WATCH Pamela Geller on Tomi Lahren’s premiere show: Islam, jihad, islamofauxbia, migrant crisis

Screen-Shot-2016-02-01-at-9.36.45-PM

Atlas Shrugs, by Pamela Geller, Feb. 1, 2016:

I was Tomi Lahren’s first guest on the premiere of her show on The Blaze TV. We discuss a wide range of jihad related subjects – the migrant crisis, the myth of islamophobia, President Obama, the GOP debate’s Nabeela Noor, mosque closures and more.

MIGRANT CRISIS: Immigration jihad. This is a Hijra, emigration for the sake of Allah, to conquer and Islamize the new land – evidence is the warning from Isis and the fact that most migrants are young Muslim men – if they were really refugees they wouldn’t have left their families in a war zone

In Cologne they were acting according to Islamic law regarding treatment of Infidel women

MOSQUES: Mosques must be monitored – 4 separate studies since 1998 show that 80% of US mosques teach hatred of unbelievers and the need to replace constitution with sharia. The San Bernardinon amd Garland jihadis and others have been active in their mosques – what is taught there. Trumps proposal makes sense – no one who has called him a bigot has offered any way to distinguish jihadis from peaceful migrants

ISLAMOFAUXBIA: Islamophobia is a propaganda term designed to intimidate people into being afraid to oppose jihad terror. It is a thought crushing devise –a tactic of Islamic supremacists to label any opposition to jihad terror and sharia oppression bigotry – it is not bigotry to stand for freedom and individual rights.

FREE SPEECH: It is more threatened than anyone realizes – the attacks on me after Garland show that people don’t understand the principle that is at stake – if we limit speech we invite tyranny.

Why the GOP Debate YouTube Star is Wrong About Islamophobia

Muslim-American Nabela Noor

Muslim-American Nabela Noor

Conservative Review, By: Benjamin Weingarten | January 29th, 2016:

As warned by Michelle Malkin, the YouTube personalities chosen to ask questions of Republican presidential candidates during Thursday’s final GOP debate before the 2016 Iowa Caucus pursued narratives antithetical to the viewpoints of conservative primary voters.

Perhaps most pernicious of all was the question posed by Muslim-American Nabela Noor, pictured here in a “Feel The Bern” sweater. Noor stated:

In 2015, the number of hate crimes against Muslims in the U.S. has tripled, and on social media, where I spend a lot of time, I’ve seen many attacks directed towards fellow Muslims. This culture of hatred is only driving ISIS to radicalize, recruit and incite violence.

As president, what would you do to address this toxic climate and promote increased tolerance in the United States?

Over fifty percent (50%) of all “anti-religious hate crime” perpetrated annually during the Obama presidency has been committed on an “anti-Jewish” basis.

Here was my response to her question:

BW tweet

2014 is not just a one-off outlier. Over fifty percent (50%) of all “anti-religious hate crime” perpetrated annually during the Obama presidency has been committed on an “anti-Jewish” basis as classified by the FBI. You would not know that from the rhetoric of Ms. Noor or the Obama administration however, who would have us believe that an Islamophobic scourge is sweeping the nation, requiring corrective action up to and including the criminalization of “anti-Muslim” speech.

Now presumably what Ms. Noor actually was referring to in her assertion about anti-Muslim hate crimes was a report cited by the New York Times from the “Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism.” This report noted that the number of hate crimes against Muslims since the November 13, 2015 Paris jihadist attacks had tripled to 38 (contrasted with 12.6 attacks per month based on FBI statistics).

And this is if we take the analysis cited by the Times at face value. It bears noting that the Center is run by Brian Levin, a professor at Cal State University, criminologist and civil rights attorney who formerly served as the Associate Director-Legal Affairs of the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center’s Klanwatch/Milita Task Force in Montgomery, Alabama.

Even without questioning the messenger here or the veracity of the anti-Muslim hate crime statistics compiled from “reports from the news media and civil rights groups”—and even without acknowledging the potential for hoaxes given the number of prominent supposed hate crimes that were later shown to be perpetrated by Muslims themselves—Noor botched the statistic. A tripling of attacks in a one-month period does not equal a tripling of attacks during 2015 overall.

The ignored broader context about a supposed “toxic climate” in America is that the 1,140 anti-religious hate crimes recorded during 2014—the vast majority of which again, as has historically been the case, were perpetrated against Jews, not Muslims—represents a remarkably small number in a nation of over 300 million people, even accepting that such crimes may go underreported. Consider by comparison that in the first half of 2015 alone, the Islamic Republic of Iran executed over 700 people.

One would think that Ms. Noor, evidently a Bernie supporter and thus a member of the Party of Science, would show more fidelity to the empirical evidence.

Ben Weingarten is Founder & CEO of ChangeUp Media LLC, a media consulting and publication services firm. A graduate of Columbia University, he regularly contributes to publications such as City Journal, The Federalist, Newsmax and PJ Media on national security/defense, economics and politics. You can follow him on Facebook and Twitter. 

The Politics of Censorship at Exeter

Phillips_Exeter_Academy_buildingCommentary, by Michael Rubin, Jan. 29, 2016:

Exeter Academy is one of the most elite college preparatory schools in the United States. Recently Exeter alum and teachers on campus banded together to try (successfully, it seems) to dis-invite former Congressman and radio talk show host and commentator Fred Grandy, an Exeter alum, from teaching a senior seminar on “Politics in Media.” The Exonian explained:

Actor turned politician, Grandy gave a well-received assembly in September, after which he worked with Director of Studies Brooks Moriarty and Institutional Advancement to create a club, structured as a seminar open only to seniors by application, as an opportunity for students to explore the relationship between politics and media. Moriarty will advise the club, which will meet six times over the course of the presidential primary season this winter term. Participation in the seminar is entirely voluntary and there is no credit earned by the students. However, since the club’s conception, faculty and students have raised concerns about Grandy’s commentary on his radio show and his affiliation with the Center for Security Policy, a right-wing think tank run by Frank Gaffney, following his resulting resignation from WMAL.

Now, I neither always agree with Frank Gaffney nor the Center for Security Policy, though they are an important pole of the debate one that if disagreed with should be refuted rather than censored. (Full disclosure: I have spoken at Center for Security Policy events before, and I agree with their skepticism of both the Iran deal and the direction of Turkey. I have also spoken at events sponsored by think tanks and universities that lean far more to the left on many of the same issues). And no one can doubt that a former congressman and radio host is well positioned to talk about the confluence of politics and media.
The Exonian highlighted complaints by some alumni and teachers which took issue with the Center for Security Policy’s positions, but to prioritize affiliation over personal writing both chills debate and is based on a false assumption that think tanks on either the left or right are homogeneous in opinion. Through self-selection, many think tanks lean more toward one side or another, but many Washington think tanks probably encompass more ideological diversity than the faculty of an average liberal arts college. And, even when they do not, the think-tank community appears more open to debating real ideological opponents than university or prep school colleagues who too often simply host self-affirming “teach-ins.”

At any rate, what caught my eye in The Exonian piece was this:

Head of the MLK Day Committee and English instructor Mercy Carbonell expressed her discomfort and disappointment with the school’s apparent endorsement of Grandy’s views on Islam. “I sat in the Assembly [on anti-Muslim sentiment] and listened to us respond to the national hate rhetoric, the Islamophobic language that is in the presidential race, that is in the newspapers I still pick up and read in ink. How will we explain that we chose to side with Islamophobia?”

Let’s put aside the fact that Grandy is neither speaking nor teaching about Islam. Carbonell added, perhaps as an attempt to suggest high-mindedness that, according to The Exonian:

“There is always a benefit in bringing together people who may share differing opinions.” However, she believed that “If it is a conservative voice we want to teach this course, there are plenty of decent, serious, non-inflammatory, likely-more-qualified alums we could choose.”

What is especially telling is that, about a decade ago, Carbonell published a comment in the New York Times expressing her disappointment in the 2006 elections. Here’s what she had to say:

When will PA or any state for that matter get a candidate who is beyond the realm of the “liberal” label? Does anyone in this unbelievably idiotic country have any radically left ideas anymore? The students I teach think Hillary Clinton is “left;” how completely misinformed they really are. There are no models and there may be no room in politics for the “left” in the America we have constructed today. And even when those models come along, they are portrayed as “freaks” rather that people who simply have an ideologically different perspective to propose. And then they are dismissed. Tragic!

How tolerant a person Carbonell must be to dismiss those who disagree with her as “unbelievably idiotic.” Elections and the will of the people must be so inconvenient in comparison to having a captive, even if “misinformed” class of students. Perhaps Exeter might want to remind Carbonell and her peers, though, of what irony is. One example might be complaining about the dismissal of those with divergent opinions, all the while trying to dismiss those with “an ideologically different perspective.” At the very least, Exeter might want to look at this current controversy to spark a real discussion of the value of free speech and thought in education, as well as the importance of challenging the ingrained assumptions of not only students but also faculty through broad, respectful debate.

Former Congressman Banned from Teaching Seminar at ​Elite ​New Hampshire School After ‘Islamophobia’ C​​harge

Screen-Shot-2016-01-28-at-10.03.33-PM-640x480Breitbart, by Jordan Schachtel, Jan. 29, 2016:

Fred Grandy (R-IA), a former Republican Congressman and actor, has been ​disinvited​ from hosting a seminar series on “Politics in Media” this winter at New Hampshire’s prestigious Phillips Exeter Academy, after individuals involved with the school raised concerns about his “Islamophobic ties.”

Grandy, who graduated from Harvard University and attended the Phillips Exeter Academy for high school, ​was the host of a very popular morning talk show on WMAL in Washington, D.C., and ​worked with the Center for Security Policy following his tenure in Congress. The Center is known for its advocacy of Ronald Reagan’s “peace through strength” foreign policy, and has been on the front lines of the battle against Islamic supremacists in America.

The Congressman told​ Breitbart News he wanted to give back to his high school alma mater and provide his expertise for the dozen or so students who had​ already​ signed up for his class.

He wanted to teach students how “politics and the media in this country have evolved, where they are now, and how campaigns operate.” Throughout the conversation, Grandy reiterated that he never planned on introducing any outside topics nor his allegedly controversial views on foreign policy and Islam.

Identifying as a former Republican Congressman didn’t seem to be a problem at first, he said: “What was a problem, evidently… was that somebody, somewhere decided to rummage through commentary that had been made about me.”

Here, Grandy is referring to “hit pieces” referenced in the The Exonian article that calls for him not to be allowed to teach the class. Left-wing blogs Mother Jones and the Huffington Post are referenced in the piece, which designate the accomplished actor and representative as an “Islamophobe.” The articles, for the most part, do not quote Grandy verbatim, but instead attack him for his views on terrorism committed in the name of Islam.

“The Exonian Published this article branding me as an ‘Islamophobe’ and purveyor of hate-speech,” he tells Breitbart News. “They didn’t even contact me beforehand to ask about these charges” relayed from the left wing outlets, he said.

“The attitude right now is that I’m a danger to the campus,” Grandy expressed. “There was a movement in the faculty to shut this [class] down.”

“I had no day in court. I had no recourse. Based on two articles, I’ve been tried and found guilty with no chance to plead my case,” he added.

“I was in Congress for eight years. I was on the radio and television for eight years doing news and commentary, and I felt that combination would be valuable,” Grandy said in noting his credentials to teach the class.

But since the “Islamophobia” issue came to light, Grandy ​told​ Breitbart News he has been on the receiving end of a “defamation assault as an alumnus who is simply trying to volunteer my time and expertise.”

“This is the new blacklist,” he said with regard to the attempted silencing of individuals who attempt to explore the ideologies within Islam. “The Islamic advocacy organizations have become adept at spinning” legitimate critiques and designating it as “hate speech,” he concluded.

Guandolo: Understanding the Threat

UTT, By John Guandolo, Jan. 5, 2016:

As we enter 2016 and the global jihad grows, it is critical for discerning Americans, and all people in the free West, to understand the threat we face in order to address and defeat it.

Massacre-Those-Insult-Islam

Our enemy identifies itself at the “Global Islamic Movement.”  It takes many forms and comes at us in many different ways.  The International Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is the primary driving force behind the global Movement, but there are parallel movements aligned with the Brotherhood such as Tablighi Jamaat, Jamaat e Islami and others.  These groups focus on bringing the Muslim community back to authentic Islam while softening the non-Muslim world to accept their “civilization alternative” to Western culture.

As the Muslim Brotherhood’s by-laws state, they do their work by making “every effort for the establishment of educational, social, economic and scientific institutions and the establishment of mosques, schools, clinics, shelters, clubs as well as the formation of committees to regulate zakat affairs and alms.”  Today, across Europe and North America, the Muslim Brotherhood created and controls a large portion of the Islamic organizations.  Yet, it is in the United States the MB has their greatest influence.

Apart from the MB and related jihadi movements, there are military jihadi organizations like Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Hamas, Hizbollah, and hundreds of others.

100% of these organizations and their members state they are Muslims waging jihad in the Cause of Allah (Jihad Fisabilillah) in order to establish the caliphate under sharia.

shariah signs

Sharia is everything in this war.  It is what the enemy seeks to impose on the world, and it is the blueprint for how they do everything they do.  That is why sharia is taught at the first grade level to Muslims in Islamic schools and mosques across the planet.  Islam teaches that Islam is “a complete way of life” – social, cultural, political, military, and religious – governed by sharia (Islamic Law).

100% of all published sharia obliges jihad until the world is under Islamic rule.  100% of sharia only defines jihad as “warfare against non-Muslims.”

shariah for britainSharia is a totalitarian system of governance, not a religious edict.

Why don’t “moderate Muslims” teach a softer “version” of Islam?  Because it is a capital crime in Islam for a Muslim to teach another Muslim something that is not true about Islam.  You would actually have to read sharia to know this.

Hint:  When buying books on Islam, do not go to your local bookstore.  Go to the mosque bookstore and buy books written by Islamic authorities for a Muslim audience.  Then ask yourself  “Why is this information exactly opposite of the information that is written in books for the non-Muslim audience?”

zone

Sharia is the threat doctrine of our enemy.  If you read and understand Sharia, you will:  know why Muslims yell “Allahu akbar” before they commit an act of jihad; understand why in 15 years “Islamic advisors” to our government have not mentioned that “Jihad” is only defined in Islamic law as “warfare against non-Muslims”; and you will see why “Islamophobia” is not a random term but a term of art meant to identify people who violate the Islamic Law of Slander (a capital crime in Islam), which is defined as saying anything about a Muslim or Islam that a Muslim would “dislike.”

Sharia is the threat doctrine.  Those who practice Sharia and seek to impose it by all means necessary are the threat.

sharia poster

There is only one organization in the United States teaching law enforcement, military, and community organizations about the Muslim Brotherhood’s jihadi Movement and network here, their doctrine (Sharia), their modus operandi, and ways law enforcement can identify and defeat the network in their area – Understanding the Threat (UTT).

UTT intends on fighting the good fight until the fight is done.  UTT needs allies who know and understand the threat.  Join us!

Progressive “Thought-Blockers”: Islamophobia

ol

Frontpage, by Bruce Thornton, Dec. 30, 2015:

A few days before the San Bernardino shootings, President Obama reacted to Donald Trump’s proposal to bar Muslims entry into the U.S. by saying, “It is the responsibility of all Americans––of every faith––to reject discrimination.  It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country . . . Muslim Americans are our friends and our neighbors, our co-workers, our sports heroes.” Attorney General Loretta Lynch went even further. In an address at the Muslim Advocates dinner, she commented,

“Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone . . . lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric, or, as we saw after 9/11, violence against individuals who may not even be Muslims but may be perceived to be Muslims . . . When we see that, we will take action”––or as she warns, “They will be prosecuted.”

How is that Muslims have become “snowflakes” like those pampered college students so traumatized by opposing points of view that they need “safe spaces” from speech they don’t like, and demand scrapping the First Amendment? For an answer, look to another progressive “thought-blocker,” “Islamophobia.”

This made-up thought-crime is not a response to an epidemic of Muslim persecution in America. Sixty percent of anti-religious hate crimes are directed at Jews, not Muslims. Nor is it penance for historical crimes committed by Christians and Jews against Muslims, whether those are imperialism, colonialism, or Israel’s defense of its nation against incessant violence. Islam’s record of slaughter, enslavement, and occupation far eclipses that of the West.

Rather, “Islamophobia” is the product of peculiarly modern bad ideas. It surfaced in 1997 in a report by a British think-tank, the Runnymede Trust. The purpose was to explain the social dysfunctions and problems of British Muslims, which were laid at the feet of “anti-Islamic bias” that encouraged discrimination, hate crimes against Muslims, and distortions of Islam in the media and popular culture. In 2004 the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia––notice how the name begs the question––concluded that England was “institutionally Islamophobic.” Facts of illiberal Muslim behavior such as its unequal treatment of women, intolerance of other faiths, and radical mosques preaching intolerance and jihad were ignored.

So where does “Islamophobia” come from? Start with the suffix “phobia,” from the Greek word for “fear.” This is a vaguely Freudian psychological idea referring to an irrational fear that reflects not reality but repression of unsavory or frightening impulses. After all, fearing a dangerous black widow spider is not irrational. Fearing a harmless brown recluse is. The suffix as used in other ideological smears like “homophobia” or “xenophobia” always implies that the fear is baseless, and has more to do with irrational neuroses and bigotry than genuine threats.  “Islamophobia,” then, begs a huge question, for it is perfectly rational to fear a danger like terrorist violence justified by religious doctrine.

Thus the purveyors of this epithet have to downplay or minimize the very real threat of jihadist violence, reducing people’s reactions and demands for improved security to a mental problem. The president implied as much in his recent comments purged from a New York Times interview, when he said “he did not see enough cable television to fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino,” implying that people were reacting to ginned up scare-stories on Fox News rather than a real threat. He added to this analysis when on NPR he claimed ISIS was not an “existential threat,” and said its real danger is “making us forget who we are” and our “values,” which obviously means in part irrationally indulging in anti-Muslim bigotry and “Islamophobia” out of neurotic fears stoked by Donald Trump.

More important than two-bit Freudianism for the currency of “Islamophobia” has been the work of Edward Said, the main source of most of the malign ideas that poison our discourse on Islam with self-loathing and dismissal of reality. The colonial West, according to Said in Orientalism, invented the Muslim “other” as inferior and violent in order to justify Western dominance of the region, creating a “Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the orient.” In a later book Said argued that the Muslim terrorist was another “other” fabricated to create “both a peculiarly immediate sense of hostility and a coarse, on the whole unnuanced attitude toward Islam,” the purpose of which is to serve “national and corporate needs.” These needs created the “highly exaggerated stereotypes” of Muslims highjacking airplanes and blowing up buildings. As Lee Smith points out, Said set the terms of how journalists and intellectuals talked about Islam and Muslims––as the crude “other” invented to mask Western oppression and “Islamophobia.” The reflexive self-loathing and guilt that lie at the heart of “Islamophobia” found their most influential enabler in Said’s work.

The fear of being “Islamophobic” in part explains the whitewashing flattery of Islam that has characterized the government even before 9/11. In the late 90s, when Osama bin Laden was already waging war on America, Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright gushed that Islam is a “faith that honors consultation, cherishes peace, and has as one of its fundamental principles the inherent equality of all who embrace it.” George Bush said that Islam’s “teachings are good and peaceful” and that terrorists like bin Laden “blaspheme the name of Allah.” And of course Barack Obama has been the most fulsome and groveling in his praise of Islam. He carefully says “the Prophet Mohammed” and “Holy Koran,” while never saying “Our Lord Jesus Christ” or “Holy Bible.” He has leached traditional Islamic doctrines from the motives driving jihadists, and regularly condemns “Islamophobia” as a greater threat to America than Muslim terrorist violence. But the top prize for such myopic pandering to Muslims goes to ex-Army Chief of Staff George W. Casey, who responded to the 2009 Fort Hood jihadist attack that killed 13 by saying, “As horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

The worst consequence of the “Islamophobia” phobia has been the distortion of our analyses of the jihadists’ motives. The specious psychology of the apologists holds that the insults or policies born of “Islamophobia” offend Muslims and create more terrorists. Or as Obama said of Trump’s proposal to screen Muslims entering the country, “plays into the hands of groups like ISIL,” for “when we travel down that road, we lose.” Hillary Clinton has played this same card, calling Donald Trump ISIS’ “greatest recruiter” and “recruitment poster,” and falsely claiming that Trump is used in ISIS recruitment videos. Thus her constant calls to cater to Muslims in America, who she sees as genuine, peaceful Muslims, and thus our natural allies against the “hijackers” like ISIS. “We must work more closely with Muslim-Americans,” Clinton said recently, “not demonize them” or make them “feel left out or marginalized” since they’re trying “to stop radicalization.” Of course she ignores the fact that CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the most influential Muslim lobby in America, continually apologizes and rationalizes jihadist terror, and encourages Muslims not to cooperate with the FBI.

“Islamophobia” is not just intellectually incoherent and loaded with cringing self-hatred. It is deadly.  In order not to wound Muslim sensibilities and create a “backlash,” egregious rules of engagement are imposed on our warriors that sacrifice their lives by proscribing the destruction of mosques and dwellings harboring arsenals and snipers; common sense calls to limit Syrian economic immigrants are rejected; government security training documents are purged of references to Islamic jihadist doctrines; Guantanamo is demonized as a “recruiter” for terrorists from which actual terrorists must be released; Orwellian Newspeak is employed to “disappear” the precedents for terror in Islamic scripture and practice; and radical mosques and imams in America are given free rein to proselytize and recruit.

We’ve been at this tactic of flattery for decades, and there’s no evidence it works. America is no more liked among Middle Eastern Muslims today than when George Bush left office. Terrorist groups have multiplied and spread despite our anxious protestations of our admiration for their religion, even as we ignore the genocide of Christians in the Middle East. Jihadism is strong and growing, attracting thousands of Western Muslims to the fight against the infidel. And jihad, abetted by the anxiety over “Islamophobia,” is winning the hearts and minds of the youth demographic. As the Atlantic reports, globally jihad is “cool,” a false but glamorous promise of redeeming violence and transcendent meaning powerfully attractive in a Western world marked by anomic secularism and trivial hedonism.

“Islamophobia” blocks clear thinking. It ignores the traditional Islamic motives that drive jihadists, trivializing them into wayward teens who “act out” because their self-esteem has been damaged by insensitive adults, and who merely need their self-esteem boosted by recognition of how wonderful their religion and culture are. A foreign policy based on such pop-psychological superstitions is one doomed to fail.

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, a Research Fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, and a Professor of Classics and Humanities at the California State University. He is the author of nine books and numerous essays on classical culture and its influence on Western Civilization. His most recent book, Democracy’s Dangers and Discontents (Hoover Institution Press), is now available for purchase

HR 569: CAIR’s Standard Operating Procedure

monumentGates of Vienna, by Frontinus, Dec. 30, 2015:

Your American readers who aren’t aware of HR569 probably should be, and your European and Canadian readers may be interested to learn just how successful the Muslim Brotherhood has been in its penetration of the U.S. government, and how close we are to seeing the full implementation of U.N. Resolution 16/18 in this country.

flagusaikhwanThis resolution won’t pass, of course, but that isn’t what’s significant about of it. What’s important is the process that is now underway in Washington D.C., of which HR 569 is just a small part.

First, take a look at the text of HR 569:

Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.

Whereas the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes and rhetoric have faced physical, verbal, and emotional abuse because they were Muslim or believed to be Muslim;

Whereas the constitutional right to freedom of religious practice is a cherished United States value and violence or hate speech towards any United States community based on faith is in contravention of the Nation’s founding principles;

Whereas there are millions of Muslims in the United States, a community made up of many diverse beliefs and cultures, and both immigrants and native-born citizens;

Whereas this Muslim community is recognized as having made innumerable contributions to the cultural and economic fabric and well-being of United States society;

Whereas hateful and intolerant acts against Muslims are contrary to the United States values of acceptance, welcoming, and fellowship with those of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;

Whereas these acts affect not only the individual victims but also their families, communities, and the entire group whose faith or beliefs were the motivation for the act;

Whereas Muslim women who wear hijabs, headscarves, or other religious articles of clothing have been disproportionately targeted because of their religious clothing, articles, or observances; and

Whereas the rise of hateful and anti-Muslim speech, violence, and cultural ignorance plays into the false narrative spread by terrorist groups of Western hatred of Islam, and can encourage certain individuals to react in extreme and violent ways: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes;
(2) steadfastly confirms its dedication to the rights and dignity of all its citizens of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;
(3) denounces in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against mosques, Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslim;
(4) recognizes that the United States Muslim community has made countless positive contributions to United States society;
(5) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all United States citizens, including Muslims in the United States, should be protected and preserved;
(6) urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes; and
(7) reaffirms the inalienable right of every citizen to live without fear and intimidation, and to practice their freedom of faith.

Once again, this will not pass. However, the fact that 82 Democrats have co-sponsored it will be used to validate the Muslim Brotherhood (CAIR, ISNA, MPAC, etc. etc.) claim that hate crimes have increased (and of course they haven’t for Muslims, although they may have increased against Jews in America, who are historically identified in FBI statistics as victimized in hate crimes five to ten times more frequently than Muslims in America).

flagusaummahThis is the usual modus operandi used by the Ikhwan, and it’s a consistent systems approach. (As indeed is the entire jihad-dawa approach to supremacism a systems approach. I recommend Jasser Auda’s text Maqasid Al-Shariah as Philosophy of Islamic Law: A Systems Approach — it’s light on the jihad doctrine, but gets to the broader implications of Shariah as a closed system with open-ended ambitions.)

This House Resolution follows the usual Standard Operating Procedure, now so predictable I’m surprised there isn’t an ISO standard for it internationally: Any terrorist incident is followed by MB claims (some fabricated, some undocumented, some exaggerated) of increased hate crimes followed by efforts to externally validate those claims, as in this House Resolution. There follow efforts to censor 1) any speech that associates the terrorist incident with Islam, and 2) any criticism of the jihad-dawa system, its activist organizations, or its dhimmi supporters.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat. Easy to diagram or flowchart.

So it won’t pass, but it’s still useful to the Muslim Brotherhood to validate their claims among their own constituency, as well as to the media and the Low Information Voters, or those who just respond to any kind of “virtue-signaling”. And it’s useful to the 82 co-sponsoring Democrats, and the Democratic National Committee as a whole, to claim that all Republicans who did not co-sponsor are therefore, by definition:

  • racist;
  • Islamophobic;
  • bigoted;
  • engaged in hate speech, by the sin of omission of not cosponsoring; and
  • engaged in incitement to hate crimes, by the implied sin of hate speech resulting from the sin of omission of not co-sponsoring.

It’s also worth noting that there are 188 Democrats in the House of Representatives, and 246 Republicans. So unless this gets a lot of new co-sponsors in 2016, a counter-argument against the DNC on this Resolution would be that it has met with overwhelming bi-partisan opposition from the majority of Democrats (106) and all Republicans in the House.

I think it both strategically and tactically effective not just to criticize the efforts of adversaries, but to point out when they’re losing dramatically, rather than to magnify their actual loss into the appearance of a victory. Of course, 2016 could bring new co-sponsors and then a bigger battle will be on.

But yes, it is a successful effort for the target audiences at which it is aimed, including the foreign funders for CAIR, ISNA etc., all of whom will be tickled pink that this bill has 82 co-sponsors. As will the OIC, who might have helped a bit in drafting the Resolution.

However, I think the American public as a whole isn’t very sympathetic.

SDSU: Muslim Student Association demands “zero tolerance policy explicitly for Islamophobic speech”

Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, Dec. 28, 2015:

Here again we see how Leftist and Islamic supremacist groups use the term “Islamophobia” for both attacks on innocent civilians, which have no justification under any circumstances, and for honest examination of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to incite hatred and violence. These groups use the former to quash the latter, which will have the effect of allowing the jihad to advance unimpeded and unopposed.

Is that what the MSA wants? Probably, since it is a Muslim Brotherhood organization. According toDiscover the Networks, “The Muslim Students Association of the United States and Canada, or MSA (also known as MSA National), was established mainly by members of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in January 1963 at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Nyack College theologian Larry A. Poston writes that “many of the founding members of this agency [MSA] were members of, or had connections to,” the Muslim Brotherhood or Jamaat-i-Islami. The three most significant founders of MSA were Hisham al Talib, Jamal Barzinji, and Ahmed Totanji, and all of whom were MB leaders of Iraqi descent. Other noteworthy individuals who served as early co-founders of MSA were Mahboob Khan and Malika Khan.”

Meanwhile, our nation’s universities are increasingly becoming thuggish centers of Leftist indoctrination where opposing views are forcibly silenced. This holds true across the country, from ostensibly Catholic entities such as Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire to secular ones such as San Diego State University.

MSA-SDSU

“Muslim Student Association demands all ‘Islamophobic speech’ be punished,” by Alec Dent,College Fix, December 28, 2015:

The Muslim Student Association at San Diego State University is demanding that administrators combat Islamophobia by developing a “zero tolerance policy explicitly for Islamophobic speech and actions.”

The demands, modeled after similar ones issued by black student associations at campuses across the nation, were lodged after a female Muslim student was allegedly attacked by a white man in a campus parking lot on the afternoon of Nov. 19, about a week after the Paris terrorist attacks, which killed 130 people.

At SDSU, despite reports that several witnesses stood by and did nothing as the attacker grabbed the woman’s hijab, as well as a police sketch of the alleged attacker, a police investigation could not identify a suspect, according to the San Diego Union Tribune.

Meanwhile, the female student who said she was attacked has not been identified. But she told Hanif Mohebi, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations-San Diego, that her attacker grabber her from “behind,” called her a terrorist, “choked her with the hajib” and told her to “get out of this country,” the Union Tribune reports.

Several comments on the article expressed incredulity over the attack, questioning whether it is a hate-crime hoax.

Yet less than a week after the alleged hate crime, SDSU’s Muslim Student Association held a protest against Islamophobia on campus that attracted hundreds of students.

Yasser Kaziha, a member of the Muslim Student Association, said that he personally knew the victim of the attack, and “when the attack on our Muslim sister happened here at SDSU, she felt alone after bystanders and witnesses who watched the attack did nothing,” he told the Union Tribune.

At the rally, the Muslim Student Association issued its list of demands, which members claim will help prevent future acts of bigotry against the Muslim community.

They demanded that the university adopt a zero-tolerance policy toward “Islamophobic speech,” mandatory bystander training, develop more courses on Islam, and increase funding for The Center for Intercultural Relations. Moreover, they demanded that “the SDSU administration address, alleviate, and eliminate systems of oppression that disproportionately target students of color, womyn, and all marginalized students on campus.”

Beth Chee, a representative for the university, told The College Fix in an email that the university has not issued a formal response to the demands, but members of the administration have reviewed the list and are currently “meeting internally and with the students to discuss their concerns.”…

A Congressional Overture to Censorship

HouseCensor3 001The Rule of Reason, by Edward Cline, December 22, 2015:

Stephen Coughlin alerted me to a House Resolution introduced on December 17th, H.Res.569, “Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.114th Congress (2015-2016).”  As of this writing, the country remains clueless about this development.

The resolution was introduced by Virginia Democrat Donald S. Beyer, and sponsored by Frank Pallone, a New Jersey Democrat, and endorsed by seventy-one other Representatives, most of them Democrats, and possibly a sprinkling of Republicans. The resolution has gone into committee, but one can predict with confidence that it will emerge virtually unscathed and unaltered. After all, the “victims” are Muslims, and the House wishes to put it in the record that certain of its members are against hurting anyone’s feelings.

Many of the usual suspects have endorsed the resolution: Keith Ellison, a Democrat and Muslim from Minnesota; Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Democrat and chairman of the Democratic National Committee; Charles Rangel, New York Democrat; and Alan Grayson, a Democrat from Florida. Most of the other endorsers’ names I do not recognize. They are all termites who have made careers of eating away at the rule of law and “transforming” America from a Western nation into a multicultural, welfare-statist, politically correct stewpot of no particular character.

Resolutions of this nature have a tendency to be reintroduced later as binding legislation to be forwarded to the Senate. The introduction of this resolution is not yet newsworthy, but it will be if it emerges intact from committee to be voted on by the whole House. One suspects that H.Res.569 was inspired by U.S.  Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s promise to an audience of Muslim Advocates on December 3rd that she would spend efforts to combat and prosecute anyone guilty of anti-Muslim speech. I do not think the two-week gap between Lynch’s pronouncements and the introduction of the resolution is coincidental. It probably took two weeks to compose and fine-tune its wording.

Interestingly, the term “Islamophobia” does not occur in the resolution text. That may or may not have been oversight on the part of the resolution’s backers. But Coughlin, in Parts IV through VI in Catastrophic Failure, reveals in detail the Muslim Brotherhood’s and the  Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s (OIC) mutual and complementary obsession with having Islamophobia quashed and prohibited on pain of penalty, worldwide, but especially in the U.S.

Nevertheless, as Coughlin explains in great detail in his book, the language of the House resolution mirrors the OIC’s Islamophobia narrative being implemented domestically. See my reviews of Coughlin’s book here.

Missing from the list of backers of the resolution is one Republican of note:Michael McCaul, who represents the 10th District in Texas. He is now chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. But he is very friendly with envoys and officers of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). A Breitbart article chronicled one encounter, “McCaul Meets With Islamic Leader Who Says U.S. Muslims Are ‘Above Law Of Land,” from February 2015.

House Homeland Security Committee chairman Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) was photographed with—and wrote a personal note in silver sharpie to—an Islamic leader who said practicing Muslims in the United States are “above the law of the land.”

On May 13, 2013, McCaul held an open house at a district office in Katy, Texas. While McCaul’s Facebook posting announcing the open house said an RSVP was required, a spokeswoman for McCaul told Breitbart News that Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Houston branch executive director Mustafa Carroll showed up without notice.

During the open house, McCaul and Carroll were photographed speaking to one another. On top of the photograph, in silver sharpie, McCaul wrote to Carroll: “To Mustafa and the Council on American Islamic Relations, the moderate Muslim is our most effective weapon—Michael McCaul, TX-10.” (Italics mine)

The most effective weapon against what?? America? See Michael McCaul’s denial of reality in Coughlin’s Catastrophic Failure, Section VI, p. 401.

In parsing this resolution, let’s first examine all the Whereas’s first:

Whereas the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes and rhetoric have faced physical, verbal, and emotional abuse because they were Muslim or believed to be Muslim;

I think I can count the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes committed in the U.S. on the fingers of one hand; I don’t immediately recall any Muslim of either gender in the U.S. of being physically assaulted as Europeans are now being attacked and raped by Muslim gangs of immigrants and “refugees.” I do not think the scarcity of reports of anti-Muslim hate crimes is due to the news media’s oversight; there is just a paucity of such crimes, unless one counts publically burning aKoran or hanging a side of bacon on the front door of a mosque. But one can be sure that when one occurs, the news media will be all over it like raspberry jam on a muffin.  As for “verbal abuse,” that’s covered in the criminal code, so a House resolution on the subject is redundant. Does the code really need another superfluous category that pertains only to Muslims? Is  Congress now turning to maintaining the emotional health and welfare of Muslims? It seems so. There is the nanny state, complemented by the nursemaid state.

Whereas the constitutional right to freedom of religious practice is a cherished United States value and violence or hate speech towards any United States community based on faith is in contravention of the Nation’s founding principles;

Note how “violence” and “hate speech” are paired together, as though they were synonymous offenses, which they are not. “Hate speech,” which I have argued for years is an illegitimate concept (prosecute the demonstrable crime, not the contents of a person’s mind), has no metaphysical power to physically harm anyone. For words to be capable of actually harming anyone, they would need to “spoken” by a kind of paintball gun rigged to replicate the sound of an insult as a mass of air that could knock a person flat on his tosh. Words on paper, words transmitted through the air, are not tangible weapons. Further, “hate speech” is not in “contravention” to the nation’s founding principles. It hadn’t been invented yet, and, it being an illegitimate category of crime, it is not to be confused with genuine slander or libel. Those offenses our Founding Fathers knew something about, most of them having been lawyers schooled in British law.

Whereas there are millions of Muslims in the United States, a community made up of many diverse beliefs and cultures, and both immigrants and native-born citizens;

And? So what? Those millions of Muslims and their mosques expect to be deferred to and accommodated because their “faith” requires it. No mention anywhere in the resolution of the practice of female genital mutilations, honor killings, beheadings, arranged marriages that often send a girl or woman to Pakistan or some other Sharia-governed country, and sermons advocating jihadand not cooperating with the authorities when the latter are investigating genuine “hate crimes,” such as the Boston Marathon bombing and the San Bernardino massacre by….Muslims. No mention of Muslims bringing into this country their age-old sectarian animosities between Muslims, no mention either of their “cultural” hatred and contempt for Western liberties, so often articulated by Muslim spokesmen.

Whereas this Muslim community is recognized as having made innumerable contributions to the cultural and economic fabric and well-being of United States society;

“Innumerable contributions”? Which ones? I can’t think of any advances in medicine, science, literature, or any of the other arts that Muslims have contributed to American society. In terms of an economic contribution, I can think of a spike in gun sales to Americans who, for some strange reason, wish to arm themselves against Islamic depredations. I can see, too, how the presence of millions of Muslims is tearing the fabric of our Western society, because their “culture” is alien and hostile to everything America stands for. Again, in terms of economics, there are the millions of Muslims who have gravitated toward the welfare state and working as little as possible, if ever. Most American Muslims are here for the same reason millions of Muslims want to settle and colonize Germany, Britain, Sweden, and other European welfare states.

Whereas hateful and intolerant acts against Muslims are contrary to the United States values of acceptance, welcoming, and fellowship with those of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;

Come again? Where do we see that “welcoming and fellowship” of Muslims with Jews? With Christians? Except in some bogus “outreach” program or in interfaith “dialogue”? There is a word that covers the act of a Muslim willing to talk civilly with Jews and Christians: hudna, or a temporary truce that Muslims are willing to endure to buy time or gain the trust of infidels. The Koran, however, specifically prohibits Muslims from being friends with infidels or treating them as equals. Any “friendship” or “dialogue” that occurs between Muslims and infidels is simply the practice of dawah, or attempts to persuade infidels to convert to Islam.  Effusive protestations of “friendship” with non-Muslims are but practiced taqiyya.

On the other hand, Koran 003.118 goes:
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks: They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin: Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse. We have made plain to you the Signs, if ye have wisdom.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Take not for intimates others than your own folk, who would spare no pains to ruin you; they love to hamper you. Hatred is revealed by (the utterance of) their mouths, but that which their breasts hide is greater. We have made plain for you the revelations if ye will understand.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not take for intimate friends from among others than your own people; they do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater still; indeed, We have made the communications clear to you, if you will understand.

Point made. There is much more where that came from. Raymond Ibrahim, for example, has an excellent post on the role of taqiyya and false friendships, “Islam’s Doctrines of Deception.” Or absorb Stephen Coughlin’s section on “Interfaith Outreach” in Catastrophic Failure.

Whereas these acts affect not only the individual victims but also their families, communities, and the entire group whose faith or beliefs were the motivation for the act;

So, we mustn’t consider the individual victims of Islamic terrorism, nor their families and friends. Only alleged Muslim victims and their families, and communities, and the whole Islamic ummah can claim victimhood. Non-Muslim victims of Islamic terrorism are simply blanked-out when Muslim victimhood is making the rounds in Washington, D.C.  See the CNS report on the number of anti-Muslim “hate crimes” here.

According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports: Hate Crime Statistics, 2014, there were 1,140 victims of anti-religious hate crimes in the U.S. in 2014. “Of the 1,140 victims of anti-religious hate crimes: 56.8 percent [56.8%] were victims of crimes motivated by their offenders’ anti-Jewish bias.” That amounts to approximately 647.52 instances where Jewish individuals, businesses or institutions were targeted. A mere “16.1 percent [16.1%] were victims of anti-Islamic (Muslim) bias,” amounting to approximately 183.54 instances where Muslim individuals, businesses or institutions were targeted.

Whereas Muslim women who wear hijabs, headscarves, or other religious articles of clothing have been disproportionately targeted because of their religious clothing, articles, or observances; and

If they have been disproportionately “targeted” for “discrimination” it is because such garb is 1) required of Muslim women, otherwise they are beaten or assaulted or honor-killed by other Muslims; and 2) because women are regarded in Islam as second-class human beings, as chattel.  Muslim women who wear the full burqa or other garb that covers their faces are not to be trusted because too many of them have been suicide bombers.

Whereas the rise of hateful and anti-Muslim speech, violence, and cultural ignorance plays into the false narrative spread by terrorist groups of Western hatred of Islam, and can encourage certain individuals to react in extreme and violent ways:

This is perhaps the most obtuse and odious “Whereas” in the resolution’s text. Islamic terrorist groups do not engage in “false narratives”; they mean what they say and they as a rule quote chapter and verse from the Koran about why they do what they do. Western “hate speech” does not “play into the hands of terrorists”; we, however, are putty in their hands because we have adopted the false narrative that the terrorists have “hijacked” a “peaceful religion” or have a perverted interpretation of “kill the Jew or Christian if he does not submit or pay jizya.” To wit:

Qur’an (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Suras 9 and 5 are the last “revelations” that Muhammad narrated – hence abrogating what came before, including the oft-quoted verse 2:256 –“There is no compulsion in religion…”.

That is from the horse’s mouth. It can’t be “perverted.”

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes;

(2) steadfastly confirms its dedication to the rights and dignity of all its citizens of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;

(3) denounces in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against mosques, Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslim;

(4) recognizes that the United States Muslim community has made countless positive contributions to United States society;

(5) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all United States citizens, including Muslims in the United States, should be protected and preserved;

(6) urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes; and

(7) reaffirms the inalienable right of every citizen to live without fear and intimidation, and to practice their freedom of faith.

Commentary on these seven points would be redundant.

Someone, please, tell me that H.Res.569 is not in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. That it is not thoroughly and treacherously unconstitutional, aside from it being a commiserating overture to censorship and a not-so-subtle recasting of the UN/OIC Resolution 16/18, which would criminalize freedom of speech about Islam and Muslims, regardless of the form the speech takes.

Someone please tell me that H.Res.569 is not a formal recognition and application of Sharia law, which also purports to be the “law of the land” in contravention of the U.S. Constitution being the “law of the land.”

No one can deny it. No one can say that the resolution does not represent an itch to legally gag Americans when they try to discuss Islam and the Obama-enabled invasion of this country by enemy aliens. No one can tell me that this resolution is not a victory for the Muslim Brotherhood and the OIC.

Doubtless, the House resolution cannot be declared unconstitutional because it is a mere opinion expressed by members of the House. It does not carry the force of law. Therefore, it cannot be enforced or entered into the statutes, provided it survives, as a bill intended to become a law, vetting by the Senate, and is signed by the President.

To become the “law of the land.” Barack Obama would not hesitate to sign it.

Also see:

UTT Reviews Final Republican Presidential Debate of 2015

debate1UTT, by John Guandolo, Dec. 16, 2015:

Last night (Tuesday) in Las Vegas, Nevada the Republican candidates for President met for their last debate of 2015.  The focus of the debate was national security with a large portion of the discussion dedicated to ISIS and the jihadi threat.

UTT now offers a few comments on this debate and each candidate specifically as it relates to their positions on the Islamic threat.

Sadly, there were several illogical streams of thought from the candidates with regard to the Global Islamic Movement, the most obvious of which was the focus primarily on ISIS and the concerns surrounding that, and no spoken understanding of the larger Islamic Movement.

The candidates generally proclaimed:

  1. We cannot defeat ISIS without partnering with the Muslim world and using Arab forces
  2. Banning Muslim immigration to U.S. will hurt us in defeating ISIS
  3. ISIS is “radical” and the threat is primarily “over there”
  4. There was no mention of sharia as the enemy threat doctrine
  5. The Saudis are our friends
  6. There was no mention of destroying Iran’s military capability
  7. There was no mention that most Islamic Centers/Mosques and Islamic organizations in America are hostile/jihadist and, therefore, pose a threat to the American people.
  8. There was no mention that all of the recent jihadi attacks in America are directly tied to the Muslim Brotherhood’s network here

The following are key quotes from the candidates with brief comments by UTT included:

Senator Ted Cruz:  Senator Cruz seemed to understand the jihadi threat better than the other candidates, and gave a more narrow definition of the threat than we have heard thus far.  He also mentioned the Muslim Brotherhood and called them a “terrorist organization.”  Senator Cruz highlighted the absurdity of an American government relying on “moderate Muslims” to change the course of the war, and made clear that border and port security were high priorities.

“Its not a war on a faith, its a war on a political and theocratic ideology that seeks to murder us…what (carpet bombing ISIS in their capital) means is using overwhelming air power to utterly and completely defeat ISIS…we need to use overwhelming air power, we need to be arming the Kurds, we need to be fighting and killing ISIS where they are.”

“We keep hearing from President Obama and Hillary Clinton, and Washington Republicans that they’re searching for these mythical moderate rebels.  Its like a purple unicorn – they never exist. These moderate rebels end up being jihadists.”

“(Immigration) is directly related to what we have been talking about, because the front line with ISIS isn’t just in Iraq and Syria.  Its also in Kennedy Airport and the Rio Grande.  Border security is national security.”

In making the comment that Muslims in India are not prone to the type of activities we see from ISIS, Senator Cruz showed a lack of understanding of the Muslim community there, as many do support and are involved in the jihad.   Overall, however, he clearly understands this threat better than the others.

Donald Trump:  Mr. Trump stated he is willing to take the fight to the enemy by destorying ISIS using all means necessary, but did not demonstrate an understanding of the nature of the threat here in the United States.  He reaffirmed his commitment to pause immigration of refugees and Muslims.

When asked about his ban on Muslims and refugees Mr. Trump stated, “We are not talking about isolation. We are talking about security.  We are not talking about religion, we are talking about security…as far as other people like in the migration, where they are going, tens of thousands of people having cell phones with ISIS flags on them…they are not coming to this country…and if Obama has brought some to this country, they are leaving, they are going, they’re gone.”

Mr. Trump left little doubt he will address this threat head-on, and will do what needs to be done to protect America, regardless of what critics say.

Dr. Ben Carson:  On two occasions, Dr. Carson called for Congress to declare war on ISIS, and was the only candidate to mention the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategic document discovered at the 2004 FBI raid in Annandale, Virginia where the archives of the MB were found.  Many of these documents were entered into the US v Holy Land Foundation trial which was the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial in American history (Dallas, 2008).  None of the candidates explained the MB network here or layed out the evidence from the HLF trial other than Dr. Carson’s brief comment.

“We need to be on a war footing.  We need to understand that our nation is in grave danger….What the Muslim Brotherhood said in the Explanatory Memorandum that was discovered during the Holy Land Foundation trial is that they will take advantage of our PC attitude to get us.”

We have to “shut down all the mechanisms whereby they can disperse money because they go after disaffected individuals all over the place…”

Governor Chris Christie:  Governor Christie emphasized his experience as a federal prosecutor, and it is a pretty strong record on which to stand.  However, his record of defending suit wearing jihadists is also clear, and he has demonstrated his lack of understanding of Islam and sharia.  This means if he is put in a position of leadership at the federal level, he will likely continue the Bush administration’s practice of focusing on jihadis who want to shoot people and blow things up while the suit-wearing jihadis write American foreign and domestic policy on these matters.

“On ISIS, lets be clear, the President needs to be a force that is trusted in the world…if you’re the King of Jordan, if you’re in the royal family in Saudi Arabia, and he’s made this deal with Iran which gives them $150 billion to wage a war and try to extend their empire across the Middle East, why would you want to do it (fight in a coalition against Asad’s forces) now?  But I’ll tell you this, when I stand across from King Hussein of Jordan and I say to him you have a friend again sir who will stand with you again to fight this fight, he’ll change his mind.”

Governor Christie also proclaimed that ISIS was formed because of Iran, again highlighting his lack of understanding that jihad is an obligation for all Muslims until the world is under Islamic rule.

“ISIS is created and formed because of the abuse that Asad and his Iranian sponsors have rained down on the sunnis in Syria…we need to focus our attention on Iran, because if you miss Iran you are not going to get ISIS.  The two are inextricably connected because one causes the other.”

Governor Christie was strong and resolute on not allowing Syrian refugees into the US because the FBI Director says the FBI cannot vet them.

Senator Rand Paul stated the United States needs to “defeat terrorism” and that  “Regime change hasn’t won.  Toppling secular dictators in the Middle East has only led to chaos and the rise of radical Islam.”

This again reveals a strategic misunderstanding of what we are dealing with.  The rise of the Islamic armies is a function of sharia, not of Israel, toppling dictators, Iran, or anything else.  Our mis-steps hurt us strategically, but these events are not the driving force behind the global jihad – Islamic doctrine is.

“We get so distracted by all of the information, we are spending time getting specific information on terrorists…by arming the allies of ISIS, the Islamic rebels against Asad, that we created a safe space or made that space bigger for ISIS to grow.  I think those who have wanted regime change have made a mistake.”

It should be noted, however, that UTT believes “regime change” should not be the focus, but destroying the enemy in all forms should.  Our objective was to help establish democratic-style governments in Afghanistan and Iraq, and today they are Islamic Republics under sharia.

Governor John Kasich’s perspective of wanting to unify Republicans and Democrats seems to ignore the reality that the Democrat party at the federal level is now a socialist-based party with no desire to defend American principles or our national security.

“We need to unify” with democrats.

He also verbalized his approval of trusting and working with Saudi Arabia – the largest funder of the global jihad besides Iran.  “The Saudis have organized 34 countries who want to join in the battle against terrorism.  First and foremost, we need to go and destroy ISIS, and we need to do this with our Arab friends and our friends in Europe.”

“(Asad) has to go. Asad is aligned with Iran and Russia.  The one thing we want to prevent is we want to prevent Iran being able to extend a shia crescent all across the Middle East.  Asad has got to go.  And there are moderates there.  There are moderates in Syria we should be supporting….At the end, the Saudis have agreed to put together a coalition inside of Syria to stabilize that country.”

While Governor Kasich stated he does not support allowing Syrian refugees into the United States, his desire to rely on “moderate” Muslims in places like Syria reveals a grave lack of understanding of the threat.

Carly Fiorina:  Mrs. Fiorina seems focused on using technology to win the war, which is not surprising given her background.  However, her common sense approach to most things may mean she is likely open to the truth at a deeper level.

Her desire to have Muslims in the coalition, again, highlights a lack of strategic understanding of this threat.  “We must have sunni Arabs involved in this coalition.”

“We need to deny (ISIS) territory.  Here at home we need to do two fundamental things…we need to recognize that technology has moved on…and the terrorists have moved on with it…We now learn that DHS says ‘no we can’t check their social media.’  For heaven’s sake, every parent in America is checking social media and every employer is as well, but our government can’t do it…our government has become incompetent, unresponsive, corrupt.  And that incompetence, ineptitude, lack of accountability, is now dangerous…One of the things I would immediately do, in addition to defeating them here at home, is bring back the warrior class.”

Mrs. Fiorina understands we need warriors to lead this fight.  UTT only slightly disagrees with her specific comments in that we need more warriors/leaders like General Mattis and less like General Petraeus.

Governor Jeb Bush:  Governor Bush believes the Arab world needs to create the strategy to defeat ISIS without acknowledging the Muslim world is conflicted because what ISIS is doing is often right in line with Islamic doctrine.  He strongly disagrees with Mr. Trump’s proposal to ban Muslim immigration for a time period specifically because – according to Mr. Bush – it will hurt America’s ability to engage the Muslim world.  Governor Bush seems to be unaware that a large portion of the Muslim world is already at war with us.

“We need to destroy ISIS in the caliphate.  That should be our objective.  The refugee issue will be solved if we destroy ISIS there…All of that has to be done in concert with the Arab nations.  And if we’re going to ban all Muslims, how are we going to get them to be part of a coalition to destroy ISIS…This is not a serious proposal.  In fact, it will push the Muslim world, the Arab world, away from us at a time when we need to re-engage with them to be able to create a strategy to destroy ISIS…Banning all Muslims will make it harder for us to (destroy ISIS)…The main thing we should be focused on is a strategy to destroy ISIS.”

Senator Marco Rubio:  Senator Rubio stated that sunni Arabs reject ISIS ideologically without providing further details.  In fact, the Arab world is concerned because ISIS is calling out Arab leaders who are not abiding by sharia, and the Global Islamic Movement is currently focused on holding those leaders accountable and overthrowing governments in order to make sharia the law of the land.  His plan also mandates our enemies in the Islamic world be a part of the coalition to defeat ISIS, and also believes ISIS was created for some other reason other than the truth that Islamic law requires it.

“We have to understand who ISIS is.  ISIS is a radical Sunni group.  They cannot just be defeated through air strikes.  Air strikes are a key component of defeating them, but they must be defeated on the ground by a ground force.  And that ground force must be made up of sunni Arabs themselves.  Sunni Arabs who reject them ideologically and confront them militarily…Asad is one of the main reasons ISIS exists to begin with.  Asad is a puppet of Iran. And he has been so brutal towards the sunni within Syria, that he created the space that led for the people of Syria themselves to stand up and try to overthrow him.  That led to the chaos which allowed ISIS to come in and take advantage of that situation and grow more powerful.”

Overall, the candidates did not acknowledge the reality that the war against us is a Global Islamic Movement, not merely ISIS.  Did Al Qaeda evaporate from the planet by the way?

Many of the candidates also proclaimed we must use Muslim forces to defeat Muslim forces.  This is not rational on the face of it.  America must do what we need to do to defend our sovereignty, our government, our people, and our way of life.

Additionally, none of the candidates spoke truth into the massive jihadi network here in America that is much more of an imminent threat to all of us than ISIS in Syria is.

The good news is, the needle has moved and the discussions are getting closer to the truth.  Most of that is because Mr. Trump has forced these discussions, and that is good for American national security and our future.

Video: Deborah Weiss on the OIC and Freedom of Speech

oic-erasing-freedom-of-speech-edited-1Deborah Weiss speaking at an ACT! for Canada event in Montreal on Nov. 17,  2015:

Part One:

Part Two:

  • Quebec Bill 59 to combat hate speech
  • Criminal prosecutions for denigrating Islam in Europe
  • The state of free speech in America – political correctness and self-censorship
  • Influence of Muslim Brotherhood front groups on National Security and public policy
  • CAIR’s Lawfare against media spokespersons and Hollywood

Part Three:

  • Obama administration’s censoring of National Security and Counterterrorism Training materials
  • The terrorist attacks on Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard , Theo van Gogh, Charlie Hebdo, Pamela Geller’s draw Muhammad contest in Garland Texas
  • Definition of terrorism
  • Multiculturalism
  • Upholding Judeo-Christian values

Q&A:

Deborah Weiss is the author of the Center for Security’s recently published monograph, “The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech” (Civilization Jihad Reader Series) (Volume 3) She is also a contributing author to “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network” and the primary writer and researcher for “Council on American Islamic Relations: Its Use of Lawfare and Intimidation.” You can find more of her articles and speeches at her website www.vigilancenow.org

 

Refugees , immigration and terror in the U.S.

U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions speaks at the 2012 Washington Update Luncheon Wed., Oct. 24 at the Von Braun Center. (Sarah Cole/al.com)

U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions speaks at the 2012 Washington Update Luncheon Wed., Oct. 24 at the Von Braun Center. (Sarah Cole/al.com)

Cultural Jihad, Nov. 21, 2015:

In the wake of the [2013] Kentucky case, the U.S. halted the refugee program for Iraqis for six months, a fact the Obama administration did not disclose to Congress at the time, officials told ABC News in the 2013 investigation.
ABC News Report

The current debate over the admission of Syrian refugees focuses on the possibility that it will help facilitate the entry of terrorists into the U.S.

This view is based on the growing trend of Islamist immigrants in the U.S. that have been involved in terrorism in the last few years.  The U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and Natural Interest reports that it has identified at least 26 foreign-born individuals inside the U.S. who have either been charged with or convicted of terrorism in the last year with even more examples going back to 2013.  From an AL.com article by Leada Gore:

Sessions said U.S. officials have no access to Syrian government data to vet refugees and no capacity to predict whether those seeking refuge are likely to join militant groups. As proof of that, the  Immigration Subcommittee, which Sessions chairs, provided a partial list of apprehended foreign-born terrorists or terror suspects since 2013:

Sessions said these incidents are just a few of those identified by his committee. They should serve as a warning against any plan for relocation of immigrants, especially those from Syria, he added.

The concerns have not been limited to the GOP.   Several days ago, 47 House Democrats broke rank and joined with Republicans, voting for a bill aimed at pausing admittance of Syrian and Iraqi refugees by adding requirements to an already lengthy screening process.   In the Senate, the Washington Post reported:

Longtime Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the Senate intelligence committee, warned in a statement Tuesday “we need to be very careful about Syrian refugee admissions.”

The Hill reports that Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) signed a letter to President Obama calling on him to not allow any more Syrians into the country “unless federal authorities can guarantee with 100 percent assurance they are not connected” to the Islamic State.

At least one Democratic was among the governors asking for the resettlement of Syrian refugees to stop until security concerns can be addressed.

UN records show a four fold increase (850,000) so far in 2015 of refugees entering Europe through the Mediterranean area compared to 2014 (216,000) with Syrians accounting for about 52% of the numbers.  From the trend, the numbers will most likely be significantly higher by the end of 2015. While the vast majority will most likely settle in Europe, U.S. allocations have been steadily increasing.

We noted last year in “Resettlement: an Islamist path to the west?,  that according to U.S. Department of State refugee statistics, in 2007 Muslim countries accounted for about 20% of U.S. refugee admissions.  In 2008 there was a marked increase, with well over 50% (35,000+) of refugee admissions coming from predominately Muslim countries.  This repeated in 2009-2013 and the  2014 allocations authorize the increased level.  For 2015, 12,000-15,000 Syrians alone, are projected for admission.

The Paris bombings raised the possibility that forged Syrian passports are being used by terrorists and this certainly brings up concerns as to the actual identify of those being processed as Syrian refugees.   Earlier this week Bloomberg reported:

A Syrian passport found next to a suicide bomber in the Paris terror attacks may have been planted, German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere said.

Reports that the identity in the passport may have been registered in several countries along the so-called Balkan route raise the suspicion that it could be a deliberate attempt to implicate refugees and “make people feel unsafe,” de Maiziere said.

“There are indications that this was a planted lead, but it still can’t be ruled out that this was indeed an IS terrorist posing as a refugee,” he told reporters in Berlin on Tuesday, referring to Islamic State, which France blames for organizing the violence.

Any link between France’s worst terror attack since World War II and Europe’s refugee crisis would raise the stakes for Chancellor Angela Merkel as she defends her open-door policy for asylum seekers in Germany’s debate over immigration and security.

Syrian refugee proponents are proclaiming  there has not been one terrorist act by a refugee in the United States.  When presented with the case of the Boston Bombers, these proponents counter that the Tsarnaev brothers were not really refugees.

An example of this can be found in a recent article on Reason.com that attempts to label GOP politicians as “Fearmongers”.  Ronald Bailey writes:

Note: Several commenters suggested Tamerlan and Dzhokar Tsarnaev, who committed the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013, were refugees. Strictly speaking, they were the children of asylees. As Bloomberg News explained the two were given “derivative asylum status” and didn’t come through the refugee admissions program. Apparently the legal distinction is too fine a point for some readers. So be it, but they should nevertheless keep in mind that the brothers were two people out around 1.8 million people who were granted refugee or asylee status between 1995 and 2013.

This dismissal conflicts with a recent Dailymail.com article that notes:

Six Bosnian immigrants, three from Missouri, two from Illinois and one from New York, were charged in February with sending money and military equipment to extremist groups in Syria including ISIS and the Al Qaeda-affiliated Al-Nusra Front.

Last year we reported on the case  of Bosnian refugee Edin Sakoc, 54, of Burlington, VT (a naturalized U.S. citizen) who was facing charges of lying to immigration authorities about his involvement in war crimes as well as bribery.

In 2013, an ABC news report detailed the 2009 discovery of two al Qaeda-Iraq terrorists living as refugees in Bowling Green, Kentucky — who later admitted in court that they’d attacked U.S. soldiers in Iraq:

An intelligence tip initially led the FBI to Waad Ramadan Alwan, 32, in 2009. The Iraqi had claimed to be a refugee who faced persecution back home — a story that shattered when the FBI found his fingerprints on a cordless phone base that U.S. soldiers dug up in a gravel pile south of Bayji, Iraq on Sept. 1, 2005. The phone base had been wired to unexploded bombs buried in a nearby road.

An ABC News investigation of the flawed U.S. refugee screening system, which was overhauled two years ago, showed that Alwan was mistakenly allowed into the U.S. and resettled in the leafy southern town of Bowling Green, Kentucky, a city of 60,000 which is home to Western Kentucky University and near the Army’s Fort Knox and Fort Campbell. Alwan and another Iraqi refugee, Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, 26, were resettled in Bowling Green even though both had been detained during the war by Iraqi authorities, according to federal prosecutors.

This week, ABC reported that, “Of the 31 states that have declared their opposition to taking in Syrian refugees, one state, Kentucky, has a specific reason to be wary of the background check process.”  This caused the U.S. to  halt the refugee program for Iraqis for six months, a fact the Obama administration did not disclose to Congress at the time.

***

Sessions: Admin Hides Immigration Histories Of Terrorists, Then Asks For Blank Resettlement Check:

***

Terrorist paradise: Counterterrorism expert says we can’t vet refugees

Also see:

A clock or a bomb trigger, can you tell the difference?

Ahmed Mohamed and his

Ahmed Mohamed and his “clock”

Center for Security Policy, by Jim Hanson, Sep. 17, 2015:

The latest outrage being used to promote the false narrative about unfair treatment of Muslims is the teenager, Ahmed Mohamed, in Irving Texas arrested for bringing a homemade clock to school. If you just skimmed the surface and saw the picture of the skinny nerd in the NASA t-shirt in handcuffs it would be easy to see a problem.

And there is one, but it’s not discrimination against a Muslim kid that wouldn’t have happened to a non-Muslim. It’s nanny state, zero tolerance policies that take away the ability to apply common sense to complicated situations. In this case, whether or not to put cuffs on a 14 year old.

But as far as the other question, was the clock device he brought to school a legitimate cause for concern, the answer is an unequivocal yes. I have built and taught classes on improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and the clock he brought to school is a dead ringer for the trigger used on many of these homemade bombs.

Ahmed1
Here is a side by side comparison of Ahmed’s clock and an Iranian-made IED trigger used to kill US troops in Iraq. Even more importantly, here is a picture of an IED training device sold to US law enforcement agencies to help them identify and learn how to deal with homemade bombs. They would have been deficient in performing their public safety duties if they had not done a full examination and investigation of the device, it’s presence at school and the person who built it and brought it there.

The grievance mongers of CAIR and other Islamist front groups are using this incident to portray the Irving, TX police and government as anti-Islamic. They point to another incident where Mayor Beth Van Duyne refused to accept an Islamic tribunal in her town that was trying to supplant US law with Shariah law. That would have been un-American and Mayor Van Duyne was appropriately American in saying absolutely not. We felt strongly enough about that to award her our Defender of Freedom award earlier this year.

We don’t know why Ahmed built and brought his clock to school, but he and his father were certainly quick to trot out quotes about it happening because of his brown skin, or that it wouldn’t have happened if he wasn’t a Muslim. There is zero evidence that Ahmed was singled out due to his religion, and two teachers who saw the device both told him to put it away because it resembled a bomb.

It is time to tell the outrage industry to quit abusing our public servants for doing the jobs we ask them to do.

***

Jim Hanson discusses this story with Frank Gaffney on Secure Freedom Radio:

Also see:

Islamophobia: Fact or Fiction?

Terry JonesGatestone Institute, by Denis MacEoin, August, 15, 2015:

  • Edward Said leaves us with the impression that all prejudice is only on the part of the West.
  • To the traditionally minded, news of such things as man-made laws based on objective evidence, free speech, equal justice under law, democracy, elections, freedom for women, freedom of religion and respect for the “other,” and so on, may have come as a sort of horror. Despots recoiled from the very thought of democracy. Religious leaders fumed at secular education, the freedom to question and say what one liked, even about religion.
  • “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated; to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.” — Hasan al-Banna’, Founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, 1928.
  • The vast amount of what is called “Islamophobia,” however, is not that at all. Fair criticism is not phobic, responses to Islamic terrorism are reasonable reactions to violence.
  • Based on news reports of Muslims murdering other Muslims and killing Christians, there is, ironically, probably more Islamophobia among Muslims for each other than there is from Westerners toward Muslims. There is also probably more “Infidelophobia” by Muslims toward non-Muslims than by non-Muslims toward Muslims.
  • Again this year, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation held a conference calling for a universal blasphemy law — legislation it has repeatedly tried to pass for over a decade, with the help of U.S, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The aim is not to protect other religions (about which Muslims blaspheme without cessation), but to block any criticism of Islam.
  • Sometimes it seems as if Islam ceases to be treated as just another religion and becomes a religion intolerant of all others and unduly protective of its own rights and privileges. In democratic states, Islam is evidently already the only religion that may not be criticized, even though criticism of religion has for centuries been a cornerstone of free speech and transparency that are essential elements in democracy. These freedoms really matter, yet not one Muslim country can claim to implement or protect them, especially freedom of religion.

On July 9th, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, within the Council of Europe, published its annual report for 2014. The report identifies a dramatic increase in antisemitism, Islamophobia, online hate speech and xenophobic political discourse as main trends in 2014. It also indicates that “Islamophobia is reported in many countries, counteracting integration efforts for inclusive European societies. According to the report the rise of extremism and in violent Islamist movements has been manipulated by populist politicians to portray Muslims in general as unable or unwilling to integrate and therefore as a security threat.”

This is, of course, troubling, and it is right for the Commission to treat it as a growing problem. But just how widespread is the issue, and to what extent is it readily identifiable?

Some claims of Islamophobia have their roots in the perception of increasing Muslim violence within Europe; some are based on existing racist attitudes, and some are derived from Muslim perceptions of victimhood and charged sensitivities. The latter is the main reason why defining Islamophobia is not as simple as describing anti-Semitism, anti-immigrant prejudice, or anti-black racism.

To understand this more clearly, it is necessary to slip back briefly to the past.

In 1978, Palestinian-American professor Edward Said (1935-2003) published a book, Orientalism, which changed the way many people thought about the Middle East and Islam. Said’s book, deeply flawed, nevertheless became a bestseller translated into thirty-six languages. Those of us who were the first to read it – teachers and students in Islamic and Middle East Studies – were taken in by its façade of intellectual impartiality and the sense we all had that it opened our eyes to our own work in an original way. It was, to use Thomas Kuhn’s celebrated phrase, a paradigm shift that changed our understanding of our researches and the meaning they had, for we were precisely the ‘orientalists’ Said so tartly scolded. Some of moved away in later years, but many are still mesmerized by that smooth prose and challenging flair.

It wasn’t long before Said’s appeal moved into other disciplines and to other regions far from the Middle East. Orientalism even laid the foundations for a new item on the academic curriculum: “Post-colonial Studies.” The subject, now taught in universities in many countries, has produced a vast literature, has its own academic journals and numerous associations and institutes. Said, like Franz Fanon, Gayatri Spivak, Derek Gregory and others, remains a core figure, andOrientalism a central text.

According to Said, Westerners, by virtue of not being Muslims, have always falsified and distorted their writings about Islam and Muslims. Said claimed to see deeply-ingrained prejudice in the works of French, British, Russian and other Orientalist scholars and writers. To him, Orientalism was (and is) a tool of the colonial powers, assisting their mission supposedly to administer and subdue the peoples of the East. Since former colonies have achieved independence, he contends that the former imperialists still exert pressure on the ex-colonies in order to control them. Israel is regarded by most Marxists, socialists, and even many liberals as an entity created to colonize the Arab Middle East and is often condemned, even by people who are supposedly educated and should know better, in abrasive terms as a malign extension of the West.

Perhaps the best-known sentence in Said’s book is: “[S]ince the time of Homer every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was a racist, an imperialist, and almost totally ethnocentric.” As Bernard Lewis has been heard to remark, “If that were true, the only reports of marine biology would have to be by fish.” But for Said and his followers, the world is divided between Western guilt and Eastern victimhood.

What is missing from Said’s work is any attempt to deal with the long history of Islamic empires,[1] the conquest of, and permanent rule over, non-Muslim states and peoples, and the often distorted ways in which Muslim writers have sought to interpret and explain Christian, Jewish, Hindu and other worlds. Said leaves us with the impression that all prejudice is only on the part of the West.

Said continues to have admirers, most in academic departments of English or multicultural studies, but as time passes, more and more scholars are calling his views into question. Writers such as Bernard Lewis, Ibn Warraq, Efraim Karsh, and Robert Irwin have exposed a string of faults in Said’s narrative, from factual errors to staggering bias.[2]

Despite his bias, distortion of facts, and openly documented deceptions, many of Said’s followers, who are unwilling or unable to do their own work, see him as an intellectual to students and teachers who adhere to an anti-establishment, anti-Western, and socialist world view.

For many, his book, Orientalism played a role in delegitimizing the West and furthering causes such as multiculturalism or anti-Zionism. In the meantime, however, not surprisingly, the book’s influence spread, into the Islamic world and the smaller world of Muslim communities in the West. Better-educated Muslims read and digested Said’s message, in a manner rather different from Western readers, many or most of whom were atheists and agnostics. For Muslim readers, Said’s message that the West was hostile to Islam became the first strong antidote to their sense of failure. Muslims saw themselves as backward but now believed they were the victims of a Western conspiracy to deny them the fruits of their great civilization. To disparage the West became, for many, a religious imperative.

For religious Muslims, it was becoming increasingly important to deal with the stresses caused by their economic, political, and military subordination to a flourishing West, coupled with their own lack of progress in the non-Muslim world and at home. The repeated defeat of multinational Arab armies by the “despicable” Jews of Israel stood, and for millions of Muslims still stands, as a symbol of their need to reassert themselves on the world stage — as Iran is trying to do today.

Read more

‘The Nightmare’ — Europa and the Incubus

‘The Nightmare’, by Henry Fuseli (1781); a visual metaphor for the Incubus of Islam sitting astride the paralyzed, sleeping Europa.

‘The Nightmare’, by Henry Fuseli (1781); a visual metaphor for the Incubus of Islam sitting astride the paralyzed, sleeping Europa.

Jihad Watch, by Ralph Sidway, July 29, 2015:

Europe, Britain and the West are pinned down by Sleep Paralysis beneath the weight of Islam and Muslim Immigration

Sometimes an image — a metaphor — is much more effective at presenting truth than even the most persuasive argument or laying out of facts.  ‘The Nightmare’ is such an image.

Europeans may still have some dim collective memory of the Muslim conquest of the Iberian peninsula (Spain) in the early 8th century, of Islam’s nearly successful colonization of the rest of Western Europe (Gaul, etc.), of centuries of Muslim raids on Italy, of Muslim piracy and dominance in the Mediterranean Sea, of repeated Muslim attempts to invade Europe through the Balkans, and of the eventual fall of Constantinople in 1453, and of Turkish crimes against the Greeks during the 18th and 19th centuries and the Armenian Genocide in the early 20th.

Then there are the great, providential battles and movements which halted, turned back and expelled the Muslim invaders from the West: Charles Martel (“the Hammer”) and his victory in the Battle of Tours (732), the “Reconquista” of Spain, the valiant self-sacrifice of Tsar-Martyr Lazar and the Serbs at the Battle of Kosovo (1389), and the famous defense of Europe against the Ottoman Muslims at the Gates of Vienna in 1683.

Yet today’s Europe seems completely moribund, ignoring both its own history as well as the history of Islamic expansion. 

It is as if Europa and her Sisters (England, America, Canada, Australia, etc.) suffer from a nightmarish sleep paralysis like helpless maidens of old, the Islamic incubus pinning her down and completely sapping her will and strength to resist. 

The British have all but surrendered already, turning a blind eye to Muslim rape gangs preying on thousands of British girls, trampling on freedom of speech by shutting down criticism of Islam, and advancing Sharia courts and Islamic finance systems. The realm which gave us the Magna Carta is behaving as if she may voluntarily raise the black flag of jihad over Buckingham Palace, a final token act of appeasement as the Islamic crocodile gnaws on England’s extremities.

The metaphor of the demonic Incubus (Islam) preying upon the paralyzed sleeper (Europa) is hardly a stretch, as this particular demon was believed to engage in sexual activity with its victim, trying to foster a hybrid human-demon child, and if unable to do that, then to bring about madness, demon possession, sickness and ultimately death to its host.

Does this not describe the horrific nightmare being played out in cities across Europe and England? Muslim immigration (the “Incubus”) literally “penetrates” Western societies (the “Sleeper-Victim”), creating hostile, alien enclaves which begin in embryonic form, but eventually give birth to hellish Shariah No-Go zones. By the time the somnambulant host begins to awaken, it has been driven nearly mad from its inner conflict between liberal freedoms and its weakened impulse to defend itself. A quick survey of the evil, supremacist behavior of Muslim populations in FranceSwedenDenmark, et al bear witness to this plague.

The great irony of this pathological societal inner conflict is that those enabling the destruction of Western civilization through advocating Muslim immigration and preferential treatment of Islam routinely demonize with the charge of “Islamophobia” those who see the dangers of Islam and dare to speak out against it. Those who willingly aid and abet the Incubus and gladly receive its demon seed accuse Christians and lovers of freedom of being demons. 

The United States now seems at least to be trying to rouse herself from her political atonia (symptomized by the Obama administration scrubbing all national security directives from any reference to Islam, which inspires 90% of all terrorist acts worldwide), yet under this administration cannot and will not confront the actual root cause of Muslim terrorism and jihad, which is embedded in Islam’s DNA through the Quran and the example of Muhammad. 

America’s problem thus seems to be less a case of paralysis, and more one of volition. For example, 4-star Admiral James Lyons, former Commander of the US Pacific Fleet, recently reported that the Muslim Brotherhood has “penetrated” (there’s that word again) all of Obama’s National Security agencies. And the President’s ‘Summit on Countering Violent Extremism’ actually includes as one of its partners the terrorist-and-ISIS-linked Islamic Society of Boston.

The Islamic State sees Europe’s paralysis and America’s moral and ideological disarray, hence its ever increasing boldness. And Muslims the world over see it too, hence reports that tens of thousands of Muslims from all around the globe, including from Western democracies, are streaming to the Levant to join the Islamic State, even as Muslim immigration into Western host societies continues to escalate.

Are we in the early stages of a long defeat, leading to the death of a once-great civilization? 

Unless paralyzed and catatonic Europa and her Sisters can shake off their sleep and throw off the Incubus pinning them down, the night looks long and the future dark indeed.

_______

Ralph Sidway is an Orthodox Christian researcher and writer, and author of Facing Islam: What the Ancient Church has to say about the Religion of Muhammad. He operates the Facing Islam blog.