NATIONAL CATHEDRAL DEAN: BREITBART ‘EXTREMIST’ FOR CHALLENGING MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD TAKEOVER OF NATIONAL CATHEDRAL

national-cathedral-muslim-prayer-AFPBreitbart, by JORDAN SCHACHTEL, Nov. 15, 2014:

(Washington, D.C.)– 100 years ago today, on November 14, 1914, the last “Caliph” of the Islamic world declared a holy war on all non believers. Just a few months later, a jihadist genocide of Christians occurred on a massive scale, resulting in the deaths of millions.

On the 100th anniversary of the religiously-motivated genocide of Christians, several Islamic groups, all of which have alleged connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, hosted the first Muslim prayers ever at Washington, D.C.’s National Cathedral.

As Breitbart’s Dr. Sebastian Gorka reported earlier, two of the Islamic groups who organized the event–CAIR and ISNA–were documented by U.S. federal officials as unindicted co-conspirators in the largest terrorism financing trial in United States history. Additionally, evidence exists that each of the five Islamic groups who helped organize the event have deep connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. The goal of the Muslim Brotherhood, according to federal prosecution documents, is to wage a “grand jihad [holy war] in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within…”

Breitbart News was on the scene at Washington’s National Cathedral, hoping to get some answers to concerns about Islamic prayers being hosted at the Cathedral on such a painful anniversary and why the event was sponsored by alleged members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Breitbart News asked Dean of the National Cathedral, Gary Hall, whether it was appropriate to host Muslim prayers on the 100th anniversary of the last Caliph’s call for Jihad against nonbelievers, which resulted in the slaughter of innocent Christians.

Hall responded, “I did not know that it was that anniversary. But knowing it now, it actually seems to be more appropriate to have an event that is on an anniversary of a hard time… There have been atrocities on both sides. There have been extremists on both sides.”

He added: “The second thing, is that, the Christian church… a few centuries before was doing similar kinds of things in the holy land with the Crusader states and the Crusades themselves. Almost every religious tradition is guilty at some point of fostering violence in the name of that religious tradition.

Breitbart News asked Hall whether he knew that all of the Islamic organizers of the interfaith prayer event have been associated or direct members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

“No, I’m not aware of that,” said the Dean of the Cathedral. “We’re a faith community… This essentially was the time to come together and pray. I have not heard those allegations. I don’t think that they are germane to an event that is just essentially a prayer event.”

This reporter asked Mr. Hall whether he was troubled by the possibility that the organizers of the interfaith event have connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, when the MB has previously been connected to prominent terrorists such as Osama Bin laden and Abu Bakr.

Hall responded, “No more so that it would alarm me that people in my own faith and tradition have links to other kinds of… inappropriate or unethical or immoral kinds of behavior. In other words, if I have a congregant that I would find unseemly, that’s guilt by association… I hear people’s concern, but it seems to be that the role of a faith leader is to try to bring people together.

“We always have to remember that Menachem Begin was a terrorist,” said the Dean of the National Cathedral. “Many of the early generations of Israel’s government were terrorists,” he added.

“Everyone’s hands are dirty at some point… There’s no one in the world who has absolutely clean hands,” Hall alleged.

Breitbart News questioned Hall about whether he knew about the Muslim Brotherhood’s extensive history of subversion in order to achieve their ends.

“I’m aware that they are the legitimately elected government of Egypt,” Hall stated.

When questioned whether he knew that the Muslim Brotherhood was started by devout Hitler admirer Hassan al-Bana, Hall said, “This event is not about the Muslim Brotherhood.”

“The kinds of things you are bringing up are the kinds of extremism that we are actually trying to disassociate with,” he said, accusing this reporter of being an ‘extremist,’ simply for mentioning the roots of the group who organized in his Cathedral.

Hall then accused this reporter of being a “McCarthyite,” because this was nothing more than “guilt by association,” he concluded.

Watch video of the interview at Breitbart. Jordan Schachtel really did a good job exposing interfaith dupe Gary Hall.

Here is a video of the entire service:

Published on Nov 16, 2014 by Kenneth Sikorski

 

Gates of Vienna got an Arab translator to review and assess what was said: Taqiyya and Kitman in Washington D.C. 

Also see:

“Freedom of Speech, Go to Hell”

20141105_theresamaybritL

“Extremism” is what novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand would call an anti-concept intended to suppress discussion of fundamental principles in order to prevent conflict or open dissension. It is an essentially meaningless term that stands for what she called “blank-outs.” It is anti-mind, an act of deliberate evasion of facts, of reality.

by EDWARD CLINE:

We’ve all seen in the newspapers and on blog sites those cardboard signs carried by maddened, sweaty, screaming Muslims in London and elsewhere on which is scrawled, Freedom of Speech Go to Hell. But now that same sign is being brandished by a political milquetoast, Theresa May, Britain’s Home Secretary. John Bingham’s report in The Telegraph of October 31st, “Sharia law or gay marriage critics would be branded ‘extremists’ under Tory plans, atheists and Christians warn,” is disturbing, to say the least.

Anyone who criticizes Sharia law or gay marriage could be branded an “extremist” under sweeping new powers planned by the Conservatives to combat terrorism, an alliance of leading atheists and Christians fear. Theresa May, the Home Secretary, unveiled plans last month for so-called Extremism Disruption Orders, which would allow judges to ban people deemed extremists from broadcasting, protesting in certain places or even posting messages on Facebook or Twitter without permission…..

But George Osborne, the Chancellor, has made clear in a letter to constituents that the aim of the orders would be to “eliminate extremism in all its forms” and that they would be used to curtail the activities of those who “spread hate but do not break laws”. He explained that that the new orders, which will be in the Conservative election manifesto, would extend to any activities that “justify hatred” against people on the grounds of religion, sexual orientation, gender or disability.

This particular milquetoast – let us dub her Mother Theresa – is proposing out-and-out, blanket censorship which she would enforce with the heavy hand of the police, the courts, and the slimy accusations of informants and those whose “feelings” have been hurt. “I want” figures prominently in her speech. She delivered her speech, in contrast to the chanting and ranting of Muslims who also inform us that Sharia will dominate Britain (and the West), at a Conservative/Tory Party conference in typical wallflower style, from a printed text at the podium (well, at least she didn’t use a teleprompter), with less charisma than Barbara “Let’s go walkies!” Woodhouse giving advice on how to train one’s dogs. Here she condemned “extremists” of all breeds as possibly infected with rabies and she let it be known that they should all “sit” and “heel” and “stay” in their own speech lest they be served with the blackjack of an “Extremism Disruption Order” (EDO) and isolated in a kennel.

Surely the coiner of that awkward, euphemistic nomenclature for “preemptive censorship” could have come up with something a little less depersonalized and antiseptic. Like “Taser”? The purpose of such political tasers, wielded by police or the courts, would be “to prevent conflict, protect life and resolve disputes with personal safety equipment that makes communities safe….” And surely that description is copasetic with Mother Theresa’s agenda of preventing conflicts and resolving disputes, especially if the conflicts concern Muslims, gays, trannies, and other odd bodkins.

I’ll bet not many Britons ever expected to be accosted, manhandled, cuffed, and tossed into a cell by an aggressive milquetoast with a little help from the bully boys for having indulged in their freedom of speech, or for what they might have said. But, there you are. If you’re on her “no barking” list of “extremists,” you’d better confine yourself to whining, whimpering, or pouting. You may be seen, but not heard.

A court, however, could not forbid an “extremist” to speak or broadcast or even “tweet” on Twitter unless his name was on a Vatican-like Index of Prohibited Books. Let us call it instead Index Librorum Prohibitorum Novissimarum Orator, or the Index of Prohibited Extremist Speakers. One must first be a known and red-flagged “extremist” speaker to earn a place on that list.

That’s quite a job for a government practiced in police-state surveillance as Britain’s already is. It even monitors what trash is put in wheelie bins. We have the NSA. Britain has Mother Theresa and her minions. They’re fighting the “war on terror” by promising “extremists” a night in the box. They will be watched, monitored, and even “disrupted.” I think there was a science fiction TV series that featured “disrupter” ray guns. How appropriate a choice of words.

After congratulating herself on fighting crime and dousing the fires of “extremism” with the current tools at hand, Mother Theresa went on:

But we must continue to do more. Soon, we will make Prevent a statutory duty for all public sector organizations. I want to see new banning orders for extremist groups that fall short of the existing laws relating to terrorism. I want to see new civil powers to target extremists who stay just within the law but still spread poisonous hatred. So both policies – Banning Orders and Extremism Disruption Orders – will be in the next Conservative manifesto.

Emma West was put through the judicial wringer for expressing her anger about what was happening to Britain. Paul Weston was arrested for quoting Churchill in public, the quotations expressing Churchill’s estimate of Muslims and Islam. Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, and Geert Wilders were banned from Britain because they’re famous (or notorious) for their anti-Islamic “hate speech.”

So, what is “extremism”?

For one thing, it’s the “extreme” dhimmitude displayed by Mother Theresa throughout her speech. Several times she stated emphatically that ISIS, the al Nusra Front, Boko Haram in Nigeria, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen, like-minded groups in Libya, Al Shabaab in East Africa, the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan all have nothing to do with Islam. Just as the salute, Sieg Heil!, has nothing whatsoever to do with Nazism, Allahu Akbar! has nothing to do with flying planes into skyscrapers or the mass executions of non-Muslims and rival Muslims.

Or so Mother Theresa would have you believe. This is a species of denial bordering on psychosis. For example:

This hateful ideology has nothing to do with Islam itself. And it is rejected by the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Britain and around the world….

Well, no, they don’t reject it. They’re merely the “silent majority” who have no opinion about what their “violent” brethren do in the way of acting out the violent verses in the Koran (about 164 of them, at last count; see Answering Islam’s extensive list of them here). Or they don’t dare frown upon “violent” Islam lest they be subject to violence themselves. After all, it’s all in their “good book,” the Koran, and who are they to question its contents? Those non-participatory, “silent” Muslims have a ho-hum attitude about Islamic terrorism: “Oh, well, there’s another train blown up, more filthy infidels killed in a shopping mall. What’s the latest soccer score?” Some 80% of London Muslims don’t mind the violence one iota.

Mother Theresa conspicuously identifies that what she claims isn’t Islam is also a “hateful” ideology, which proves that some synapses are crackling in her brain. But then a politically correct circuit breaker kicks in, and the current stops flowing. What has nothing to do with Islam is, at the same time, a “radical ideology” or an “extremist” ideology. Can she answer the question: If it is “radical” or “extremist,” what ideology is it a “radical” or “extremist” version of? Has it an identity? What is the thing? Does it have a name? If she saw a half-assembled table, would she object to its completion because she could forecast that at one point it would become an “extremist” table and not a carburetor?

Of course she knows what it is and what it will be. But because the subject is Islam, denying Islam’s essential identity helps her (and fellow dhimmi David Cameron) “prevent” the ruffling of Muslim feathers. Muslim values are now British values.

Read more: Family Security Matters

“Call it Jihad: ‘Terrorism’ Just Doesn’t Define This Threat”

2423016604CSP, By Clare Lopez, Oct. 28, 2014:

2014’s spate of Islamic terror attacks against Western targets leaves observers grasping for words to describe what’s happening. President Obama doesn’t want to deal with it at all, so after a Muslim convert beheaded a woman in Oklahoma, he thought it appropriate to send the beheader’s mosque (the Islamic Center of Greater Oklahoma City) warm greetings about “shared peace” and “a sense of justice.” (The occasion was the Muslim feast of Eid Ul-Adh, but the timing was awful.) U.S. national security agencies are no help either—under the tutelage of the Muslim Brotherhood, they were purged long ago of any vocabulary useful for dealing with jihad. “Lone wolf” gets a lot of play with the media, but as Michael Ledeen, Andrew McCarthy, and Patrick Poole (here, here, and here) have all pointed out, there’s nothing ‘lone’ about Muslim warriors, self-selected or otherwise, engaging in fard ‘ayn (individual jihad) in obedience to the doctrine of their shared faith.

Nor are these attacks simply “terrorism” in any way that is uniquely descriptive. As Ledeen noted, the Unabomber was a domestic terrorist. The FBI calls the ELF (Earth Liberation Front) terrorist. The Black Liberation Army was accused of murdering more than a dozen police officers in its day. But none of these operates today in obedience to a 1400-year-old ideology that claims a divine commandment to conquer the earth. Nor is any of these other ‘domestic terrorists’ the 21st century embodiment of a force that already has overrun many powerful civilizations, including the Buddhist, Byzantine, Middle East Christian, Hindu, and Persian ones.

It’s time to call this what it is: Jihad.

Jihad is a unique descriptor: it is motivated solely by one ideology—an Islamic one. It encompasses any and all tactics of war, be they the kinetic violence of terrorism, the stealthy influence operations of the Muslim Brotherhood and Iranian intelligence agencies, or funding, speaking, teaching, and writing. Importantly, the term ‘jihad’ is the one used by its own practitioners—the clerics, scholars, and warriors of Islam. Arguably the most valid qualification of all is that Islamic Law (shariah) defines jihad as “warfare to spread the religion [Islam].” Warfare encompasses many things, though, and not all of them are violent.

Katharine Gorka, President of The Council on Global Security, has an astute new essay entitled “The Flawed Science Behind America’s Counter-Terrorism Strategy” in which she skewers the Obama administration’s misguided policy it calls “Countering Violent Extremism.” She explains how America’s counter-terrorism ‘experts’ have tried haplessly to apply Social Movement Theory to what actually is a totalitarian ideology cloaked loosely in a handful of religious practices. A decade or more of attempting to apply the language of grievance, poverty, and unemployment laid at the door of Western colonialism or secular modernity has achieved little but the neutering of America’s national security defenses. Yet, even this dead-on analysis doesn’t quite get us where we need to be.

Just as Obama’s bland “violent extremism,” deliberately devoid of meaning identifies neither the enemy nor the ideology that animates him, so in its way, ‘terrorism” likewise falls short. For if “terrorist” can and does mean anyone from a nut job like Ted Kaczynsky to assorted tree huggers, neo-Nazi skinheads, as well as Islamic warriors committing atrocities in the name of Allah, then its scope is just too broad to define precisely the paramount threat to global stability in the 21stcentury: jihad.

The magnitude of the jihad threat demands its own category. Neither Kaczynsky nor animal and environmental activists nor neo-Nazis could threaten the very existence of our Republic. Certain 20th century totalitarian ideologies arguably did, though, and that’s why the U.S. marshaled every resource at its disposal to fight them to defeat. Islamic totalitarianism is such an ideology, albeit one that has survived cyclical periods of defeat and resurgence for many centuries. We constrain ourselves both conceptually and legally, however, when the only way to label an act of violence ‘terrorism’ is when it is carried out against civilians for a political purpose and the perpetrator(s) can be tied to a designated terrorist organization, with no consideration for the ideology that so many of them—and others not on such lists—share.

Islamic terror attacks of recent decades typically involved identifiable Islamic terror groups such as al-Qa’eda, Ansar al-Shariah, HAMAS, Hizballah, and the PLO, but were often funded and supported by jihadist nation states such as Iran, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. As Katharine Gorka described in her white paper, though, the Obama administration’s willfully amorphous term, “violent extremism,” ensured that no enemy threat doctrine called ‘jihad’ that unifies these diverse yet similarly-motivated actors and that actually may threaten the Republic, was ever permitted to be articulated—or confronted.

Now, after the overwhelming post-9/11 Western retaliatory offensives, both al-Qa’eda and more recently, the Islamic State, increasingly have called for acts of ‘individual jihad’ (fard ‘ayn, according to Islamic doctrine). Such attacks by Islamic true believers against armed service members, civilians, and law enforcement officers as well as ordinary citizens duly are proliferating across the West, but the U.S. national security establishment grasps for any term—lone wolf, violent extremist, workplace violence—to avoid saying either ‘terrorism’ or ‘jihadist.’ Granted, as Daniel Pipes noted in his 24 October 2014 essay, “Terrorism Defies Definition,” there are legal consequences under the U.S. Legal Code for “formally certifying an act of violence as terrorist.” But as we see, it’s more than that – and it’s why we need to use “jihad” more often and “terrorism” less.

To properly identify individual jihad attacks is to acknowledge that there is an established ideology behind them that derives its inspiration from Islamic doctrine, law, and scripture. To acknowledge that would mean the threat actually is existential, at a minimum in its objective: universal conquest and enforcement of shariah. Until and unless the entire American citizenry, federal bureaucracy, Intelligence Community, law enforcement, and the U.S. military understand that failing to acknowledge, confront, and defeat the forces of Islamic jihad and shariah indeed do endanger the very existence of our Republic as we know it, and mobilize to meet this challenge, the inexorable advance of shariah will continue. As Pipes notes with some understatement, the current “lack of clarity presents a significant public policy challenge.

The term “terrorism” will continue to provide useful applications in security categories and lists. But it is much too inclusive and yet restrictive to offer a precise definition of the Islamic threat. The forces of Islamic jihad and shariah are mounting a whole of civilization assault against liberal, modern, representative, secular civil society. Nation states, sub-national terror organizations, transnational alliances, academics and scholars, media conglomerates, networks of mosques and Islamic Centers, so-called ‘charitable foundations’ and their donors, battlefield fighters, and too many individual Muslims are united in a jihad that is not only violent but insidious, inexorable, and sophisticated. Unless we learn to resist in the same way—a whole of civilization way—that list of subjugated civilizations may yet include one more: ours.

FREE FIRE ZONE- A PACK OF LONE WOLVES

By Jim Hanson:

How many lone wolf attacks will it take to get the media, liberals and our fearless leaders in DC to admit they are connected and they are all committed by Islamist extremists. That’s right they are Muslims, buy their own shouted declarations. This doesn’t mean all Muslims are to blame, but it is long past time to admit that something about Islam is causing many of its followers to slaughter innocents. And it is also time for us to stop pretending this isn’t so.

The second in my series for the Center for Security Policy.

Canada’s Jihad Denial

michael-zehaf-bibeauBy Robert Spencer:

Canada has experienced two murderous jihad terror attacks in the last three days, not long after the Islamic State called for such attacks – but the denial and obfuscation are as thick as ever.

On Monday, Ahmad Rouleau, a convert to Islam, hit two Canadian soldiers with his car, murdering Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent. Then he led police on a high-speed chase, during which he called 911 and explained that he was doing it all “in the name of Allah.” The chase, and Rouleau’s jihad, ended when he flipped his car and then, brandishing a knife, charged police, who shot him dead. One of Rouleau’s close friends said: “It was a terrorist attack and Martin died like he wanted to. That’s what happened….He did this because he wanted to reach paradise and assure paradise for his family. He wanted to be a martyr….The caliphate called all the Muslims on earth to fight. He listened to what they had to say and he did his part here.”

Then on Wednesday, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, who has been widely reported to be a recent convert to Islam but whose father is a veteran of the jihad in Libya and who has been a Muslim for at least three years, went on a shooting rampage in Ottawa, murdering military reservist Corporal Nathan Cirillo and engaging in a gun battle inside Canada’s Parliament building. Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird said that there was “no evidence at this stage” that Zehaf-Bibeau had connections to any jihad groups, but CNN reported that “according to a U.S. counterterrorism source, Zehaf-Bibeau was connected to Hasibullah Yusufzai through social media. Yusufzai is wanted by Canadian authorities for traveling overseas to fight alongside Islamist fighters in Syria.” And “other radicalized people connected to Zehaf-Bibeau are still believed to be living in Canada, two U.S. law enforcement officials said.”

So Zehaf-Bibeau had connections to at least one jihadist who went to Syria to wage jihad, and Rouleau listened to what the Islamic State was saying, and “did his part” in Canada. What was the Islamic State saying? Late in September, the Islamic State’s spokesman, Abu Muhammad Al-Adnani, urged Muslims to murder non-Muslims in the West. “Rely upon Allah,” he thundered, “and kill him in any manner or way however it may be. Do not ask for anyone’s advice and do not seek anyone’s verdict. Kill the disbeliever whether he is civilian or military, for they have the same ruling.” He also addressed Western non-Muslims: “You will not feel secure even in your bedrooms. You will pay the price when this crusade of yours collapses, and thereafter we will strike you in your homeland, and you will never be able to harm anyone afterwards.”

Al-Adnani told Muslims to murder non-Muslims with any weapon at hand, or anything that could be used as a weapon: “If you are not able to find an IED or a bullet, then single out the disbelieving American, Frenchman, or any of their allies. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him.” Zehaf-Bibeau found a bullet. Rouleau found a car.

Yet despite the indications that Rouleau and Zehaf-Bibeau were heeding the Islamic State’s call to wage jihad at home by any means possible, the mainstream media was ready before the blood had dried to swing into the usual denial and obfuscation about the motives and goals of their attacks. Before Zehaf-Bibeau’s identity was known, CBC’s Doug Stoffel tweeted: “Amid the speculation in the #OttawaShooting in #Canada, it’s important to remember #ISIS hasn’t shown interest in attacks abroad.” Once Zehaf-Bibeau was identified as the shooter and was known to be a Muslim, ABC News one-upped Stoffel’s flagrantly counter-factual statement with the claim that “authorities in Canada are trying to understand what motivated a gunman to kill a soldier in the country’s capital Wednesday.”

In reality, what motivated him was blazingly obvious, but it was the one thing most Western government officials and all of the mainstream media have determined to ignore, and so the search was one for some other remotely plausible motive that could be sold to a public that is increasingly suspicious of what the government and media elites are telling them. Toronto’s Globe and Mail quoted a friend of Zehaf-Bibeau saying, “I think he must have been mentally ill,” although the only evidence for this that the paper presented was that “his friend frequently talked about the presence of Shaytan in the world – an Arabic term for devils and demons” – in other words, that Zehaf-Bibeau spoke frequently of what are standard beliefs of mainstream Islam.

Read more at Frontpage

*********

Michael Coren – Liberal denial over Islamic terror attacks in Canada

Published on Oct 24, 2014 by AlohaSnackbar01

**********

Ezra Levant – Liberal whitewashing of Islamic terrorism in Canada

Cruz: Time to Drop the ‘Illusion’ That Latest Terror Attacks Are ‘Random Acts’

Ted Cruz / AP

Ted Cruz / AP

By Adam Kredo:

Recent terror attacks in Jerusalem and Canada are not isolated events, and American policy leaders must drop “the illusion that these are random acts of senseless violence unrelated to our national security,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) said.

Whether the Islamic State or Hamas is behind the attacks, the extremist ideologyremains the same–and it poses a direct threat to democratic values across the globe, Cruz said in pointed comments to those who might claim the attacks were unrelated.

Following the Hamas terror attack Wednesday in Jerusalem–which injured several American citizens, including a child–both Hamas and the more moderate Fatah ruling party praised the terrorist responsible for the attack.

The same day, IS supporters worldwide took to Twitter to celebrate the fatal shooting of a Canadian soldier by a radicalized man that attacked the country’s Parliament building.

“We have to get away from the illusion that these are random acts of senseless violence unrelated to our national security,” Cruz said.

Cruz said the attacks are both strains of the same extremist virus.

“Deliberations over our foreign policy have gained a new clarity in recent days,” Cruz said. “Yesterday, an innocent, beautiful baby in Jerusalem was murdered by Hamas.”

“Terrorist organizations Hamas and Fatah both celebrated the destruction of this precious life just months after they relished in the slayings of Jewish teens,” Cruz said. “They did not care that the baby was American or one of the teens was a dual Israeli-American citizen. Their campaign of death is indiscriminate.”

Read more at Washington Free Beacon

Obama Terrorism Advisor’s Book Confuses and Distorts

By Raymond Ibrahim:

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

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

What advice does he give?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Ben Affleck a Racist?

By David Wood:

On a recent episode of “Real Time,” Bill Maher and Sam Harris declared that Islam is more violent than other religions and ideologies. Ben Affleck called such a view “racist.” But since the Qur’an says far worse things about non-Muslims than Maher or Harris say about Muslims, why doesn’t Affleck condemn the Qur’an? Is it because he has lower expectations for Muslims than for other people? If so, does this make him a racist?

Fort Hood shooter sends letter to Pope Francis espousing ‘jihad’

Fort Hood Shooting_AnguFox News, by Catherine Herridge:

EXCLUSIVE: Convicted Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan has written to Pope Francis espousing “jihad,” in his latest correspondence aligning himself with radical Islam.

Despite efforts by the Defense Department to label the 2009 massacre as “workplace violence,” Hasan has described himself several times, and again in the new letter, using the acronym “SoA,” or “Soldier of Allah.”

Hasan directed his attorney John Galligan to mail the undated, six-page, hand-written letter to the pope. A copy of the letter – titled, “A Warning To Pope Francis, Members Of The Vatican, And Other Religious Leaders Around the World” – was provided by the attorney to Fox News.

Hasan appears to make multiple references to the Koran in the letter, and includes a bulleted list of guidelines for “believers.”

In one subsection titled “Jihad,” Hasan praises “The willingness to fight for All-Mighty Allah,” describing it as a test that elevates the “mujahadeen” who “are encouraged to inspire the believers.” He states that “fighters … have a greater rank in the eyes of Allah than believers who don’t fight.”

There is no reference in the letter to the Fort Hood massacre for which Hasan was convicted on 13 counts of premeditated murder, and 31 counts of attempted murder, but no terrorism charges. Hasan currently is on death row at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas.

In late August — as part of ongoing reporting on homegrown terrorism, “Fox Files: The Enemy Within,” which included a special investigation into Fort Hood — Fox News obtained a separate Hasan letter where he pledged his allegiance to the Islamic State (ISIS) and its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Asked to comment on the latest letter, Hasan’s attorney said it “underscores how much of his life, actions and mental thought process are driven by religious zeal. And it also reinforces my belief that the military judge committed reversible error by prohibiting Major Hasan from both testifying and arguing how his religious beliefs” motivated his actions during the shooting.

Neal Sher, an attorney representing the Fort Hood families and their relatives, also said Hasan is “thoroughly dedicated to jihad.” The lawsuit against the Defense Department and Justice Department now involves 150 individuals.

“His jihadist leanings and willingness to commit jihad were known for years before the 2009 atrocity,” Sher said. “And ever since then, he has made it abundantly clear he believes in jihad and has attempted to justify the slaughter that took place at Fort Hood.”

During the trial, Sher said Hasan attempted to testify and offer a “defense-of-others plea, in other words, he killed Americans at Fort Hood in defense of his brothers, al Qaeda and now ISIS. Yet again, it demonstrates he wasn’t shying away from [the shooting], he was proud of it.”

Sher likened the approach to “putting [the administration's] head in the sand. They do not want to acknowledge a terrorist attack took place on their watch on American soil. And layered over that is a good dose of political correctness.”

Fox News has a standing request to interview Hasan.

Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.

Guest Column: Terror’s Virus on the Northern Border

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remarkable, considering that Muslims sounded the alarm years ago.

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

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

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

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

Consequences?

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

Northern Exposure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How has Canada come to this?

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

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

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

Much more here

Surrender in the War of Ideas

Islamic State militants pass a checkpoint bearing the group's trademark black flag in the village of Maryam Begg in Kirkuk, 290 kilometers (180 miles) north of Baghdad, Iraq / AP

Islamic State militants pass a checkpoint bearing the group’s trademark black flag in the village of Maryam Begg in Kirkuk, 290 kilometers (180 miles) north of Baghdad, Iraq / AP

Constitutional religious clause prevents Obama administration from countering Islamic State ideology

By Bill Gertz:

The Obama administration is failing to wage ideological war against Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS) terrorists over fears that attacking its religious philosophy will violate the constitutional divide between church and state, according to an in-depth inquiry by the Washington Free Beacon.

Instead, the task of countering what President Obama called the “warped ideology” of ISIL is being farmed out to foreign states and Muslim communities that often share some of the same goals as the groups the administration calls violent extremists. This approach allows the administration to avoid identifying links between terrorism and Islam.

“While the government has tried to counter terrorist propaganda, it cannot directly address the warped religious interpretations of groups like ISIL because of the constitutional separation of church and state,” said Quintan Wiktorowicz, a former White House counterterrorism strategist for the Obama administration.

“U.S. officials are prohibited from engaging in debates about Islam, and as a result will need to rely on partners in the Muslim world for this part of the ideological struggle,” he said in an email interview.

Is ISIL Islamic?

Obama announced last month for the first time that his new counterterrorism strategy includes programs aimed at countering ISIL’s ideology. But a review of administration efforts shows very little—if anything—is being done to defeat or destroy the terrorist group’s religious ideology in a war of ideas.

At the United Nations on Sept. 24, the president asked the world body to come up with a plan over the next year designed to counter ISIL and al Qaeda’s ideology. He said ending religious wars through an ideological campaign in the Middle East will be “generational” and led by those who live in the region. No external power, the president insisted, can change “hearts and minds,” and as a result the United States would support others in the unspecified program of “counter extremist ideology.”

The administration’s so-called soft power approach to countering Islamist terrorism also appeared to have difficulty with clearly defining the religious doctrine behind the ideology of the resurgent al Qaeda offshoot now rampaging its way across Iraq and Syria.

Obama stated in a speech on Sept. 10 that ISIL is “not Islamic” despite the group’s use of a fundamental Islamic precept of jihad, or holy war, in expanding its reach and imposing anti-democratic, hardline Islamic sharia law in areas it now controls.

Analysts and statements by the president and other administration spokesmen also indicate the administration may not clearly understand ISIL ideology, a required first step in developing a counter to it.

Sebastian Gorka, a counterterrorism specialist, said the major problem for the administration in countering ISIL ideology is that most senior officials hold “post-modern” and “secular” views.

“As a result, they have almost no ability to understand the drivers of violent terrorists which are religious,” said Gorka, the Horner chairman of military theory at the Marine Corps University.

“When you don’t take religion seriously, it’s almost impossible for you to comprehend the philosophy of a suicide bomber, or someone who cuts off the heads of people in the name of jihad,” Gorka said.

Senior State Department officials have expressed the view that ideology plays no role in Islamist terror and is spawned instead by “local grievances” such as poverty or other economic and social privation, Gorka said. “That is utterly fallacious. If that were true, half of India would be terrorists,” he said.

The latest issue of the ISIL English-language magazine Dabiq reveals some of the group’s ideology, using references to Islamic practices of jihad and sharia law. “The Islamic State has long maintained an initiative that sees it waging jihad alongside a dawah [proselytizing campaign] that actively tends to the needs of its people,” the magazine said, adding that the group “fights to defend the Muslims, liberate their lands, and bring an end to tawaghit [the evil corrupt system].”

The magazine also sought to legitimize its mass executions, beheadings, and other atrocities as religiously justified responses to all opponents who refuse to submit to its ideology.

The president stated in his Sept. 10 speech announcing the anti-ISIL strategy that the group is “not Islamic” because it kills Muslims and innocents, something he asserted no religion condones, and a claim disputed by many experts on Islam.

“I’ve studied Islam and I did not find a very peaceful religion,” said a current senior U.S. counterterrorism specialist who disagrees with the administration’s approach of not directly addressing the Islamic nature of terrorism in counter-ideology efforts.

Wictorowicz, the former counterterrorism strategist, defended the State Department approach. “Having spoken to them at length about this, their position is that Islam, as a religion, is not the issue,” he said. “It is particular interpretations of Islam that are, in part, driving support for violence.”

Not fighting a war of ideas

The Obama administration, under pressure from domestic Muslim advocacy organizations, has adopted a politically correct approach toward Islam and terrorism that has resulted in removing mentions of Islam from its current policies and programs. Instead, counterterrorism programs and policies are carried out under the less-specific rubric of “countering violent extremism” (CVE).

Discussing Islam also has been placed off limits in many government and intelligence community counterterrorism programs as a result of pressure groups and Muslim advisers who insist such topics would violate constitutional separation of church and state issues.

That pressure has inhibited the U.S. government from addressing Islamist ideology in a significant way, critics say. Instead, the government has been forced to indirectly counter claims by terrorists, such as the false notion that the United States and the West are at war with Islam. It used public diplomacy programs and global “messaging” campaigns whose effectiveness has been questionable, to try and counter such claims.

James Glassman, former undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, said “absolutely,” that the administration is hampered by concerns over First Amendment constitutional religious issues from conducting aggressive counter-ideology efforts against groups such as al Qaeda and ISIL.

“There is reticence, especially at State, to criticize a noxious political ideology based on a religion,” said Glassman, now with the American Enterprise Institute.

Glassman said from the start, Obama has played down the war of ideas in the struggle against terrorism.

During the transition from the Bush to Obama administration, “I was told by the Obama operatives assigned to State that the term ‘war of ideas’ was not to be used,” Glassman said.

“The war of ideas had been my focus at State, but the administration had no interest in continuing the work we were doing,” he said. “Ideology provides the environment and the justification for the activities of al Qaeda and ISIL. It must be dealt with—just as we dealt with communism from 1945 to 1990. It’s a long battle.”

“The way around the problem is leadership,” Glassman said. “The president needs to make clear—as President Bush did immediately after 9/11—that the terrorists have constructed a phony ideology and that they are trying to take over an entire religion.”

Obama appears to be in the early stages of doing that “but it is very late in the game and he needs to devote resources, not just words, to the war of ideas,” Glassman said.

Read more at Free Beacon

Also see:

THE IDIOCY OF ISLAM’S GREAT DEFENDERS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Published on Oct 3, 2014 by Dole Mite

Also see:

Bill Whittle: A Beheading in Oklahoma

 

Truth Revolt:

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

TRANSCRIPT:

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

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

Apparently he lost his temper, and a tragedy ensued.

Okay.

((LADY GAGA))

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

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

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

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

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

This story is profound.

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

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

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

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

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

Also see: