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

960x0IPT, by Steven Emerson and Pete Hoekstra
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.


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

Illustration by Bosch Fawstin

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”…

The truth about the “children” swarming into Sweden…

My previous video on the same subject, The Invasion of Europe…

Migrant raped a 3 year-old child. Swedish Migration Board tried to conceal the incident…

Yet another Swedish rape case. This video provides a good summary of Sweden’s immigration hypocrisy…

Afghan found Jesus after raping 14 year-old Swedish girl…

Iraqi “refugee” rapes Swedish woman on overnight train. Local newspaper conceals the story.…

Swedes’ homes may be confiscated to accommodate asylum seekers…

Hundreds of thousands of third world immigrants and nowhere to house them…

Tents for “refugees”…

When journalists rape…

Media described Somali gang rapists as Swedes…

Police hide the identity of 4 immigrant rapists…

Swedish woman gang raped by “paperless immigrants”…

Woman raped twice in an hour by different men. Police refuse to give a description.…

Unconscious woman raped in broad daylight in front of witnesses. Rapist arrested. Identity “not known”.…

Swedish “justice”. Somali who raped a 12 year-old gets community service…

1 in 4 Swedish women will be raped…

Feminist hijab solidarity: Swedish derangement syndrome reaches new heights…

Swedish newspaper works with far-left group to ‘out’ right-wing commenters…

Expressen newspaper hires left-wing hacker group to steal people personal information and blackmail them…

Stalinist intimidation by Sweden’s media…

Swedish news editor confronted on his hypocrisy…

Swedish media harass retired journalist who criticises Sweden’s insane immigration policy…

Victims of rape – Domestic refugee in Sweden…

Sweden – A raped country…

The Clock Ticks On


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:





Also see:

Relax: UK Government to Battle Islamist Violence by Fighting ‘All Forms of Extremism’

Theresa-MayPJ Media, By Robert Spencer On September 2, 2015;

British Home Secretary Theresa May announced last week:

[I]n the not-too-distant future we will be launching an anti-extremism, counter-extremism strategy as a Government. That will be looking across the board at all forms of extremism — yes, Islamist extremism, but also neo-Nazi extremism.

Is Dr. Strangelove patrolling the British countryside in his wheelchair? Has Oswald Mosley mysteriously reappeared and begun ranting on the BBC?

Do the handful of skinheads, convicts, and other idiots with swastikas on their necks sieg-heiling around the fringes of British society really constitute a threat equivalent to that of the international jihad? Hardly. And Theresa May certainly knows it.

She not only knows there is a global threat from Islamic jihadists, she also can’t help but be aware of the fact that there is a very severe and imminent jihad threat within Britain itself. To equate this with a minuscule threat from a handful of neo-Nazi nutjobs (who should of course be combated in any case, however much she exaggerates the threat they pose) shows how deeply May and the entire Conservative government of David Cameron are beholden to Islamic supremacists who will pillory the government as “racist,” “bigoted,” and “Islamophobic” if it speaks too forthrightly and honestly about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat.

The enlightened and multicultural home secretary is not, of course, speaking just about real neo-Nazis. She also almost certainly is lumping in with neo-Nazis the opponents of jihad terror that she and her government consider to be “right wing.”

In doing this, she has behind her a series of libels from groups such as the far-Left Hope not Hate, and the Marxist, Palestinian jihad-supporting One Law for All to abet this mischaracterization. Both groups, and others like them, have labored for years to brand those who dissent from their far-Left, anti-Israel stances as “right-wing extremists.”

In taking up these tendentious smears and giving them the imprimatur of the British government, May and her cohorts have ruled all honest discussion about how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism as being unacceptable discourse. In place of that honest discussion, the government has instituted the prevailing fantasies about how Islam is a “Religion of Peace,” and groups such as the Islamic State are not Islamic.

She is, in other words, smearing an honest and realistic response to the jihad threat as “neo-Nazi,” and is enforcing falsehoods about “Islamist extremism” that will hamstring, and ultimately doom to failure, her government’s attempts to combat it.

The same thing is happening in Obama’s America. The administration has published several statements and reports about the threat from “right-wing extremists” while consistently denying the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat. He even did so last Wednesday, after a gay, black man murdered two white journalists in a rage over injustices he believed he had suffered. Obama said:

What we know is that the number of people who die from gun-related incidents around this country dwarfs any deaths that happen through terrorism.

Just as with the recent “study” that purported to show that “right-wing extremists” were more of a threat than Islamic jihadists, in saying this Obama is probably leaving out the deaths from 9/11. And if even a fraction of the foiled jihad plots had come to fruition, this would be an even more risible claim than it is.

But this is the opinion of the powerful elites in both America and Britain today, and in both countries, innocent people are going to suffer as a result. Innocents will be unjustly tarred as “right-wing extremists,” and will be susceptible to the incomplete, faulty response to the very real jihad threat that the American and British governments would rather wish away than confront.

Unfortunately, the confrontation cannot and will not be avoided forever. The official denial ensures than when it comes, it will be worse than it could have been had more realistic and effective action been taken sooner. Future generations of free Britons, if there are any, will condemn Theresa May and her boss Cameron as naive fantasists, whose draconian measures against counter-jihadists and blind eye to jihad activity within Britain (except in the most egregious cases) doomed Britain to years of bloodshed and chaos.

In the meantime, British people can sleep easy knowing their government’s good efforts have kept them safe from the neo-Nazi scourge.

Curt Schilling and the Death of Free Speech


Frontpage, by Robert Spencer, August 27 2015:

“Curt Schilling’s tweet comparing Muslims to Nazis is even worse than it sounds,” howled Max Fisher in Vox – one of the many voices this week screaming for Schilling’s head for transgressing against America’s new and unwritten, but nonetheless frightfully draconian, speech codes.

Fisher professes ignorance of the perp’s illustrious career, semaphoring that he is a good Leftist elitist, ignorant of Schilling’s brutish, bourgeois athletic achievements: “Curt Schilling, whom Wikipedia informs me is a former baseball star and current ESPN commentator, sent a tweet on Tuesday that seems to have emerged straight from the internet nether-void of racist email forwards.”

“Racist”? Schilling tweeted a graphic that read, “It’s said only 5-10% of Muslims are extremists. In 1940, only 7% of Germans were Nazis. How’d that go?” So where is the “racism”? What race are “extremist Muslims”? What race are Muslims in the aggregate? What race is Islam? Or did Fisher mean that Schilling’s tweet was racist against Germans?


Fisher compounds this muddled thinking by doubling down on the false claim in his headline, that Schilling likened Muslims to Nazis: “The argument here is pretty clear, even if the numbers are pure nonsense, but just so it’s not lost: Schilling is saying that the religion of Islam is akin to Nazi Germany, and that the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims are responsible for the actions of a tiny minority of extremists in the same way that Nazi-era Germans were complicit in Nazi crimes.”

Actually, Schilling’s tweet does neither of those things. It likens not the religion of Islam, but “extremist Muslims,” to Nazis, and it doesn’t say a thing about all Muslims being responsible for the crimes of Islamic jihadists. And Fisher’s woolly logic is typical of the firestorm that has engulfed Schilling, as he has been removed from ESPN’s coverage of the Little League World Series and is being pilloried everywhere. Schilling himself is repentant and apologetic, but it may do no good: he may be facing more punishment, and is taking a beating in the mainstream media for being “insensitive.”

But what exactly is so offensive about his tweet? Is it that he compared “extremist Muslims” to Nazis? Surely that can’t be it. The Islamic State hasn’t murdered six million Jews, but surely would if it could, and meanwhile its gleeful bloodlust, sex slavery, terrorizing of non-Muslims and all the rest of it make the comparison reasonable.

Or was Schilling “insensitive” for daring to suggest that peaceful Muslims aren’t doing much to rein in their violent coreligionists? Well, let’s see. Last month, Muslims in Ireland held a demonstration against the Islamic State. How many Muslims showed up? Fewer than fifty. And in October 2014 in Houston, a rally against the Islamic State organized by the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) drew the grand total of ten people. In August 2013 in Boston, about 25 Muslims rallied against “misperceptions” that Islam was violent. About the same number showed up in June 2013 at a progressive Muslim rally in Toronto to claim that their religion had been “hijacked.”

And back in 2005, a group called the Free Muslims Coalition held what it dubbed a “Free Muslims March Against Terror,” intending to “send a message to the terrorists and extremists that their days are numbered … and to send a message to the people of the Middle East, the Muslim world and all people who seek freedom, democracy and peaceful coexistence that we support them.” In the run-up to the event it got enthusiastic national and international publicity, but it ended up drawing about twenty-five people.

Read more

Actually the number of radical Muslims is higher:


‘Lord of the Rings’ Actor Says Islamic Terrorism and Political Correctness Could Equal the End of ‘Our Civilization’ in Blunt Interview

The Blaze, by Dave Urbanski, Aug. 12, 2015: (h/t Kyle Shideler)

“Lord of the Rings” actor John Rhys-Davies said Western inaction and political correctness in the face of Islamic terrorism threatens civilization as we know it.

John Rhys-Davies (Image source: Nicole Wilder/Syfy/NBCU Photo Bank via Getty Images)

John Rhys-Davies (Image source: Nicole Wilder/Syfy/NBCU Photo Bank via Getty Images)

“There is an extraordinary silence in the West,” the Welsh thespian observed on Adam Carolla’s podcast Monday. “Basically, Christianity in the Middle East and in Africa is being wiped out. I mean not just ideologically but physically, and people are being enslaved and killed because they are Christians. And your country and my country are doing nothing about it.”

Carolla launched into a brief tirade about the widespread fear of “judging” others.

“This notion that we’ve evolved into a species that’s incapable of judging other groups and what they’re doing, especially when it’s beheading people or setting people on fire or throwing acid in the face of schoolgirls,” Carolla said. “I like that kind of judging! That’s evolved!”

When things turned to how the West ultimately handed its enemies in World War II, Rhys-Davies spoke about the battle’s long-term results.

“Fascism in Europe was destroyed,” Rhys-Davies said. “Japanese imperialism in the Far East was wholly destroyed. They were the greatest generation. They knew what they were fighting for, and they won.”

Rhys-Davies’ interview with Carolla promoted the DVD release of “Return to the Hiding Place,” a film about Jews in Holland during World War II, The Hollywood Reporter said.

“This is a unique age. We don’t want to be judgmental,” said Rhys-Davies, also known for his role in Indiana Jones’ friend in “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and its sequels. “Every other age that’s come before us has believed exactly the opposite. I mean, T.S. Eliot referred to ‘the common pursuit of true judgment.’ Yes. That’s what it’s about. Getting our judgments right. Getting them accurate.”

He then turned his attention to today’s elected officials: ”It’s an age where politicians don’t actually say what they believe. They are afraid of being judged as being partisan. Heaven forbid that we should criticize people who, after all, share a different value system.”

“But it’s all relevant,” he said, mocking politically correct talking points. “It’s all equally relative, isn’t it? We’re all the same. And God and the devil, they’re the same aren’t they, really? Right and wrong? It’s really just two faces of the same coin.”

Rhys-Davies added that “we have lost our moral compass completely,” and if we don’t find it “we’re going to lose our civilization. I think we’re going to lose Western European Christian civilization, anyway.”

Here’s the podcast. Rhys-Davies’ commentary on these subjects begins around the 15-minute mark. (Content warning: Some profanity):

‘The Nightmare’ — Europa and the Incubus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Report: Chattanooga Victims May Not Be Eligible for Purple Hearts

072715_purpleheartFox News Insider, July 27, 2015:

Four Marines and one sailor who were killed in the Chattanooga shooting reportedly will only be eligible to receive Purple Heart awards if the FBI declares the shooter had ties to a terror organization.

The FBI has only referred to Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez as a “homegrown violent extremist.”

“Determination of eligibility will have to wait until all the facts are gathered and the FBI investigation is complete,” Marine Corps public affairs officer Maj. Clark Carpenter told the Marine Corps Times.

Marines Lance Cpl. Squire “Skip” Wells, Gunnery Sgt. Thomas Sullivan, Sgt. Carson Holmquist and Staff Sgt. David Wyatt were all killed in the July 16 attack. Navy Petty Officer Randall Smith was also killed.

On “The Kelly File” tonight, Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer (Ret.) said that it’s clear that Abdulazeez was a terrorist, and the FBI and the Obama administration are intentionally trying to “disconnect the dots.”

“There is absolutely no doubt by any thinking person, anyone who’s rational, that this was a terror attack,” Shaffer said. “If you don’t find a direct link between ISIS or Al Qaeda, it doesn’t matter. It meets the criteria.”

Megyn Kelly pointed out that the families of these deceased service members stand to lose Purple Heart benefits if the awards are not approved.

“It’s a substantive loss to them,” she explained.

“This is totally insane,” Shaffer said. “It goes against the factual evidence, and it’s just the wrong thing.”

DHS: Calling Islamic Terrorism ‘Islamic’ Offends Muslims

sddefaultInvestors Business Daily, July 27, 2015:

PC: After a Muslim terrorist gunned down unarmed Marines in Tennessee, the head of Homeland Security revealed a policy to downplay any Islamic role in such terror. The feds are now blindfolding each other on the threat.

Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson refuses to call Islamic terror “Islamic,” arguing it’s “critical” to refrain from the label in order to “build trust” among Muslims.

In jaw-dropping remarks Friday at Aspen Institute’s annual security forum, Johnson said the government will call such attacks “violent extremism” over “Islamic terrorism” out of respect for the Muslim community.

The policy explains why the U.S. prosecutor and lead FBI investigator in the Chattanooga case still insist on calling Mohammad Abdulazeez a “homegrown violent extremist,” though he blogged about his religious motivations for the attack, and he and his family attended a local mosque controlled by a terror-tied Islamic trust.

Johnson says that dismissing the religious dimension of the widening homegrown Islamic terror threat is part of a strategy to gain the “cooperation” of the Muslim community. He says that if officials called Islamic terrorism “Islamic,” they’d “get nowhere.”

Even the moderator was dumbfounded: “Isn’t government denying the fundamental religious component of this kind of extremism by not using the word Islamic?” “I could not disagree more,” Johnson retorted, arguing that Islam “is about peace.”

Earth to Johnson: You already are “nowhere.” The FBI director warns that he can’t keep up with all the homegrown Muslim terrorism cases cropping up now in all 50 states. Chattanooga is just the latest tragic example of the FBI and DHS missing plots in the pipeline.

And what fruit has pandering to local Muslim leaders produced? U.S. Attorney Bill Killian helped dedicate Abdulazeez’s mosque at its grand opening in 2012, even befriended its leader. Did Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga president Bassam Issa tip him off about Abdulazeez’s radicalization? Did he stop him from driving down the street and opening fire on two military sites?

An internal PowerPoint document shows that mosque leaders were busy invoking the names of radical Muslim Brotherhood leaders to raise money for the mosque, leaders like Sheikh Qaradawi, who once issued a fatwa calling on Muslims to kill U.S. soldiers.

Instead of investigating the mosque and its leaders, the feds have stepped up their groveling.

The notion that Muslim leaders are helping us is totally bogus. In one Islamic State hot spot, Minneapolis, the local Muslim leaders are “cooperating” by demanding that the FBI release jailed IS terrorist suspects. In Boston, congregants of a mosque attended by the Boston marathon bombers are “cooperating” by holding fundraisers and rallies for convicted al-Qaida- and IS-tied terrorists.

Johnson, like his boss, are delusional: Their strategy of “winning hearts and minds” already has failed. So now it’s up to state and local authorities to take this fight from the feds and put down this growing insurgency themselves. They can start by passing a law that allows authorities to press legal action not just against terrorists but also any of their supporters in the Muslim community.

A Tennessee senator frustrated over the slow pace of the federal investigation in Chattanooga introduced a bill that passed implementing Andy’s Law, named after Pvt. Andrew Long, the Little Rock Army recruiter murdered by terrorist Abdulhakim Muhammad.

Arkansas, Louisiana and Kansas have also passed the anti-terror law, and North Carolina is on the verge of doing so. Letting victims of terrorism seek damages from individuals and organizations that provide material support to terrorists will go a long way to filling the investigative void left by PC-paralyzed Washington.

How can we make it politically OK to talk about limiting Muslim immigration?

American Thinker, by Newsmachete, July 18, 2015:

Every so often, there is a massacre.  Sometimes the monsters who commit them have names like Dylann Roof, but more often than not they have names like Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez or Nidal Malik Hasan.  Given the fact that the vast majority of people in America are Christian, and only a small minority are Muslim, the preponderance of Muslim mass killers only further highlights the disproportionate number of killers who come from that community.

Let’s be very direct: a substantial minority of Muslims in the world support terrorism and genocide.  That has to be true for organizations like ISIS, the Taliban, Boko Haram, al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab, and so on to exist.  These are large organizations, and they cannot exist without members and supporters, most (but not all) of them from countries in the Middle East.

Does it make sense, then, that we allow immigration of Muslims into the U.S.?  Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez was a Muslim Palestinian immigrant from Kuwait.  Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who bombed the Boston Marathon, was a Muslim immigrant from Kyrgyzstan.

They both killed many people.  And they are not the only ones.  Most Muslims we let into the United States will not become mass murderers.  But the problem is that a substantial minority of them sympathize with mass murderers, and some of those will go on to actually become mass murderers.  And the biggest point to make is that there is often no way for authorities to distinguish between a “conservative religious Muslim” and a “conservative religious Muslim who will commit mass murder.”

Given that, does it not make sense that we should limit immigration of Muslims into America?  If this were World War II, would we admit immigrants from Germany?  If this were the 1950s, would we admit immigrants from Korea, or from North Vietnam in the 1960s?  Of course not.  Because we were at war with them.

Let’s be frank: we are currently at war with a extremely violent and radical minority of the Muslim population of the world.  When they are off the battlefield, they are often impossible to identify.  Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez was not on anyone’s radar.  He seemed like a normal middle-class boy (well, normal except for the marijuana and the use of a “white powdery substance” under his nose that he told the police was caffeine powder).

Given that, why can’t we speak frankly and say, “We don’t know who these killers are in advance.  But quite frequently they are foreign-born Muslims, some of whom we are at war with, or more to the point feel that they are at war with us. Why shouldn’t we have a discussion about limiting their entry into the United States?”

You know, if we had white immigrants from South Africa, and a minority of those were mass-murdering blacks in America, you can bet that immigration would be stopped immediately.  Why should this be any different?

If people can be made to understand that open borders and the importation of Muslim refugees has a part in mass murders, perhaps minds can be changed.  Politicians call dismissively for “better screening,” but how can you really look into the background of thousands of people from a third-world country?  Unless they are already on a terrorist watch list, what the State Department does is basically take them at their word.

If people could be made to realize that this “screening” is a sham, perhaps minds could be changed.

Above all, we have to fight the racism or “Islamophobia” tag.  A phobia, after all, is a fear not based in reality.  But this fear is based on a very real threat.  We take our first steps when each of us speaks out.  The left silences us by making us afraid to talk.  But if enough of us start talking about it, it will create a space that will be acceptable.  That’s what Mark Levin does, making topics acceptable so other hosts can talk about them.  And on a smaller scale, you can do it, too, in your own community with your friends and neighbors.  (Unless you live in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, or D.C.)

Also see:

Jihadi Kills 4 Marines in TN – FBI “Not Sure” of Motive

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, July 17, 2015:

It is clear to all who have functioning cerebral cortexes what the problem is.  Jihadis are on the march.  Law enforcement and military personnel are being openly targeted.  They say it is a command from Allah to wage jihad in order to establish an Islamic State (Caliphate) under Sharia (Islamic Law).

mohammedabmug1Yesterday a 24 year old Muslim male named Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez killed four Marines and injured several others in a shooting at a reserve center in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Abdulazeez had a blog page on which he wrote:  “Don’t let the society we live in deviate you from the task at hand.  Take your study guide, the Quran and the Sunnah, with strength and faith, and be firm as you live your short live in this prison called Dunya.  Because Islam is a comprehensive religion we need to know everything from its message.  The more comprehensive our knowledge of it is, the better our understanding of it will be and what goes on around us.”

Another misunderstander of Islam.

We see the playbook open again.

1. The jihadi makes clear why he is doing what he is doing.  It’s Islamic jihad stupid.

2. The news tells us they cannot understand why he would do this because he is a recent college graduate with a “well-paying job” as an electrical engineer.

3. The FBI and DHS tell us they have not found any “direct ties to terrorist organizations like ISIS.”

4. The FBI/DHS and the media tell us Abdulazeez is a “classic lone wolf.”

5. DHS Response:  Enhance security at federal facilities.

6. Hamas, doing business as “CAIR” tells us they condemn this attack and the media dutifully regurgitate the Hamas talking points.

7. The President asks for prayers for the family, but doesn’t follow it up with going after the root of the problem, and continues to openly support the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas.

8. The problem – the massive Islamic network in the U.S. supporting, financing, training, recruiting, and teaching jihad and the destruction of anything but nations under sharia – is left untouched.

9. No one mentions that core Islamic doctrine mandates jihad until the world is under Islamic rule (even though it is taught to first grade Islamic students across the globe).

Bill Killian. Photo by Alex McMahan Photography (423) 504-642310. US Attorney Bill Killian in Tennessee, who has a long history of snuggling up to Hamas and MB organizations while condemning those who speak truth about this threat, won’t be questioned, indicted, or in anyway made to answer for his role in failing to go after the jihadis in his area under his watch.  (Same guy who condemned UTT training and then the week after we left TN had a joint FBI/DHS training program with the local MB organizations).

11. America is still in grave danger from the Islamic Movement here.  No change (but expect more sensitivity training so we don’t offend the Muslims by reporting this “incident”).


Also see: