EXCLUSIVE – Geert Wilders: Stopping Islamic Immigration Is a Matter of Survival

Getty Images

Getty Images

Breitbart, by Geert Wilders, Feb. 9, 2016:

In April last year, the renowned nonpartisan Pew Research Center released a report on the future growth of world religions. The content was shocking. The report states that, if current trends continue, Islam will almost equal Christianity by 2050. While the world’s population is expected to rise by 35 per cent until the middle of this century, Islam will grow with a staggering 73 per cent.

The consequences of future Islamic growth are frightening. Islam is not a religion like Christianity, but rather a totalitarian political ideology. Its goal is primarily political. Islam wants to make the whole world submit. It aims to establish a worldwide Islamic state and bring everyone, including “infidels,” such as Christians, Jews, atheists, and others, under Sharia law. This is the barbaric Islamic law which deprives non-Muslims of all rights, treats women as inferior beings, condemns apostates and critics of Islam to death, and condones terror. More Islam equals more violence, more intolerance, more terrorism.

With the growth of Islam, the world will become a less safe place. And so will America. According to Pew, the United States will see its number of Christians decline from more than three-quarters of the population today to two-thirds in 2050, while Islam will more than double in size and replace Judaism as America’s largest non-Christian faith. The consequences of the Islamic presence in America have already been visible in several murderous attacks, such last December’s San Bernardino shooting, but also the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, the 2009 Fort Hood shooting, the 9/11 terror attacks in 2001, and several other acts of terrorism. If Islam doubles in size, the threat of terrorism will only grow.

In the past, the totalitarian ideologies of Nazism and Communism have both been defeated by the common efforts of America and Europe. Without America, Europe would have been lost. But without Europe, America would have been isolated. If Europe had fallen to either Nazism or Communism, there is no doubt that America would have become the next victim. The Transatlantic alliance between Americans and Europeans has been the key to the survival of our common Western civilization. This alliance is in danger today, because the more Islamic Europe becomes, the less reliable it will be as an ally of America.

Though the predicted future rise of Islam in the US is worrying, the situation in Europe is far worse. The Pew figures show that Islam has already gained a significant foothold on the European continent and is growing rapidly. Europe’s Islamic population, boosted by higher birth rates and immigration, will nearly double, from 43 million people in 2010 to 71 million people in 2050. In the Netherlands, Muhammad is currently already the second most popular name among newborn boys nationwide and even the most popular name in our three largest cities, Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague. This is also the case in the Belgian capital Brussels, the Norwegian capital Oslo, and the British capital London. As a matter of fact even in the whole of Great-Britain, Muhammad has become the most popular name for newborn boys.

The Islamization of Europe will profoundly influence European politics. Winning the Islamic vote will become the goal of ever more European politicians. As a result, Europe’s policies will become even less friendly towards Israel and the United States than they already are. The Atlantic alliance is in danger.

The Islamic vote has already decided at least one major European election: the 2012 French presidential elections. These were won by the Socialist Francois Hollande over the incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy by only 1.1 million votes. Since an estimated 2 million Islamic votes participated, of which 93 per cent – 1.7 million votes – went to Hollande and only 7 per cent to Sarkozy, it was the Islamic vote which gained Francois Hollande the Elysée Palace.

According to Pew, the growth of Islam in Europe is caused by several factors, including the young age of the Islamic population. However, more than half the growth can be attributed to immigration. In other words, stopping all immigration from Islamic countries would reduce the growth of Islam in Europe, but also in America, by more than half. The easiest way to limit the growth of Islam in the West is to stop Islamic immigration.

Islam is an existential threat to our Western freedoms and our Judeo-Christian civilization. It also threatens the Atlantic partnership between America and Western Europe. It is our duty to limit this threat. It is our mission as patriots to protect our nations. The first measure we must take to stop Islam, reduce the risk of terrorism and save our civilization, is to stop all immigration from Islamic countries. It is a matter of survival.

Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch Parliament, is the leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) and the author of “Marked for Death: Islam’s War Against the West and Me,” published by Regnery.

Former Jihadism Insider Tells All

Dr. Tawfik Hamid

Dr. Tawfik Hamid

Religious Freedom Coalition, by Andrew Harrod, PhD, Feb. 8, 2016:

Inside Jihad:  How Radical Islam Works, Why It Should Terrify Us, How to Defeat It, the autobiographical book by former Egyptian would-be jihadist Tawfik Hamid, has recently appeared in a revised 2015 edition.  This critically important, tremendously insightful insider analysis of Islam, its various threats, and reform possibilities is no less relevant now than the first edition seven years ago.

“A literal interpretation of the Quran, along with mainstream teachings of Islam today, can easily be used to justify” the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) explains Hamid in detail.  Around the world “Denialists,” as he terms them, “typically and stubbornly promote the view that Islam is a peaceful religion,” but “violent injunctions of Sharia are not bizarre, extremist or anachronistic Islamic interpretations.”  “Excusing ISIS as being ‘un-Islamic’ is absurd.”

Hamid justifies his judgments with the experience of an individual born 1961 into a highly-educated “secular Muslim family in Cairo,” Egypt, who turned to religion as a medical student.  His uniquely interesting autobiography documents how the son of a privately atheist doctor participated in the Egyptian Islamist group Jamaa Islamiya (JI) from 1979-1982 before a spiritual transformation turned the younger Hamid away from violence.  In JI he was “prepared to train with jihadists in Afghanistan—to fight and kill the Russian invaders in the name of Allah.”

“Medical students are often more attracted to religion because they see the power of God in nature on a regular basis,” writes Hamid while noting that his life story is no exception.  “Westerners are often astonished to observe highly accomplished Muslim doctors in the terrorist ranks,” he notes while citing the example of Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian surgeon currently leading al-Qaeda.  “Dr. Ayman,” as he was known through his involvement in various Islamist groups to Hamid and his colleagues, “came from a wealthy, well-known and well-educated family and was a top postgraduate student.”  Zawahiri exemplifies for Hamid that, among Islamist leaders, “many if not most emerged from the upper socioeconomic classes,” contrary to “naïve and unrealistic” socioeconomic explanations for jihad such as poverty.

Hamid testifies from personal experience that “[i]t is entirely accurate to refer to Islamic terror as ‘Islamic terror,’” even though for the Arabic jihad a “non-violent interpretation is often advanced by Muslims to avoid criticism of Islam.”  Yet the “dominant sense in Islamic books is violent.  It is misleading and dishonest to claim that the nonviolent understanding is in any way typical today.”   “If you ask a Muslim child in the Arab world to define jihad, in most cases the answer would be ‘war against the infidels.’”

A “large percentage of Muslims today” also practice what Hamid terms “passive terrorism,” a “broad category of enabling behaviors and beliefs, both conscious and unconscious, which serve to exacerbate jihadism.”  Such “support for terror often takes the form of taqiyya,” Islamic doctrinally-justified deception.  “One of the tactics Islamists use to deceive the West is to present the same religious information to non-Muslims in one way and to Muslims in another.”

For Islamic fundamentalists or Salafists (salaf in Arabic means “ancestor”) this deception includes the Islamic doctrine ofabrogation, in which chronologically later Quranic verses annul earlier verses. “Abrogation allows Salafists to deceive non-Muslims into believing Islam is a religion of peace,” Hamid writes.  “To non-Muslims, Salafists present the peaceful verses.  To their own flock, they present the violent verses and teach that they abrogate the peaceful ones.

Beyond religious warfare, Hamid warns that “Islamists will use democracy to end democracy.”  Proliferating “Islamist organizations” are a “frequent source of mystification to Westerners, but for all intents and purposes the strategic goal of each organization is the same; they differ primarily in tactical focus.”  Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood has shown through the years that it seeks “to infiltrate politics at the grassroots level” in an “insidious strategy that inhibits outsiders from suspecting the brotherhood’s creeping tyranny.

Against such illiberalism a reformed Hamid in Egypt “began to preach a peaceful understanding of Islam” after his abandonment of JI.  He joined “a very small sect of Islam that followed only the Quran” and rejected the hadith or biographical accounts of Islam’s prophet Muhammad and other traditional Islamic canons.  “Tolerating different views was an important creed of the Quranics” and in their rejection of violent Islamic doctrines such as corporal punishment they considered historic Islamic imperial expansions “as immoral and senseless.”

Hamid’s unorthodox understandings of Islam have not gone without opposition, as he learned when he gave a sermon at an Egyptian mosque.  After prayers at the mosque, a mob of violent Muslims confronted him and an accompanying friend; punches to the latter and a shower of stones left the pair running.  Today Hamid worries that “passive terrorists often behave actively by suppressing moderate voices” by “ostracizing the moderate Muslim and his family or by using harsh language, physical threats and even violence.”

Hamid claims that “Islamic writings can be interpreted in a manner that encourages peace and tolerance.”  Yet he doubts the doctrinal authenticity of secular- and mystical- (Sufi) oriented Muslims.  “It pains me to state it, but both Sufi and secular Islam are weak in their theological foundations” and “lack recourse to the doctrinal bedrock in Islam that Salafists enjoy.”

Nonetheless, the Quranic Hamid remains undeterred.  Many “violent tenets in Islam are not sourced in the Quran but in secondary writings” that “are not the Word of God,” he writes.  For the violent Quran verses themselves, his specific hermeneutic “neither cancels nor abrogates them but limits their scope to the historical period within which they were revealed.”

Hamid’s “Relativity of the Quran” justifies a “peaceful version of the faith, one that lives in harmony with other faiths in civilized societies.”  Quran 39:55 means that “Muslims are permitted by Allah to follow the verses that better suit their point in history.”  “I am a Muslim, and I consider much in Islam to be beautiful and worthwhile,” he writes as he struggles to redeem Islam from its orthodox absolutes.

Andrew E. Harrod is a researcher and writer who holds a PhD from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a JD from George Washington University Law School. He is a fellow with the Lawfare Project, an organization combating the misuse of human rights law against Western societies. He can be followed on twitter at @AEHarrod.

What Happens When a Muslim Dies?

UTT, by John Guandolo, Feb. 9, 2016:

Why are so many Muslims motivated to fight and die as martyrs/shaheeds in Islam?

According to Islamic doctrine, when a Muslim dies for any reason – car crash, heart attack, old age – his body is washed, shrouded, prayed over, and buried in accordance with Sharia (Islamic Law).  Specific details of how the body is washed, who is to wash, specific prayers to be prayed, and how the grave is dug is all a part of the Sharia covering this topic.

Once the deceased is placed in the grave, his soul separates from the body and lingers above it.  Here is a description from What Islam is All About, the most popular text used in Islamic junior high schools in America:

“When you die, your soul is taken from your body by the Angel of Death.  If you were a good person, it is gently drawn out from  your flesh.  If you were bad, however, then your soul is ripped violently from it….

“If you were a believer in Allah, and followed the teachings of your Prophet…your environment will then be softly lighted.  Your resting place in the spiritual dimension will be made roomy and comfortable and you will sleep and dream gently until the Day of Judgment.

“But if you were a bad person, who didn’t believe in Allah, or a hypocrite, then the angels will become horrifying to you.  They will strike you and cause your soul’s resting place to squeeze in upon you until you feel suffocated.  Then you will be tormented and in agony until the Day of Judgment.”

But how does a Muslim know whether he followed the teachings of Islam or not throughout his life? Islam teaches that every Muslim has two beings called “Jinns” which record all of their good and bad deeds throughout life.  If the bad deeds outweigh the good deeds, he goes to hell on the Day of Judgment.  If the good deeds outweigh the bad deeds, he goes to paradise.  But there is no way to know until the Day of Judgment where he is going.

There is only one exception.

The martyr or shaheed – the one who dies in battle in Allah’s cause (Jihad) – immediately goes to the highest level of paradise the moment his first drop of blood hits the ground, and he receives the promise of sensual pleasures.  The shaheed avoids all punishments of the grave and is sure of his reward in paradise. The shaheed does not feel the pain of death.

Jihad (6)

“It is unlawful to wash the body of a martyr or perform funeral prayer over him. A martyr means someone who died in battle with non-Muslims.  It is recommended that war gear be removed from the body, and it is best to bury the martyr in the rest of his bloodstained clothes since it is the effect of worship.” [Um dat al Salik, 14th Century Islamic Sacred Law, certified by Al Azhar as authoritative Sunni Islamic Law]

To die as a shaheed against non-Muslims is the highest form of worship in Islam.

The Koran promises shaheeds go to the highest level of paradise above all other Muslims:

“Not equal are those believers who sit at home and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons.  Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit at home. Unto all in Faith Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward.” [Koran 4:95]

“Those who leave their homes in the cause of Allah (jihad) and are then slain or die, on them will Allah bestow verily a goodly Provision; truly Allah is he who bestows the best Provision.” [Koran 22:58]

This is why in Islamic schools across the world, and in America, 7th graders are taught:  “If anyone dies in a Jihad they automatically will go to Paradise.  A Shaheed, or Martyr, is described this way by Allah, ‘Don’t think that those who were killed in Allah’s Cause are dead.  No, they are alive, finding their bounty in the presence of their Lord.’ (Koran 3:169)” [What Islam is All About, pg 164]

In Islam “The Cause of Allah” is Jihad.

It is clear to all Muslims, which is why it is taught to Muslim children in mosques and Islamic schools across America, that to die fighting non-Muslims is the highest form of worship in Islam and the only way to guarantee paradise when a Muslim dies.

ISIS: The Latest Phase of the Jihad

Hoover Institution’s Strategika, by Raymond Ibrahim, Feb. 5, 2016:

The best way to understand the Islamic State (ISIS) is to see it as the next phase of al-Qaeda. All Sunni Islamic jihadi groups—Boko Haram, ISIS, Taliban, al-Shabaab, al-Qaeda, even Hamas—share the same motivations based on a literal and orthodox reading of Islamic history and doctrine: resurrecting a caliphate (which existed in various forms from 632 to 1924) that implements and spreads the totality of sharia, or Islamic law.

ggAccordingly, ISIS’s notorious atrocities—beheading, crucifixion, sexual enslavement, and destruction of non-Sunni places of worship—are being committed by other jihadi groups (e.g., Boko Haram and al-Shabaab, both of which pledged allegiance to ISIS) and even by some Muslim governments (e.g., Saudi Arabia) and individual Muslims around the world.

Conversely, although al-Qaeda (AQ) adheres to the same sharia that ISIS implements, it has long waged a propaganda war against the West. AQ portrays all terrorist attacks on the West, including 9/11, as mere payback for the West’s unjust polices against Muslims, including support for Israel and Arab dictators.[1]

To maintain this “grievance” narrative, AQ knows that the innately supremacist and violent aspects of sharia—for example ISIS’ destruction of churches and subjugation of “infidel” Christian minorities—need to be curtailed or hidden from the Western world.  Otherwise AQ’s efforts of portraying jihadis as “freedom fighters” resisting an oppressive West risk being undermined.[2]

Regardless, AQ’s strategy of turning Western opinion appears to have borne fruit in one pivotal area: canceling longtime Western support for secular Arab dictators. In the context of the “Arab Spring,” the Obama administration turned its back on America’s Egyptian ally of 30 years, Hosni Mubarak; helped ISIS-affiliated jihadis overthrow Libya’s Gaddafi (even though he was complying with Washington); and continues supporting ISIS-affiliated “moderates”[3] to overthrow Syria’s Assad. Idealists in both government and media forgot a primary reason the U.S. had formerly supported secular Arab dictators: they single-mindedly opposed the jihadis.

The result has been a new and emboldened phase of the jihad, a.k.a., ISIS. Born and entrenched in precisely those nations that U.S. leadership brought “freedom and democracy” to—Iraq, Syria, and Libya—ISIS (or al-Qaeda 2.0) is now indifferent to Western opinion. By widely broadcasting its savage triumphalism in the name of Islam, ISIS forfeits the “grievance card” but plays the “strength” card, thus inspiring millions of Muslims. According to the Pew Research Center, in 11 countries alone, at least 63 million and as many as 287 million Muslims support ISIS.[4]

Yet even ISIS works in stages. When criticized by Muslims for killing fellow Muslims and not attacking Israel—the supreme enemy—ISIS responded by saying it was following the pattern of the historic caliphate founded in 632.[5] Then, Caliph Abu Bakr beheaded and crucified tens of thousands of Muslims for apostatizing. Only after the rebel tribes were brought back into the fold of Islam were they set loose to conquer European/Christian territories during history’s early Muslim conquests (634–750). Indeed, it is believed that ISIS’ caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi took this name to signify his focus, that is, terrorizing all “hypocrites” and “apostates” until they unify under the caliphate’s banner.

It still remains to be seen whether ISIS’ strategy—inspiring Muslims but losing Western opinion—will succeed. According to polls, “Islamophobia” is on the rise in the West, especially after the rise of ISIS, prompting several politicians to speak more candidly about the catalysts for terrorist violence.

The Obama administration’s weak responses feed into AQ’s narrative that Islamic terrorism at least in part reflects Islamic grievance; and it refuses to connect the actions of any jihadi organization—whether ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, et al—to Islamic teaching.

Time will tell whether the next administration will remain willfully ignorant of the nature of its jihadi enemy—which is fatal in war according to Sun Tzu’s ancient dictum, “know your enemy”—or whether reality will trump political correctness.

[1] See “An Analysis of Al-Qa’ida’s Worldview: Reciprocal Treatment or Religious Obligation?” Also, The Al Qaeda Reader, which separates the organization’s communiqués into two groups: “Propaganda” messages to the West portraying jihadi terrorists as mere freedom fighters, and “Theology” messages to fellow Muslims, preaching the same Islam of ISIS.

[2] See “Al-Qaeda: Defender of Christians?” for a more elaborate explanation of this theme.

[3] For the Syrian Free Army’s role: “Largest Massacre of Christians in Syria Ignored.”

[4]Pew poll: Between 63 million and 287 million ISIS supporters in just 11 countries.”

[5]New Islamic Caliphate Declares Jihad on … Muslims.”

President Obama’s Speech at Islamic Center of Baltimore: A Fact Check

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

Breitbart, by Clare Lopez, Feb.5, 2016:

Perhaps it’s because he was making faces in Qur’an class instead of paying attention to his teacher. Or maybe he just has a selective memory about what he was taught as a young Muslim student in Indonesia.

Whatever the reason, President Barack Obama got a lot of things factually wrong in his 3 February 2016 speech at the Islamic Center of Baltimore. Things that are basic to doctrinal Islam are not only knowable because they are readily available in English but, it might be argued, obligatory that an American commander-in-chief should know in fulfillment of his oath to defend the Constitution against “all enemies foreign and domestic.”

First, Mr. President, a mosque is not simply the Muslim version of a church, synagogue or temple. Because of the example of Muhammad, who is called the perfect man in the Qur’an (believed by Muslims to be the exact words of Allah), we know that mosques are established not only as places of prayer and worship, but also as centers for indoctrination, the dispensing of shariah justice, the stockpiling of weapons, and the launching of jihad. If in doubt about any of this, please check with the French police, who recently have been conducting raids on mosques and Islamic Centers in the wake of horrific jihadist attacks in Paris.

The president must have missed more than one lesson on Arabic grammar, too. When he claims that “the word itself, Islam, comes from salam—peace,” he is mistaken. While the words “Islam” and “salam” share the same three root letters—s, l, m—they are, in fact, very different words with completely different meanings. While “salam” indeed means “peace” in Arabic, “Islam” means “submission.” Submission to what? To Allah and Islamic Law. A “Muslim” is a person who submits. Surely the president knows this. Or maybe the White House Arabic language translator needs to be replaced.

Unfortunately, in pursuit of that submission, Islamic doctrine obligates Muslim conquest of the Dar al-Harb (places not yet subjugated to shariah). We know this not only from the example of Muhammad’s own life as taught to Muslim students from the 1st grade, but also from the Qur’an and hadiths. For example, Qur’an verse 9:29 says: “Fight those who believe not… until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” The Qur’an is quite clear in verse 3:85 as well: ‘Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam will never have it accepted of him…’ Islamic Law defines jihad quite simply: “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims.”

This is not cherry-picking Qur’anic verses. This is Islamic doctrine as uniformly presented in the Qur’an, hadiths, biography of Muhammad, and Islamic Law. It is the agreed consensus of all authoritative Islamic scholars throughout the centuries. We may wish that more Muslim scholars would teach the prohibition of terror (jihad). But of course, they cannot teach what is contrary to Islamic doctrine. For the Qur’an itself commands Muslims to “make ready your strength to the utmost of your power… to strike terror into the hearts of the enemy.” (Q 8:60)

And when the President purports to quote the Qur’an about killing an innocent, he either willfully or out of ignorance is misquoting Islamic scripture. In fact, Qur’an verse 5:32cites from a Jewish commentary on the Talmud: “On that account, We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person—unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land—it would be as if he slew the whole people…” This is the definition of killing without right in Islam. The takeaway here is that a Muslim may not kill except those who themselves have killed without right or perpetrated “mischief in the land”—which may include failing to accept Islam. What the President and others too often leave out is the next verse, Q 5:33, which lays out the punishments for those who disobey 5:32. They are: “death, crucifixion, amputation of the hand and foot on opposite sides or exile from the land.” The President might be asked why he left those out, when they are precisely the punishments the Islamic State (IS) is applying to those under its control in faithful obedience to what they believe is the word of Allah. This isn’t an IS version or interpretation of the Qur’an. It is what the Qur’an actually says.

These are just a few of the things the President might have said, were his intention to be accurate about the enemy we fight. He might have added that we are not actually fighting terrorism: we are fighting to defend the Constitution from attack by forces of jihad seeking to impose shariah. This does not mean we must be at war with all Muslims. But all those who fight or support the Global Jihad Movement are on the wrong side of our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and the way of life Americans treasure because, unlike Islamic doctrine, they enshrine principles of individual liberty, equality before man-made law, government by consent of the governed, and the right to freedoms of belief and speech.

Those, Mr. President, are the “first things” principles we Americans are willing to fight and die for. American Muslims who accept and defend them are patriots, too—but unfortunately, these are not principles to be found anywhere in the authoritative Islamic canon—and Americans need to know that.

Clare M. Lopez is Vice President for Research and Analysis at the Center for Security Policy.

From AQ to ISIS: The New Deadlier Face of Jihad

isis 5

Dr. Sebastian Gorka gave this excellent lecture to a Marine Corps audience in March 2015.

Learning from Barack and Hillary’s Libyan Adventure

President Obama delivers a statement on the US consulate attack in Benghazi, September 12, 2012.

President Obama delivers a statement on the US consulate attack in Benghazi, September 12, 2012.

Religious Freedom Coalition, by Andrew Harrod, PhD, Feb. 4, 2016:

To learn more about the September 11, 2012, attack upon the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, portrayed in themovie 13 Hours:  The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi, read Architects of Disaster:  The Destruction of Libya by Pete Hoekstra.  The former congressman insightfully analyzes the “naiveté run amok” concerning global jihad of President Barack Obama and “his chief foreign policy lieutenant, Hillary Clinton—who hopes to be the next commander-in-chief.”

Hoekstra, former House Intelligence Committee chairman, examines how this attack “was the culmination of a foreign policy on Islamic terrorism that was grounded in wishful thinking and self-delusion” concerning “moderate” Islamists.  This Obama administration definition often required “nothing more than a group’s professed commitment to nonviolence, however unsavory the group’s ultimate objectives.”  During the 2011 overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, Obama cooperated with “countless salafi-jihadist veterans of the global Al Qaeda.”  American policymakers were “seemingly content to buy jihadists’ assurances that they would pursue jihad solely in their homeland.”

Hoekstra remains at a loss to justify the Libya campaign’s estimated 9,700 NATO airstrikes and 20,000 tons of weapons delivered by Qatar, mostly to jihadists like those that brutally killed the fallen Gaddafi.  Although the Libyan campaign was supposedly a humanitarian intervention, “sensational reports of humanitarian abuses, having been largely generated by Gaddafi’s opposition, were vastly overstated.”  In the face of Gaddafi’s imminent victory, the foreign intervention was “not seeking to bring the killing to a halt or to facilitate a peaceful resolution to the war, but rather to help the losing side win—by definition a prolongation of the conflict.”

Hoekstra fully recognizes that “Muammar Gaddafi was a monster, but he was our monster” at the time of his overthrow.  Hoekstra had first visited Libya with a 2003 congressional delegation specifically requested by President George W. Bush to determine whether Gaddafi genuinely sought better relations with the West.  Hoekstra had multiple meetings with Gaddafi during two subsequent official visits.

“Gaddafi was obviously driven by his instinct for self-preservation,” Hoekstra writes, but the transformation of American-Libyan relations under a despot previously notorious for international terrorism “was nothing short of stunning.”  After “September 11, 2001, Gaddafi had emerged as one of America’s greatest assets in one of the world’s most dangerous regions, northern Africa—strategically located between the tinder box of the Sahel and the soft underbelly of southern Europe.”  Additionally, “human rights conditions in Libya generally improved during this period.”

Contrastingly, a chaotic post-Gaddafi “Libya is today a central nexus for training and equipping jihadists across the Middle East,” notes Hoekstra.  Along with shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, “Islamic terrorists almost surely got their hands on the remnants of Gaddafi’s chemical weapons arsenal.”  Libya exemplifies how Obama has “thrown out dictators only to embrace far worse.  American foreign policy has been turned upside-down.”

“Gaddafi, for all his sordid history, was infinitely wiser than Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton” concerning Islam, notes Hoekstra.  “Gaddafi appreciated—in ways few Americans could—how vast were the jihadists’ global ambitions” and that “their scorn for democracy and individual rights dwarfed even his own.”  Accordingly, under him the Libya’s Muslim Brotherhood “was never allowed the opportunity to expand its influence by building a substantial social welfare network,” in contrast to neighboring Egypt.

Hoekstra finds a certain precedent for Obama administration Islam fantasies in President George W. Bush, who “repeatedly proclaimed Islam a ‘religion of peace.’”  Bush wanted “to avoid being seen as attacking the overwhelming majority of Muslims, who go about their lives peaceably,” yet “such a formulation also left too many things unsaid.”  This “refusal of the Bush administration to take seriously or understand the realities of Muslim culture” led him “to grossly underestimate the enormous obstacles that it faced in seeking to foster Western-style democracies in that part of the world.”

Hoekstra contrasts the “heads of state and chief intelligence leaders of just about every country that bordered Iraq” that he visited before the 2003 invasion.  “Almost to a person they said the same thing:  ‘You’re making a huge mistake.  You don’t know what you will be unleashing.’”  Today “Iraq is a disaster of incalculable proportions…We owned Iraq for a time, but we left before the job of rebuilding was done—assuming that it could have ever been completed.”  Similarly, the “Afghanistan we are now leaving is little different from the Afghanistan we inherited.”

“If such countries are ever to change fundamentally, we must understand that their change will be a long and exceedingly slow process” and “locally driven, not imposed by outsiders,” Hoekstra concludes.  He recalls a 2007 Jordan visit in which during “three days I talked with the Iraqi Sunni chieftains, and over and over I heard the same thing.”  “We have a system of local government that has worked thousands of years:  It is called the tribal system,” they stated, “if you think that you can impose democratic electoral reforms at the local level, we will continue to fight you.”  “General David Petraeus took heed,” writes Hoekstra, with a “surge” campaign making explicitly “clear to the local Sunnis that America was suspending efforts at democratization at the local level…and the rest is history.”

“Failing to grasp the fundamental lesson of those earlier experiences—that once broken, a nation is very difficult to put back together—President Obama broke Libya,” Hoekstra writes.  He is amazed that the “chief celebrant of Gaddafi’s murder,” Clinton, “actually gloated on camera: ‘We came, we saw, he died.’”  “It is an image that will likely haunt her presidential campaign and should,” Hoekstra notes.

“Geopolitical affairs are rarely black or white,” Hoekstra soberly concludes from his years on the intelligence committee.  He “traveled to more than eighty countries, sometimes meeting with leaders rightly reputed as being among the harshest and most oppressive in the world,” yet “they were the lesser of two evils…the devil we knew.”  “The world needs a strong America—an America that understands who it is, what it will do, and what its power can, and cannot, achieve.”

Andrew E. Harrod is a researcher and writer who holds a PhD from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a JD from George Washington University Law School. He is a fellow with the Lawfare Project, an organization combating the misuse of human rights law against Western societies. He can be followed on twitter at @AEHarrod.

Sharia as the Jihad’s Point of Coordination

arabwaveFrontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Feb. 4, 2016:

Stephen Coughlin has a really important paper out and you should read it all, but I just want to highlight one area.

The three entities (the ummah, dawah and jihadi) do not have to act along formal chains of command to interoperate successfully. This is because they each execute according to their own functional orientation to Islam that reconciles through a common understanding of Islamic law.

And further

To appreciate the strategy, it should be visualized along the lines of the starfish rather than the spider: Cut an appendage from a starfish, and the severed part can grow into a fully functional starfish. Cut off a spider’s head, and all appendages become useless. In terms of command relationships, we in the West tend to think like spiders. While the Soviet Union was a spider; the Islamic Movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda and ISIS are starfish.

These are very important points that need to be understood to grasp the larger scope of the struggle. Finally…

To say the threat arises out of Islam is to say that it emanates from shariah. Hence, the arrow in the diagram reflects the recognition that the three lines of operation emanate from Islam through a common understanding of shariah. For this reason, shariah also provides a common reference point based on Islamic legal concepts recognized as settled. This doctrinal framework is commonly understood and easily communicated in the Islamic world. For this observation to be valid, one does not have to prove that the underlying Islamic law reflects “true Islam,” or even that most Muslims agree with it.

As I’ve said, read the whole thing, but this needs to be kept in mind, particularly when arguing with the “ISIS is not real Islam” or “Hamas is not real Islam” school of deniers.

Report: 81 Muslim-Americans Associated with Terror in 2015, Highest Total Since 9/11

ap_abdirahman-sheik-mohamud_ap-photo1-640x480

Breitbart, by Jordan Schachtel, Feb. 2, 2016:

Muslim-American terror in 2015 reached its highest point since the September 11, 2001 attacks against America, the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security (TCTHS) said in a report released Tuesday, documenting that 81 Muslim-Americans were associated with terror plots in the past year.

The report also documented that 41 additional Muslim-Americans over the past three years have traveled to Syria in order to join Islamic militants.

Since 9/11, 344 Muslim Americans have been involved in “violent extremism,” the terror research document said. “Half of these individuals plotted against targets overseas; 10 percent involved unknown targets; and 40 percent plotted against targets in the United States,” the report adds.

The Triangle Center’s research said of Americans who joined the jihad abroad:

According to court records, media reports, and social media postings, 41 Muslim-Americans have joined the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” in Syria, Iraq, or Libya, or the Nusra Front (Jabhat al-Nusra), al-Qaeda’s franchise in Syria, since the Syrian civil war broke out in 2011.

Twenty of these Americans have died, while 16 (11 men and five women) appear to be living in territory controlled by these groups. Five were arrested after their return to the United States; of these, one (Abdirahman S. Mohamud) was accused of planning an attack in the United States.

Duke University professor David Schanzer, who directs the terrorism research institute, said the U.S. government “estimates that 250 Americans have traveled to fight in Syria.”

Another one of the professors involved in the study, however, appeared to dismiss the troubling results of his own study, instead highlighting mass shootings as a more serious problem.

“Fortunately, the appeal of revolutionary violence remains very limited among Muslim-Americans,” said Charles Kurzman, a UNC professor and author of the report. “Muslim-American extremists have caused 69 deaths over 14 years, while 134 people were killed in mass shootings in the United States in 2015 alone.”

The Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security is a collaborative research center run by experts and scholars from Duke University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and RTI International.

Read the full report here

EXCLUSIVE– Maryland Delegate To Introduce Bill Targeting Terror-Tied Mosques

Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images

Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images

Breitbart, by Jordan Schachtel, Feb. 2, 2016:

Maryland Delegate David Vogt, a veteran of a combat unit within the U.S. Marine Corps, will be introducing a bill targeting the tax-exempt status of radical mosques while the Maryland General Assembly is in session on Tuesday, Breitbart News has learned.

His bill, The Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, was drafted to “restrict and revoke” the tax-exempt status of any “mosque or organization that is found, through cooperation with [Department of Homeland Security], to have direct or indirect ties to terrorism,” Vogt’s office said.

The Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act will target the “prohibition on exemptions and credits for organizations having known ties to terrorism,” a draft of the bill obtained by Breitbart News reads. The bill covers not only religious institutions, but also any other 501(c)(3) organization, according to its text.

The Maryland Delegate’s coming announcement is timed to precede President Obama’s Wednesday visit to the Islamic Society of Baltimore, a mosque that was led for eighteen years by an Imam who condoned suicide bombings and had associations to radical groups.

“The President’s visit to a mosque with a history of promoting terrorism is a disgrace, and this bill ensures that Maryland’s taxpayers aren’t subsidizing special treatment for terrorist sympathizers,” the Maryland delegate commented on Obama’s coming visit to the Baltimore mosque.  “If a preacher stands in a pulpit and endorses a candidate, that church, by law, loses its tax-exempt status.  It is insane that the endorsement of terrorism is not treated the same way.”

“This is a common-sense piece of legislation – if you endorse acts of terrorism, you don’t get special treatment from the government,” Vogt told Breitbart News regarding the bill.

Vogt is a decorated combat veteran who served in Afghanistan, and received the 2010 Marine of the Year award from the Military Times. He is a candidate for Congress in Maryland’s 6th District.

“It is painfully obvious that it is time to get serious and proactive about combating terrorism right here in America. Maybe when tax dollars become involved, the government will begin to care a little more,” he concluded.

While the United States government has allowed for radical mosques to continue operations unimpeded, countries such as France have started to crackdown on the institutions preaching jihadi terror. In December, the French government announced it would close up to 160 mosques in the coming months.

Republican frontrunners Sen. Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump have called attention to the fact that mosques in America are being used to promote radical sentiments.

“I don’t think we should be indiscriminately closing mosques, but I also don’t think we should be blind to the fact that there have been mosques that have been a nexus for promoting jihad,” Cruz said in December.

In November, Trump said the U.S. would have “absolutely no choice” but to shut down jihad-advocating mosques because “some bad things are happening” within their walls.

The Clarion Project has identified some 80 mosques in America that publicly preach radical ideals.

Boko Haram Jihadis Burn Children Alive, Slay Over 100 Villagers in Nigeria Massacre

AP

AP

Breitbart, by THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, PH.D. Jan. 31, 2016:

In one of their most heinous massacres to date, militants from the radical Islamist Boko Haram group slaughtered over a hundred victims in a village in northeast Nigeria Saturday night, including a number of children whom they burned alive.

The latest atrocity from the jihadi group allied to the Islamic State took place in the village of Dalori, some three miles from Maiduguri, Nigeria. Vice Chairman of a civilian joint task force in Dalori, Modu Kaka, said that at least 100 dead bodies were taken away but that hundreds are still missing.

Witnesses spoke of “scores of bodies” burned and riddled with bullets lying in the streets after the attack Saturday night. One man, who managed to escape by hiding in a tree, said that he could hear the wails of children screaming in the flames.

Residents of the community said the militants stormed into town around 6:20 pm and began their killing spree, which lasted for several hours. During the assault, the jihadis demolished houses and burned livestock once they had pillaged and carried away foodstuffs. Several of the villagers were burnt beyond recognition.

Witnesses reported that the fighters ravaged the settlement for four hours, and that three female suicide bombers blew themselves up among people who were fleeing.

Students at nearby University of Maiduguri heard explosions and gunfire, and many fled the area as the conflict raged.

One political science student named Hauwa Ba’na said: “We are crying in our hostel because the explosions are loud and everyone is panicking.”

A Dalori resident, Mallam Buka, decried the lack of protection from the Nigerian military. “We were helpless. Could you believe that there was no military presence in Dalori? The government didn’t provide security to protect us. I lost 11 people, and 5 of our children are nowhere to be found,” she said.

Another resident by the name of Ibrahim Muhammad said that the Boko Haram insurgents had dressed up as military personnel and began opening fire on everybody. “All our wives and children were brutally killed while they looted and destroyed our livestock,” he said.

Boko Haram terrorists began their Islamist insurgency in Maiduguri in 2009, and during their 6-year uprising have killed some 20,000 people and driven another 2.5 million from their homes.

***

‘There is No God and Karl Marx is His Prophet’: The Links Between Communism, Islam, and Slavery

Screen-Shot-2016-01-28-at-8.21.37-PM-640x480Breitbart, by Andrew G. Bostom, Jan. 29, 2016″

The following is the text of a speech delivered Friday, January 29, 2016 at The Education Policy Conference, St. Louis, MO.

Sociologist Jules Monnerot’s 1949 book, Sociology of Communism, made very explicit connections between Islamic and 20th-century Communist totalitarianism. The title of his first chapter, dubbed Communism as “The Twentieth-Century Islam.” Monnerot elucidates these two primary shared characteristics of Islam and Communism: “conversion”—followed by subversion—from within, and the fusion of “religion” and state. He argued, “Communism takes the field both as a secular religion and as a universal State; it is therefore… comparable to Islam…,” while each also “…work[s] outside the[ir] imperial frontiers to undermine the social structure of neighboring States.”

Indeed, a humorist contemporary of Monnerot had cogently highlighted the striking similarities between Islam and Communism, referring to the Communist creed with this aphorism: “There is no G-d, and Karl Marx is his prophet.”

Sadly, in our present stultifying era, which increasingly demands only a hagiographic view of Islam, even such witty, illuminating aphorisms may become verboten. Witness President Obama’s stern warning during his Tuesday, September 25, 2012, speech to the UN General Assembly, when he proclaimed: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

The late Islamologist Maxime Rodinson warned in 1974 of a broad academic campaign—which has clearly infected policymakers across the politico-ideological spectrum“to sanctify Islam and the contemporary ideologies of the Muslim world.” A pervasive phenomenon, Rodinson ruefully described the profundity of its deleterious consequences:  “Understanding [of Islam] has given way to apologetics pure and simple.”

An ex-Communist himself, Maxime Rodinson (d. 2004), reaffirmed the essential validity of Monnerot’s 1949 comparison between Islam and Communism. During a September 28, 2001, interview with Le Figaro, Rodinson acknowledged that, while still a Communist, he had taken umbrage with Monnerot’s assessment. But having long since renounced the Communist Party, Rodinson (circa September, 2001) conceded that there were “striking similarities” between Communism and Islam, noting that like Communism, traditional Islam promulgated “an ideology that claims to explain everything, drawing on a vision of the world that is fiercely paranoid [and] conspiratorial.”

Well, the only Marxist intellectual of any ilk that I fully appreciate—Groucho—once observed, “Beside a dog, a book is man’s best friend. Inside a dog, it is too dark to read.”

Today I will penetrate the fog of Islamic apologetics and cast light on subject matter relegated to silent darkness.

Our host Donna Hearne made a plaintive appeal that I redress the bowdlerization of Islamic slavery in secondary school textbooks, juxtaposed to their unsparing discussions of slavery as practiced by Western Europeans, and Americans. For example I discovered this thoroughly uninformative, mere 28 words dedicated to an alleged characterization of slavery, across space and time, in Islamdom, from the textbook, “World History – Patterns of Interaction,” 2007, Chapter 10, “The Muslim World, 600-1250 A.D.”:

The lowest class was composed of slaves. Many slaves were prisoners of war, and all were non-Muslims. Slaves most frequently performed household work or fought in the military.

Is it any wonder such indoctrination begets disorientation, if not outright disbelief, when nearly 8 centuries after 1250 A.D., these students are confronted by present day ugly manifestations of the uninterrupted historical continuum of Islamic slavery—vividly illustrated by the Islamic State’s practice of jihad sexual slavery in Iraq and Syria, or, in far removed Mauritania, mass, ongoing chattel slavery of blacks by the ruling Arabo-Berber Muslim minority?

A Reuters story about an ISIS “fatwa”, a religious edict, regarding female sex slaves was published online December 29, 2015. The fatwa in question is part of a cache of documents captured during a May, 2015 raid on a leading ISIS official in Syria. These materials are now being made public, rather piecemeal. Dated January 29, 2015, the ruling firstpresents a straightforward rationale for jihad enslavement, entirely consistent with the classical Islamic jurisprudence of jihad war: “one of the inevitable consequences of the jihad of establishment [of the Caliphate] is that women and children will become captives of Muslims.” 

A Muslim “owner” (8 mentions), non-Muslim female “captive” (13 mentions) master-slave relationship is made unabashedly clear in the fatwa. The fatwa’s hollow invocation to “show compassion towards her,” i.e. the female sex slave and serial rape victim, such as refraining from anal intercourse, is itself consistent with a prohibition in Koran 2:223, which otherwise states that women are “tilth” to be “plowed” as men please. Regardless, testimonies of freed Yazidi and Christian ISIS sex slaves reveal the horrific reality of such captivity.

*****

CONCLUSION

 ISIS’s practice of jihad sex slavery, persistent large scale chattel slavery in Mauritania, and even the mass acts of sexual assault just committed New Year’s Eve by Muslim males in Cologne, Germany, and elsewhere across Western Europe, all fit squarely within a normative doctrinal, and historical Islamic context, patterned after the behaviors of Muhammad, and the nascent Muslim community. Thus defiant Cologne imam Sami Abu-Yusuf insisted “the events of New Year’s Eve were the girls own fault, because they were half naked and wearing perfume.” Ominously, the good imam Yusuf’s words mirror attitudes captured by 2008 polling data from 9000 Western European Muslims, 65% of whom acknowledged, “The rules of the Koran are more important to me than the laws of [my country].”

Those who aspire to our political leadership, in particular, must be compelled to shed their cultural relativist blinders and consider Islam as the conquering, totalitarian political ideology, with religious trappings, it has remained for almost 14 centuries.

Read more

South Carolina House Passes Bill Excluding Sharia Law From State Courts

SHAUN CURRY/AFP/Getty Images

SHAUN CURRY/AFP/Getty Images

Breitbart, by Jordan Schachtel, Jan. 28, 2016:

The South Carolina House has passed a bill blocking Islamic sharia law from being recognized or approved in the state, after years of debate over similar legislation.

The legislation voted upon was explained as “A bill to amend the code of laws of South Carolina … so as to prevent a court or other enforcement authority from enforcing foreign law including, but not limited to, Sharia Law in this state from a forum outside of the United States or its territories under certain circumstances.”

On Thursday, the legislation passed with 68 for the bill and 42 opposed.

Sharia law is the legal and political system mandated in the Koran and other Islamic texts. It include laws governing religious practice, such as praying and ritual washing. But sharia also rules what Westerners see as non-government social practices — divorce, child-rearing, free-speech, clothing or sexual behavior, for example — and it also rules government responses to crimes, such as theft and murder.

Sharia law relegates women and non-Muslims to a lesser status, and grants men enormous authority over wives, daughters and sons. It allows for the primitive treatment of women and non-Muslims, and allows fierce punishment — sometimes, “honor killings” by fathers — for refusing to complying with sharia mandates.

The bill was sponsored by Rep. Chip Limehouse. He told Breitbart News following the bill’s passage:

“This goes to demonstrate that the South Carolina House of Representatives is committed to preserving and protecting the American way of life here in South Carolina.”

“Sharia Law has been used as a defense in American courtrooms,” he adds. “We are working towards making that defense not an option for radical extremists from any country.”

“In South Carolina, we’ve had cases where people have tried to use [the rules of] Sharia Law as a defense, and we are speaking very clearly from the South Carolina House,” Limehouse said. “Shariah Law can not and will not be used as a legal defense in the state of South Carolina.”

Because the bill was passed at the beginning of the current legislative session, Rep. Limehouse said he was optimistic that the Senate would have enough time to pass the bill. In order for the bill to become law, it must now be passed by the South Carolina State Senate and signed by Governor Nikki Haley.

Tea Party and conservative grassroots organizations are credited with initiating the movement to ban sharia rules through the state legislatures. Conservative leaders Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Michele Bachmann have publicly advocated for the need to enact nation-wide legislation against the threat of sharia.

Underground sharia courts operate in Muslim communities throughout Europe and alsoin the United States. Last year, Breitbart Texas reported that a “voluntary” sharia court had already been established in Texas.

Several countries in Europe, including the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, have many underground sharia courts within migrant communities. In the U.K, the government has formally deputized at least one sharia court to decide non-criminal issues among people who agree to use the court, even as public concerns rise that immigrant women are socially pressured to accept the courts’ authority

U.S. opponents of sharia courts point to Europe for evidence that western democracies can gradually cede more de-facto legal authority to self-segregating Muslim communities, so enabling the self-segregation of Muslim communities into no-go zones within cities.

Several states–including Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, North Carolina South Dakota, and Tennessee–have passed “foreign law” bans against sharia. More than a dozen other states are currently considering similar legislation.

LISTEN: Breitbart’s Klein Warns Shiite-Sunni Mega Confrontation ‘Coming’

Militant website via AP

Militant website via AP

Breitbart, by Aaron Klein, Jan. 28, 2016:

TEL AVIV – The Islamic State, Al-Qaida, and the Muslim Brotherhood are preparing for a major confrontation with Western-backed forces in Libya, Syria, and beyond, reported Breitbart Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein.

Speaking during his regular segment on John Batchelor’s popular nighttime radio program, Klein highlighted recent events that he said indicate a looming confrontation between Shiite and Sunni-armed forces.

Listen to Klein’s interview on Batchelor’s show here:

Klein pointed to a recent report at Breitbart Jerusalem indicting the Libyan branches of the Islamic State, Al-Qaida, and the Muslim Brotherhood are in discussions to complete a “mega merger” in the country.

Klein connected the merger prospects to a report claiming dozens of Russian, American, and British troops have been deployed to Libya ahead of an offensive there against the Islamic State.

Also, on Friday Marine General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, urged decisive military action to halt the progress of IS in Libya, warning the global terrorist group was seeking to use the country as a regional headquarters and staging base.

And Klein discussed Breitbart Jerusalem reports of Iran arming regional terrorist organizations while competing for influence with the larger Saudi/Sunni axis.

Klein told Batchelor’s audience of the possible al-Qaida-Islamic State merger:

Aaron Klein audio

“They are reading the tea leaves. They are seeing the larger Sunni-Shiite divide, which has been escalating exponentially in recent weeks… They are seeing that there are no borders anymore.

There are no borders in Libya, there are no borders in Syria largely to speak of. The Turkish border is quite a mess. Yemen is in question.

So my analysis is that al-Qaida, the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic State and others are seeing some sort of coming confrontation, maybe not between the U.S. and Russia but between proxies backed by the Saudis on the one hand and backed by Iran on the other.

There is a lager confrontation that they understand is coming against them in Libya and then ultimately beyond in Yemen and in Syria.”

Carson Warns About Islamic Groups’ ‘Civilization Jihad’

REUTERS/MOHAMMED SALEM

REUTERS/MOHAMMED SALEM

Breitbart, by Jordan Schachtel, Jan. 27, 2016:

Dr. Ben Carson, the retired neurosurgeon and Republican candidate for president, appeared on the Mark Levin Show Tuesday night, and sounded the alarm about the threat of domestic Islamist groups that pose as moderate organizations.

“Our political correctness is what is going to be our undoing,” Carson told the conservative radio host.

During the Holy Land Foundation trials, in 2007 and 2008, which was the largest terror financing case in U.S. history, a government-produced “explanatory memorandum helped get a handle on what the Muslim Brotherhood and some of these other organizations are doing, and CAIR in particular,” Carson explained.

“They said in that document that it would be particularly easy to carry out ‘civilization jihad’ in America because our people would be so silly and … protecting the rights of the very people who are trying to subvert our system, to their own expense,” the famed retired neurosurgeon added.

Levin remarked, “You’re the only candidate taking on this group CAIR, which is to me a very troubling front group for Hamas and some of these other outfits. And you’re the only one out there pounding away at them.”

CAIR has been declared a terrorist organization in the United Arab Emirates and was named by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in the foundation’s Hamas-funding operation.

Carson noted “the gravity of the situation and what the implications are for our country.”

Breitbart News has reported extensively on CAIR’s ties to radicalism.

An FBI chart that surfaced in December thanks to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request depicted CAIR as a Hamas-related organization.

Frank Gaffney, the president and founder of the Center for Security Policy, said Carson made one the “most important” statements of the election cycle, for drawing attention to the issue at hand.

“Dr. Ben Carson has just made one of the most important statements of the 2016 presidential campaign.  In an interview with Mark Levin last night, the GOP candidate called attention to a document known as “the Explanatory Memorandum” and observed that it lays out the Muslim Brotherhood secret plan for taking down our country,” Gaffney tells Breitbart News.

“Specifically, this Memorandum declares the Brotherhood’s mission in North America is “destroying Western civilization from within” and describes how this ambitious goal is being pursued through a variety of stealthy techniques,” he added.

Carson should be far from the only candidate speaking about this ever-important issue, the Center For Security Policy President said.

“Every other candidate to be our next Commander-in-Chief and every voter contemplating which one to hire for that job needs to acquaint themselves with this ominous plan, and learn how it has been successfully implemented over the past twenty-five years,” Gaffney concluded.

***

Ben Carson connects the dots on immigration, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Holy Land Foundation and the behavior of Hamas front-group CAIR on the Mark Levin show:

Also see: