Why the Left Can’t Understand Islam

we

Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, February 1, 2016

The left’s greatest intellectual error is its conviction that the world can be divided into a binary power struggle in which both sides agree on the nature of the struggle, but disagree on the outcome.

For leftists of a certain generation, it was class. Marx began the Communist Manifesto by laying out a primal class struggle throughout human history. For Marxists, everything in the world could be broken down to a class struggle with the wealthy oppressors on one side and the oppressed on the other.

It didn’t matter that this model didn’t fit a reality in which Communists leaders came from wealthy backgrounds and their opponents were just as likely to be poor peasants. To the left, everything is defined by the model. Reality is an inconvenience that is suppressed with gulags and firing squads.

Today the variable is identity politics. Everything must be intersectional. There are those who stand on the right side of history, in favor of abortion, gay marriage and illegal immigration. Everyone who isn’t on board is a racist, even if they’re black or Latino, a sexist, even if they’re female, or a homophobe, even if they’re gay. Once again, reality doesn’t matter. The binary struggle is the model for everything.

The left believes that there is a binary struggle over the future of humanity with only two sides. It does not understand how the right actually thinks and it has no room for understanding equally compelling belief systems that operate outside this model.

That’s where Islam comes in. Or doesn’t.

The left has never been able to understand religion. It’s not so much secular or atheistic as it is consumed by a compelling belief system of its own which leaves no room for religious conviction.

It cannot understand anything in terms of what it is. It can only understand things in terms of itself. The left cannot understand religion on its own terms, only in terms of how the religion fits into the left.

Unable to understand religion, the left assigns it a place based on its alignment in the struggle. Is it a reactionary force that supports the existing order of a progressive force that opposes it? Is it working with the ruling classes or the oppressed? Is it on the side of the left or on the side of the right?

Islam is racist, sexist, xenophobic and homophobic.

The Muslim Brotherhood, which has become the left’s closest Islamic ally, was politically influenced by Nazi Germany. Its leaders were outraged by the end of the Caliphate’s feudalism and maintain extensive business networks around the world. They incite riots against minorities and seek to establish a theocracy.

If there’s any Muslim organization that should be a textbook reactionary, fascist and fundamentalist group, it’s the Muslim Brotherhood. But instead the left cuddles up with the violent hate group. Why?

Because the Muslim Brotherhood in the West is aligned with their progressive causes. Therefore it can’t be reactionary. If the Brotherhood were aligned with conservatives, then it would be the enemy.

And so liberals don’t care what the Koran says. The Koran means nothing to them, just as the Bible means nothing to them. Religion is either on the side of social justice or it isn’t. Since Muslims are part of their glorious intersectional rainbow coalition, then Islam must be a good religion.

It’s that stupidly simple. And no amount of Koran quotes will change that.

There’s a strong element of cynicism here. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. But there’s also a deeper inability by the left to understand Islam and any ideology outside its worldview.

The left reacted to the rise of ISIS with frantic incoherence. They literally could not understand what made the Islamic State tick because it didn’t fit any of their political models. ISIS couldn’t exist, yet there was no way to deny that it existed. And so lefty pundits and politicians gibbered that they were nihilists who believed in nothing, even though no one blows themselves up because they believe in nothing.

Muslim terrorists don’t kill people because of Allah, the Koran or the Caliphate. It doesn’t fit the model. They kill, because like all Third World peoples victimized by colonialism, they are oppressed. A Muslim terrorist doesn’t kill Jews or Americans because the Koran commands the Believers to subjugate all non-Muslims. A Muslim migrant doesn’t sexually assault German women because the Koran allows him to.

These are all reactions to Western oppression. The Muslim oppressors are really the oppressed.

But the Islamic State killed other Muslims to establish a Caliphate ruled by Islamic law. The oppressed Muslims were suddenly acting like evil Western oppressors. And if Muslims could be oppressors, then the whole binary model the left had been using to explain the world comes tumbling down.

When the left comes up against inconsistencies in its binary model, it doesn’t revise the model, instead it tries to understand why people are behaving so irrationally that they don’t fit the model. Why don’t poor rural whites vote for the left? It must be talk radio and racism. How can there be conservative minorities? False consciousness. Also Thomas Sowell and Stacey Dash aren’t “really” minorities.

Islam and Muslims are fundamentally outside the left’s model. They are part of their own binary struggle between Islam and everything else. They have their own “right side of history”.

Islam and the left both claim to have “perfect” systems that can create a utopia… after a whole lot of killing. They are aligned with each other, yet unable to understand each other because their worldviews have no room for anything outside their perfect models. Leftists despise fundamentalists and Islamists despise atheists and yet here they are working together while ignoring what the other believes.

The left cannot process the idea that religion transcends politics. At best, leftists see religion as a subset of politics. And since Islam conforms to their political axis, it must be progressive. But to Muslims, politics is a subset of religion. Politics cannot transcend religion because it is an expression of religion.

Leftists do not understand religion and therefore they cannot understand Muslims. They see Islam as another religion to be brought into its sphere of influence to promote social justice to its followers. They cannot understand that Muslim clergy will not become preachers of social justice or that Muslims kill because they genuinely believe in Allah and a paradise for martyrs. These ideas are alien to them.

The alliance between Islam and the left brings together two narrow-minded worldviews. The left cannot recognize that Islam wants something other than gay marriage, abortion rights, a $15 minimum wage, Green Jobs and all the rest of its endless social justice agenda because that would put it on the same side as the Republicans and the rest of the right. And that clearly isn’t so either.

The left need not give up all of its beliefs to understand Islam. But it would have to abandon its binary thinking and recognize that there have been and are other struggles in the world than the one it defines. And this the left is unwilling to do because a binary struggle is what makes its worldview so encompassing. If its worldview doesn’t encompass the world, then it cannot demand absolute power.

The left cannot accept that its great struggle is really a disastrous sideshow in a larger civilizational conflict or that its agenda is not universal, but the product of a particular intellectual strain that has little application outside its own bubble. And so it will go on rejecting the truth about Islam, because learning the truth about Islam would not only destroy the alliance with Islam, but would also destroy the left.

The Left is the Real Terror Threat

deblasio_Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Jan. 27, 2016:

Men and women, some whose clothes were still marked with gray ash, walked dazedly toward Union Square. Many did not know what to do or where to go. So they kept on walking. They knew the country was under attack, but they did not know how bad it was or what might still be heading for them.

Behind them lay a changed city and thousands of American dead. Ahead was the bronze statue of George Washington, facing into the devastation and raising his hand to lead his men forward in victory. Around its base, with the destruction of the World Trade Center as their backdrop, leftists had set up shop, coloring anti-war posters even while rescue workers were risking their lives at Ground Zero.

In the coming days, the statue of Washington would be repeatedly vandalized by leftists drawing peace signs and “No War” and “War is Not the Answer” slogans on it. But that moment crystallized my realization that while Muslim terrorists had carried out the attack, it was the left we would have to fight.

While some New Yorkers had gone to help the victims of Islamic terrorists, the left had rushed to aid the terrorists. Unlike the rest of us, they were not shocked or horrified by the attack. They were treasonously working on ways to spin the murder of thousands of Americans to protect the enemy.

The greatest obstacle to defeating Islamic terrorism is still the left.

The left helped create Islamic terrorism; its immigration policies import terrorism while its civil rights arm obstructs efforts to prevent it and its anti-war rallies attack any effort to fight it. In America, in Europe and in Israel, and around the world, to get at Islamic terrorists, you have to go through the left.

When a Muslim terrorist comes to America, it’s the left that agitates to admit him. Before he kills, it’s the left that fights to protect him from the FBI. Afterward, leftists offer to be his lawyers. The left creates the crisis and then it fights against any effort to deal with it except through surrender and appeasement.

Islamic violence against non-Muslims predated the left. But it’s the left that made it our problem. Islamic terrorism in America or France exists because of Muslim immigration. And the left is obsessed with finding new ways to import more Muslims. Merkel is praised for opening up a Europe already under siege by Islamic terror, Sharia police, no-go zones and sex grooming and groping gangs, to millions.

The left feverishly demands that the whole world follow her lead. Bill Gates would like America to be just like Germany. Israel’s deranged Labor Party leader Herzog urged the Jewish State to open its doors.

And then, after the next round of stabbings, car burnings and terror attacks, they blame the West for not “integrating” the un-integratable millions who had no more interest in being integrated than their leftist patrons do in moving to Pakistan and praying to Allah on a threadbare rug. But “integration” is a euphemism for a raft of leftist agenda items from social services spending to punishing hate speech (though never that of the Imams crying for blood and death, but only of their native victims) to a foreign policy based on appeasement and surrender. Islamic terrorists kill and leftists profit from the carnage.

The ongoing threat of Islamic terrorism is a manufactured crisis that the left cultivates because that gives it power. In a world without 9/11, the Obama presidency would never have existed. Neither would the Arab Spring and the resulting migration and wholesale transformation of Western countries.

In the UK, Labour used Muslim immigration as a deliberate political program to “change the country.” In Israel, Labor struck an illegal deal with Arafat that put sizable portions of the country under the control of terrorists while forcing the Jewish State into a series of concessions to terrorists and the left. The same fundamental pattern of Labour and Labor and the whole left is behind the rise of Islamic terrorism.

Muslim terrorism creates pressure that the left uses to achieve policy goals. Even when it can’t win elections, Muslim terrorism allows the left to create a crisis and then to set an agenda.

The left’s patronage of Islamic terrorists for its own political purposes follows a thread back to the origin of Islamic terrorism. Islamic violence against non-Muslims dates back to the founding of Islam, but the tactics of modern Islamic terrorism owe as much to Lenin as they do to Mohammed.

Today’s Islamic terrorist is the product of traditional Islamic theology and Soviet tactics. The USSR did not intend to create Al Qaeda, but they provided training and doctrine to terrorists from the Muslim world. The “secular” and “progressive” terrorists of the left either grew Islamist, like Arafat, or their tactics were copied and expanded on, like the PFLP, by a new generation of Islamic terrorists.

The earlier phase of Islamic organizations, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, had been inspired by fascists who were seeking to use them in their own wars. Over this layer of secret societies plotting takeovers and building networks of front groups, the Soviet Union added the terror tactics that had been employed by the left. And the leftist mad bomber became the Muslim suicide bomber.

Terrorism in the Muslim world has evolved from functioning as a Third World proxy army for the left, in much the same way as guerrillas and terrorists from Asia, Africa and Latin America had, to a diaspora whose migrations lend a domestic terror arm to a Western left whose own spiteful activists have grown unwilling to put their lives on the line and go beyond tweeting words to throwing bombs.

With the Muslim Brotherhood, the origin organization of Al Qaeda, ISIS and Hamas, among many others, so tightly integrated into the American and European left that it is often hard to see where one begins and the other ends, Islam has become the militant arm of the purportedly secular left. Western leftists and Islamists have formed the same poisonous relationship as Middle Eastern leftists and Islamists did leading to the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Arab Spring. Leftists expected Islamists to do the dirty work while they would take over. Instead the Islamists won and killed them.

Having learned nothing from the Hitler-Stalin pact, the left has replayed the same betrayal with the Mohammed-Stalin pact in the Middle East and now in the West. But the end of the Mohammed-Stalin pact will not be a Socialist totalitarian utopia, but an Islamic theocracy of slaves, terror and death.

On September 11, I saw with my own eyes how eager and willing leftists were to rush to the aid of Islamic terrorists even while their fellow Americans were dying. Nothing has changed. Every Islamic act of brutality is met with lies and spin, with mass distraction and deception by the treasonous left. Every effort to fight Islamic terrorists is sabotaged, undermined and protested by the enemy within.

Since September 11, the left has trashed the FBI’s counterterrorism and has now succeeded in destroying the NYPD’s counterrorism while transforming the FDNY into an affirmative action project. What the September 11 hijackers could never accomplish on their own, the leftists did for them by defeating the three forces that had stood against Islamic terrorists on that day. And it would not surprise me at all if some of the “No War” scribblers have gone on to play an influential role in that treason.

The left has crippled domestic and international counterterrorism. American soldiers are not allowed to shoot terrorists and the FBI and NYPD can’t monitor mosques or even be taught what to look for. Islamic terrorism has achieved unprecedented influence and power under Obama. ISIS has created the first functioning caliphate and Iran marches toward the first Jihadist nuclear bomb. The mass Muslim migration is beginning a process that will Islamize Europe far more rapidly than anyone expects.

The Jihad would not be a significant threat without the collaboration of the left. Without the left standing in the way, it’s a problem that could be solved in a matter of years. With the aid of the left, it threatens human civilization with a dark age that will erase our culture, our future and our freedom.

We cannot defeat Islam without defeating the left. That is the lesson I learned on September 11. It is a lesson that appears truer every single year as the left finds new ways to endanger us all.

REPORT: Burning Down the House: A Strategic Overview of the Threat, the CVE, and Strategic Incomprehension in the War on Terror

UA-Report-2Unconstrained Analytics, by Stephen Coughlin, Jan. 27, 2016:

Stephen Coughlin has written a new Unconstrained Analysis report entitled, Burning Down the House: A Strategic Overview of the Threat, the CVE, and Strategic Incomprehension in the War on Terror.”

This strategic overview argues for how the War on Terror should be visualized alongside the processes that seek to obscure it and reflects analyses undertaken over the years to explain the nature of the threat in light of emerging Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) protocols, how the enemy envisions the war, and how he understands victory.

The metaphor is a house engulfed in a crucible of flames. Where the people burning in the house see three players, it is long overdue to understand them as one. Where people see civilization jihad disassociated from assaults from the left, it is time to recognize alliance. The enemy believes he has enjoyed success in the war and, indeed, believes he is winning. This view has merit.

The strategic picture painted by this overview is based on the enemy’s self-identified threat doctrine when mapped against the authorities he relies on to legitimize his activities and guide his operations. For this analysis, a decision was made to exclude all bureaucratic programmatics and academic models.

It is based on who the enemy in the War on Terror says he is, not on how others define him. The enemy states repeatedly that he fights jihad to impose Islamic law (shariah) and to re-establish the Caliphate. He does not say he fights jihad to force conversion of non-Muslims to Islam. He never states that he fights in furtherance of “root” or “underlying” causes.

From a legal perspective, the threat’s stated fidelity to shariah as the law of the land suggests that the threat does not raise First Amendment issues so much as it raises concerns regarding Article VI of the Constitution (“This Constitution shall be … the supreme law of the land”). It turns out that Islamic law, with unsettling precision, supports “violent extremists” to a degree that true moderates cannot match and that faux moderates seek to suppress.

This explains why “moderates” of all stripes avoid talking about Islamic law when discussing Islamic terrorism. This overview does not delve into defining doctrines when discussing the threat’s strategic reality. However, it is hoped that the concepts identified here, viewed as a whole, will offer clarity and shed important light on the most serious threat facing the United States today.

While all elements of U.S. national power are engaged in kinetic operations against “violent extremists” in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, the primary threat actually defines itself as mujahids, views kinetic operations as a support activity tasked with either sustaining strategic distractions or supporting narratives, and seeks victory against the United States through ideological subversion directed against senior leadership and media elites. This analysis challenges the current conceptual and operational framework and calls for its dramatic reconsideration.

A diagram (see page 3) is used to illustrate the three lines of operation along which the United States has come under sustained assault in the War on Terror in much the way that a house can be engulfed in flames. All of these lines of operation, only one of which is kinetic, will be associated with a real-world entity to show how it orients on the objective.

diagram of threat

This strategic overview is the product of extensive research that in recent years has informed and supported numerous papers, presentations, a thesis (To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say about Jihad), and the book Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad. Its purpose is to explain how the enemy understands and orients to his universe.

A further objective is to advocate a return to true intelligence analysis and urge the abandonment of current analytical processes that sustain the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) narrative at the expense of a real threat-focused fact-based analysis.

Read the Report:

Burning Down the House: A Strategic Overview of the Threat, the CVE, and Strategic Incomprehension in the War on Terror (pdf)

Paul Joseph Watson: Islam, Europe and why the rise of the “far right” is the left’s fault

europeThe Rebel, by FAITH GOLDY, Dec. 18, 2015:

UK journalist Paul Joseph Watson and I had an in-depth conversation about the rise of Islam in Europe.

He talks about his personal experiences in no-go zones, and the increasing number of sharia courts and other manifestations of Muslim power.

Watson explains that ISIS’s manifesto declares that they will exploit the “refugee crisis” to infiltrate the West.

But why are ostensibly “liberal” governments so eager to import illiberal migrants?

Watson explains the Left’s rationale: They believe that these newcomers will reliably vote for big government, leftist political parties and help them expand State power.

Watson predicts that so-called “far right” political parties will be “very successful” in the near future. If they too are “on the rise,” he says, it is only because leftists have made it impossible for moderates to criticize Islam without being punished.

The Intentional Obama Administration

President Barack Obama and Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett chat outside the Oval Office in the White House, June 12, 2009. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

President Barack Obama and Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett chat outside the Oval Office in the White House, June 12, 2009. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

UTT, by John Guandolo, Dec. 15, 2015:

The most frequent question Understanding the Threat’s (UTT) President – John Guandolo – receives when he speaks in the media or during public presentations these days is:  “Are our leaders THIS stupid, or are they intentionally advocating for, aiding and abetting, and directly supporting our enemies.”

The truth is, no one is that stupid.

In the last week or so, UTT has reported:

* The U.S. Attorney General put the full weight of the Department of Justice and her office behind a jihadi organization (Muslim Advocates) while committing to silence any speech with maligns Islam

* Members of Congress (Democrats) called on their colleagues to support a Hamas Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia to show their “solidarity” with them, and actually participated in a function at this terrorist haven.

* The President stated we must involve the American “Muslim community” in any strategy to stop “terrorism” despite the fact that all of the Muslim leaders with whom President Obama’s administration is working are easily identifiable as leaders in the jihadi/Muslim Brotherhood Movement here.

* The Secretary of Homeland Security, speaking at a Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood center in Northern Virginia (ADAMS Center), confirmed his father was a target of an FBI investigation because he was a member of the Communist Movement in America.

Secretary Johnson’s remarks may be the first shred of truth we have heard from this administration since the President committed to “fundamentally transform America” during his first campaign.

As this administration provides wide open paths for the world’s number one state sponsor of terrorism (jihad) – Iran – to get nuclear weapons, it also continues to suppress all positive efforts to defeat the jihadi threat while openly condemning Americans who speak out against the threat.

This is no accident.

Why did President Obama’s previous Attorney General refuse to prosecute any of the hundreds of un-indicted co-conspirators in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history (US v Holy Land Foundation, Dallas, 2008)?

Why did President Obama shut down all fact/evidence based training (2012) regarding the Islamic threat in the DHS, FBI, and military after Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood groups like MPAC, ISNA, and CAIR complained Muslims were offended?

Why are the only Muslims who brief the National Security staffs easily identifiable as Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood leaders?

The father and step-father of the President of the United States were both Muslims.  President Obama attended Islamic schools as a young man.  His greatest influence on the President’s life, according to him, was Frank Marshall Davis, a leader of the Communist Party USA.  The President studies radical Marxist revolutionary ideology under Saul Alinsky and taught Alinskism via the book Rules for Radicals, which was dedicated (by the way) to Lucifer.

Where is it that a reasonable person would believe the President holds our foundational principles in the Declaration in any esteem?  Why would we believe he would support and defend the Constitution?

This is why he is not doing it?  He is doing exactly what he said he would do.

Why are a large number of his Cabinet Secretaries and others socialists, marxists, or jihadists?

axelgrease and Jeh

As Paul Sperry wrote in his recent article for IBD (and the evidence support his assertations) that Secretary Jeh Johnson, Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod, and others in very influential positions in the Obama administration are the children of Communists.  That means their lineage is one that opposes our Constitutional Republic and our founding principles.

Let us not look too deeply for answers to why things are going the way they are going in this country.

It is because we have an administration which is necessarily hostile to our Constitution and Rule of Law, and an American people who still cannot grasp this yet.

Social Justice Warriors Slam America’s Oldest Muslim Brotherhood Group on Twitter

7d062cf7-e623-409b-b23f-ef7d45958f50Town Hall, by Kyle Shideler, Nov. 25, 2015:

On Friday, a hashtag campaign targeting what was described as systematic racism exploded over social media. The tag, #BlackinMSA, drew out the experiences of African American Muslims who experienced prejudice in Muslim Student Association (MSA) Chapters, on college campuses.

The Muslim Students Association, founded in 1962, is the oldest Muslim Brotherhood organization in the United States, according to archival Brotherhood records submitted in Federal Court. A NYPD intelligence report describes MSA as“potential incubators” of terrorism, and multiple MSA leaders and members have been arrested on terrorism related charges since 9/11.

Social media users complained of coldness and bias from Arab and South Asian Muslims towards Black Muslims, including the use of the Arabic term “Abdeed” (slave) as a term for Blacks. Additionally, tweets focused on discrimination in the appointment of non-Arab Muslims to leadership positions within the MSA.

25

But the primary driver of the conversation appeared to be the lack of involvement with MSAs related to Black Lives Matter and related protests.

The campaign received only limited pushback from what appeared to be Arab Muslim twitter accounts, predominately focused

The hashtag campaign appears to have been the brainchild of Tariq Touré,steering committee member for the Muslim Anti-Racism Collaborative (MuslimARC). MuslimARC also directed the hashtag discussion with a poll question, and other tweets, raising questions about MSAs willingness to engage in the BLM movement and recent protest actions at University of Missouri.

According to Co-founder Margari Hill, MuslimARC was created in response to a call to action on the issue of the role of African American Muslims issued by Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Michigan Chapter head Dawud Walid. Walid receives a “special thanks” on MuslimARC’s website.

CAIR has been actively involved in supporting and participating in BLM protests, beginning as far back as the Ferguson case. Dawud Walid himself linked the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson with the FBI shooting death of Luqman Abdullah, the Detroit-based “Emir” of a group called “The National Ummah” headed by convicted cop-killer Jamil Abdullah Amin, the former Black Panther radical known as H.Rap Brown.

Amin played a key role in the formation of the Muslim Alliance of North America (MANA), one of the first efforts to integrate indigenous African American Muslim Islamist groups like National Ummah, with the larger U.S.-based network, led by the Muslim Brotherhood. Luqman Abdullah was a board member of MANA prior to his death.

Interestingly, MuslimARC co-founder Hill also has an association with MANA, having served as the Curriculum Developer for the United Muslim Masjid (UMM). UMM a predominately African American Muslim organization led by Luqman Al-Haqq (AKA Kenny Gamble) a Philadelphia based Music mogul who has been accused of attempting to create a “Muslim-only enclave” in Philadelphia. Like Luqman Abdullah, Al-Haqq is a board member of MANA.

With the hashtag campaign aimed at forcing national MSA leadership to become more overtly involved in the BLM movement, it appears that the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. may be facing some blowback, from a campaign that has sought to position their Islamophobia narrative within the wider of racial politics.

This no doubt stems in part to an increasing merger between traditional Islamist ideology, and leftist social justice rhetoric.

For example, a popular Tarbiyah Guide (a curriculum developed by MB-linked entities for Islamic education of members,) references both traditional Muslim Brotherhood ideologues like Yusuf Al Qaradawi, S.A. Maududi, and Sayyid Qutb, but also leftist thinkers including Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, in addition to the aforementioned Jamil Abdullah Amin.

This is not the only case where MB organizations have run afoul of a younger generation where Islamic grievances are incorporated into theories of intersectionality.

Back in April, MB groups squabbled amongst themselves after a coalition of groups endorse Turkey and opposed an Armenian genocide resolution, only to be denounced by campus level groups like MSAs and Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP.)

It may be that we are seeing a generational challenge, as MB-linked entities responded to those who have been indoctrinated within a milieu of both Islamist and leftist social justice politics.

This younger generation, Muslim Brotherhood 2.0 so-to-speak, are as adept at referencing Qutb, as they are Frantz Fanon. Where they successfully navigated this challenge, as in the case of CAIR in the Ferguson protests, MB-linked groups open up additional allies for their cause. Where they fail, however, they face embarrassing public relations trouble, as was the case for #BlackinMSA.

Kyle Shideler is the Director of the Threat Information Office (TIO) at the Center for Security Policy.

How LIBERALS cause ISIS TERROR ATTACKS – Bill Whittle

WhittleRight Scoop, by soopermexican, Nov. 21, 2015:

Conservative Bill Whittle produces some of the best political commentary in his “Afterburner” video series and this latest one is no exception. In this one he explains how liberal policies help create the circumstances that lead to more terror attacks from Islamic extremists on the West.

Watch below:

This kind of analysis is very important because so many people see these attacks and wonder why they’re happening and they have absolutely no understanding of the history that lead to them because the media doesn’t show the true causes. Instead they tell us that global warming is causing the extremism…

Obama and the ISIS ‘Recruitment Tool’ Canard

(Photo by Drew Angerer/Pool/Sipa USA)

(Photo by Drew Angerer/Pool/Sipa USA)

PJ MEDIA, BY ANDREW C. MCCARTHY NOVEMBER 20, 2015:

I cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for ISIS than … Barack Obama.

This puts me at odds with Barack Obama, as is often the case. It is worth explaining my reasoning, though, since – as our bloviator-in-chief is fond of saying – this is a teachable moment.

The president of the United States, shamefully but characteristically, took the opportunity of being on foreign soil – in the Philippines with its large Muslim population – to smear his fellow countrymen over their effort to protect American national security. The Republican initiative, led by Senator Ted Cruz, would thwart Obama’s scheme to import thousands of refugees and prioritize the asylum claims of Christians. In response to this “rhetoric,” Obama seethed, “I cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for ISIL.”

The president elaborated that “when you start seeing individuals in position of responsibility suggesting Christians are more worthy of protection than Muslims are in a war-torn land, that feeds the ISIL narrative.”

So tough here to untangle the ignorance from the demagoguery. For starters, asylum does not involve placing comparative values on the lives of different categories of people. And no one would be more offended than Christians at the notion that Christian lives should be valued more highly than those of other human beings. (By contrast, the conceit that Muslim lives – especially the lives of male Muslims – are more worthy than others is a leitmotif of Islamic scripture that is reflected throughout sharia law.)

Asylum, instead, is a remedy for persecution that is controlled by federal law. Obama lashed out at Republicans for promoting a “religious test,” which he claimed was “offensive and contrary to American values.” Yet, because asylum addresses persecution, governing law has always incorporated a religious test. Again, that is not because the lives of one religion’s believers are innately better than others; it is because when religious persecution is occurring, the targeted religion’s believers are inevitably more vulnerable to murder, rape, torture, and other atrocities than co-religionists of the persecutors.

Consequently, longstanding congressional statutes (a) call on aliens claiming to be refugees to prove “a well-founded fear of persecution on account of … religion,” among other things; and (b) require refugees seeking asylum to “establish that … religion [among other things] was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.”

Despite his diatribe, I’m going to go out on a limb and conclude that this is not news to Obama, a Harvard-trained lawyer who, for seven years, has been president and thus responsible for executing the asylum laws. He is also well aware, though, that the Muslim audience to which he was appealing, in the Philippines and in the broader ummah, does not have a clue about the vagaries of American immigration statutes.

Obama knows, moreover, that because sharia tells Muslims their lives are more valuable than those of non-Muslims, nothing is more apt to rile them up than an accusation that nativist Americans are portraying them as second-rate. And Obama knows that when Muslims get riled up, Western politicians curl up in a “religion of peace” ball and meekly back down. The president may not keep the U.S. Code on his shelves, but his bag of community-organizer tricks is ever at the ready.

One trick that never gets old is the claim that this or that American policy is a primo “recruitment tool” for jihadists.

Of course, the patent cause of violent jihadism is Islamic supremacist ideology. Washington politicians will not concede this fact because that ideology is unmistakably based on a literal construction of Islamic scripture – the Koran, the hadith, and sacralized biographies of the prophet Muhammad.

As it happens, there are ways of construing Islamic scripture that are not as literal. These constructions inform the view of millions of Muslims that violent jihad and systematic discrimination are not ordained in the modern world. These competing constructions, however, do not change the stubborn reality that Islamic supremacism – what we presume to call “radical” Islam – is a mainstream interpretation of Islam followed by tens of millions of Muslims, among them renowned sharia scholars, violent jihadists, and wily Islamists.

Though neither Republican transnational-progressives nor the hard Left will admit this palpable truth, the rationales of the two camps are significantly different.

The Republican moderates are well-meaning but foolish. Lacking confidence or competence to explain the different interpretations of Islam, they fear that if they concede the nexus between Islamic doctrine and jihadism, they will be perceived as “at war with Islam.” So they relentlessly pretend that the “true” Islam is irenic: a noble quest for justice and tolerance. Because these Republicans are more politically progressive than conservative, they delude themselves into believing their soaring words will someday alter reality: If they say “religion of peace” and “moderate” enough times, Islam will actually become a moderate religion of peace, its sharia seamlessly compatible with our Constitution and Western principles – regardless of what Islamic doctrine actually says.

The Left, to the contrary, is neither well-meaning nor foolish. It will not admit the nexus between Islamic scripture and jihadist terror for two shrewd reasons.

The first is that the alliance with Islamists is useful to the Left. I explained in The Grand Jihad why Islamists and Leftists align, despite their differences on important matters like the rights of women, homosexuals, and the unborn. Both are anti-capitalist, authoritarian central-planners, hostile to individual liberty. They become fast friends whenever they have a common enemy – e.g., the Egyptian monarchy, the shah of Iran, or the Western culture of freedom and reason. If the common enemy is overcome, Islamists and Leftists turn on each other with a vengeance because their utopias cannot coexist. But as long as the common enemy exists, they work well together – just as internecine rivalries between Islamist camps (e.g., Iran and al Qaeda) are set aside in order to present a united front against the West and Israel.

What is the second rationale for the Left’s insistence on bleaching away jihadism’s roots in Islamic doctrine? That brings us back to Obama’s claim that the conservative case against admitting thousands of Syrian refugees is a “recruitment tool” for ISIS.

Obviously, jihad does not erupt out of thin air. The American public, which remains widely uninformed about Islam, realizes something must cause the violence, and that the violence will continue unless that something is overcome. For Leftists, this presents a golden opportunity: They understand that our deeply ingrained tradition of religious liberty – a tradition the Left generally abhors – makes the public resistant to the notion that a religion can cause violence, and thus receptive to the assurance that Islam does not.

So if Islam, in the Left’s telling, has nothing to do with the savagery jihadists commit, what is the cause? Obama and his cohort fill in this blank with … the principles and policies they oppose: robust national defense, American leadership in the world, free speech, sovereignty, economic liberty, income inequality, Christianity, Israel’s character as a Jewish state, Guantanamo Bay, military commissions, … even climate change.

Yes, this is preposterous if you’ve familiarized yourself with Islamic supremacism and classical sharia. But, alas, much of America has not despite a generation of jihad from Tehran to Manhattan to Paris. What a powerful rhetorical weapon it is for the Left to claim that what it opposes is not just wrong but the cause of mass-murder attacks.

In the real world, however, it is the sharia supremacist interpretation of Islam that causes jihadist terror. With that as the foundation, jihadist recruitment has little or nothing to do with the pretexts conveniently conjured by the Left. To the contrary, recruitment is driven by one thing:the perception that jihadists will win. As Osama bin Laden recognized, people are drawn to the strong horse and shun the weak horse.

That is why I cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for ISIS than … Barack Obama.

Also see:

STEALTH JIHAD VS. AMERICA — ON THE GLAZOV GANG

afsj-600x372

The Glazov Gang, by Jamie Glazov, Oct. 27, 2015:

This special edition of The Glazov Gang was joined by David Kupelian, the author of the new book, The Snapping of the American Mind and vice-president and managing editor of the online news giant WND.

David discussed Stealth Jihad vs. America, unveiling the Left’s enabling of the Muslim Brotherhood’s offensive. He also outlined the numerous ways the progressive agenda has spawned The Snapping of the American Mind.

***

Moral Equivalence in the Middle East

moral-abdication-middle-east-b

The West has developed a dangerous concern for ‘proportionality.’

National Review, by Victor Davis Hanson — October 20, 2015:

In the current epidemic of Palestinian violence, scores of Arab youths are attacking, supposedly spontaneously, Israeli citizens with knives. Apparently, edged weapons have more Koranic authority, and, in the sense of media spectacle, they provide greater splashes of blood. Thus the attacker is regularly described as “unarmed” and a victim when he is “disproportionately” stopped by bullets.

The Obama State Department has condemned the use of “excessive” Israeli force in response to Palestinian terrorism. John Kirby, the hapless State Department spokesman, blamed “both” sides for terrorism, and the president himself called on attackers and their victims to “tamp down the violence.”

In short, the present U.S. government — which is subsidizing the Palestinians to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year — is incapable of distinguishing those who employ terrorist violence from the victims against whom the terrorism is directed. But why is the Obama administration — which can apparently distinguish those who send out drones from those who are blown up by them on the suspicion of employing terrorist violence — morally incapable of calling out Palestinian violence? After all, in the American case, we blow away suspects whom we think are likely terrorists; in the Israeli instance, they shoot or arrest those who have clearly just committed a terrorist act.

RELATED: The One-State Solution, Ctd.

Two reasons stand out.

One, Obama’s Middle East policies are in shambles. Phony red lines, faux deadlines, reset with Putin, surrendering all the original bargaining chips in the Iranian deal, snubbing Israel, cozying up to the Muslim Brotherhood, dismissing the threat of ISIS, allowing Iraq to collapse by abruptly pulling out all American troops, giving way to serial indecision in Afghanistan, ostracizing the moderate Sunni regimes, wrecking Libya, and setting the stage for Benghazi — all of these were the result of administration choices, not fated events. One of the results of this collapse of American power and presence in the Middle East is an emboldened Palestinian movement that has recently renounced the Oslo Accords and encouraged the offensive of edged weapons.

RELATED: The Obama Intifada

Mahmoud Abbas, the subsidized president of the self-proclaimed Palestinian State, and his subordinates have sanctioned the violence. Any time Palestinians sense distance between the U.S. and Israel, they seek to widen the breach. When the Obama team deliberately and often gratuitously signals its displeasure with Israel, then the Palestinians seek to harden that abstract pique into concrete estrangement.

Amid such a collapse of American power, Abbas has scanned the Middle East, surveyed the Obama pronouncements — from his initial Al Arabiya interview and Cairo speech to his current contextualizations and not-so private slapdowns of Netanyahu — and has wagered that Obama likes Israel even less than his public statements might suggest. Accordingly, Abbas assumes that there might be few consequences from America if he incites another “cycle of violence.”

RELATED: Palestinian Reasoning: Yield to Our Crazy Religious Intolerance or We’ll Kill You

The more chaos there is, the more CNN videos of Palestinian terrorists being killed by Israeli civilians or security forces, the more NBC clips of knife-wielding terrorists who are described as unarmed, and the more MSNBC faux maps of Israeli absorption of Palestine, so all the more the Abbas regime and Hamas expect the “international community” to force further Israeli concessions. The Palestinians hope that they are entering yet another stage in their endless war against Israel. But this time, given the American recessional, they have new hopes that the emerging Iran–Russia–Syria–Iraq–Hezbollah axis could offer ample power in support of the violence and could help to turn the current asymmetrical war more advantageously conventional. The Palestinians believe, whether accurately or not, that their renewed violence might be a more brutal method of aiding the administration’s own efforts to pressure the Israelis to become more socially just, without which there supposedly cannot be peace in the Middle East.

#share#

But there is a second, more general explanation for the moral equivalence and anemic response from the White House. The Obama “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” administration is the first postmodern government in American history, and it has adopted almost all the general culture’s flawed relativist assumptions about human nature.

Affluent and leisured Western culture in the 21st century assumes that it has reached a stage of psychological nirvana, in which the Westernized world is no longer threatened in any existential fashion as it often was in the past. That allows Westerners to believe that they no longer have limbic brains, and so are no longer bound by Neanderthal ideas like deterrence, balance of power, military alliances, and the use of force to settle disagreements. Their wealth and technology assure them that they are free, then, to enter a brave new world of zero culpability, zero competition, and zero hostility that will ensure perpetual tranquility and thus perpetual enjoyment of our present material bounty.

RELATED: There Is No God But Hephaestus — And Fire Is His Messenger

Our children today play tee-ball, where there are no winners and losers — and thus they are schooled that competition is not just detrimental but also can, by such training, be eliminated entirely. Our adolescents are treated according to the philosophy of “zero tolerance,” in which the hero who stops the punk from bullying a weaker victim is likewise suspended from school. Under the pretense of such smug moral superiority, our schools have abdicated the hard and ancient task of distinguishing bad behavior from good and then proceeding with the necessary rewards and punishments. Our universities have junked military history, which schooled generations on how wars start, proceed, and end. Instead, “conflict resolution and peace studies” programs proliferate, in which empathy and dialogue are supposed to contextualize the aggressor and thus persuade him to desist and seek help — as if aggression, greed, and the desire for intimidation were treatable syndromes rather than ancient evils that have remained dangerous throughout history.

Human nature is not so easily transcended, just because a new therapeutic generation has confused its iPhone apps and Priuses with commensurate moral and ethical advancement. Under the canons of the last 2,500 years of Western warfare, disproportionality was the method by which aggressors were either deterred or stopped. Deterrence — which alone prevented wars — was predicated on the shared assumption that starting a conflict would bring more violence down upon the aggressor than he could ever inflict on his victim. Once lost, deterrence was restored usually by disproportionate responses that led to victory over and humiliation of the aggressive party.

The wreckage of Berlin trumped anything inflicted by the Luftwaffe on London. The Japanese killed fewer than 3,000 Americans at Pearl Harbor; the Americans killed 30 times that number of Japanese in a single March 10, 1945, incendiary raid on Tokyo. “They have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind” was the standard philosophy by which aggressive powers were taught never again to start hostilities. Defeat and humiliation led to peace and reconciliation.

The tragic but necessary resort to disproportionate force by the attacked not only taught an aggressor that he could not win the fight he had started, but also reminded him that his targeted enemy might not be completely sane, and thus could be capable of any and all retaliation.

Unpredictability and the fear sown by the unknown also help to restore deterrence, and with it calm and peace. In contrast, predictable, proportionate responses can reassure the aggressor that he is in control of the tempo of the war that he in fact started. And worse still, the doctrine of proportionality suggests that the victim does not seek victory and resolution, but will do almost anything to return to the status quo antebellum — which, of course, was disadvantageous and shaped by the constant threat of unexpected attack by its enemies.

Applying this to the Middle East, the Palestinians believe that the new American indifference to the region and Washington’s slapdowns of Netanyahu have reshuffled relative power. They now hope that there is no deterrent to violence and that, if it should break out, there will be only a proportionate and modest response from predictable Westerners.

Under the related doctrine of moral equivalence, Westerners are either unwilling or unable to distinguish the more culpable from the more innocent. Instead, because the world more often divides by 55 to 45 percent rather than 99 to 1 percent certainty, Westerners lack the confidence to make moral judgments — afraid that too many critics might question their liberal sensitivities, a charge that in the absence of dearth, hunger, and disease is considered the worst catastrophe facing an affluent Western elite.

The question is not only whether the Obama administration, in private, favors the cause of the radical Palestinians over a Western ally like Israel, but also whether it is even intellectually and morally capable of distinguishing a democratic state that protects human rights from a non-democratic, authoritarian, and terrorist regime that historically has hated the West, and the United States in particular — and is currently engaged in clear-cut aggression.

NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals.

Islamists and the radical left: Co-belligerents in a war on America

20150905_CAIRandBLACKLIVESMATTERS2015

Family Security Matters, by Lawrence Sellin, September 5, 2015:

It should surprise no one that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has joined the Black Lives Matter movement.

It is logical that CAIR, the unindicted co-conspirator in the prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for providing support to the terrorist group Hamas, should join a group which has contributed to an atmosphere of violent incitement and hatred against police officers across the nation.

While Islamic radicals seek to rid the world of heresies and of the infidels who practice them, leftists desire to purge society of the vices allegedly spawned by capitalism — those being racism, sexism, imperialism, and greed.

Although their motivations are different, fundamentalist Islam and the radical political left are both devoted to totalitarianism, have a shared hatred of Western civilization and Judeo-Christian democracy and they are equally determined to extinguish liberty and subjugate the individual, either to Sharia or the state.

The current turmoil playing out every day on American streets and fomented by criminals and extremists, has been tolerated if not encouraged by the hands-off approach of Barack Obama, whose own radical leftist beliefs and his love of, if not strict adherence to Islam, could qualify him as the nation’s first Marxist Mahdi, eager to cleanse America of the “evils” perpetrated by capitalism and Judeo-Christianity.

Societal division and social unrest are tactics used to destabilize and demoralize, to further fundamentally transform the country, which has already been undermined economically and culturally from within; of which, in no small part, is the deliberate, politically-motivated invasion of the United States by illegal immigrants and so-called Muslim refugees.

This premeditated mass migration has several purposes including the dilution of U.S. nationalism i.e. “Americanism” through multiculturalism and to establish the demographics for a one-party state.

In addition, the social and economic turmoil created by uncontrolled illegal immigration or undesirable legal immigration, like George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four,”  can generate an environment of perpetual crisis requiring growing government surveillance, sustained by state-sanctioned media, and  all governed by a privileged and oppressive political elite led by a quasi-divine party leader who enjoys an intense cult of personality and considers personal liberty as a source of unhappiness.

One could say that it represents the realization of Obama’s private fantasy, the fundamental transformation of America to a totalitarian state dominated by either mullahs or magistrates.

In the 20th century, Germany and Russia were examples of major countries that succumbed to totalitarianism, largely because of economic and social chaos. In the German federal election of 1928, the Nazi Party garnered a mere 2.6% of the vote. Five years later, they controlled Germany. What happened? The Nazi message hadn’t changed, but the economic and social conditions in the country had, resulting in extreme political polarization and rampant street violence.

Although subjected to many of the same economic and social strains of that era, the United States and Great Britain did not follow a similar path because both had long-standing democratic institutions and, more importantly, a populace with a sense of its own history and traditions.

It has long been a goal of the left, now joined by American Islamists, to re-write U.S. history and re-interpret what it means to be an American, in order to produce low-information voters willing to submit to tyranny and a political-media- academic class willing to implement revisionism.

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS), for example, a one-size-fits-all, top-down national education system, embraced by Democrats and big government Republicans alike, does just that, turning primary and secondary schools into re-education camps for leftist and Islamic indoctrination .

The Islamo-Leftist educational agenda seeks to popularize theories specifically designed to weaken the foundations of Judeo-Christian democracy and to eradicate our cognitive ability to transmit to the next generation, the ideas and values upon which America was built.

Much of the social chaos and extremism we are currently witnessing in the country is the product of a well-funded and well-organized anti-American, radical Islamo-leftist agenda – and an administration that enables rather than opposes the aims of our enemies.

Also see:

The Convergence of Threats

obama flamesUnderstanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Sep. 3, 2015:

Police officers are being targeted for assassination; there are an increasing number of jihadi attacks across the world; tens of thousands of Christians are being slaughtered by Muslims in Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere; a flood of refugees from hostile countries are being forced on local townships across America as a part of federal government plan funded by tax payers; our critical infrastructure is dangerously vulnerable; our military is being gutted, courageous leaders are being punished, and our nuclear forces are decaying; there is a disregard by our leadership on both sides of the political aisle for the rule of law and our Constitution; many Christian and Jewish leaders stand on the side of tyranny with socialists and jihadis in the name of “tolerance”; there exists a unified effort by the socialist Left in America and the Islamic jihadis to silence all forms of communication which brings the truth to light and call this evil out for what it really is; Russia stands ready to engage the U.S. militarily; and this administration openly supports the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world – Iran – in developing nuclear weapons which it says will be used to destroy Israel and the United States.

This is where we are today in America. Yet, Americans still feel compelled to ask if this is intentional or just the result of poor policies that have gone awry. You do not have to be a political scientist to understand America is and is headed exactly where the Jihadis and the Progressive Left Movement has worked for over 50 years to take this nation. This is the intentional outcome of a decades-old effort to bring the United States down.

Growing up, President Obama went to an Islamic school. His father and step-father were Muslim, and his greatest mentor, according to the President, was a card carrying member of Communist Party USA (Frank Marshall Davis). Mr. Obama studied and taught Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, which is Marxist revolutionary ideology. In that book, you will see all of the tactics detailed which we are now witnessing on the streets of America. Just like a playbook.

It should be noted Rules for Radicals is dedicated to Satan – by the way.

So where did the President learn to respect America’s founding principle that our rights come from God and that all of our laws and moral standards flow from that point? He never did.

Today the forces of the Marxists and socialists have a well-funded and well-organized movement to destroy the foundations of this Republic while the jihadis have an even more well-funded and well-organized effort to destroy us as well. The facts and evidence have been on the table for sometime with no thoughtful or factual debate coming from another point of view. Those defending the founding principles of this great Republic are told to shut up and stop being so “racists” or “hateful” or whatever other adjective they throw out. Just like the Nazis, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and so many other tyrants have done over the years.

The first step in maintaining a free society is for citizens with courage to stand in that freedom and refuse to slowly get washed out into the sea of slavery. We must count the cost and be ready to give everything to maintain the liberty our founders gave to us with the blessing of Almighty God.

Obama: American in name only

20141210_obamameanmadsmugFamily Security Matters, by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD, July 21, 2015:

Barack Hussein Obama is making the world safe for Islamo-Marxism.

At first glance, it would seem an improbable collaboration, but the marriage of convenience between radical Islam and Marxism, like the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939-1941, has a practical purpose, to destroy Western democracy.

Adolf Hitler did not want a two-front war and benefitted from Soviet resources while he attempted to crush France and Britain in 1940 before turning the full force of the German military against his ultimate enemy in the east.

Likewise, Joseph Stalin expected Germany, France and Britain to exhaust themselves in a prolonged conflict, buying time to build Soviet military strength and, debilitated by war, the Red Army would then easily march in and conquer all of Western Europe.

Both radical Islam and Marxism have a mutual hatred of Judeo-Christian democracy and a shared belief that the United States, as the cornerstone of Western civilization, is the embodiment of evil and the main impediment to establishing a global caliphate or a communist dictatorship. They have joined together in a formal conspiracy of political and social manipulation specifically designed to convince individuals that his or her actions are determined not by personal liberty, but the needs of a “community,” whose desires and rights are dictated exclusively by mullahs or commissars.

Obama’s rhetoric and policies mirror the Marxist war on Western culture by destroying the Middle Class, weakening the family as the primary social institution, practicing tribal politics, encouraging historical revisionism, promoting political correctness and multiculturalism, replacing logic and facts with emotionally satisfying gestures; all meant to undermine traditional American values and the principles upon which our country was founded.

Obama began his first term of office with his now infamous “apology tour,” humiliating, some say condemning the United States.

On June 4, 2009 in Cairo, Obama said about Iran: “In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons.”

Yet Obama’s policies have virtually guaranteed a nuclear- and intercontinental ballistic missile-armed Iran.

Also in Cairo, Obama said: “There’s been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation on any other.”

Yet Obama’s policies fostered Islamist governments in Egypt and Libya.

In general, Obama has pursued policies that have facilitated rather than opposed the aims of our enemies.

Having been granted immunity from any uncomfortable questions about his personal history, Obama has established deceit and political oppression as primary instruments of government policy. He has attempted to render Congress powerless by unlawfully assuming executive authority not granted under the Constitution in order to continue, unobstructed, his fundamental transformation of the United States.

Left unimpeded, the inevitable result of Obama’s transformation will be a dystopia, characterized by a New Dark Age, a cataclysmic decline of society, in which a totalitarian government enforces ruthless egalitarianism by suppressing or denouncing ability and accomplishment, or even competence, as forms of inequality.

All the damage that Obama has perpetrated on the United States, however, could be reversed, his Constitutional transgressions declared null and void, simply by telling the truth.

That will not happen because Congress and the media are complicit in the greatest fraud and Constitutional crisis in American history and, if exposed, the truth would obliterate the corrupt political-media status quo.

The Democrats and their media shills are in lock-step. They have sworn allegiance, not to the Constitution and the country, but to their führer, their Islamo-Marxist Messiah, who they will protect by any means necessary.

Republicans remain silent because they have sworn allegiance to their personal bank accounts.

It should now be clear to Americans who are not politically sedated that the institutions of the federal government can no longer be relied upon to adhere to the Constitution or enforce the rule of law. The States will need to reclaim the powers given them and the American people under the 10th Amendment, powers that have been increasingly usurped by Washington DC.

“When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.” – Thomas Jefferson

PAPERBACK RELEASE: The Red-Green Axis

4255460656 (1)Center for Security Policy, July 23, 2015:

Adam Savit | savit@securefreedom.org

REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT REPORT HERALDS EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO AMERICA

Washington, D.C.:  The Center for Security Policy today released a new paperback version of the monograph by investigative journalist James Simpson: The Red-Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America.

PhotoshopScreenSnapz008This report extensively details the networks of radical left non-profits, foundations, government agencies and the personalities behind them. Unbeknownst to most Americans they are using refugee resettlement as a pretext to import waves of immigrants from third-world nations as a key front in Obama’s strategy of “fundamentally transforming” America. These refugees have little interest in assimilating. Many are from Muslim countries, view immigration as “Hijra” i.e. a subversive means to invade a foreign nation, and have demonstrated a willingness to either support or engage in terrorism both in America and abroad.

These groups are coached by leftist non-profits to capitalize on our generous welfare programs and shown how to maneuver around legal impediments – all at our expense – but are not being taught how to assimilate. The report conservatively estimates welfare costs at $10 billion per year. Additionally, government resettlement contractors receive $1 billion annually in federal tax dollars and non-profits supporting the agenda are provided billions of dollars from non-profits like George Soros’ Open Society Institute.

The President has launched a “Welcoming America” initiative which seeks to “seed” refugees throughout our communities and weed out “pockets of resistance” with a full-throated effort vilifying anyone opposing his radical agenda. It is literally an offensive to erase American laws, traditions and culture, and replace them with a pliable, multi-cultural society that will vote the Left into the “permanent progressive majority” it seeks.

Center for Security Policy President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. states:

Jim Simpson has done a characteristically exacting investigation of the extent to which the red-green axis – the radical left, with its activists, contractors, philanthropies and friends in the Obama administration, and Islamic supremacists – have joined forces to use U.S. refugee resettlement programs as a prime means to achieve the ‘fundamental transformation’ of  America. His expose is particularly timely against the backdrop of the government sponsored effort to ‘Welcome New Americans’ and suppress those who understand the imperative of “resisting” the migration to and colonization of this country, or hijra, that Shariah-adherent Muslim believed they are required to undertake.

The Center for Security Policy/Secure Freedom is proud to present Mr. Simpson’s monograph as a superb addition to its Civilization Jihad Reader Series.

For further information on the threats shariah poses to our foundational liberal democratic values, see more titles from the Center for Security Policy’s Civilization Jihad Reader Series at http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/civilization-jihad-reader-series/

Buy The Red-Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America in paperback or Kindle format on Amazon.

You can also download the PDF: Red_Green_Axis

Barack Obama’s Unholy Alliance: A Romance With Islamism

obama-unholy-alliance

Front Page, by Daniel Greenfield, June 25, 2015:

We know that Barack Obama has said that one of the sweetest sounds is the Muslim call to evening prayer.  We know that he has repeatedly said that Islam is a religion of peace and — side-swiping Danish cartoonists who must now fear for their lives — told the UN that the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. 

We know that Obama has been a proponent of the idea that “Islamophobia” is a heinous offense, comparable to racial and gender hatred.  We know that the President has allowed several individuals with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood to get jobs in his administration and that he, virtually alone among the leaders of the Western world, did not go to Paris to protest the slaughter at the offices of Charlie Hebdo and at a Jewish kosher restaurant.

What we know about Barack Obama’s attitude toward Muslims and the Muslim world, in other words, is bad enough.  But what we don’t know about him is even worse and this is the subject of Shillman Fellow Daniel Greenfield’s new Freedom Center pamphlet “Barack Obama’s Unholy Alliance: A Romance with Islamism.”
Greenfield’s pamphlet is a work of deep scholarship and legitimate outrage.  It exhaustively explores Barack Obama’s relationship with Islam — his cerebral relationship as well as his policy initiatives in the Muslim world.  Moreover, Greenfield tracks how Obama’s soft spot for Islam has disastrously affected America’s ability to defend itself from an enemy — radical Islam — that seeks to destroy us.  So read “Barack Obama’s Unholy Alliance” and prepare to be afraid, very afraid.
To read the pamphlet, continue.

To order the pamphlet, click here.