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:

Trump: Banned in Britain?

re

Frontpage, by Deborah Weiss, Jan. 28, 2016:

Shortly after Britain celebrated the 800th Anniversary of the Magna Carta, which laid the foundation for human rights including free expression, the UK Parliament debated whether or not to ban U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump for “hateful comments.”

On January 18, 2016, Martin Luther King Day, the British Parliament took up a three hour debate, at taxpayer expense, discussing the merits of banning an American who may  potentially be the leader of the Free World come the next Inauguration day.

The debate was sparked by a petition to ban Trump, signed by approximately 575,000 Brits, likely comprised primarily of Muslims and liberals.

Attacking Trump as a bigoted Islamophobe, a racist, a fool, a buffoon and wazzok, Members of Parliament argued over whether or not it was a good idea to ban from entry, an American citizen, who was speaking to an American audience, using speech legally protected in America.

Members of the Labour Party and those representing the Scottish National Party were particularly harsh, claiming that Trump’s comments weren’t just “wrong” but “dangerous,” and don’t just “harm our values” but promote Daesh’s “twisted narrative” that “pits the West against the Muslim faith.”

Sparking the controversy was Trump’s announcement of support for a ban on Muslim immigration into America until “our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”

Steve Double, a conservative MP, noted the irony of a Parliament that seeks to ban Trump for his ideas, in reaction to Trump’s position seeking to ban people based on their ideas.

Yet others argued that Trump’s comments crossed the line from “hate speech” to “discrimination” or “incitement,” despite the fact Trump has said nothing to encourage others to be violent.  It is this conflation of language and the disintegration of values, including personal responsibility, which is at the root of political correctness that truly poses a danger to Western civilization.

Censorship is clearly on the rise throughout the West including Europe, Canada and even in America.  It takes place in many forms including, but not limited to, societal self-censorship, government condemnation of speech, and so-called “hate speech laws.”

Still, it is only “hate speech” against Muslims that appears to concern the British MP’s, who are pandering to their increasing Muslim constituency.  Muslims in the UK who preach “Death to the West,” hatred of infidels, and abhorrence of all things British, are not shouldering equal accusations of “hate speech.”

To the contrary, Britain has had a somewhat “hands off” attitude towards Muslims, whether jihadists entering from abroad or Islamists preaching hatred of infidels at home.  It has welcomed war criminals, rapists and “refugees,” sometimes with fake passports, so long as they claim Asylum, legitimately or not.

In 2013, Kuwaiti Sheik Yasser Al-Habib came to Britain specifically for the purpose of riling up ShiaMuslims against Sunnis.  He spent 2 million pounds buying a former church and converting it to a mosque and satellite TV channel, from which he broadcasts his fiery sermons.  Though he was formerly jailed in Kuwait for similar practices, complaints to the British Home Secretary fell on deaf ears.

Another case in point is Behar Kasemi, a Muslim refugee in Britain, who has been arrested for threatening to cut his wife’s heart out because she became “too British.” During his interview with police, he insisted that wives are supposed to obey their husbands.

Additionally, subsequent to the public launch of ISIS sex slave trade, approximately 1400 British girls were raped by Pakistani “British” Muslims.  Still, the government has failed to even initiate an inquiry or investigation.

ISIS has made no secret that it planned to smuggle jihadists into Europe through the refugee program in furtherance of its goal to conquer the West and expand its “Caliphate.” According to at least one ISIS operative, ISIS members have already successfully entered Western countries under the guise of Asylum-seeking.

To make matters worse, a Barnabus report indicates that Prime Minister David Cameron was warned prior to accepting the first wave of the 20,000 refugees scheduled to enter the U.K. that ISIS jihadists were among them. But that didn’t stop him from welcoming them with open arms.

The UK government’s previous standard to ban a person from entry was that such a ban would be “conducive to the public good.” It standard later expanded to “unacceptable behavior.”  Ostensibly, jihadi outrages, tirades and violence against infidels constitute acceptable behavior, while speech criticizing such hatred is simply unacceptable.

The British government is in full denial mode, suffering from Jihad Denial Syndrome.  British police denied that the 7/7 terrorist attacks were religiously motivated.  Imams caught on tape preaching venomous anti-infidel sermons have gone unprosecuted as have those who have desecrated Britain’s war memorials.

Although there has long been an unholy alliance between the far left and Islamists, this diseased mindset is spreading to “conservatives” such as David Cameron in Britain.  Whether due to fear, ignorance, spinelessness or Islamist sympathies, British politicians simply do not want to acknowledge that Islamicsupremacism is underlying motivation for the attacks on British citizens and British values.

It is unfortunate that the U.K., past known for its liberal democracy and a proud tradition of free expression has stooped to the level of this Parliamentary debate.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a 57-UN Member body, has long been on a mission at the head-of-state level, to persuade Western governments to penalize “defamation of Islam” with deterrent punishments, preferably criminal in nature.  Under the guise of “defamation”, “Islamophobia”, “racism”, “hate speech” and “incitement”, the OIC aspires to attain the equivalent of Islamic blasphemy laws in the West.

The OIC and other Islamist organizations have also been promoting the false idea that “hate speech’causes terrorism.  As a case in point, it cites the riots subsequent to publication of the infamous Danish cartoons. The assumption is that these riots were inevitable, and their fault lies squarely on the shoulders of the cartoonists rather than those who committed violence.

Having bought into the notion that speech causes terrorism, politically correct politicians espouse the idea that the way to quell terrorism is to stifle speech.  Thus, the rising of speech restrictions regarding Islam are on the rise all across the West, not coincidentally concurrent with the rise of ISIS-inspired attacks and the influx of Muslim refugees.

Many Western politicians parrot stealth Islamist groups, insisting that we must de-link our association of Islam from Islamic terrorism “because that’s what groups like ISIL want.”  Yet, what ISIS does or does not want should not control us.  The Enemy Threat Doctrine mandates that if jihadists say they are religiously motivated, we should acknowledge this fact.  We must know our enemy and be able to name it by name in order to produce an effective strategy of defeat.

Denial of a problem does not make the problem disappear.  To the contrary, the first step in overcoming a threat is acknowledging both its existence and its nature.  Yet, jihadist ideology is only half the problem.  Political correctness, as exemplified by politicians more concerned about “offensive language” than the proliferation of jihadist ideology, constitutes a threat from within.

The U.K. parliamentary proceeding was largely for show. It ended without a vote, as only the Home Secretary has the authority to implement a ban.

Nevertheless, the debate was symbolic of the loss of the Judeo-Christian values of freedom of expression, human rights and personal responsibility, once cherished in the UK.

Donald Trump was merely stating a political position which acknowledged that the US government cannot decipher who is or is not adhering to an enemy ideology and that officials don’t yet have sufficient knowledge to make proper judgments regarding entry.  Apparently, this is an unpopular viewpoint among British MP’s.  And, the UK is increasingly using a ban from entry as a form of tyrannical censorship for those who merely express a dissenting political view or an unpalatable truth, so long as it doesn’t come from Muslims.

Demonstrating the height of British dhimmitude and hypocrisy regarding what is or is not “acceptable behavior,” is the UK’s past bans of Dutch MP Geert Wilders, talk radio show host Michael Savage, and Islamic scholar and author Robert Spencer.  None of them have ever encouraged violence or illegality.  To the contrary, each are on the front-lines in the fight for freedom, including freedom of speech.  If indeed, Donald Trump is banned from the UK, at least he will be in good company.

Deborah Weiss, Esq. is a regular contributor to Frontpage Magazine.  She is also a contributing author to the book, “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network”, the main researcher and writer for “Council on American-Islamic Relations: Its Use of Lawfare and Intimidation” and the author of “The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech.”  Her work can be found at www.vigilancenow.org.

Dominance and Submission in Cologne and the Persian Gulf

Mideast-Iran-US-sailors-660x350-1453185532

Crisis Magazine, by William Kilpatrick, Jan.

Under the Islamic dhimmi system, when Christians paid the jizya tax, they were often required to kneel before the local Muslim dignitary as a sign of submission. Sometimes the tax collector would deliver a slap to the face as an added humiliation. This was in accordance with the Koranic injunction that non-Muslims must not only pay the tax, but also “feel themselves subdued” in the process (9:29).

What is the meaning of the word “Islam” again? “Peace?” Er, no. That was what the vast majority of Americans thought it meant circa 2001. But since then, most of us, with the exception of a couple of presidents and Secretaries of State, have discovered that it actually means “submission.”

Islam is a very tolerant religion. It doesn’t require that you convert to it as long as you submit to it. All they are asking for is a little groveling. Thus, if you are a Christian living in the Ottoman Empire you kneel while you pay the eighty-percent tax, and if you’re a sailor in the U.S. Navy whose boat mysteriously falls into Iranian hands you kneel and then offer apologies for your behavior while thanking your captors for their “fantastic” hospitality. Oh, and if you’re a female sailor, all you have to do is don a hijab as a sign of respect for, and submission to, the codes of Islam.

In the meantime, be assured that your Secretary of State will back you up by offering his own profound appreciation for “the quick and appropriate response of the Iranian authorities.” At the same time, your president can be relied on not to mention the incident at all, he having made some sort of gentleman’s agreement with the Iranians which requires him to pretend that everything they do is both fantastic and appropriate.

About two weeks prior to the naval incident, the German nation was subject to another form of humiliation. On New Year’s Eve, a group of 1,000 North African and Arab men sexually assaulted women outside the main train station in Cologne. The total number of victims who were either robbed or sexually assaulted was about six hundred. Many of the women were forced to run through a gauntlet of their tormentors. Similar occurrences took place in about 17 other major European cities that night.

In a sense, this was the logical conclusion to Europe’s inability to resist other Islamic advances. European leaders had opened their borders, their welfare coffers, and their public housing to well over a million Muslim immigrants (seventy percent of whom were male) in less than a year. Coming from cultures where yielding is a proof of weakness, the Muslim invaders concluded that they could take what they wanted—both the welfare and the women.

A large part of the West’s difficulty in dealing with Islamic aggression can be traced to a massive identity crisis. Having traded its traditional identity markers for multicultural ones, the West no longer knows how to act when it is threatened. Being multicultural means being tolerant of every diversity. But if you’re tolerant of everything, the end result is that you stand for nothing.

More and more, it seems that Westerners will stand for just about any humiliation. While Muslims in madrassas are learning that they have the superior culture and the superior religion, Western students learn that no Western value is worth defending—including the traditional notion that women should be protected from rampaging males. At one time, both men and women acknowledged that there are differences between the sexes, that one of those differences is physical strength, and that, as a consequence, there are circumstances where male protection is desirable. Having dispensed with that “quaint” notion, Western societies seem to have fallen back on the notion that, given the right multicultural conditions, people will naturally behave in harmonious ways. When you put that assumption into practice, what you get, of course, is smaller, more multiculturally sensitive police forces.

According to one report, police in Cologne were unable to control events because they were “overwhelmed.” In other words, they lacked the manpower to be of much help that winter’s night. “Manpower.” It’s a curious word. Even today it would seem odd to say that a police force lacked “womanpower,” although men-only police forces are a thing of the past. Women do have various kinds of power, but it’s still understood that “manpower” and “womanpower” are not quite the same thing.

In any event, the Cologne police lacked manpower in both senses of the word. They were lacking in numbers that particular night, but even when in full force they seem to lack the instinctive masculine response that was once expected of civilized males. As I have written elsewhere, “the multiculturalist code is essentially an emasculating code. It has the effect of paralyzing the normal masculine response of coming to the protection of those in danger.”

In the case of the Cologne police and other state authorities, this lack of response would include not having the foresight to anticipate that German women would be at heightened risk once a million-man army newly arrived from misogynist cultures made its appearance. The problem is that European authorities are more committed to protecting multicultural pieties than to protecting ordinary citizens from Islamists gone wild. Thus, the initial police report of the evening’s events read: “A mood of exuberance—largely peaceful celebrations.” That’s “largely peaceful” if you don’t count the thousand marauding Muslims outside the train station and the cathedral. Anyone who follows the goings-on in Europe knows that the authorities’ top priority is to protect the sensitivities of the newcomers from the outrage of “Islamophobia.” As for the common folk, they are expected to do their best to understand the other culture and adjust to it. If they protest, the penalties can be severe. In the UK, when Tommy Robinson, the leader of the counterjihad movement in England, was jailed, it was for the horrific crime of having exaggerated his income on a mortgage application. When he arrived in prison, he was thrown into a cell containing several Muslims who brutally beat him—as the prison warders knew they would.

No doubt there are some tough fellows in the Cologne police force, but their toughness has been enlisted in the service of political correctness. When, a week after the New Year’s Eve assaults, the anti-immigration group, PEGIDA, rallied to protest the attacks, a massive force of Cologne police wearing riot gear broke up the demonstration using water cannons and pepper spray. The PEGIDA people have become used to that sort of treatment. They have been repeatedly attacked by German politicians and the German press as “extremists,” “xenophobes,” “racists,” and “Nazis.” And German police have on several occasions left them to the mercy of the brutal and usually much larger leftist or “anti-fascist” gangs.

The police and the politicians can be quite tough in enforcing multicultural codes, but their toughness is in the cause of cultural soft-headedness. That’s because multiculturalism is basically the process by which a culturally confused society surrenders itself to a more confident and aggressive culture. You can call the current conflict between Islam and the West a “clash of civilizations,” but that’s rather like describing the encounter between a sadist and a masochist as a clash. As I wrote a few years ago:

It’s difficult to conceive of a more disastrous combination of events than the simultaneous emergence on the world stage of a fiercely passionate ideology dedicated to conquering the West, and of another, dangerously naïve ideology, eager to dismantle it from within.

What the West sees as signs of tolerance and sensitivity are seen by Muslims as signs of submission and also as a validation of their belief that theirs is indeed the superior culture. Western appeasement will not garner more respect from the Muslim world, but it will bolster the jihadi recruitment campaign. After the navy crew surrendered in the Persian Gulf, an Iranian commander remarked:

I saw the weakness, cowardice, and fear of American soldiers myself… American forces receive the best training and have the most advanced weapons in the world, but they did not have the power to confront the Guard due to weakness of faith and belief.

Gestures of compliance do not convince Islamists that we are an admirable people, it only convinces them that they have the winning hand. Unless Western leaders get a better grip on the realities of Islamic culture, they will continue to set up their own citizens for one humiliation after another. The only consolation is that after a while, they may learn to adjust to their dhimmi status. When they kneel to pay the jizya, it may well be with expressions of gratitude for the “fantastic” and “appropriate” behavior of their masters.

Also see:

The New Terror Threat: Organized Rape

1334by Abigail R. Esman
Special to IPT News
January 15, 2016

It was a different kind of terrorist attack: a carefully orchestrated, coordinated mass rape and sexual assault on hundreds of women across Cologne, Germany amongst the firework celebrations of New Year’s Eve. Reports of the attacks describe women desperately fleeing as men pulled at them, groped between their legs, dragged them into alleyways, and witnesses who struggled to rescue them as men threw bottles and fireworks at the police.

Two weeks later, more than 500 women, along with other victims in Hamburg, Stuttgart, and Berlin, have filed complaints, and 22 suspects have been identified. Most of those suspects are asylum-seekers, new arrivals from war-torn Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan who, German officials now say, used the country’s open-armed offer of sanctuary to the victims of terrorism as a gateway to wage even more terrorism in the West.

It worked. Across Europe, women have voiced a new fear of being on the streets at night and concern that the attacks in Germany will spread. In fact, they have already. Other such rapes were reported in Finland, Sweden and Austria over New Year’s as well, though on a smaller scale.

While this kind of massive, pre-planned act of violence against hundreds of women represents a new tactic in Islamic terrorism, the truth is that it’s been brewing, even happening, in random – but constant – attacks for years. For well over a decade, for instance, the Dutch have muttered about second-generation Moroccan youth groping Dutch women, calling them “sluts,” and describing them openly as whores. Europe-wide, that view of Western women among immigrant Muslim communities has helped fuel a rash of sexual violence against them.

In 2003, for instance, 15 Moroccan-Dutch youth raped a 22-year-old Dutch woman on a commuter train. Ten years later, a 30-year-old Swedish woman was gang-raped at a refugee housing project.

In Oxford, England, that same year, a gang of seven men of Pakistani and Eritrean origin were convicted of sex trafficking and rape on a wide scale, with as many as 1,400 victims, some as young as 11 and 12 years old. One girl was reportedly forced to have a home-style abortion on a living room floor; she was 12.

Reported the Gatestone Institute at the time, “In graphic testimony, one of the victims told the court that Mohammed Karrar would charge men £500 ($750) to have sex with her. They would take her to homes in High Wycombe where she would be subjected to gang rapes, incidents that she described as ‘torture sex.’ The men would tie her up and gag her mouth with a ball to stop her cries from being heard. The men would play out abuse fantasies; sometimes she was left bleeding for days afterwards.”

More recently, reports of rapes in asylum centers by fellow asylum seekers, who then force their victims into prostitution, have made headlines across Europe, particularly in Germany, even as the gang rapes on European streets continue.

These are not isolated incidents. Rather, they are increasingly a part of European life and culture, emblematic of the clash of sexual and social mores between Muslim immigrants and the European countries in which they now live. Western girls and women dress in ways immigrants from North Africa, the Middle East and much of Southeast Asia (often called the MENASA region) consider “revealing” and “provocative.” Muslim girls are expected to remain “pure” until marriage, to cover themselves – if not in burqas and niqabs, then with long sleeves and long skirts or slacks and headscarves.

Against this standard, and aided by film, TV, and popular culture, Western women are seen by MENASA immigrant youth as promiscuous, loose, and willing – a perspective no one in their communities refutes. Add to this the hormones and sexual frustrations of young Muslim men forbidden to engage in sexual activity with Muslim girls, and – often with the loud encouragement of their peers – they sublimate their urges and sexual guilt into shaming these girls with taunts or, in too many cases, by molesting them.

But rape, as is widely known, is more than a sexual act: it is an act of violence and the abuse of power. That has translated in recent years also into the emergence of gangs of so-called “lover-boys,” men – largely immigrants from Pakistan and Morocco – who seduce young girls and then force them into prostitution. As early as 2000, reports of these girls working in the windows of Amsterdam’s Red Light district hinted at the scope of the problem. Even then, an administrator for the Dutch Salvation Army who worked with local prostitutes told the newspaper Volkskrant, “In the last few years we’ve seen more and more Dutch girls behind the windows. And Moroccan girls, whom you never saw here before.”

Other girls are sent to Belgium by their “lover-boys,” who “[a]re all immigrants from Moroccan or Surinamese origin, while their victims are Dutch native girls,” Antwerp Police Chief Inspector Jan Piedfort told Belgium’s De Morgen.

One such lover-boy described how it works to the Al-Amal Foundation, which supports families and women mostly from the Dutch-Moroccan community. “A Dutch girl, you give compliments, you flatter her, you pamper and indulge her with roses and before you know it she is lying on her back working for you. With a Muslim girl, you go to bed with her, rape her, photograph her and then you have her in your power. Then you can blackmail her: work or I’ll show everyone the photo. And a Surinamese or Antillian girl? They’re born whores.”

All of these trends have paved the way for sexual violence as a natural weapon for jihad in the age of ISIS. Indeed, we’ve seen it used not just in the mass gang rapes in Europe in recent years, but in the sexual enslavement of Yazidi girls in Syria and Iraq. We’ve seen it further in ISIS propaganda that even encourages its male members to rape women to bring them “closer to Allah.”

Yet European officials have done little to stop these widely reported atrocities, fearing charges of racism and “Islamophobia.” Britain’s former Labor MP Denis MacShaneadmitted to the BBC in 2014 that he failed to investigate oppression of Muslim women due to a mindset of, “not wanting to rock the multicultural community boat.”

The implicit misogyny in this – that offending Muslim men is somehow worse than the rape and molestation of women, Muslim and not, is striking. If anything good can come of the New Year’s attacks, it will not be through the advice of those who, like Cologne Mayor Henriette Reke, suggested women dress more modestly. Rather, it will be through those who recognize that terrorism takes many forms. This is one of them. It is time to start treating it that way.

Abigail R. Esman, the author, most recently, of Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy in the West (Praeger, 2010), is a freelance writer based in New York and the Netherlands.

***

When Worlds Collide: Unassimilable Muslim Migrants Crash Europe’s Fantasy Islam

asylum-seekers in Germany

National Review, by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY January 9, 2016:

What happens when the West’s fantasy Islam collides with the reality of an imported critical mass of unassimilated — and defiantly unassimilable — Muslims?

Cologne happens.

Nor is it only Cologne. That was just Ground Zero of the New Year’s Eve rape jihad in Germany. As National Review’s Ian Tuttle notes in an alarming column about the predictable — and, if I may say, predicted — surge of sexual assault in a Europe overrun by “migrants,” the jihad included similar episodes, albeit on a smaller scale, in Stuttgart, Hamburg, and even astride the Brandenburg gate in Berlin.

We are finally learning about the magnitude and harrowing details of the attack after days of Stasi-like information suppression. Chancellor Angela Merkel may not be big on German security, but she is a bulwark when it comes to fantasy Islam.

First there was no news; then, a few disturbing hints of gropings and robberies by gangs of “Middle Eastern or North African” men. Now, we know it was a mass atrocity — the only remaining question being: How massive?

Upward of a thousand men, overwhelmingly Muslim, executed a coordinated series of attacks on an obvious target of opportunity: street celebrations in the major cities of a reviled Western state, where they were certain to find throngs of young women and a police presence grossly inadequate to provide security — certainly not against a critical mass of Islamic supremacists.

RELATED: Mass Muslim Immigration Will Bring Islam’s Problems Here

The participation of Muslim migrants in the rape jihad is, of course, the fact most desperately suppressed by German officials. Mrs. Merkel earned her “Person of the Year” honors from left-leaning relic Time magazine by rolling out the red carpet for a staggering 1.1 million migrants in 2015 — infuriating the German public and spurring the migrant tsunami now washing over neighboring countries. In this information clampdown, the nightmare of the victimized women turns out to be the chancellor’s good fortune: Police on the scene were so outnumbered and outmaneuvered by the assailants that it was physically impossible for them to get near most of the women being savaged, much less make arrests. Most of the perps will never be identified.

The media are already using this to cast doubt on migrant culpability. “It was not clear,” the New York Times opaquely explains, “that any of the men involved were among those who arrived in Germany over the past year from conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.” Sure. In southern Germany, after two teenage girls (ages 14 and 15) were raped, police tripped over themselves to announce that the three Syrians arrestedwere not recently arrived asylum seekers. What a relief.

RELATED: Europeans Studiously Ignore Muslim Mobs

Nearly 200 women have filed criminal complaints in Cologne, the vast majority charging all manner of sexual assault. There have been few arrests, though, and nearly none involving sex crimes.

The Muslim men used a tactic that has escaped the notice of fantasy Islam devotees but is well known to those of us who’ve followed the scant reports on the rape jihad as it has proceeded from Tahrir Square to Malmö to Rotherham: A group of men encircles the targeted woman or girl, trapping her while walling off police and other would-be rescuers. Knowing they are a protected class, the Muslim men have no fear of the cops — “You can’t do anything to me,” and “Mrs. Merkel invited me here,” are just some of the reported taunts. By the time “help” reaches one victim, the assailants have moved on to the next.

It is not very effective law enforcement . . . but at least the cops can’t be accused of “Islamophobia,” right?

Still, Europe is not Nigeria — not yet. In the regressing advanced world, nothing on the scale of the New Year’s Eve siege can happen without tweets and pictures filtering out. Try as they might, German officials have been unable to put a lid on accounts from police explaining that “the large majority” of assailants they were able to identify were “from Syria,” or observing that “there were thousands of people who could not be specifically identified but who had an immigrant background, and were most probably refugees.”

RELATED: France’s No-Go Zones: Assimilation-Resistant Muslims Are the Real Refugee Crisis

Truth being the first casualty of war, it was left to Henriette Reker, the fantasy Islam–drenched mayor of Cologne, to blame the victims for their ordeal. Such assaults could be prevented, she declaimed, if German women adopted a “code of conduct” tailored to the new, multi-culti Deutschland.

In the spirit of multiculturalism, I have such a code just off the shelf (on which rests The Grand Jihad, in which I outlined it a few years back). It goes like this:

To be absolved from guilt, the raped woman must have shown some sort of good conduct . . . Islam addresses women to maintain their modesty, so as not to open the door for evil . . . The Koran calls on Muslim women in general to preserve their dignity and modesty, just to save themselves from any harassment. So for a rape victim to be absolved from guilt, she must not be the one that opens . . . her dignity for deflowering.

These pearls of wisdom come from none other than Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s renowned sharia jurist. He proclaimed them on his popular IslamOnline website about a dozen years ago, right before he was welcomed into Britain — as a trustee of the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies — despite his fatwas supporting Hamas suicide attacks in Israel and terrorism against Western troops in Iraq. Though he resides in Qatar, Qaradawi currently heads the Ireland-based European Council for Fatwa and Research.

Qaradawi is the most influential Muslim intellectual behind the strategy of, as he puts it, “conquering” Europe and America by “dawa” — the aggressive proselytism of Islamic mores. The plan calls for flooding the West with Muslim migrants, directing them to resist assimilation, establishing Islamic enclaves, and pressuring the host country to concede the enclave’s right to govern itself in accordance with sharia — Islam’s societal framework and legal code.

RELATED: Dispelling the ‘Few Extremists’ Myth — the Muslim World is Overcome with Hate

As I’ve previously explained, when Muslims are seeking conquest, Islamic scripture endorses sexual assault as a weapon to establish their dominance. “O Prophet,” Allah is said to have announced (in the Koran’s sura 33:50), “We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou has paid their dowers, and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the captives of war whom Allah has assigned to thee.”

In the Western ministries of fantasy Islam, the pols and their note-takers will thumb their chins and wonder what could possibly have motivated the German attacks — just as they wonder what could possibly explain the European sexual-assault crisis that has, by some mysterious coincidence, coincided with mass Muslim migration.

The rest of us will know that there is a strategy: conquest. Just as in the Middle East, women and girls in the West are the spoils of jihad, the vehicle for intimidating non-Muslims into surrendering sovereignty over the streets. If they want to be safe, Sheikh Qaradawi warns, they must submit to Islam’s sartorial suffocation. If not, well, they have it coming.

By the way, since President Obama entered office, the United States has issued over 100,000 green cards per year to migrants from Muslim-majority countries. That’s just green cards — it doesn’t count the thousands of visas issued to students, tourists, and temporary workers. With the Republican-controlled Congress fully funding the effort, the government is on pace to award another 680,000 green cards to Muslim migrants — with their entitlement to lifetime residency, federal benefits, and a path to citizenship — in the next five years.

As Sheikh Qaradawi and Mayor Reker might say, I’m sure it won’t be a problem . . . as long as the women “maintain their modesty.”

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

Also see:

‘Political correctness will destroy the west’ WATCH: Former Muslim blasts the left-wing response towards Islam

download (13)The Rebel, Jan. 5, 2016:

In a new video, Brother Rachid tackles the politically correct responses by politicians like Obama after terrorist attacks.

“How politicians like Obama, Francois Holland, or David Cameron know that Islam is a religion of peace? I wonder how much time they spent reading the Quran and trying to understand it? Did they read the biography of Muhammed for example? I can assure you none of them did, but still they give statements about Islam,” he says in the video as well as the description.

Rachid goes into detail about the goals of terrorists and how politicians think they know better.

“Top Islamic scholars couldn’t say that ISIS members are not Muslims, but politicians like Obama did. This is too much. This is insane. Political correctness will destroy the west,” he says.

Watch this video and don’t forget to share it with your friends if you agree.

Islamic Jihad: Symptom of a Western Cause

mBy Raymond Ibrahim, Dec. 16, 2015:

Origianally posted at PJ Media

As someone specializing in Islamic jihadism, one would expect I’d have much to say immediately after jihadi attacks of the sort that recently occurred in San Bernardino, or Paris, or Mali, where a total of about 180 dead.  Ironically, I don’t: such attacks are ultimately symptoms of what I do deem worthy of talk, namely, root causes.  (What can one add when a symptom of the root cause he has long warned against occurs other than “told you so”?)

So what is the root cause of jihadi attacks?  Many think that the ultimate source of theongoing terrorization of the West is Islam.  Yet this notion has one problem: the Muslim world is immensely weak and intrinsically incapable of being a threat.  That every Islamic assault on the West is a terrorist attack—and terrorism, as is known, is the weapon of the weak—speaks for itself.

This was not always the case.  For approximately one thousand years, the Islamic world was the scourge of the West.  Today’s history books may refer to those who terrorized Christian Europe as Arabs, Saracens, Moors, Ottomans, Turks, Mongols, or Tatars[1]—but all were operating under the same banner of jihad that the Islamic State is operating under.

No, today, the ultimate enemy is within.  The root cause behind the nonstop Muslim terrorization of the West is found in those who stifle or whitewash all talk and examination of Muslim doctrine and history; who welcome hundreds of thousands of Muslim migrants while knowing that some are jihadi operatives and many are simply “radical”; who work to overthrow secular Arab dictators in the name of “democracy” and “freedom,” only to uncork the jihad suppressed by the autocrats (the Islamic State’s territory consists of lands that were “liberated” in Iraq, Libya, and Syria by the U.S. and its allies).

So are Western leaders and politicians the root cause behind the Islamic terrorization of the West?

Close—but still not there yet.

Far from being limited to a number of elitist leaders and institutions, the Western empowerment of the jihad is the natural outcome of postmodern thinking—the real reason an innately weak Islam can be a source of repeated woes for a militarily and economically superior West.

Remember, the reason people like French President Francois Hollande, U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel are in power—three prominent Western leaders who insist that Islam is innocent of violence and who push for Muslim immigration—is because they embody a worldview that is normative in the West.

In this context, the facilitation of jihadi terror is less a top down imposition and more a grass root product of decades of erroneous, but unquestioned, thinking.  (Those who believe America’s problems begin and end with Obama would do well to remember that he did not come to power through a coup but that he was voted in—twice.  This indicates that Obama and the majority of voting Americans have a shared, and erroneous, worldview.  He may be cynically exploiting this worldview, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s because this warped worldview is mainstream that he can exploit it in the first place.)

Western empowerment of the jihad is rooted in a number of philosophies that have metastasized into every corner of social life, becoming cornerstones of postmodern epistemology.  These include the doctrines of relativism and multiculturalism on the one hand, and anti-Western, anti-Christian sentiment on the other.

Taken together, these cornerstones of postmodern, post-Christian thinking hold that there are no absolute truths and thus all cultures are fundamentally equal and deserving of respect.  If any Western person wants to criticize a civilization or religion, then let them look “inwardly” and acknowledge their European Christian heritage as the epitome of intolerance and imperialism.

Add to these a number of sappy and silly ideals—truth can never be uttered because it might “hurt the feelings” of some (excluding white Christians who are free game), and if anything, the West should go out of its way to make up for its supposedly historic “sins” by appeasing Muslims until they “like us”—and you have a sure recipe for disaster, that is, the current state of affairs.

Western people are bombarded with these aforementioned “truths” from the cradle to the grave—from kindergarten to university, from Hollywood to the news rooms, and now even in churches—so that they are unable to accept and act on a simple truism that their ancestors well knew: Islam is an inherently violent and intolerant creed that cannot coexist with non-Islam (except insincerely, in times of weakness).

The essence of all this came out clearly when Obama, in order to rationalize away the inhuman atrocities of the Islamic State, counseled Americans to get off their “high horse” and remember that their Christian ancestors have been guilty of similar if not worse atrocities.  That he had to go back almost a thousand years for examples by referencing the crusades and inquisition—both of which have been completely distorted by the warped postmodern worldview, including by portraying imperialist Muslims as victims—did not matter to America’s leader.

Worse, it did not matter to most Americans.  The greater lesson was not that Obama whitewashed modern Islamic atrocities by misrepresenting and demonizing Christian history, but that he was merely reaffirming the mainstream narrative that Americans have been indoctrinated into believing.  And thus, aside from the usual ephemeral and meaningless grumblings, his words—as with many of his pro-Islamic, anti-Christian comments and policies—passed along without consequence.

—–

Once upon a time, the Islamic world was a super power and its jihad an irresistible force to be reckoned with.   Over two centuries ago, however, a rising Europe—which had experienced over one millennium of jihadi conquests and atrocities—defeated and defanged Islam.

As Islam retreated into obscurity, the post-Christian West slowly came into being.  Islam didn’t change, but the West did: Muslims still venerate their heritage and religion—which impels them to jihad against the Western “infidel”—whereas the West learned to despise its heritage and religion, causing it to be an unwitting ally of the jihad.

Hence the current situation: the jihad is back in full vigor, while the West—not just its leaders, but much of the populace—facilitates it in varying degrees.  Nor is this situation easily remedied.  For to accept that Islam is inherently violent and intolerant is to reject a number of cornerstones of postmodern Western thinking that far transcend the question of Islam. In this context, nothing short of an intellectual/cultural revolution—where rational thinking becomes mainstream—will allow the West to confront Islam head on.

But there is some good news.  With every Islamic attack, the eyes of more and more Western people are opened to the true nature of Muhammad’s religion.  That this is happening despite generations of pro-Islamic indoctrination in the West is a testimony to the growing brazenness of the jihad.

Yet it still remains unclear whether objective thinking will eventually overthrow the current narrative of relativism, anti-Westernism, and asinine emotionalism.

Simply put, celebrating multiculturalism and defeating the jihad is impossible.

However, if such a revolution ever does take place, the Islamic jihad will be easily swept back into the dustbin of history.  For the fact remains: Islam is terrorizing the world, not because it can, but because the West allows it to.

[1] Although the original Mongol-Tatar conquerors were not Muslim, most of them eventually converted to Islam—finding natural appeal in its divine validation for conquest, rapine, and plunder—and articulated their later wars on Christendom and others in the name of jihad.

RAYMOND IBRAHIM is a widely published author, public speaker, and Middle East and Islam specialist.  His books include Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (2013) and The Al Qaeda Reader (2007).

San Berardino Attack was NOT workplace violence

gbThe Gorka Briefing, by Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Dec. 4, 2015:

This was a well-prepared plan by people who have an ideological commitment to holy war, to jihad in the name of Allah, and that’s what they did yesterday in that government building. On Fox last night with Megyn Kelly.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT:

KELLY: “Trace, thank you. The trip to Saudi Arabia. Trip to Pakistan. Apparently born to two Pakistani parents as was his wife. And the wife is a whole story unto herself. We will get to her in a minute.

The FBI has taken over this investigation. And my next guest just happened to have been with the FBI in Los Angeles while this attack was unfolding. Dr. Sebastian Gorka provides counterterrorism training to the FBI and special forces. Serving major general distinguished theory at marine corps university. he has a fascinating website as well. thegorkabriefing.com. he is the real thing. Doctor, thank you for being here. you are on the program ten days ago saying we’re on our own. That it’s going to happen. And today as we sit at 9:16 p.m. eastern time, we are still being told it might not be terror. it might, it might not be.”

GORKA: “I think that discussion is over. if the report your colleague just gave us, that there is confirmation of not only that this individual was accessing ISIS jihadi propaganda, but also in contact with individuals who had previously been investigated for connections to jihadi groups like ISIS or al Qaeda, I think that train has left the station. You heard the lieutenant himself, first officer on the scene, say unequivocally, this was not a rogue incident. This isn’t a question of somebody who had, you know, an individual grievance with a colleague or who had some kind of psychotic wreak. everything we are hearing reinforces that this was a well-prepared plan by people who have an ideological commitment to holy war, to jihad in the name of Allah, and that’s what they did yesterday in that government building.”

KELLY: “We still like to believe that the FBI would be on to somebody like this. Somebody who is communicating with suspected extremists. somebody building bombs in his apartment, in his house. many of them. somebody arming himself to the gills. Along with his wife who he picked up in Saudi Arabia, came back and married her. We want to believe that people like you are monitoring these people and would know if they are getting toward do something like this. But it’s not true.”

GORKA: “Look, the fact is, i work very closely with the FBI. I’ve worked closely with the NYPD. These organizations are doing incredible work. look at the fact that in the last 20 months, we have killed or arrested 82 ISIS suspects. ISIS supporters on U.S. soil. that is through the amazing work of our federal local law enforcement and our intelligence community. But it is very, very challenging. The report that i mentioned previously, that my company has just published on ISIS as a domestic threat, which your watchers, your viewers can access at tleet threatknowledge.or rg. we have examples of an ISIS dialogue here in the united states pumping out the kind of material that apparently this mass murderer was consuming. And that individual had 48,000 followers on his social media site. So we’ve done a great job at intercepting and stopping those people who want to do jihad here in America. But who knows how many more there are. That’s the real question and it is fundamentally a human challenge, a human intelligence challenge.”

KELLY: “What is being done to encourage the development of that intelligence by this administration.

GORKA: What is being done to stop it, that’s the better question. You’ve had your own experience in New York with Mayor de Blasio shutting down some of the most incredibly powerful intelligence initiatives of the NYPD. Over the last several years, we have seen this at the federal level. We’ve had the attempt by the administration to excise, to censor training and the materials used to prepare our operators. For example, the word jihad should not be used. Should be deleted from power point slides, from materials, because it could be deemed inflamed to Muslims. This is where you see politics getting into the intelligence cycle where you see censorship disport dis distorting the function. I have talked to them and they know this will endanger Americans if you allow political correctness into our national security mission.”

KELLY: “That is where we pick it up with our next guest. Doctor, thank you.”

GORKA: “Thank you, Megyn.”

***

How Political Correctness May Hamper the Fight Against ISIS

Someone Tell The President We Can’t Fight Radical Islam By Being Politically Correct

960x0IPT, by Steven Emerson and Pete Hoekstra
Forbes
November 16, 2015

Barack Obama promised to “do whatever it takes to work with the French people and with nations around the world to bring these terrorists to justice, and to go after any terrorist networks that go after our people.” But what does his record say? (OZAN KOSE/AFP/Getty Images)

“This is an attack not just on Paris, it’s an attack not just on the people of France, but this is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values that we share,” – President Obama hours after the terrorist attacks in Paris began unfolding.

The full statement by the president at first sounds lofty, courageous and dedicated to U.S. resolve in fighting the scourge that afflicted the City of Lights.

A closer analysis, however, reveals that it is empty hypocritical posturing designed to deceive the American public and feed his politically correct allies in the media their narrative.

First, it was not an attack on “all of humanity and the universal values we share,” as Obama claimed. It was an attack by Islamists who do not share “our universal values” on its infidel enemies.

Second, wouldn’t it have been appropriate for him to have issued a similar type of unequivocal condemnation of terrorism and his strong affiliation with Israel’s commitment to fight against extremism when it began experiencing its most recent wave of massive attacks? After all, just as he expressed the close alliance between the U.S. and France in vowing to attack the terrorists who struck, the President also reiterated the “extraordinary bond between the United States and Israel” during last week’s meetings with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and pledged to protect Israeli security.

Really?

Let’s roll the tape. When Palestinian terrorists began shooting and killing Israelis in every corner of their country, the Obama administration outrageously issued a contrived, evenhanded statement calling on both Israel and the Palestinians to reduce the violence. Perhaps—to be consistent with his so-called unequivocal views against terrorism expressed on Friday—he should have called on both France and ISIS to mutually reduce the violence.

The Obama administration’s role in the rise of ISIS

Third, Obama promised to “do whatever it takes to work with the French people and with nations around the world to bring these terrorists to justice, and to go after any terrorist networks that go after our people.” This is the same president who impeded the lawsuits against those who killed the 241 Marines in Beirut and won’t allow prosecutions of the Iranian Al Quds Force responsible for killing thousands of American soldiers in Iran and Iraq. He also refused to support FBI efforts to prosecute Hamas for killing scores of Americans, tried to interfere with civil law suits against the Palestinian Authority for murdering U.S. citizens and even prevented the victims of Iranian terrorism from collecting the billions of dollars of judgments awarded to them in dozens of lawsuits that Iran has lost. Jurists on both political sides have agreed that the president has violated U.S. anti-terrorism laws that mandate the prosecution of those who kill “our people.”

Fourth, this is a president who some claim is more responsible for the rise of ISIS than anyone else in the world. Recently declassified emails demonstrate that his administration sold the initial shipment of major weapons to ISIS in 2012 as a counterweight to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. It’s quite ironic that Obama acts so sympathetically to the victims of ISIS attacks, much similar to how the man who murdered his parents pleads for mercy because he is an orphan.

Finally, expect the President and other Western leaders such as CIA Chief John Brennan to begin their apologia tour in claiming that the attackers had nothing to do with Islam, with a compliant media parroting their talking points. They will say that ISIS is not religious but a “death cult;” that “jihad” really means “peace” and those who carry out these attacks are “subverting a religion of peace.” The president has prohibited the term “Islamic terrorism” from the White House lexicon. Perhaps we should ban the terms “white racists,” the “Italian Mafia,” the “Hispanic drug cartels” and “black gangs.”

Even on Saturday, the Democratic presidential candidates refused multiple times to condemn “radical Islam,” falsely contending—as the many Muslim advocacy groups say today—that condemning radical Islam is racist. Also expect the mindless talking heads to claim that the majority of attempted terrorist attacks have been singularly stopped by the active cooperation of the American Muslim population.

Islamic terrorism has everything do with Islam

Let’s set the record straight once and for all: Islamic terrorism has everything do with Islam. The violent tactics of ISIS, al-Qaida, Hamas and every other Islamic terrorist group invokes their legitimacy by practicing the religion its purest form. This does not mean that all Muslims are terrorists or that Islam in inherently violent. There are vast numbers of peaceful Muslims. But Islam is defined by those who practice it. The decapitations by ISIS proscribed by the Koran were the dominant form of punishment by Mohammed’s armies against enemies who would not convert or accept Islamic supremacy.

The notion that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam is the invention of the leftist Western alliance with anti-civil rights Islamic advocacy groups. It is designed to mislead the public, especially because of the massive amount of terror the world has experience or observed since 9/11. ISIS is not subverting Islam, but it is derived from its basic tenants. It practices Islam the same way the Iranian Mullahs practice Islam, the way Saudi Arabia chops off limbs, the way Pakistan sentences to death anyone who converts to Christianity, the way that women are treated as second class citizens in traditional Muslim societies and the way that homosexuals are put to death.

Are we to think that the pro-violent and misogynist Muslim Brotherhood—which dominates the religious and social institutions of the Muslim world in both the East and West, and all of its offspring including al-Qaida, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Jama’at Islamiya, Boku Haram, Tabligi Jamat and others—have nothing to do with Islam?

Also, sorry to break the politically correct bubble, but it has been FBI intelligence that has stopped the vast majority of the more than 100 attempted Islamic terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11, not the cooperation of the Muslim population with law enforcement. The sad reality is that radical Islamist front groups that masquerade as moderate—such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and the Muslim American Society (MAS)—discourage Muslims from cooperating with authorities.

Censoring the discussion

Indeed, these groups, who have been welcomed into the White House hundreds of times, exhort their members and all Muslims in the U.S. not to trust or talk to the FBI. Most significantly, they espouse an incendiary conspiratorial narrative that lies at the motivational root of all Islamic terrorism: They claim there is a war against Islam by the United States, Israel and the West. The terrorists who hear this narrative are then persuaded to avenge the “crimes” of the U.S., France or Israel by carrying out “jihad” that they justify as “defensive.”

It is only a matter of time before the high priesthood of self-anointed civil rights groups begin to reclaim their dominance in censoring the discussion—abetted by the useful idiots in the mainstream media—of mentioning the term “radical Islam” by claiming it’s a slur against all Muslims. Already, the media are dutifully reporting the “condemnations” of the Paris attacks by groups like CAIR and MPAC, the very same groups that say that any mention of radical Islam is Islamaphobic racism. If so, how would they categorize the gruesome Islamic terrorist attacks in Paris?

Obama’s hollow words on the Paris attacks will fade in the coming days largely because they never meant anything in the first place. But the American and European publics are not stupid. They understand the problem. It is our leaders who are disenfranchising us. And they think they will get away with it. Remember that they blamed the Benghazi massacre on an Internet video. Perhaps they will blame the ISIS attacks on a TV show.

Politically Correct Jihad

Illustration by Bosch Fawstin http://fawstin.blogspot.com/

Illustration by Bosch Fawstin http://fawstin.blogspot.com/

Political Islam, by Bill Warner, Nov. 15, 2015:

Only a day after the November 13 jihad attacks in Paris we see the usual politically correct responses. Ironically Obama and Kerry had pronounced Islamic State “contained” and its “days are numbered” earlier in the day.

Merkel of Germany says that the proper response to jihad is tolerance and European values.

The politicians do not use the word jihad, but terror and terror networks.

The left of center press says that the rhetoric of the right causes terror and that poor Muslims will suffer from being associated with terror. They should be worried about being associated with jihad.

The professors still teach Islam without jihad. The press will not offend Muslims. Police do not study the doctrine of jihad. Politicians cry out for more Muslim refugees.
We are losing a civilizational war because of political correctness. To win we must start using the language of Islam. We must start conversations that about the ideology and doctrine of political Islam.

The Obama Administration Debuts Its Latest Euphemism

George-Orwell-political-speech-638x322PJ Media, by Debra Heine, Nov. 6, 2015:

President Obama likes to use euphemisms to obscure his unpopular and  destructive  agenda.

The latest politically correct language to emanate from his administration is the term “justice-involved youth” in place of “juvenile delinquents.” The non-judgemental phrase was debuted by Attorney General Loretta Lynch earlier this week in a news release about a DOJ initiative to give people with criminal convictions “a second chance.”

Via CNS News:

“The Department of Justice is committed to giving justice-involved youth the tools they need to become productive members of society,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in a news release on Monday.

Lynch said the Justice Department and the Department of Housing and Urban Development are launching a $1.7-million initiative to help Public Housing Authorities and legal assistance groups “reduce barriers for justice-involved youth.”

“Justice-involved youth” is just the latest in a long line of PC terms used by members of the Obama administration to avoid inconvenient truths.

Just last week, we saw the term “boots on the ground” transmogrify into “direct action on the ground” to mask the embarrassing fact that Obama promised there would be no American boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria about 4,200 times. (Fifteen times on tape.)

Euphemisms have been trotted out as part of the Obama administration’s approach to the war on terror so many times since 2009 that the Washington Free Beacon called it Obama’s “All Euphemism Foreign Policy.”

  • “Outliers” is their kinder, gentler term for “rogue states”
  • “Al-Qaeda core” are the al-Qaeda terrorists who survived the Bush presidency, then regrouped and multiplied under the Obama presidency. They are not in any way, shape or form “decimated.”
  • “Overseas contingency operations” is the Obama administration’s Orwellian term for ”the global war on terror.”
  • “Man-caused disaster” is the Obama-speak for “terrorist attack.”
  • “Workplace violence” is how the Obama administration describes Islamic terrorist attacks that take place at work.
  • Violent extremism is how the Obama administration prefers to describe Islamic terrorism or jihadism because it gives them an opportunity to lump in the KKK, IRA, and Nazi skinhead groups who all together commit about 1% (or less) of the terrorism we see throughout the world.
  • “Kinetic military action” is how the Obama administration says “war” without upsetting anti-war groups.
  • “Leading from behind” is Obama’s euphemism for his “CYA” approach to foreign policy. It translates roughly to, “we’ll wait until it’s too late to be effective, and when pressured, take some modest steps, but don’t blame us when the excrement hits the fan.” (Because it will.)
  • “Strategic patience” is related to Obama’s “leading from behind” philosophy. The administration uses it in place of “dithering,” or “kicking the can down the road for the next president to have to deal with.”

The term ”dynamic global security posture” was used last February by National Security Adviser Susan Rice to describe — well — no one really knows. It’s pretty much gibberish.

The Rape of Sweden

For more on the situation  in Sweden see Writings by Ingrid Carlqvist. And in case you never noticed, Pat Condell always provides plenty of links after his videos on youtube:

Swedish woman raped for hours by migrant “children”
https://translate.google.co.uk/transl…

The truth about the “children” swarming into Sweden
https://acidmuncher.wordpress.com/201…

My previous video on the same subject, The Invasion of Europe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIclt…

Migrant raped a 3 year-old child. Swedish Migration Board tried to conceal the incident
http://speisa.com/modules/articles/in…

Yet another Swedish rape case. This video provides a good summary of Sweden’s immigration hypocrisy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnqG9…

Afghan found Jesus after raping 14 year-old Swedish girl
http://swedishsurveyor.com/2015/09/30…

Iraqi “refugee” rapes Swedish woman on overnight train. Local newspaper conceals the story.
https://translate.google.com/translat…

Swedes’ homes may be confiscated to accommodate asylum seekers
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/655…

Hundreds of thousands of third world immigrants and nowhere to house them
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/26022…

Tents for “refugees”
http://www.thelocal.se/20151016/swede…

When journalists rape
http://swedishsurveyor.com/2015/03/09…

Media described Somali gang rapists as Swedes
http://www.nyatider.nu/en/disclosure-…

Police hide the identity of 4 immigrant rapists
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/…

Swedish woman gang raped by “paperless immigrants”
http://www.europeanguardian.com/81-un…

Woman raped twice in an hour by different men. Police refuse to give a description.
http://speisa.com/modules/articles/in…

Unconscious woman raped in broad daylight in front of witnesses. Rapist arrested. Identity “not known”.
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/…

Swedish “justice”. Somali who raped a 12 year-old gets community service
http://swedishsurveyor.com/2015/06/27…

1 in 4 Swedish women will be raped
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/175…

Feminist hijab solidarity: Swedish derangement syndrome reaches new heights
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/20152…

Swedish newspaper works with far-left group to ‘out’ right-wing commenters
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lo…

Expressen newspaper hires left-wing hacker group to steal people personal information and blackmail them
http://swedenreport.org/2015/03/31/do…

Stalinist intimidation by Sweden’s media
http://www.d-intl.com/2013/12/11/anal…

Swedish news editor confronted on his hypocrisy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUCKB…

Swedish media harass retired journalist who criticises Sweden’s insane immigration policy
https://translate.google.com/translat…

Victims of rape – Domestic refugee in Sweden
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLYD4-…

Sweden – A raped country
http://cavatus.wordpress.com/2012/03/…

The Clock Ticks On

1545

by Mark Steyn
Steyn on the World
October 20, 2015

The world divides into those who sincerely believe in that “Coexist” sticker and those who think it’s a delusional evasion. After all, if it weren’t for that big Muslim crescent “C” at the front, you wouldn’t need a bumper sticker at all:

That peace-symbol “O”? It’s Muslims, alas, who kill secular hippie pacifist backpackers in Bali nightclubs.

That equal-rights “E”? It’s Muslims who take girls as their sex slaves in Nigeria and kill their own daughters and sisters in Germany because rape has rendered them “unclean”.

The star-of-David “X”? It’s Muslims who are currently stabbing and running over Jews in Jerusalem and then celebrating by passing out free candy.

In India, it’s Muslims vs Hindus. In southern Thailand, Muslims vs Buddhists. The world is a messy, violent, complicated place, but as a rule of thumb, as I said all those years ago in America Alone, in most corners of the planet it boils down to: Muslims vs [Your Team Here].

Millions of complacent westerners genuinely regard Islam as merely another exotic patch in the diversity quilt, but I find it hard to believe that the leaders of liberal progressive political parties can be quite that deluded. Nevertheless, there was Justin Trudeau at his victory rally at the Queen Elizabeth in Montreal last night:

There are a thousand stories I could share with you about this remarkable campaign, but I want you to think of one in particular. Last week I was in St. Catharines, and I met a young Muslim mum wearing a hijab. She handed me her infant daughter and said something I will never forget. She said she’s voting for us because she wants to make sure her little girl can make her own choices in life and that the government will protect those rights.

To her, I say this: You and your fellow citizens have chosen a new government that believes deeply in the diversity of our country. We know in our bones that Canada was built from people from all corners of the world, belonging to every faith, every culture, speaking every language. We believe in our hearts that this country’s unique diversity is a blessing bestowed upon us by previous generations of Canadians who stared down prejudice and fought discrimination in all forms.

In other words: Canadians voted to say no to hate! On CTV early in the evening, Jason Kenney popped up and pushed back against Lisa LaFlamme’s suggestion that the niqab controversy had cost the Tories the election. He pointed out that polls showed some 80 per cent of Canadians opposed to new citizens being masked when taking their oath of allegiance to Queen and country: It had the unusual distinction of being a Harper policy with near universal appeal.

But so what? M Trudeau’s narrative is the one that will prevail – that questioning Islamic self-segregation is at odds with “Canadian values”. And so no politician with an eye to electoral viability will ever raise the subject again.

Most people want to think of themselves as “nice”, and so it’s easier to welcome the increasing presence of shrouded women on the streets of Canada as a deepening of our heartwarming embrace of self-affirmation-by-multiculturalism, rather than something that mocks any conventional notions of women’s rights. Yet, whatever disquiet might be felt, they will take their signal from their politicians, and fall silent on the matter.

~South of the border, Ahmed the Clock Boy made his long-awaited visit to Washington to meet President Obama, following his pilgrimage to President Bashir of Sudan, the butcher of Darfur, a couple of days earlier. When Ahmed first got into trouble for bringing his “clock” to school, Obama Tweeted his approval (“Cool clock, Ahmed”) and invited him to bring it to the White House. Since then, the official line – precocious all-American teen’s enthusiasm and ingenuity stymied by ingrained Islamophobia – has taken a bit of a hit. Ahmed can’t make a clock. All he can do is rip the guts out of some crappy Radio Shack thing from the Seventies, and tape it into a simulacrum of a suitcase bomb, which is not a skill to be disdained, at least in some parts of the world.

However, it’s not really the talent all the hipster execs had in mind when, in the wake of the presidential Tweet, they invited Ahmed to visit the headquarters of Google, Facebook et al. The private sector apparently still has enough sense of self-preservation that the glamorous job offers and grants quietly faded away. And even the Oval Office had supposedly downgraded Ahmed’s audience with Obama to part of the crowd scene on White House “Astronomy Night”. But no: young Ahmed worked his way to the front of the line and was rewarded with a hug from the President.

The greatest clockmaker of our time explained that he’d been unable to bring his clock to Obama because he’s been “too busy traveling”, and it’s kinda bulky, being the size not of a clock but a bomb, and evidently President Bashir’s security in Khartoum being pickier about large ticking devices than the White House. But he’s certainly “busy traveling”: The quintessential Texas teenager and his family have accepted an offer to move to Qatar.

Nonetheless, like Niqab Girl, Clock Boy has taught us all a valuable lesson with his droll and spectacularly successful provocation. The US Department of Homeland Security’s slogan is “If You See Something, Say Something” – unless it’s something that might get you accused of Islamophobia, in which case keep it to yourself.

Which is where we came in, on the morning of Tuesday September 11th 2001 at the US Airways First Class check-in desk:

I got an instant chill when I looked at [Mohammed Atta]. I got this grip in my stomach and then, of course, I gave myself a politically correct slap…I thought, ‘My God, Michael, these are just a couple of Arab businessmen.’

Clockmed has raised the bar on that one. My God, this is just a young Muslim male. So what if he’s ticking? Do I really want to be tied up in sensitivity-training hell for the next six months?

~Meanwhile, in Birmingham, England, where the clock is at the eleventh hour, a new government program designed to identify elementary-school children at risk of “self-detonation” – whoops, I mean “self-radicalization” – is already going gangbusters:

A primary school has reported a 10-year-old Muslim boy to police on suspicion of terrorism, after he complained about not having a prayer room on a field trip.

The boy, a pupil at Parkfield Community School in Birmingham, was on the trip when his ‘changed’ behaviour drew the teachers’ attention.

He also told female Muslim pupils they needed to cover their faces with a head scarf, and expressed an ‘alternative’ view about the Charlie Hebdo attack…

The school referred the boy to police under the government’s Prevent Duty initiative which provides guidance to teachers on spotting signs of extremism.

Over the last 12 months the school, which caters for more than 740 pupils between the ages of five and 11, has reported three pupils to the Counter Terrorism Unit.

All three children were referred after staff were concerned they were displaying signs of developing extremism.

But why is demanding a prayer room a sign of “developing extremism”? All kinds of Muslims demand prayer rooms hither and yon, and they’re not all terrorists, are they? Besides, what’s wrong with wanting a prayer room? Come to that, what’s wrong with expressing an “alternative” view on Charlie Hebdo? After all, an audience of pampered middle-class liberal progressives at Trinity College, Dublin loves “alternative” views on Charlie Hebdo. Why shouldn’t a ten-year-old at Parkfield Community School?

Oh, well. The great thing about a bureaucratic program that requires police investigation of grade-schoolers at risk of “developing extremism” is that it’s the Big Government trifecta: expensive, time-consuming, and assuredly entirely ineffectual. Whereas, say, a policy of reducing Muslim immigration to the United Kingdom is just cloud-cuckoo land. Can’t be done. Pie in the sky. Devoting police resources to investigating every ten-year-old schoolboy who says something “alternative”: that we can do.

~Down Under, following the murder of a police accountant by a 15-year-old “violent extremist”, authorities are now moving on to the jihad’s junior varsity team:

Security agencies are monitoring a 12-year-old boy in relation to suspected terrorist activity, the Australian federal police commissioner, Andrew Colvin, has said, in the leadup to a security summit in Canberra on Thursday…

[Justice minister Michael] Keenan declined to say how many children under the age of 14 were on watchlists. “I do not think it is appropriate for me to go into that,” he said.

Indeed. Being on a “watchlist” doesn’t affect their performance in the school play or on the track team, so lighten up:

Australian Federal Police Commissioner Andrew Colvin said Australia’s terrorist threat had evolved and become younger over the past year.

“We’re shocked that a 12-year-old is on police radar for these types of matters,” Colvin told Australian Broadcasting Corp. television.

ABC reported on Wednesday that the 12-year-old boy was the youngest of 18 suspected extremists named in a court document in March. The boy’s name has not been published.

In case someone invites him to the White House?

And of course:

[Mr Keenan] said it was important to “reach out a hand of friendship” to the Muslim community and “provide reassurance” that security measures were not targeted at one ethnic group or religion.

Best thing to do is target all Aussie 12-year-olds, just to be on the safe side.

~If you’re thinking this all seems an awful lot of trouble and expense for a demographic that seems unusually hard to assimilate, and indeed boasts of its disinclination to do so, well, don’t worry; it’ll get a lot more troublesome and expensive:

Sweden is fast approaching a complete collapse. More and more municipalities are raising the alarm that if the migrants keep coming at this pace, the government can no longer guarantee normal service to its citizens.

Who are these Continentals to demand priority over “migrants” when it comes to government “service”? Keep those migrants coming! Austria:

By September they were arriving at the southeastern border at the rate of 10,000 or 12,000 a day. These migrants are associated in the public mind with the war in Syria but, in fact, come from throughout the Muslim world—Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh. Most of them are on their way to Germany. The great majority are young men. By the end of this year, Austrian authorities estimate, 375,000 will have passed through the country, and a quarter of them will have stayed to apply for asylum. Austria will have added 1 percent to its population in just about three months, with virtually all the newcomers Muslims…

Citizens of all the tiny countries that lie between the Middle East and Germany were witnessing a migration far too big for Germany to handle. They knew Germany would eventually realize this, too. Once Germany lost its nerve, the huge human chain of testosterone and poverty would be stuck where it was. And if your country was smaller than Germany—Austria, for instance, is a tenth Germany’s size—you could wind up in a situation where the majority of fighting-age men in your country were foreigners with a grievance.

Whoa. Don’t go there, girlfriend. It’s like The New York Times says:

VIENNA — As befits the city of Sigmund Freud, Vienna has two faces — one sweet, one sinister.

Behind the schnitzel and strudel, Mozart and the opera, lurks the legacy of the Nazis who forced Jews to clean sidewalks with toothbrushes… Now, to the astonishment of many and the alarm of some, the burning question in Vienna’s elegant cafes is, Which face will prevail in the city’s bellwether elections on Oct. 11?

So, if you’re not passing out the strudel to every strapping young Muslim lad coming down the Karntnerstrasse, you’re a Nazi.

Speaking of cleaning the sidewalks with toothbrushes, I don’t think that’ll cut it in the small border town of Nickelsdorf, now “an orgy of garbage and feces of unparalleled dimensions“. In the most well-ordered and maintained country on the Continent, the sh*t is hitting the fans of open borders. We’re gonna need a lot more strudel.

~So don’t mention the veil, don’t mention the ticking, don’t get too specific about the precise nature of the “alternative views” of Charlie Hebdo, “provide reassurance” that it’s nothing to do with Islam …and tell your crime reporters to fill the space with strudel recipes:

Her father and brothers stabbed her to death on her mother’s orders, after she was gang-raped by three men. The rape left her “unclean” and the mother allegedly demanded the killing to restore the family’s honor. German police are seeking the father and brothers. That by itself is not newsworthy; what is newsworthy is the news itself, which appeared in not one of Germany’s major daily newspapers or websites.

Which brings us back to Justin Trudeau, and the niqab “controversy”. You’re not a Nazi, are you? Best to self-veil, metaphorically (for the moment): That way there’s nothing to see.

Also see:

Losing the War on Islamic Terrorism

catastrophic-failure-cut (1)Western Free Press, by Nicholas Short, September 20 2015:

“A national security professional’s duty is not to know true Islam; it is to identify and establish a functional threat doctrine, regardless of whether that doctrine accurately tracks with ‘true’ Islam or not. What matters is that we understand the enemy’s doctrines, not whether he is correct about them,” writes Stephen Coughlin in his most recent book Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad

Detailing how the War on Terror has effectively been lost through decision making that is increasingly less focused on the threat as it presents itself and more on the narratives that have reduced the threat to a nameless abstraction, Coughlin notes, “Today, individuals with Muslim Brotherhood affiliations dictate who can and cannot work for the government on War on Terror issues. They also dictate what can and cannot be discussed.”

“As long as they can keep us from understanding the enemy doctrine, they can keep us from winning the war. There is no knowing this enemy without understanding that doctrine, and there is no victory without knowing the enemy. These are facts. We can lose a war— and our country— for want of readily available facts, which are ignored according to policy,” states Coughlin. To the everyday American who for the most part is not aware of the purges that have taken place within our national security apparatus, this may sound farfetched as if it was the making of a conspiracy theory, but it isn’t. As the declared enemy has stated that their fighting doctrine is based on the Islamic Law of jihad, Islamic Law must be incorporated into any competent threat analysis as the enemy identifies its doctrine along Islamic lines. Today, you will not find a single threat analysis within the myriad of national security agencies that even identifies Islam nor jihad.

The reason for this is due to the terrorist organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood having insulated itself within our government, military, the national security establishment, transnational bodies, and even interfaith communities. Before we can even grasp how the Muslim Brotherhood today now controls the domestic debate within our own national security circles regarding Islam, we must first look at whom this enemy truly is. The Brotherhood’s stated goal is to eliminate and destroy Western civilization from within as the document that reveals how to achieve this goal was labeled An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.

The 18-page document was entered into evidence in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terror funding trial. Federal investigators found the document in the home of Ismael Elbarasse, a founder of the Dar Al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, during a 2004 search. The document was written in 1991 by Muslim Brotherhood operative Mohamed Akram and lays out the Brotherhood’s plan as a “civilizational alternative” for infiltrating non-Islamic forms of society and governance for the “global Islamic state.”

The memo details the role of the Muslim Brother in North America:

The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes.

The memo further identifies numerous groups operating as fronts for the Brotherhood under the heading “a list of our organizations and the organizations of our friends.” Such groups are as the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Muslim Student Association (MSA), The Muslim Communities Association (MCA), as well as a litany of others are all identified. It is important to note that out of this memorandum the preeminent Muslim Brotherhood front organizations we see working within the United States today were born, those being the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).

Coughlin details how the Brotherhood operations in America began with this memorandum as it outlined a strategy in which it first penetrated American institutions under the guise of being a “moderate” organization in order to effect downstream efforts from within. Coughlin writes, “this is what the Brotherhood is referring to when it says it seeks ‘a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers.’ While penetrating government and civil organizations is important, the interfaith movement constitutes a major supporting line of operation in Brotherhood penetration operations.” It is from the interfaith movement, or as the White House likes to call it “Muslim outreach“, that the Brotherhood has gained so much influence over our national security.

For instance, in October 2011, 57 organizations made up the likes of Brotherhood front organizations such as CAIR, ICNA, and MSA wrote a letter demanding President Barack Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (and future Central Intelligence Agency Director) John Brennan, urging him to take action over U.S. government training materials alleged to demonstrate a prejudice against Islam. In the letter the organizations  insist on firings, “re-training” and “purges” of officers, analysts, Special Agents, and decision makers who created or made such materials available. With information that these groups could have only obtained from sources within, they go on to note specific material as having an “anti-Muslim bias” such as the FBI’s 2011 training manual, books at the FBI library in their training academy in Quantico, Virginia, specific FBI trainers and analysts, and a report made by Army Command and General Staff at the Fort Leavenworth School of Advanced Military Studies.

The same week that the letter was sent to the White House, a meeting was held at George Washington University between these same groups and top DOJ officials, including DOJ Civil Rights Division head Tom Perez. According to a report on this meeting by Neil Munro of theDaily Caller, several Muslim group leaders called for creating criminal and civil penalties for anyone advocating positions they deem offensive. Most notably in attendance were Sahar Aziz, an Egyptian-born American lawyer and Fellow at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, a Muslim advocacy group based in Michigan and Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), one of the largest Brotherhood front groups in America.

At the meeting, the Islamists lobbied for: Cutbacks in U.S. anti-terror training, limits on the power of terrorism investigators, changes in agent training manuals, and a legal declaration that criticism of Islam in the United States should be considered racial discrimination. Aziz said that the word “Muslim” has become “radicalized” and, once American criticism of Islam was silenced, the effect would be to “take (federal) money away from local police departments and fusion centers who are spying on all of us.” Magid asked Perez to change the federal government’s rules governing terror investigations, for more private meetings with top justice department officials, for the reeducation of FBI agents, and for more people to oppose criticism of Islam, which he labelled “religious bigotry and hate.”

Days later, after both the letter sent to the White House and the meeting with DOJ officials, Brennan responded by agreeing on the necessity for the “White House to immediately create an interagency Task Force to address the problem and bring the FBI and DHS into compliance with Islamic sensibilities” by removing personnel and products that these Brotherhood front organizations had deemed “biased, false, and highly offensive.” Brennan further stated that such a review was already underway by the administration in order to improve training for “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE). The process included combining “cultural awareness” with the CVE “training guidance and best practices” directives. It also meant putting out “a bulletin” to state, local, and tribal entities that “regularly leverage federal grants to fund CVE-related trainings” to provide guidance in their efforts.

“The FBI proceeded to undertake the very purging of documents that these Brotherhood front organizations had demanded and the Department of Defense followed shorty thereafter with a Soviet style purge of individuals along with disciplinary actions and re-education,” writes Stephen Coughlin. Coughlin goes on to state that, “the very information that senior leaders such as Brennan, Perez, and those within the Obama adminstration sought to purge from analysis and censor from discussion was the same information that has repeatedly provided indicators and warnings of threat activity when presented in national security forums.”

It is through the adminstration’s “Countering Violent Extremism” protocols and advisory councils that the purging of work product and personnel continues to this day. Thus, the Muslim Brotherhood through various front groups such as CAIR now control the domestic debate on countering terrorism through the CVE narrative, which in effect is a sophisticated information campaign executed through the skilled imposition of a disarming pseudo-reality. National security officials working within the DHS, FBI, CIA, and DOJ now look to Muslim Brotherhood groups like CAIR, ISNA, MPAC, and others for guidance domestically. It is through the CVE that the threat language of terrorist groups like ISIS, al-Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood was purged from our national security and law enforcement sectors.

Hence, it is because of the CVE and not in spite of it, that the threat vocabulary defining this enemy has been purged, leaving us defenseless and unable to counter actual terrorists in the War on Terror. “The most disturbing aspect of the CVE,” writes Coughlin, “will be the realization that national security elites beholden to the oath to support and defend the Constitution have been manipulated into taking active measures to suppress true threat analysis that is supposed to be undertaken in support of the primary intelligence mission: to know the enemy.”

As it stands today, America is losing the War on Terror as we are fighting the counter-terror war according to narratives that declare actual fact-based threat analysis unconstitutional on religious grounds yet allow actual terrorists to serve as the arbiters of our counter-ideology campaigns based on language requirements and legal doctrines that are not our own.

***

To This Secular Muslim, Ben Carson Had a Point

Photo Illustration by Alex Williams/The Daily Beast

Photo Illustration by Alex Williams/The Daily Beast

Daily Beast, by Asra Q. Nomani, Sep. 24, 2015:

Take it from someone who’s been fighting it her whole adult life: The sad truth is that too many Muslims want to mix mosque and state.
Ben Carson’s blunt remarks about a Muslim president triggered much outrage, even after he partially walked them back. But secular Muslims like me, who reject political Islam, understood what he meant: He doesn’t want a Muslim as president who doesn’t believe in the strict secular separation of mosque and state, so that the laws of the state aren’t at all touched by sharia, or Islamic law derived from the Quran and hadith, the sayings and traditions of prophet Muhammad. Neither do we. We really don’t want a first lady—or a president—in a burka, or face veil.Carson’s comments underscore a political reality in which Muslim communities, not only in far-flung theocracies like Saudi Arabia and Iran, but also in the United States, still struggle with existential questions about whether Islam is compatible with democracy and secularism. This struggle results in the very real phenomenon of “creeping sharia,” as critics in the West call it (and which some Muslims like to mock as an “Islamophobic” allegation). While the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment states the United States “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” the Quran states that Allah “takes account of every single thing (72:28),” which has led to the divine mandate by leading Muslim scholars to reject secularism, or alamaniya, or the way of the “world,” derived, from the Arabic root for world, alam.

In too many instances, we are seeing an erosion of those boundaries, in part led by some Muslims, increasingly using America’s spirit of religious accommodation and cultural pluralism to challenge rules that most of the rest of America accepts. Many of those incursions have been led by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a controversial self-described advocacy group for Muslims that, not surprisingly, called for Carson to step down this week.

For example, when I was a girl in New Jersey in the early 1970s, we took our Muslim holidays off, if we wanted, but didn’t demand the rest of the school take the day off with us. Last week, however, four decades later, New Jersey Muslims stormed out of a Jersey City school board meeting after the school board refused to cancel school at the last minute for the Muslim holiday called “Eid al-Adha,” or “the Feast of Sacrifice,” being celebrated Thursday. CAIR has lobbied public school officials for the change for the sake of “diversity and inclusion.

At the meeting, the local NBC news segment showed an older woman yelling in Arabic that the holiday was her “right,” followed by a young Muslim woman, wearing a headscarf and smiling eerily as she said, “We’re no longer the minority. That’s clear from tonight. We’re going to be the majority soon.”

The thinly veiled threat was as disturbing to me as it might be to other Americans. Unspoken is the sharia ruling that Muslims engage in no work or school on the day of Eid-ul Adha, but, instead, as the prophet Muhammad is quoted as saying in a hadith, “O people of Islam, these are days of eating and drinking.”

 Yet it is unreasonable and, quite frankly, selfish for Muslim parents to demand an unplanned holiday, forcing other parents to scramble to find child care, as board member pointed out. But, sadly, on the eve of the “Festival of Sacrifice,” there is one issue that too many Muslims find difficult to sacrifice: Their belief that mosque and state must not be separated but must in fact be intermingled.

Tthis month, an ExpressJet flight attendant, Charee Stanley, a relatively new convert to Islam, demanded the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reinstate her job after she was put on leave for refusing to serve alcohol. CAIR argued the flight attendant deserved “a religious accommodation.”

But Ali Genc, senior vice president of media relations at Turkish Airlines, said in an interview that his carrier, based in a Muslim country, doesn’t make such allowances, saying, “The service and consumption of alcoholic beverages onboard is regulated in the framework of the rules of Turkish Airlines. In this respect, a refusal of such service by our cabin crew is not possible as a matter of course.”

Some years ago, a Muslim woman, Ginnah Muhammad, demanded her right to enter a Michigan small claims courtroom with a face veil, a demand that was correctly refused. CAIR supported her petition, saying removing the veil meant denying the woman her “constitutional rights.”

Before that, another Muslim woman convert, Sultaana Freeman, sued the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to allow her to take her driver’s license photo with her veil. CAIR supported her demand, saying the woman “sincerely” believed it would “advance her piety.” These efforts at appealing to schools, courts, and other government structures to suit hyper-conservative interpretations of sharia reveal how some Muslims are going too far in demanding accommodations by U.S. authorities, blurring the mosque and state divide.

Corey P. Saylor, director of the “department to monitor and combat Islamophobia” at CAIR, disputed my argument that the organization has worked to erode secularism in the United States, saying, “CAIR’s legal and political advocacy aims to preserve our nation’s spirit of religious accommodation from efforts to erode it or restrict it to certain faiths.”

He added, “Americans of the Islamic faith have equal rights and responsibilities in civic life and may argue for policies they favor, and win or fail based on a well-established political and legal process to which everyone has, and should have, equal access.”

In the cases that I cited “the courts or relevant political entities make the final decision,” Saylor said, “not us.” Indeed, fortunately, CAIR has so far lost its Florida, New Jersey and Michigan efforts.

Carson wasn’t being hyperbolic in expressing concern. Globally, Muslims express deep problems with separation of mosque and state. In a 2013 Pew Research Center survey, an alarming percentage of Muslims worldwide, numbering 99 percent in Afghanistan and 45 percent in Russia, answered “favor” when asked whether they favor or oppose making sharia the law of the land. A disturbing percentage supported including sharia in family, marriage, and criminal law, including settling property disputes, deciding child custody arrangements, stoning people for adultery, and cutting off the hands of thieves. While to be sure the survey wasn’t conducted in the West, the results reveal cultural mindsets.

In the United States, I first confronted our Muslim community’s difficulty with the concept of secularism in late 2003 when I walked through the front door of my mosque in Morgantown, West Virginia, citing Islamic rights as well as civil rights granted me as a woman in this country. Soon after, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette wrote an article that included this passage: “Dalía Mogahed, outreach coordinator for the Pittsburgh mosque, agrees on Muhammad’s respect for women but says Nomani is viewing the issues through the eyes of a secular feminist rather than the eyes of a Muslim.”

Secular feminist?

I read the passage twice because to me, being a secular Muslim feminist wasn’t a contradiction in terms. To me, though they are few and far between, we have Islamic theologians who advocate for equal rights for women and secularism in governance. But the criticism was a wakeup call to me of the challenges we face advocating for secular values among Muslims. (Mogahed later led survey research at Pew and was a member of an Obama administration advisory council. She didn’t return a request for comment.)

It’s not “time to pull the plug” on Carson’s campaign for his indelicate comments on Islam, as columnist P.J. O’Rourke argues. But it is time to continue the politically incorrect but critical conversation that he started.

The presidential candidate is talking against a backdrop of 9/11 and a reality in which political Islam expresses itself violently in the West and in Muslim countries from Iraq to Indonesia. To me, not acknowledging this real issue among Muslims amounts to another Carson allegation, of Muslims practicing taqiyya, or deception.

Much of the modern-day debate dates back to 1977 when Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, a theological brain trust of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood political party, fighting secularism, wrote, “Al-Hulul al Mustawradah wa Kayfa Janat `alaa Ummatina,” or “How the Imported Solutions Disastrously Affected Our Ummah,” casting secularism and Islam in a cosmic battle, with a section entitled, “Secularism vs. Islam.”

He wrote: “Secularism may be accepted in a Christian society but it can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society.” Today, even ordinary Muslims ask questions like, “Is it permissible to pray behind imams who…promote democracy and secularism?” The answer from too many in Muslim leadership is no.

Carson dared to address an explosive issue that Muslims are still struggling to resolve on issues of sharia and fiqh, a related concept, referring to Islamic jurisprudence. Not long ago, Ayad Jamal Deen, a former Iraqi parliament member and courageous intellectual and religious cleric, admitted, “In my opinion, the fiqh is more dangerous than nuclear technology.” He acknowledged that “Islam has been politicized and is used as a sword.” We would be wise to listen to advocates of secularism who have battled the forces of political Islam.

In his Fox walk-back interview, Carson said, “Now, if someone has a Muslim background, and they’re willing to reject those tenets and to accept the way of life that we have, and clearly will swear to place our Constitution above their religion, then of course they will be considered infidels and heretics, but at least I would then be quite willing to support them.”

To me, Carson’s words aren’t “anti-Muslim” either, as a Guardian headline described them. They are a realistic mirror on the challenges Muslims today face with the notion of strict secularism.

Even John Esposito, founding director of Georgetown University’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, funded by a rich member of the theocratic Saudi ruling family and criticized for publishing “apologist” explanations of Islam, wrote not long ago:

“Many Muslims, in particular Islamists, cast secularism as a completely foreign doctrine imposed on the Islamic world by colonial powers.” Even “secular reformers” who appreciate Western secular democracies “opt for a state that reflects the importance and force of Islamic principles and values as they proceed to engage in wide ranging reformist thinking.”

Interestingly, for secularists, like Iraqi-born Faisal Saeed Al Mutar, founder of the Global Secular Humanist Movement, raised by a liberal Muslim family and now living in New York City, it’s actually strict secular Muslims who could truly understand the critical need for a separation of mosque and state. He said in an interview that he doesn’t agree with Carson’s edict and noted, “I would also argue that secular Muslims would make the best presidents on the topic of the First Amendment because they understand the most [that] the marriage between religion and politics is very poisonous.”

One of his Facebook friends responded: “Faisal Saeed Al Mutar for President.” Meanwhile, some of his Muslim critics have also called him a “heretic” and an “infidel,” not to mention “Uncle Tom” and “sellout.”

***

For a reality check on whether a Muslim, absent sweeping reform of Islamic doctrine, can truly be secular see Dr. Stephen M. Kirby’s series on Fantasy Islam:

THE LURE OF FANTASY ISLAM

THE FANTASY ISLAM OF MIKE MOHAMED GHOUSE

THE FANTASY ISLAM OF INGRID MATTSON

***

Also see: