole

10485877_764835473574448_1861499687249285164_nNewsBusters, , By Tom Blumer:

It’s disconcerting, and occasionally infuriating, to watch facts originally reported in some national stories disappear or get sanitized in later versions.

What the Associated Press has been doing to its more recent reports on the September 25 beheading of Colleen Hufford in Moore, Oklahoma has moved firmly into the infuriating stage. Several examples after the jump will demonstrate this.

At ABC News’s web site, the caption at the AP’s photo of Kelli Hufford, Colleen’s daughter, reads as follows:

Kelli Hufford speaks about the Sept. 25 death of her mother, 54-year-old Colleen Hufford, during a news conference in Moore, Okla., Wednesday, Oct. 8, 2014. Colleen Hufford was killed in a workplace violence incident.

Anyone who happens to look only at the photo and it caption in the many print pubblication AP dubiously serves will not know that Colleen Hufford was beheaded in what is believed to be “the first American beheading on American soil reportedly in the name of jihad.” Of course, even mentioning the fact that it was a beheading makes a completely mockery of the idea that Hufford’s murder was exclusively a “workplace violence incident.”

Two of the AP’s more recent articles relating to Hufford’s murder — the only two found in a search at the wire service’s national site on her last name — both downplay Islamic influences noted in earlier reports.

The caption at the photo accompanying Ken Miller’s coverage of Hufford’s funeral on October 3 again invoked “workplace violence” while avoiding any mention of beheading.

Miller’s report did acknowledge that Hufford was beheaded in his opening paragraph, but it went downhill from there:

Colleen Hufford, 54, died Sept. 25. Prosecutors said she was targeted by a co-worker who had been disciplined that morning for another woman’s complaint.

Initial reports indicated that accused murderer Alton Nolen went after Hufford randomly, and that the source of much of his anger, or perhaps what caused him to carry out his actions, was his recent conversion to Islam. As Trace Gallagher indicated on Megyn Kelly’s Fox News program on October 2, Nolen’s online presence at Facebook clearly showed him to be an admiration of violent Islamic jihad — an admiration likely stoked while he attended a mosque in Oklahoma City.

Additionally, Nolen wasn’t just “disciplined.” As a “what we know” piece in the Washington Post reported on September 30 reported, he was fired.

Continuing to something even more infuriating:

Police this week arrested one of Hufford’s co-workers, Alton Nolen, 30, after he was released from a hospital. Officers said the plant’s chief operating officer, Mark Vaughan, who is also a reserve sheriff’s deputy, shot Nolen with a rifle to stop him as he attacked Traci Johnson, 43, who had complained that Nolen had made racial remarks at work.

Initial reports made no mention of “racial remarks.” What they did mention was Nolen’s apparently futile efforts to convert coworkers to his Islamic faith. How does that turn into “racial remarks,” complete with the implication that “only” black-on-white racism might have been involved?

AP reporter Tim Talley’s coverage of Wednesday’s public comments by Kelli Hufford, also tried to narrow down the motivation for Hufford’s murder to workplace issues, and even downplayed those:

Prosecutors have charged Alton Nolen, a plant employee who had been disciplined the day of the attack, with first-degree murder and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon. They say they will seek the death penalty.

Nolen is accused of attacking the 54-year-old Colleen Hufford from behind, severing her head, and then stabbing another Vaughan Foods employee before being shot by the plant’s chief operating officer.

This time, the AP’s coverage contained absolutely no reference to Islam.

THE REAL FRONT IN THE WAR AGAINST ISIS

ISIL-Militant-TriumphantBreitbart, By Katie Gorka:

As the war with ISIS heats up, so too does the debate over what it will take to win.  Immediately following Obama’s announcement of air strikes against ISIS, the debate centered on whether air power was enough or whether the United States also needed to commit boots on the ground.

However, in recent days the focus has shifted to the war of ideas.  The now infamous verbal brawl between Ben Affleck and Sam Harris on the Bill Maher show is just one sign that more and more people are identifying the ideology of jihad as the main front in this war.

General Jonathan Shaw, former Assistant Chief of the UK Defence Staff, said in a recent interview with The Telegraph that the war against ISIS will not be won militarily.  This battle must be fought ideologically and politically.  He said the heart of the problem is Qatar and Saudi Arabia’s funding of militant Salafism.  Saudi Arabia has long funded radical mosques and Islamic cultural centers across the globe, and Qatar supports Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, considered the spiritual head of the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as Al Jazeera, the pro-Muslim Brotherhood news outlet.  But these efforts have now backfired.  According to General Shaw: “This is a time bomb that, under the guise of education, Wahhabi Salafism is igniting under the world really.  And it is funded by Saudi and Qatari money and that must stop.  And the question then is ‘does bombing people over there really tackle that?’ I don’t think so. I’d far rather see a much stronger handle on the ideological battle than the physical battle.”

Even President Obama, who spends much of his energy insisting that Islam is a religion of peace and that ISIS has nothing to do with real Islam, acknowledged that ideology might have some role here. In his September 24 speech to the United Nations General Assembly, he said, “It is time for the world — especially Muslim communities — to explicitly, forcefully, and consistently reject the ideology of organizations like al Qaeda and ISIL.”  But as Bill Gertz points out in a recent article, in fact the Obama administration is not engaging in the ideological war. They simply refuse to engage the Islamists on the battlefield of ideas.  Gertz quotes Quintan Wiktorowicz, an architect of U.S. counter-extremism strategy, who blames this failure on Constitutional constraints:

While the government has tried to counter terrorist propaganda, it cannot directly address the warped religious interpretations of groups like ISIL because of the constitutional separation of church and state…U.S. officials are prohibited from engaging in debates about Islam, and as a result will need to rely on partners in the Muslim world for this part of the ideological struggle.

But this is disingenuous.  Wiktorowicz is on record in numerous places asserting the need for the United States to tread softly with Salafists in order to avoid pushing them toward violence, even while he acknowledges that in the long run they do endorse violent jihad.

President Obama himself has repeatedly engaged in discussions about Islam, stating, for example, as he did on September 10th when he announced his plan to fight the Islamic State, “ISIL is not Islamic.”  John Kerry has likewise entered the fray, insisting that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, an assertion that has formed the basis of U.S. counter-terrorism policy and training under the Obama administration.  So to say that U.S. leaders cannot talk about Islam is simply untrue.  It is how they talk about that it is the problem.  The bottom line is that they do not see the fundamental clash between Islamism and the principles of the American founding, and as a result, they are fighting this as a purely tactical war.

As Robert Reilly, former director of the Voice of America, has written, “In fact, the U.S. side has failed to show up for the war of ideas. Strategic communication or public diplomacy, the purpose of which is to win such wars, is the single weakest area of U.S. government performance since 9/11.”

Refusing to engage in the war of ideas, whatever the reason may be, is a disservice both to Americans and to the world’s Muslims.  It is a disservice to Americans because unless the United States engages in the ideological war against ISIS, the battlefield will simply keep repopulating itself.  For every fallen jihadist, there will be ten ready to take his place, another hundred willing to fund and support them, and another thousand to silently cheer them on.  So it is not Al Qaeda or even ISIS who are the real enemies, but the ideology that inspires them, and it is this ideology that the United States must oppose, among both its violent as well as its non-violent adherents.

Obama and many others have said this is not our debate, the Muslim world must work this out for itself.  But this is not true.  The ideas of the American founding are as relevant for the Muslim world as they are to the West.  America’s forebears learned over centuries that when religion is allowed to drive politics, it leads to tyranny, oppression and endless conflict.  This is no less true for the Muslim world.  As Ahmad Mustafa writes in today’sGulf News, “Whether we like it or not, we all helped in the rise of this terrorism by manipulating religion. And here comes the simple conclusion: Religion in politics leads only to ills.”  He goes on to say, “The fight for Islam will not be won unless the current alliance partners, and the rest of regional and international powers, come to an agreement on freeing politics from religion.”

As the war of ideas heats up, the good news is that Americans are throwing off the strictures against talking about Islam.  People like Ben Affleck and Bill Maher and Sam Harris are engaging in substantive debate about the nature of Islam and what is at stake. The bad news is that our own leaders so far are not exercising – or permitting – the same freedom.  And until they do, the ideas driving our enemies will continue to thrive.

Katie Gorka is president of the Council on Global Security.  Follow her on twitter @katharinegorka.

Guest Column: Terror’s Virus on the Northern Border

1069by David B. Harris
Special to IPT News
October 7, 2014

Ever since full-blown cases of the disease hit the United States, Canadians have dreaded the contagion’s arrival north of the 49thparallel.

Its effects: blindness and a deadly incapacity to recognize and adapt to reality.

The malady? The White House’s refusal to identify the leading terrorist enemy by name and combatant doctrine.

President Obama began his administration by avoiding counterterror language likely to link Islam with violence. This reflected a civilized and practical impulse to avoid alienating Muslims at home and abroad.

But perhaps influenced by the demonstrable fact that President Obama, as former terror prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy put it, “made Islamic supremacists key administration advisors,” this effort quickly got out of control. Now the White House fetishizes and enforces on its security agencies, a refusal to identify the doctrine underlying the bulk of the world’s terrorism woes: radical Islamism.

Remarkable, considering that Muslims sounded the alarm years ago.

“Obviously not all Muslims are terrorists but, regrettably, the majority of the terrorists in the world are Muslims,” wrote Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed in a 2004 Al-Sharq Al-Awsatarticle flagged by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

Despite this, the Obama White House banned words like “Islamists,” “Muslims” and “jihad” from security documents, even from FBI and other government agencies’ counterterror training manuals.

Lawyer and retired US military intelligence officer Major Stephen C. Coughlin exposed the censorship’s extent at a February 2010 conference. In 2004, he noted, the 9/11 Commission Report made 126 mentions of “jihad,” 145 of “Muslim,” and used the word “Islam” over 300 times. No surprise.

But Washington later purged such terms completely from the FBI counterterrorism lexicon (2008), National Intelligence Strategy (2009) and even the 2010 panel reviewing jihadi Nidal Malik Hasan’s 2009 Fort Hood massacre – except as unavoidable parts of names of terror organizations or the like. The practice seems to continue.

Consequences?

Understanding the threat – extremist Muslims, in this case – requires understanding their doctrine. If terrorists were invoking Christianity – it has happened – security and intelligence organizations would focus on problematic churches and related facilities connected to radical preaching, funding and recruitment. Christian holy literature would be scrutinized, in order to anticipate terrorists’ plans, targets and attack-dates. Redouble the guard on Christmas or Easter? Could atheists, Muslims or Jews be targets? Regardless whether extremists’ interpretations should, in any objective sense, be true or false representations of the ideology in question, serious intelligence must look at these things in order to understand and master the threats posed by all extremist strains of religion or other ideologies. Politicians and the public must discuss them. Public education, transparency, democracy and our defense, demand this. Anything else is misleading, self-deceiving and likely self-defeating.

Northern Exposure

So it was that, three years ago, the Canadian government published the first of its annual series of public threat reports. This straight-talking assessment pinpointed “Sunni Islamist extremism” as a primary menace to Canadians.

But, tragically, the D.C. disease had overtaken Canada’s security bureaucracy by the time August brought the 2014 Public Report On The Terrorist Threat to Canada. This report expunges all direct references to Islamists, other than in terror-organization names.

Take, for example, the latest report’s warning about Canadians joining terror outfits abroad. Gone are terms like “Islamist extremists” and even “violent jihad.” The report’s authors – apparently burdened by “advice” from misguided outreach to Canadian Islamists – slavishly substituted generic terms like “extremist travellers” for language revealing the religious claims, affiliations, motivations and doctrines of our enemies. “Extremist travellers” appears dozens of times to the exclusion of meaningful nomenclature – an editing embarrassment, on top of a national-security one. From the 2014 report:

Europol estimates that between 1,200 and 2,000 European extremist travellers took part in the conflict in Syria in 2013. There appears to be an increase in extremist travellers. This suggests that the threat posed to Europe by returning extremist travellers may be more significant than the threat facing North America because greater numbers of extremist travellers are leaving, then returning to Europe, than are leaving and later returning to North America. This difference between Canada and Europe in numbers of extremist travellers can be attributed to a variety of factors. Regardless, Europe and Canada face a common, interconnected threat from extremist travellers. [Emphasis added.]

In just one paragraph, Canada’s self-censoring report says that many Europeans are “fighting abroad as extremist travellers“; “they attract extremist travellers … and continue to draw European extremist travellers“; there were “European extremist travellers in Syria and other conflict zones”; the “influx of these extremist travellersinto Syria” increases the European terror risk; “an extremist traveller who returned from Syria” allegedly slaughtered several Belgians. (Emphasis added.)

This doubletalk undermines public awareness, public confidence in authorities and the ability of officials and citizens alike to recognize, assess and confront terrorist and subversive enemies and their doctrine.

We saw the absurd far reaches of this self-blinding mentality a few years ago when Canadian police officers at a terrorism news conference thanked “the community” for facilitating an Islamist terrorist take-down. When a journalist asked which community they meant, the officers – not daring to say “Muslim” – all but froze, thawing only enough to become caricatures of stymied stumbling. Because paralyzing PC protocols banned the M-word, the conference ended without the officers having been able explicitly to thank the deserving “Muslim community.”

How has Canada come to this?

Among other sources, Canadian security officials get advice from their federal government’s Cross-Cultural Roundtable on Security. Prominent member Hussein Hamdani reportedly campaigned to drop language implicating things “Islamic.” Meanwhile, Hamdani, the subject of a just-released report by Canada’s Point de Bascule counter extremist research organization, remains vice-chair of the North American Spiritual Revival (NASR) organization. On its website, NASR boasts – as it has done for years – of sponsoring an appearance in Canada by U.S. Imam Siraj Wahhaj, frequently tagged a radical and a 1993 World Trade Center bombingunindicted co-conspirator. Fellow American Muslim Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, once said of Wahhaj: “He’s the No. 1 advocate of radical Islamic ideology among African-Americans. His stuff is very appealing to young Muslims who are on a radical path.”

Hamdani’s NASR also brought American Imam Ziad Shakir to Canada. His disturbingideology, as I’ve written elsewhere, “was condemned by moderate American Muslim leader and retired U.S. naval Lt. Cmdr Zuhdi Jasser, and by the American Anti-Defamation League.” Some have other concerns about Hamdani.

Now comes word that Hamdani, squired by Angus Smith, a Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) analyst sometimes linked to the censorship policy, will appear on a Montgomery County, Md. panel tomorrow to enlighten Americans about radicalism and the ISIS terror threat.

Much more here

THE IDIOCY OF ISLAM’S GREAT DEFENDERS

ben-affleck-hbo-real-timeBreitbart, by BEN SHAPIRO:

On Friday night, Bill Maher hosted atheist author Sam Harris, actor Ben Affleck, former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele, and New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof to discuss Maher’s rant last week in which he discussed the violence of radical Islam and the prevalence of belief in radical Islam. Harris sided with Maher; Maher defended his comments.

Affleck, Kristof, and Steele, however, all suggested that Maher’s criticism of Islam went too far. Steele said that moderate Muslims just don’t receive media coverage. Affleck actually suggested that Maher’s criticisms of Islam were akin to calling someone a “shifty Jew.” Kristof said that because Maher and Harris had the temerity to quote polls about acceptance of anti-Muslim violence by Muslims all over the world, he was talking “a little bit of the way white racists talk about African-Americans.”

Maher, correctly, stated, “What you’re saying is, ‘because they’re a minority, we shouldn’t criticize.’” He added that Islam is the “only religion that acts like the Mafia that will f***ing kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture, or write the wrong book. There’s a reason why Ayaan Hirsi Ali needs bodyguards 24/7.”

After 9/11, Americans wondered why the Bush and Clinton administrations had failed to connect the dots. Perhaps it’s because the culture of political correctness means that we must see every dot as disconnected, rather than as part of a broader intellectual and philosophical framework. If you stand too close to a Seurat painting, you’re likely to miss the fact that you’re looking at a Sunday Afternoon on the Island of la Grande Jatte, rather than a random series of colored dots.

By acting as though terrorists and their supporters are outliers, occasional needles hidden within massive haystacks, we fail to make policy based upon reality. The politically correct mob insists we look at terrorist incidents as occasional blips, rather than outgrowths of a dangerous ideology that must be uprooted completely. And so we miss signals. We miss red flags.

Now, it is possible that our politicians lie to us. It is possible that they see the patterns and monitor those patterns. It’s possible they understand the radical Islamic funding of mosques all over the world, the recruitment of Muslims across the planet to support jihad.

But those lies – if they are lies – have consequences. They are parroted by fools, both left and right, who cite Bush and Clinton and Obama and all the rest for the proposition that Islam means peace and that Islamic terror groups are not Islamic. Instead, they claim, Islamic terrorists are merely crazy folks. Which means we don’t have to take their ideology seriously, their appeal seriously, or their outreach seriously.

And so we don’t. That’s why the State Department released an ad in early September showing crucifixions, Muslims being shot in the head, a blown-up mosque, and a beheaded body. Apparently, the State Department believed their own press: they believed that by castigating ISIS as an un-Islamic outlier, they could convince potential allies to stay away. That’s idiocy. ISIS releases precisely the same sort of videos as recruitment efforts – the Islamic terrorists understand that they are, in fact, Islamic. So do those they target.

In order to defend an ideology or a religion, one should know something about the ideology or religion. Ben Affleck, Nicholas Kristof, and Michael Steele are not Islamic scholars. Neither are George W. Bush, Barack Obama, or Bill Clinton. In fact, when it comes to points of Islamic law, any average member of ISIS likely knows more than any of the aforementioned defenders of Islam.

The West cannot be the great defender of Islam, because we have no capacity to slice radical Islam out of broader Islam. We are radically unqualified to do so. We can only fight those who share an ideology dedicated to our destruction. And defending that broader ideology by downplaying a so-called “fringe minority” only emboldens those of the radical minority.

Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the new book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). He is also Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.orgFollow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.

 

Published on Oct 3, 2014 by Dole Mite

Also see:

Bill Whittle: A Beheading in Oklahoma

 

Truth Revolt:

It was not just a “workplace incident.” The brutal beheading of an American woman by a radicalized Muslim is just the latest in a series of un- or under-reported atrocities deemed unfit for the American people by the Mainstream Media. In this horrifying analysis, Bill Whittle describes the events in Oklahoma and  discusses WHY the Leftist Media doesn’t want stories like this being told.

TRANSCRIPT:

Hi everybody. I’m Bill Whittle and this is the Firewall.

On Thursday, September 25th, 2014 – to hear the media tell it – disgruntled worker Alton Nolen arrived at work at the Vaughan Foods plant in Oklahoma City, shortly after being fired.

Apparently he lost his temper, and a tragedy ensued.

Okay.

((LADY GAGA))

You know who this is? This is Stefani Germanotta. Surely that name rings a bell? No? How about Lady Gaga? That’s the name she chose for herself.

The name Alton Nolen chose for himself is Jah’Keem Yisrael. Why do we call Stefani Germanotta Lady Gaga while Alton Nolen is still Alton Nolen? Well, because if the press referred to Alton Nolen by the name he uses to refer to himself — Jah’Keem Yisrael – then we would have to face some unpleasant facts. And reporting unpleasant facts is not allowed in the Era of Obama, because if unpleasant facts were reported in the Era of Obama there wouldn’t be an Era of Obama.

Is it really fair to refer to Alton Nolen as Jah’Keem Yisrael? It sure as hell seems fair to me. Here are some images from his Facebook page. Here’s one of Jihadi terrorists, to which Jah’Keem Yisrael added “Some of my Muslim Brothers!” Here’s one that says “Islam will dominate the earth – freedom can go to hell.” Jah’Keem had nothing to add to that apparently.

So after allegedly spending a great deal of time and effort trying to convert his co-workers to Islam, Jah’Keem Yisrael entered the Vaughan Foods building, where he met – apparently at random – 54 year old Colleen Hufford. After stabbing her repeatedly with his knife, he then proceeded to saw her head off. He then went on to stab 43 year old Traci Johnson.

On his Facebook page, Jah’Keem Yisrael had also posted a picture of the Statue of Liberty, to which he added the caption, “She is going into flames. She and Anybody who’s with her.” Apparently, one of those people who ARE with the Statue of Liberty, as she heads into the flames, was company CEO and reserve sheriff’s deputy Mark Vaughan, who stopped this Islamic ritual with his personal firearm. Because unlike the soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, where an identical Islamic murderer, Nidal Hassan, stood on a table shouting Allahu Akbar! as he killed 13 back in 2009, Mr. Vaughn had not surrendered his Constitutionally guaranteed, 2nd Amendment right to life and so he took action as an American citizen, saving the life of Traci Johnson and God knows how many others. No doubt Mr. Vaughan – who should be given the Medal of Freedom – will live forever regretting that he didn’t arrive on the scene in time to save Colleen Hufford.

This story is profound.

No, what’s happened in Oklahoma City is bigger than a media blackout. Bigger than the lack of outrage, the absence of candlelight vigils, the missing comments of the President saying that Colleen Hufford could have been his grandmother and all the rest. That story had to be buried: a Muslim extremist’s murder spree, stopped by private citizen with his own firearm? Please.

No, what happened in Oklahoma City is even bigger than the collision of reality and the Narrative. Because both domestic Islamic radicalism, and the issuance of concealed carry permits, are both sharply in the rise.

So the question we had better start asking is not whether or not you have a right to defend yourself – But rather whether we have an obligation to defend ourselves.

Because the left, you see, admires people like Jah’Keem Yisrael. They admire them for having the courage to do what they will not do – namely, get their hands dirty. Or bloody, as the case may be. The left, and these Islamic murderers, are in a symbiotic relationship, and they both know it. Both depend on the other to weaken traditional American strength – the left at home, and the Jihadis overseas. Papering over a few beheadings is a small price to pay to keep that alliance together – especially since this happened in Oklahoma. I mean, it’s not like Colleen Hufford was a celebrity or a real person or anything. If they had beheaded Barbara Streisand, then there would have been some hand wringing.

No, they will let this domestic cancer grow, because if Americans wake up to the reality that the media is in fact in the news suppression business, they may start to wonder what other stories have been suppressed. No, they will let this cancer grow, unreported, until the Statue of Liberty and anyone who is with her, goes into the flames.

Also see:

Justice Department Announces New Program to Counter ‘Violent Extremism’ — but Website Excludes References to Islam, Muslims

The Blaze, By Elizabeth Kreft, Sep. 25, 2014:

With Islamic State threats mounting and at least 100 Americans known to have traveled overseas to train or fight with the brutal terror group, Attorney General Eric Holder this month announced a new program designed to identify and root out sources of “violent extremism” across the nation.

The problem? It isn’t a new idea. National security experts say the concept has already proven to be “a complete failure.” And lacking from a description of the program is any reference to radical Islam.

In this July 16, 2014 photo, Minneapolis police officer Mike Kirchen talks with Mohamed Salat, left, and Abdi Ali at a community center where members of the Somali community gather in Minneapolis. Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Justice Department’s pilot program will help detect American extremists looking to join terror organizations, but some experts say efforts like these have already failed across the nation (AP Photo/The Star Tribune, Jim Gehrz, File)

In this July 16, 2014 photo, Minneapolis police officer Mike Kirchen talks with Mohamed Salat, left, and Abdi Ali at a community center where members of the Somali community gather in Minneapolis. Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Justice Department’s pilot program will help detect American extremists looking to join terror organizations, but some experts say efforts like these have already failed across the nation (AP Photo/The Star Tribune, Jim Gehrz, File)

“These programs will bring together community representatives, public safety officials, religious leaders, and United States attorneys to improve local engagement; to counter violent extremism; and – ultimately – to build a broad network of community partnerships to keep our nation safe,” Holder said.

On the surface, it sounds reasonable. Shouldn’t we embrace every effort to combat homegrown terror? Jonathan Gilliam, a former Navy SEAL and former FBI special agent said yes. But, he told TheBlaze, programs like these get muddled because the politicians at the top of the food chain stop listening to the operators on the ground.

“How can you target something without a scope, without proper sights?” he said. The former special operator finds it especially frustrating that the Justice Department refuses to allow monitoring of mosques where known terrorists gather.

“When political correctness becomes your scope you probably aren’t aimed at the right target anymore,” Gilliam told TheBlaze.

Without offering details about which cities would host the pilot program, the Justice Department announced that the new concept would “complement the Obama administration’s ongoing work to protect the American people from a range of evolving national security threats,” and right in line with the White House’s 2011 move to strip counterterrorism training documents of specific references to Islam or Muslims, Holder’s description of the program gives a rather cloudy explanation for which groups it could cover.

“Under President Obama’s leadership, along with our interagency affiliates, we will work closely with community representatives to develop comprehensive local strategies, to raise awareness about important issues, to share information on best practices, and to expand and improve training in every area of the country,” Holder said.

The Department of Homeland Security’s website echoes the bland description of “violent extremism” described by the Justice Department: “The threat posed by violent extremism is neither constrained by international borders nor limited to any single ideology. Groups and individuals inspired by a range of religious, political, or other ideological beliefs have promoted and used violence against the homeland.”

Gilliam said these political trends make no sense.

“How do you know someone is a ‘violent extremist’? They aren’t going to walk out into the street and tell you. They are going to patiently wait for instructions at their mosque and coordinate with the network overseas,” he said. “To try and say we don’t know which neighborhoods or which mosques are active with this kind of activity is a joke.”

In the pitch video for the program, Holder explains that since 2012, U.S. attorneys “have held or attended more than 1,700 engagement-related events or meetings to enhance trust and facilitate communication in their neighborhoods and districts,” and that the initiative will “build on that important work.”

But Patrick Poole, a national security and terrorism expert, said that explains exactly why more of the same won’t solve the problem.

“We’ve already had 100 Americans go overseas to fight for the terrorists … we’ve had people conducted suicide attacks for Jabhat al-Nusra, and we have at least two known fighters from Minneapolis and San Diego who died in fighting with ISIS in Syria. I’m not sure more of the same is going to do anything but delay the problem,” Poole said.

Poole pointed out the FBI was previously actively conducting outreach missions much like the Justice Department is proposing at the very mosque where the Boston Marathon bombing suspects Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev attended services.

“So the Boston example is a snapshot of how this kind of outreach program has catastrophically failed,” Poole told TheBlaze. “What more needs to happen? Foreign intelligence identifies the guy, he’s causing trouble at the mosque, and yet no one at the mosque during this outreach effort said anything.”

Poole said it seems the Department of Justice is doubling down on a failed concept, but they continue to fail because program coordinators, especially at the top levels, are listening to the wrong people.

“This is the administration’s entire plan, this isn’t something they are doing in conjunction with something else, this is it, and some groups like the Muslim Public Affairs Council say that de-radicalization has to be left entirely to the Muslim community. But I have to ask, what proof is there that this actually works?” he said.

“I’m just not sure how much more this program could fail. It hasn’t been successful anywhere, identifiably,” Poole said.

Attorney General Eric Holder listens during a news conference at the Justice Department in Washington, Thursday, Sept. 4, 2014, where he announced the Justice Department’s civil rights division will launch a broad civil rights investigation in the Ferguson, Mo., Police Department. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Attorney General Eric Holder listens during a news conference at the Justice Department in Washington, Thursday, Sept. 4, 2014, where he announced the Justice Department’s civil rights division will launch a broad civil rights investigation in the Ferguson, Mo., Police Department. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Gilliam said the program will never work so long as the federal agencies feel hamstrung by political correctness.

“They’ll send 40 investigators to Ferguson, Missouri, to investigate one death, but they’ll only send one or two people to question suspicious actors at a mosque known to house terrorist activity? It’s crazy.”

“They are trying to respond to terrorists with ‘culturally diversified speakers,’ and that’s why it isn’t working.” Gilliam said community outreach programs could work, but only if there is a real promise of firm justice to back it up.

“If a terrorist is found at a mosque, the only thing that would work is to send 50 investigators in, question everyone, put the Imam away, lock the place down and never open it again,” he said.

“You do that, and you go over to their homelands and you lay waste,” he added.  ”That is what works.”

The Department of Justice didn’t respond to TheBlaze’s request for comment on the new pilot program, or whether it had heard any chatter regarding the potential for an increased level of retaliatory attacks now that the U.S. military has begun strikes on Islamic State targets.

TheBlaze TV’s For the Record examined the underlying ideology that fuels the Islamic State and the homegrown terrorists it hopes to influence in the United States. The episode, “Total Confrontation,” aired Wednesday; catch part of it below:

The Buckley Program Stands Up for Free Speech

6a00d83451c36069e20168eb9dbef6970cBy Bruce Thornton:

The William F. Buckley Program at Yale University lately showed bravery unusual for an academic institution. It has refused to be bullied by the Muslim Students Association and its demand that the Buckley Program rescind an invitation to Ayaan Hirsi Ali to speak on campus September 15. Hirsi Ali is the vocal Somalian critic of Islamic doctrine whose life has been endangered for condemning the theologically sanctioned oppression of women in Islamic culture. Unlike Brandeis University, which recently rescinded an honorary degree to be given to Hirsi Ali after complaints from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Buckley Program rejected both the MSA’s initial demand, and a follow up one that Hirsi Ali share the stage with one of her critics.

The Buckley Program is a rare instance of an academic organization staying true to the ideals of free speech, academic freedom, and the “free play of the mind on all subjects,” as Matthew Arnold defined liberal education. Most of our best universities have sacrificed these ideals on the altar of political correctness and identity politics. Anything that displeases or discomforts campus special interest groups––mainly those predicated on being the alleged victims of American oppression–– must be proscribed as “slurs” or “hateful,” even if what’s said is factually true. No matter that these groups are ideologically driven and use their power to silence critics and limit speech to their own self-serving and duplicitous views, the modus operandi of every illiberal totalitarian regime in history. The spineless university caves in to their demands, incoherently camouflaging their craven betrayal of the First Amendment and academic freedom as “tolerance” and “respect for diversity.”

In the case of Islam, however, this betrayal is particularly dangerous. For we are confronting across the world a jihadist movement that grounds its violence in traditional Islamic theology, jurisprudence, and history. Ignoring those motives and their sanction by Islamic doctrine compromises our strategy and tactics in defeating the jihadists, for we cripple ourselves in the war of ideas. Worse yet, Islamic triumphalism and chauvinism–– embodied in the Koranic verse that calls Muslims “the best of nations raised up for the benefit of men” because they “enjoin the right and forbid the wrong and believe in Allah”–– is confirmed and strengthened by the way our elite institutions like universities and the federal government quickly capitulate to special interest groups who demand that we endorse only their sanitized and often false picture of Islam. Such surrender confirms the jihadist estimation of the West as the “weak horse,” as bin Laden said, a civilization with “foundations of straw” whose wealth and military power are undermined by a collective failure of nerve and loss of morale.

This process of exploiting the moral degeneration of the West has been going on now for 25 years. It begins, as does the rise of modern jihadism, with the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian Islamic revolution. The key event took place in February 1989, when Khomeini issued a fatwa, based on Koran 9.61, against Indian novelist Salman Rushdie for his novel The Satanic Verses, which was deemed “against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran,” as Khomeini said. Across the world enraged Muslims rioted and bombed bookstores, leaving over 20 people dead. More significant in the long run was the despicable reaction of many in the West to this outrage against freedom of speech and the rule of law, perpetrated by the most important and revered political and religious leader of a major Islamic nation.

Abandoning their principles, bookstores refused to stock the novel, and publishers delayed or canceled editions. Muslims in Western countries publicly burned copies of Rushdie’s novel and encouraged his murder with impunity. Eminent British historian Hugh Trevor-Roper suggested Rushdie deserved such treatment. Thirteen British Muslim barristers filed a formal complaint against the author. In their initial reactions, Western government officials were hesitant and timorous. The U.S. embassy in Pakistan eagerly assured Muslims that “the U.S. government in no way supports or associates itself with any activity that is in any sense offensive or insulting to Islam.”

Khomeini’s fatwa and the subsequent violent reaction created what Daniel Pipes calls the “Rushdie rules,” a speech code that privileges Islam over revered Western traditions of free speech that still are operative in the case of all other religions. Muslims now will determine what counts as an “insult” or a “slur,” and their displeasure, threats, and violence will police those definitions and punish offenders. Even reporting simple facts of history or Islamic doctrine can be deemed an offense and bring down retribution on violators. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for example, earned the wrath of Muslims in part for her contribution to Theo van Gogh’s film Submission, which projected Koranic verses regarding women on the bodies of abused women. Van Gogh, of course, was brutally murdered in the streets of Amsterdam. And this is the most important dimension of the “Rushdie rules”: violence will follow any violation of whatever some Muslims deem to be “insulting” to Islam, even facts. In effect, Western law has been trumped by the shari’a ban on blaspheming Islam, a crime punishable by death.

Read more at Frontpage

**********

Ayaan Hirsi Ali Urges Yale MSA To Refocus Energies

Published on Sep 17, 2014 by Washington Free Beacon

“Mr. President, Who are YOU to say what is Muslim and what isn’t?”

Published on Sep 13, 2014 by RightSightings2

“ISIL IS Islamic” says Judge Jeanine Pirro as she eviscerates Barack Obama’s foreign policy in dealing with ISIS.

Paul Weston:Where are the Politicians on Rotherham’s 1400 Child Rape Victims?

 

Published on Sep 1, 2014 by Liberty GB:

Where are UKIP, Labour, the Tories and Liberal Democrats on the Muslim grooming gang issue? Liberty GB is the only party talking about this atrocity, and why it happens – Islam, Muhammed and the Quran.

This is What a Politically Correct Mental Breakdown Over ISIS Looks Like

basil-fawlty-dont-mention-the-war-the-germans-450x230Front Page, By Daniel Greenfield:

I had to keep reading this to the end to be sure it wasn’t a parody. But this is what happens when someone in denial digs a deeper hole to deny in and then a deeper one under that.

It probably won’t surprise you too much to learn that the woman who wrote this came out of Berkeley. It may surprise you though that this appeared in The Telegraph.

We are not engaged in a religious war. This is not a confrontation between Islam and the West. To start from that premise is to place Isil (which should not be called by its presumptive title “Islamic State”) on precisely the ground it wishes to occupy.

If we acknowledge reality then the terrorists (who have nothing to do with Islam) will have won.

I remember how Churchill won WW2 by pretending that Hitler wasn’t running Germany, but was still painting ugly postcards.  And who can forget his stirring words. “We will deny that they are on the beaches. We will deny that they are in the cities. We will deny that there is a Nazi Germany.”

As the voices of what the media calls “moderate Muslims” – who should actually just be described as “Muslims” – say repeatedly, the activities of these terrorist criminals hacking their way through northern Iraq have nothing to do with the Islamic faith.

Problem solved. No need to address reality. We’ll just pretend that ISIS isn’t what it is and that will make us feel better. What about all the hundreds of British Muslim settlers flocking to ISIS? Let’s pretend that they don’t exist.

So now that we’re insisting that it’s not a religious war because ISIS says it is… what is it then?

So it is more important than ever to say that this is not a struggle between “our values” and those of medieval fundamentalism, or Islamist extremism. The contest is not modern liberal democracy versus the Dark Ages. This is to impose meaning on what is, in truth, meaningless.

Ah it’s meaningless.

Just thousands and thousands of armed fighters who for no reason are conquering parts of the Middle East and then ruling it. There’s no meaning to it whatsoever.

Sure we could listen to their explanation as to what they’re doing… but that would be imposing meaning on the meaningless actions of a well organized army creating a meaningless new system that it insists on calling a Caliphate for some meaningless reason.

What a bunch of crazy nuts.

Indeed, it may be worse than counterproductive to deal with Isil as if it were a rational force with established roots and a comprehensible set of demands capable of political solution. Just as this is not about religion, it is also not about politics,

Great. So now it’s not about religion or politics. ISIS is like Seinfeld. It’s about nothing. It’s completely incomprehensible if we choose to pretend that it is.

Question for Janet Daley, does ISIS even exist? Maybe we should start pretending that we imagined all the beheadings.

There is not even anything particularly Middle Eastern in the Isil mode of operation.

Aside from the location, the tactics, the symbolism and the religion… not a thing.

In fact, the gratuitous violence and promiscuous mayhem of its onslaught resembles nothing so much as 19th-century European anarchism

Whew. I knew it was Europe’s fault somehow. ISIS isn’t Muslim. It’s a bunch of European 19th century anarchists. That explains everything.

The next obvious question: how do you fight a dream that is without identifiable substance or consistent objectives?

I guess you could stop pretending that it’s a unidentifiable dream without an objective.  That would make it easier to deal with. The same advice goes for the rest of the media.

Or we can just pretend that it’s all a dream.

 

Was General Greene a Victim of ‘Workplace Violence’ Too?

pic_giant_080914_mccarthyNational Review Online, By Andrew C. McCarthy, AUGUST 9, 2014:

Major General Harold Greene, who was murdered by a jihadist in Afghanistan Tuesday, is the highest-ranking American officer since the Vietnam War, 44 years ago, to be killed in combat. Or at least one hopes that he will be accorded the full honors of a soldier killed in combat. With the Obama administration and its compliant Pentagon brass, you can never be sure.

The two-star general was killed, and 15 fellow allied soldiers wounded, not on the battlefield but in the seemingly secure confines of a military base — in this instance, a training school outside Kabul. The shooting spree was carried out not by honorable combatants wearing an enemy uniform but by a stealth terrorist dressed as a member of the allied force whose treachery enabled him to kill and maim.

That makes it eerily similar, although considerably less bloody, than the Fort Hood massacre. In that 2009 attack, 13 American soldiers were murdered, and dozens wounded. The assassin was Nidal Hasan, who was formally a commissioned U.S. Army officer, but in reality a stealth terrorist — the “Soldier of Allah” described on the business cards he carried inside his soldier-of-America camouflage.

At the moment they were killed and wounded, the Americans in Fort Hood were being processed for imminent deployment to Afghanistan. They were headed to fight in the same war in which General Greene was killed by our jihadist enemies — the same “Muslim brothers” Hasan admitted mass-murdering our troops to protect.

Hasan, who screamed “Allahu Akbar!” as he mowed our troops down, acted while in communication with, and under the influence of, Anwar al-Awlaki, a notorious al-Qaeda operative. By 2009, Awlaki was known to have held furtive meetings with two of the principal suicide-hijackers in the days before the 9/11 attacks. He was adept at recruiting and inciting anti-American jihadists, like Hasan. Indeed, he is believed to have inspired other anti-American terror attacks and attempts.

That is why the commander-in-chief, relying on the law of war, authorized Awlaki’s killing by a drone strike in Yemen. Yet the same commander-in-chief and his Pentagon yes-men have adamantly refused to categorize the Fort Hood shootings as related to war and armed combat.

Twice as many Americans were killed at Fort Hood in 2009 while preparing to fight the enemy than at the World Trade Center in 1993 while working at their jobs. The WTC bombing is appropriately remembered as a jihadist attack and was prosecuted under terrorism charges — I was the prosecutor of the cell convicted of “conspiracy to wage a war of urban terrorism against the United States.” Yet, the Obama administration has categorized the Fort Hood massacre at a military installation as mere “workplace violence.” It was prosecuted as simple homicide, not terrorism. Our killed and wounded have been denied purple-heart medals, the honor due to combat casualties of the jihad.

The “workplace violence” tripe is based on the fiction that Hasan was a “lone wolf.” In part, this is a cover-up of fatally reckless government incompetence. Hassan’s military superiors knew he was an Islamic supremacist. The ostensible U.S. Army psychiatrist was quite open about it, even incorporating jihadist ideology into his academic lectures. More to the point, the army was alerted by the FBI and its Joint Terrorism Task Force about Hasan’s contacts with Awlaki. Still, the brass took no preventive action. Instead, they dismissed Hasan’s terrorist contacts as “professional research”; promoted Hasan from captain to major and, ultimately, to lieutenant colonel; and left American soldiers at risk even though the phenomenon of deadly jihadist infiltration — what the military calls “green-on-blue attacks” of the type that killed General Greene — was well known.

But there is much more to this most self-destructive side of willful blindness. Initial reporting from the Associated Press regarding General Greene’s murder elaborated that, while credit for “insider attacks” is sometimes claimed by the Taliban in Afghanistan, other “green on blue” killings

are attributed to personal disputes or resentment by Afghans who have soured on the continued international presence in their country more than a dozen years after the fall of the Taliban’s ultra-conservative Islamic regime. Foreign aid workers, contractors, journalists and other civilians in Afghanistan are increasingly becoming targets of violence as the U.S.-led military coalition continues a withdrawal to be complete by the end of the year [emphasis added].

Now, why would Afghans be “resentful” about the presence of American forces whose mission, for the last decade, has increasingly shifted from promoting American national security to making a better life for Afghans? Why would not only soldiers but civilian contractors and foreign-aid workers — all there to build Afghan democracy and civil society — be “targets of violence”?

The answer is a simple one, albeit one we mulishly refuse to confront.

Under the scripturally based Islamic-supremacist ideology endorsed by some of the world’s most influential Muslim scholars, an infidel force that enters Islamic land for the purpose of installing non-Muslim institutions, precepts, and law must be violently opposed and driven out. That such a Western force has humanitarian motivations, that it seeks to spread liberty not seize territory, is irrelevant. Our sharia-driven enemies have very different notions about what “humanitarian” means; and our idea of liberty — the antithesis of sharia totalitarianism — is not a blessing but a form of blasphemy.

Idealizing liberty as a desire inscribed on every human heart, we act as if it can win on its own. It can’t. Those who have it have to defend it; those who want it have to fight for it. Its committed enemies have to be defeated for it to have a chance.

If Nidal Hasan is a “lone wolf,” then there are millions of them. He is a jihadist operative of this ideological movement, just like al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, the terror masters in Tehran, the World Trade Center bombers, and the infiltrator who murdered General Greene.

This ideological movement and the global jihad it fuels cannot be wished away by pretending Nidal Hasan was a “lone wolf”; that terror attacks are “workplace violence”; that a transcontinental terror network can be miniaturized into “core al-Qaeda” and various local franchises with parochial agendas unconnected to the anti-American ideology of Islamic conquest; that the war is happening only in Afghanistan; that the Taliban, Hamas, and Hezbollah are not terrorist organizations — just political parties that happen to have their own military brigades for those occasional times when a stump speech won’t do; or that an American president can “bring an end” to war by withdrawing forces while the enemy is still plotting against our citizens, besieging our troops, and now murdering our generals.

The global jihad is not nearly done with us, even if the president thinks he can make it go away by claiming, repeatedly and delusionally, to have “decimated” it. It is a battle that can end only when one side’s will is broken. There is no middle way with it: You win or you lose. Right now, we are losing.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book, Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment, was released by Encounter Books on June 3.

Sweden goes insane

Leading the suicidal “progressive” war on free speech.

Sharia for Dummies

20140510_ShariaIsmIsHereCoverFINAL600x464by EDWARD CLINE:

No, that’s not the actual title. Sharia-ism is Here: The Battle to Control Women and Everyone Else might have been called that but doubtless Joy Brighton, the author, would have encountered brand or trademark infringement problems with the publisher of the popular and successful For Dummies series, John Wiley & Sons. I also suspect that Wiley & Sons would have been horrified by the idea of publishing such an “Islamophobic” book anyway. It has published Islam for Dummies and The Koran for Dummies, both of which, to judge by their Amazon descriptions, are treacly, inoffensive, sanitized guides to a highly “misunderstood” and “misperceived” religion-cum-ideology.

Brighton’s opus is a generously illustrated and annotated book intended as a “show n’ tell book for national security, civil right and women’s right activists and lobbyists in America.” It is meant to be read by, and serve as, a handy reference guide for anyone who is aware of the peril posed by Islam as it is practiced around the world, in the West, and especially in the U.S., but who really hasn’t digested the scale of the threat or any of its details. And it isn’t just about Islam’s crusade to control women. It truly is about Islam’s designs on everyone.

Before citing the book’s plenitude of virtues, however, there is one issue I must raise. Page 131, for example, under the heading, “Conversion to Islam or Sharia-ism in America? How do we help youth understand the difference?” highlights the conversion percentages of Americans to Islam. At the bottom of the page is an “Insight Box,” which reads:

How many of these American Converts have been converted to Islam the religion? How many are knowingly or unknowingly slowly being converted to Sharia-ism, the political movement of Radical Islam? How do we help young potential converts understand the difference and draw the line between Islam and Sharia-ism?

One point of disagreement between Sharia-ism is Here: The Battle to Control Women and me is that I do not draw a line between Islam and what Brighton calls “Sharia-ism.” Brighton writes in her Introduction:

You are holding in your hands a chronicle of the surprising inroads that Shariah, the guiding principles of Radical Islam, has made in America during the critical years of 2008-2013.

Radical Islam, also known as Political or Sharia Islam, has expanded onto every continent, and with it Sharia-ism, the political movement of Radical Islam, whose goal of totalitarian control of every nation and people is incompatible with Western values of individual liberties and inalienable rights. Sharia-ism is about politics, not religion.

Sharia-ism is about total control, not simply destruction or terrorism. (p. 6)

Both of Brighton’s terms, Sharia-ism and Radical Islam, violate Ockham’s Razor of economy of concepts by arbitrarily divorcing Islam and Sharia. The dichotomy is fallacious and inadvertently grants Islam an unsought-after epistemological and ideological victory. Brighton is not the only authority to commit this error. Seen as a virulent ideology, Islam and Sharia are one and the same. They are inherently complementary and co-dependent. I do not think Islam, “moderate” or otherwise, is a benign belief system, because it is fundamentally political, nihilist, and totalitarian in means and ends. Sharia is Islam, and Islam is nothing without Sharia. Without the primitive, anti-conceptual, rote-learned code of Sharia, Islam is little better, and perhaps even worse, than your random whacky California cult, or Scientology, Wiccanism, or Pyramid-Worship.

Further, were it not an ideology, why have its proponents, spokesmen, and activists focused so much on its political status? Catholics, Protestants, Jews and members of other creeds are not waging campaigns to force government, businesses, and other social organizations to accommodate their beliefs and practices. The promulgators of Islam, however, such as CAIR and the various Muslim organizations in this country, seek accommodations to Islam in virtually every sphere of American life, from demanding foot baths in various venues (schools, office buildings, airports), removing “offensive” crucifixes and other non-Islamic religious icons from classrooms, insisting on halal restaurant menus, to praying en masse on public streets, to inveigling their way into government jobs and appointments.

By way of contrast, I am not aware of a movement in the Catholic Church to compel, by statute, non-Catholics to genuflect when passing a Catholic church on the street, or else pay a fine.

Read more: Family Security Matters