National Cathedral Presents More Kumbaya Islam

muslims-hold-prayer-inside-the-washington-national-cathedralFamily Security Matters, by Andrew Harrod, May 19, 2015:

The Very Reverend Gary Hall declared “one of the great blessings” in his life as being able to “encounter Islam” while introducing in Washington, DC, an April 21 National Cathedral presentation on “Islam and Politics in the U.S.”  The National Cathedral dean’s words once again set in this “spiritual home for the nation” a politically correct tone for a subsequent discussion naively presenting Islam as morally equivalent to Judeo-Christian beliefs.

An Islamic prayer service in the National Cathedral indicates that total lack of obedience to Jesus Christ in this alleged church which is now more more than a general for rent auditorium.

Like the previously analyzed first session of the National Cathedral’s “Exploring Islam in America” series, Hall emphasized ecumenism before about 60 mostly middle- and senior-aged individuals in the Perry Auditorium.  His opening prayer invoked the “God of the Prophet Muhammad” along with the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” and the “God of Jesus.”  He then cited religion scholar Huston Smith for the proposition that a Martian “would see one religion with three branches” in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  “Deep continuity” and “respect” marked in his view the relationships between these three faiths claiming ancestry from Abraham.

Other event participants complemented Hall’s ecumenism.  As at the previous “Exploring Islam in America” presentations, the late Edward Said‘s sister Grace introductory prepared remarks befitted her brother’s distorted leftist views.  She discussed coming from an Arab community in which her Christian faith supposedly harmoniously coexisted with Islam throughout history.  “Exploring Islam in America” moderator Yvonne Haddad, a Georgetown University professor from a Christian Arab background like the Saids, likewise emphasized intra-Muslim harmony among Shiites and Sunnis.  She discussed how they had lived together and intermarried until the 20th century, overlooking an often bloody history of Shiite-Sunni animosity that has reemerged in recent years to make their intermarriages lethally acrimonious in places like Iraq.

The evening’s featured speaker, Brookings Institution fellow Khaled Elgindy, also asserted monotheistic and moral commonalities between Judaism, Christianity, and an “Islam…firmly rooted in the Abrahamic tradition.”  Concurring with Haddad’s assessment that the United States has “shariaphobia all over the place,” he found “no more abused term in the Islamic lexicon than sharia,” in American discussions of which  the “vast majority is nonsense.”  He cited the Islamic doctrine that sharia protects five fundamental values, namely life, worship, intellect, property, and lineage (a person’s knowledge of their ancestry), goals that could count as “natural rights in a liberal sense.”

Elgindy’s reference to these goals is a popular argument for sharia apologists, but scrutiny reveals the inadequacy of such platitudes in protecting human dignity in an Islamic context.  Muslims, for example, cite Quran 5:32‘s text that “whoever saves one-it is as if he had saved mankind entirely” in support of protecting human life.  Such citations, though, omit this verse’s exception for killing a person for taking a “soul or for corruption [done] in the land” such as blaspheming Islam, the capital punishment for which the subsequent verse 5:33 brutally delineates.

Likewise the “primary goal of sharia is to preserve the deen” or religion, notes one Muslim commentator, raising questions about worship in Islam suppressing the free expression of non-Muslim faith.  References to intellect also do not explain Muslim restrictions on intellectual pursuit of truth to protect against criticism.  Property under sharia excludes interest and forbidden items like pork while “penal laws that govern the breach of this right” noted by the commentator include Quran 5:38‘s command to amputate a thief’s hand.  That “Islam seeks to protect the lineage and honor of people” in his words can also include prohibitions against criticizing an Islamic faith with which many Muslims identify.

Elgindy found “frightening how pervasive” is “nonsensical fearmongering” concerning sharia, “almost like a straw man,” and decried that 22 states had passed anti-foreign law/sharia legislation to deal with an “imaginary threat.”  He repeated stock canards against such American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) initiatives, saying that they could prohibit Islamic marriage or inheritance while analogizing sharia to Jewish religious law (Halacha).  He also noted the sharia doctrine that Muslims should obey the laws of the lands in which they live.

Elgindy’s anti-ALAC arguments do not withstand scrutiny.  Such laws merely prohibit American courts fromapplying foreign law like sharia in their judgments in violation of state and federal constitutional rights, leaving unobjectionable matters like marriage or inheritance unaffected.  ALAC thereby parallels British law, which recognizes sharia contracts, but only upon court review of their conformity with British law as the Center for Islamic Pluralism’s report on sharia infiltration in Western Europe notes.

Elgindy’s sharia-Halacha equivalence is also false.  Halacha nowhere constitutes foreign law (not even in Israel) applicable under ALAC and recognizes a country’s civil law as binding, thereby relegating Jewish religious courts to minor ceremonial roles and private arbitration.  Additionally, one rabbi notes, “generations of interpretation explain a number of mitzvoth (Torah commandments) out of existence according to the principle of Torah Lo Bashamayim Hi (Torah exists here for us, not in Heaven).”  Therefore Old Testament passages contrary to modern human rights norms have no current applicability.

Elgindy’s comments notwithstanding, sharia diverges from Halacha’s subordination to civil law.  ALAC, after all, concerns American judicial application of foreign sharia laws, under which Muslims would indeed obey the laws of a land, just not America.  Obeying the laws of the land also says nothing about changing a country’s law and practices in conformity with Muslim norms, as evident in various Western societies with respect to matters like polygamy.

To prove that “Islam does not preclude the notion of modern citizenship rights” such as religion-state separation, Elgindy cited as a “social contract” the seventh-century Constitution of Medina drafted under Islam’s prophet Muhammad.  This popular Islamic apologia, though, inflates the importance of what was essentially an alliance between the early Muslim community and Medina’s Jewish tribes.  This alliance, moreover, ended with conflict between Muslims and Medina’s Jews and the latter’s expulsion and extermination.

Elgindy’s whitewashing of Islamic law has special significance in light of his comment that “not that huge” a distance separates Saudi Arabia from the murderous Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).  While Saudi authorities refrain from wearing black masks and publicizing their beheadings, “ideologically there are clearly similarities” between this globally prominent Muslim state and ISIS.  The latter’s proclaimed caliphate also has a “very romantic” appeal for many Muslim youth, further refutation of his contention that brutal Muslim groups like ISIS or the Taliban come to power primarily due to political chaos.

Elgindy has previously made ludicrously benign prognoses of Islamic developments flying in the face of facts.  This former advisor to the Palestinian Authority, for example, wrote in 2012 that the jihadist terrorist group Hamas’ “shunning by Washington may be…outdated and counter-productive.”  Unnoticed by others and perhaps influenced by the Brookings Institution’s Qatari funding, he found that a “growing pragmatism” and “yearning for political normalcy” marked Hamas’ “significant changes in recent years.”

Despite Elgindy’s best efforts, he simply cannot explain away serious Islamic controversies.  Problems associated Europe’s “ghettoized Muslim communities” are not simply attributable to, for example, a French “inherited sense of superiority” towards immigrants from former colonies or phobias about “swarthy men.”  Sharia-supporting Muslim groups with their dangers are not similar to “revivalist movements” in other faiths like evangelical Christians.  National Cathedral personnel like Canon Patty Johnson, however, are unlikely to understand these issues anytime soon.  At the presentation’s end, she hawked copies of the leftist Center for American Progress’ report Fear, Inc. on the “Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America” as a “wonderful document…one of the best I have ever seen.”

The Coming Storm

 

6a00d834526d9869e2017744497435970dBy Justin O. Smith:

Christians in America today are under assault and facing persecution from an unholy alliance of marxofascist Progressives, Islamofascists and secular humanists, and although this started in the 1960s counterculture through leftist radicals in the media, government, academia and churches, Obama and his regime have launched an unprecedented assault on Christianity and religious liberty over the past six years. They are abusing their power, overreaching and attempting to transform “freedom of religion” into “freedom from religion” for those who hate the Christian faith, essentially using the courts and government agencies to eradicate Christian expression.

Since Barack Obama’s rise to power, America has witnessed his administration issue a Homeland Security memorandum in 2009 that called evangelical Christians and pro-life groups “future threats to national security.” This same administration pressed for this threat assessment to be released at West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center and included in war games at Ft Leavenworth; and, they are also forcing Christian pastors serving in the U.S. military to stop referencing Jesus during official ceremonies, just as occurred during the 2012 Memorial Day ceremony honoring U.S. Veterans at Houston’s National Cemetery.

Also, doesn’t it alarm anyone that the mayor of a major U.S. city would have the arrogance and temerity to subpoena all the city’s pastors for any sermons dealing with homosexuality and gender identity, trampling on their religious freedom?

Houston’s openly lesbian mayor, Annise Parker, attempted this very thing in 2014, in an effort to make political and social commentary inside the church a crime. Her actions violated these pastors’ rights of freedom of religion and the free exercise of their faith, even though she was eventually forced to abandon her assault.

America is also witnessing its school officials act in fanatical fashion in order to remove every trace of Christian expression from our school system. School valedictorians are commanded not to reference Jesus in their speeches, and in 2013, a Florida Atlantic student was banned from class for refusing to stomp on the name of Jesus during a class exercise, while a Sonoma State University student was ordered to remove a cross she was wearing because someone “could be offended.” And even a little six-year old girl was not spared from their withering malevolence at a North Carolina elementary school, as she was ordered to remove the word “God” from a poem that she had written to honor her grandfathers, who both had served in the Vietnam War.

In 2009, Obama nominated a radical Leftist activist judge, David Hamilton, to the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Hamilton has been repeatedly hostile against Christianity in the public arena. In Hinrichs v Bosma, he prohibited Christian prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives, and yet, he allowed prayers mentioning Allah.

More than this, America’s Christians are made to suffer a lying, malevolent fool of a president, who earlier this year equivocated Islam’s moral standing with that of Christianity, even though Islam has never been reformed and Christianity has; then over Easter holiday, Obama insulted Christians and misrepresented their views on the Religious Freedom Act.

During the first week of April 2015, Representative Louie Gohmert told the Faith and Liberty Radio Show that “Christians are the only people that it is politically correct to persecute” in America, and he warned that the U.S. is “not going to continue to see the blessings that America has experienced in the past” because of widespread anti-Christian persecution. Gohmert added that it is “extremely unfortunate that Christians all over the country now are being persecuted for believing what Moses said” about marriage.

Christianity is not allowed to cross the public school threshold, but under Obama, the public education system has been restructured to teach Islam through Common Core, while the Dept of Justice has been instructed to censor any negative media and social discussion about Islam (e.g. Manchester, TN); and Muslim Brotherhood Members have been placed in the highest echelons of government, including Homeland Security, which is supposed to protect Americans from the very terrorists the Muslim Brotherhood trains and funds __ all by design and all by the decree of Obama, an Islamofascist appeaser and enabler, who says he will “stand with Muslims if the political wind shifts in an ugly direction.”

The only ugly, shifting political winds are blowing from Obama’s Oval Office. It doesn’t get much uglier than American Christians being attacked as “Islamophobes” and “homophobes,” and worse, if they speak against the Islamists and the outrageously flamboyant celebration of homosexuality. Both the Islamists and the homosexuals, a combined 8% of the population who normally hate each other, hold an inordinate amount of power in U.S. politics and the government, receiving preferential treatment and privilege, and they have joined forces in order to eliminate the Christian heritage and Judeo-Christian principles in America.

Only Obama’s sychophant supporters could have expected different results from a man whose father and step-father were Muslims. Not one person should have expected anything different from a man who attended Islamic schools during his formative years.

Early in March 2015, Reverend Franklin Graham warned on Fox News, that the White House and the Democrats “hate Israel and they hate Christians, and so the storm is coming … we’re going to see persecution in this country … Nobody seems to be alarmed … Nobody is saying anything about this, and we as Christians are going to lose.”

Christian Americans aren’t victims of faith-based murders on any large scale, not yet anyway, unless one counts those murdered by Islamofascist terrorists’ attacks. As a new America flirts with fascism, do you think it’s an implausible possibility? So did the Jews who survived the Holocaust.

America’s Christians, most ordinary secular Americans and many religious minorities recognize the country faces a dire situation in the very near future. We understand that constrained faith, eventually leads to the constraint of all individual liberties, and in order to continue to succeed and thrive as a nation, good men and women must stop the Progressive self-destructive course and name and fight the evil that seeks to destroy good. And as citizens of a great nation founded on the principles of Christianity, we must be potent, resolved and resolute, as we stand in the face of any threat for our beliefs, free to make choices, to be generous, to live and ultimately to defend freedoms for America’s Children.

The Black Book of the American Left: Volume IV: Islamo-Fascism and the War Against the Jews

dh1

Frontpage, April 15, 2015 by Jeffrey Herf:

To order David Horowitz’s “The Black Book of the American Left: Volume IV:  Islamo-Fascism and the War Against the Jews,” click here.

In this spirited and savvy collection of recent essays and speeches, David Horowitz argues that progressives, that is, left of center politicians, journalists and intellectuals have contributed to “undermining the defense of Western civilization against the totalitarian forces determined to destroy it.” Specifically, the threat comes from “the holy war or jihad waged by totalitarian Islamists in their quest for a global empire.” (p.1) These essays, many of which are lectures at university campuses or reports about those lectures, will reinforce the views of those who already agree that “Western civilization” is a good thing, that Islamism is a form of totalitarianism and that its Jihad is quest for a “global empire.” They may not convince those who think Western civilization is another name for racism, imperialism and war, that totalitarianism is an ideological relic of the Cold War and that an otherwise peaceful and tolerant Islam has been “hijacked” by violent extremists who misconstrue its texts and their meanings. Yet they may strike a nerve with those liberals who think it is absurd to deny the clear links between Islamism and terror and who, especially after the murders in Paris in January, understand that Islamism is a threat to the liberal traditions of Western politics and culture.

This volume addresses a by now much discussed paradox of our political and intellectual life. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks of 9/11, the liberal intellectual Paul Berman in Terror and Liberalism made the compelling case that the Islamist ideology that inspired the Al Qaeda terrorists emerged from a profoundly reactionary set of ideas which had lineages to Nazism and fascism. In Germany, Matthias Kuentzel, in his Jihad and Jew-Hatred:  Nazism, Islamism and the Roots of 9/11 examined in more detail the illiberal views of the 9/11 terrorists as well as the political and ideological connections between Islamism and Nazism. A number of us historians have documented those connections. The irony of the years since 2001, and especially of the Obama years, is that, with some exceptions, much of the sharpest criticism of the reactionary nature of Islamism and defense of classically liberal values has not come from the historic home of anti-fascism among leftists and liberals. Rather, as the 55, mostly short essays in this collection indicate, that critique has migrated to centrists and conservatives or those who are now called conservatives.

“Islamophobia,” the longest essay in the collection is co-written with Robert Spencer, also importantly draws attention to the international connections of Islamist organizations in the United States. The authors write that “the purpose of inserting the term ‘phobia’ is to suggest that any fear associated with Islam is irrational” and thus to discredit arguments that suggest a connection between Islamism and terror as themselves forms of bigotry. Horowitz and Spencer connect this criticism of the concept to discussion of the organizational connections between the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2005, the FBI seized the Northern Virginia headquarters of the Holy Land Foundation, then the largest Islamic “charity” in the United States. In a trial in 2007 that led to the conviction of the Foundation’s leaders on charges of supporting a terrorist organization, the prosecution entered a seized a remarkable document entitled “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.”(18)  The group’s goal was the establishment of “an effective and stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood, which adopts Muslim causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at directing and unifying Muslim’s efforts, presents Islam as a civilizational alternative, and supports the global Islam state wherever it is.”  Muslims, it continued “must understand their work in American 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 Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” Horowitz and Spencer perform an important service in drawing attention to this document and to the political campaign that it has inspired.

The memo called for the creation of front organizations including the Muslim American Society, the Muslim Students Association, and the Islamic Society of North America, the Islamic Circle of North America, the Islamic Association for Palestine and the parent group of the Council on American-Islamic Relations or CAIR. Another front group identified in the Holy Land memo was the International Institute for Islamic Thought, said to have invented the term “Islamophobia.”  Horowitz and Spencer’s discussion of CAIR’s “Islamophobia campaign” is particularly interesting. In the Holy Land case, the US Department of Justice named CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator and produced evidence that it has received $500,000 dollars from the Holy Land Foundation to set itself up.  CAIR was created in 1994 as a spinoff of a Hamas front group, the Islamic Association for Palestine, a group that the US government shut down in 2005 for funding terrorism. CAIR has defined Islamophobia as “closed minded prejudice against or hatred of Islam and Muslims” and has described anti-terror measures adopted by the US government as forms of “prejudice” and “hatred.” The authors argue that the use of such terms has been an effective instrument in blunting or stifling criticism of Islamism.

On American university and college campuses, the Muslim Students Association and “Students for Justice in Palestine” have sponsored “Israel Apartheid Weeks.” In recent years, the MSA has been particularly active at the campuses of the University of California in Davis, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles in the anti-Islamophobia campaigns. Remarkably, such efforts have received support from coalitions of leftwing student groups active in student governments. The authors write that “perhaps the chief asset possessed by the jihadists is a coalition of non-Muslims-European and American progressives—who support the anti-Islamophobia campaign,” one that “had a venerable antecedent in the support that progressives provided to Soviet totalitarians during the Cold War.” (p.48) Again, the remarkable aspect of the current coalitions between Islamists and leftists was that these leftists were making common cause with organizations famous for anti-Semitism, subordination of women to second class status or worse and deep religious conviction, a set of beliefs at odds with some of the classic values of the radical left in the twentieth century. Then again, in view of the anti-Zionist campaigns of the Soviet Union and its allies during the Cold War and the hostility of the global radical left to Israel in recent decades, such “Red-Green” leftist-Islamist coalitions of recent years are not so surprising.

Horowitz sees a parallel between the “secular messianic movements like communism, socialism and progressivism” and the religious creeds they replaced. “It is not surprising therefore, that the chief sponsors of the blasphemy laws and the attitudes associated with them have been movements associated with the political left. It is no accident that the movement to outlaw Islamophobia should be deeply indebted to the secular left and its campaign to stigmatize its opponents by indiscriminately applying repugnant terms to them like ‘racist.’”  The invention and application of the concept of Islamophobia “is the first step in outlawing freedom of speech, and therefore freedom itself, in the name of religious tolerance.”(55)

The remainder of this volume elaborates on these themes with twenty essays on Islamo-fascism, thirteen on the Middle East Conflict and eleven on “the Campus War against the Jews.” Horowitz’ reports on his many speeches at various campuses where some of the above mentioned Islamic organizations turn up to protest. There the front organizations of the Muslim Brotherhood, especially the Muslim Students Association, emerged to challenge his arguments about the links between Islamism and fascism. Two essays are particularly important—and depressing. In “Suicidal Jews” and “”Hillel”s Coalitions with Israel’s Enemies,” Horowitz describes instances in which liberal and left-leaning Jewish undergraduates turn their criticism towards him rather than towards the anti-Israeli activists on campus.

This fourth volume of Horowitz’s essays depicts the bizarre nature of our contemporary political culture in which leftists make common cause with Islamists, Israel is denounced as a racist entity while the anti-Semitism of the Muslim Brothers, Hamas and the government of Iran are non-issues for leftists, and the United States government refuses to state the obvious about the connection between Islamist ideology and the practice of terrorism. The defense of liberal principles has liberal advocates but as this valuable collection indicates the core of the defense has become a preoccupation of the center and right of American intellectual and political life. This volume is an important document of that endeavor.

Jeffrey Herf, Distinguished University Professor, Department of History, University of Maryland, College Park. His most recent book is Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World. His work in progress is entitled “At War with Israel: East Germany and the West German Radical Left, 1967-1989.”

The West’s Romance with Iran and Islamists

Gatestone Institute, by Uzay Bulut, April 6, 2015:

The West seems to have lost the capacity and the will to criticize political Islam.

While “peace-loving” liberals in the West show support and sympathy for Hamas, and have removed Hamas from Europe’s terror list, Hamas leaders have been busy expressing their support and sympathy for Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.

Why then, for Europeans, is Hamas a “more acceptable” terrorist group than ISIS? Because it targets Jews?

If these Islamic jihadist groups cannot carry out their mission right away, it is not because they do not want to. It is because they do not have enough power to — at least for now.

In the eyes of most Islamists — whether or Sunni or Shia — nothing is cheaper or more worthless than human life. It can be seen in the accelerating rate of executions in Iran since the “moderate” President Hassan Rouhani arrived on the scene, and in the ghoulish slaughters committed by ISIS.

As terrorists throughout the Muslim world lay down their own lives to bring death, the U.S. and Europe silently watch Islamic terrorism in Sudan, in Pakistan, in Iraq and Syria by ISIS, in Nigeria by Boko Haram and especially in Iran by the Mullahs’ regime, which the P5+1 (the permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) deludedly still seem to think will turn nuclear warheads into plowshares.

 

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, proclaims “Death to America” on March 21, 2015. (Image source: MEMRI video screenshot)

U.S. and Iranian foreign ministers continue talks past deadline after deadline to give Iran — one of the most corrupt, repressive and genocidal countries on the planet – a nuclear weapons capability to threaten the rest of the Middle East, the U.S. and Europe. Granting nuclear capability is seen as a reward for lying, cheating and breaking treaty after treaty. What a brilliant precedent for everyone else.

The West seems to have lost the will to criticize political Islam. Not speaking out or taking action against Islamists is a sickness not only of the current U.S. government; many intellectuals also seem to suffer from it. In the West, there are goodhearted intellectuals who also apparently wish to deny what an all-enveloping role religion — and particularly Islam — plays in shaping and influencing how people think and act.

The Marxist view holds that religion is just a placebo in the face of economic oppression. So, the thinking goes, if there is a problem in a Muslim society, it must mainly stem from poverty, inequality and class conflicts, as well as “Western imperialism.” Many people influenced by this view therefore tend to believe that after the overthrow of capitalism and imperialism, the “oppressed” will cast off religion, to which they cling merely for consolation and the hope of a better future in an afterlife. Those who maintain this view remain silent on viciously repressive governments such as Hamas, Iran and North Korea, even as they claim to fight “imperialism” alongside regimes that hate Jews, Christians and women, and, in their effort to expand, are often themselves “imperialist.”

In the meantime, many of these intellectuals, who include government leaders, seem to fantasize about the future of the Western and Muslim worlds as if once “capitalism,” “American imperialism” and “Zionist occupation” were abolished, these despots would suddenly discover they no longer need violence or Islamic radicalism, and that a sunny new era of peace would begin. So, their view seems to go, if you criticize Islamism, you are an intolerant, hard-hearted “racist” or “bigot,” and your remarks are obviously “hate speech.”

It seems painful for many intellectuals in the West to understand or accept that a religious ideology which permits enslaving girls, beating “disobedient” wives or chopping off the heads of infidels can exist. They come up with supposed explanations for these acts, including poverty, “American imperialism,” or mental illness.

Poverty or imperialism, however, do not cause people to burn people alive, kidnap schoolgirls and sell them at a slave market, while saying that God commands the practice. Poverty, anger or alienation do not cause people to behead or crucify non-Muslims; cite relevant verses of their holy book as a justification, and brag about and film what they do.

These leaders and intellectuals seem wrongfully to associate political Islam with “being oppressed.” Political Islam, however, is not the ideology of the oppressed. It is an ideology that oppresses. It brings about the very the sufferings to which these intellectuals object.

Even Egypt’s Muslim President, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, seems to have realized that a worldview which makes excuses based on Islamic theology for many of the crimes committed in the Muslim world, only enables even more kidnappings, beheadings and deaths.

While “peace-loving” liberals in the West show support and sympathy for Hamas, as well as removing it from Europe’s terrorist list, Hamas leaders have been busy expressing their support and sympathy for Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban:

In 2005, Dr. Mahmoud Zahar, co-founder of Hamas and a member of the Hamas leadership, said, “The Taliban are 1,000 times more honorable than the American occupation and its collaborators… We are not a copy of the Taliban… Judge us according to what we are. Everyone must stop blaming the Taliban for things that in fact characterize the people of the West, who seek to turn the international community into a swamp of corruption and destruction, and to spread abomination and disease in the name of absolute freedom…”

In 2011, Ismail Haniyeh, head of the Hamas’s administration in the Gaza Strip said: “We regard this (the killing of Osama Bin Laden) as a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood… We condemn the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior. We ask God to offer him mercy with the true believers and the martyrs.”

Why then is Hamas a “more acceptable” terrorist group than ISIS? Because it targets Jews? How can Hamas’ Western sympathizers be so sure that the same extreme Islamic jihadist groups will not target them, “the infidels,” in the future, as they say they will?

If these Islamic jihadist groups cannot carry out their mission right way, it is not because they do not want to. It is because they just do not have enough power to — at least for now.

Uzay Bulut, a journalist born and raised a Muslim, is based in Ankara, Turkey.  Follow Uzay Bulut on Twitter

Also see:

Let Us Count the Gulags – Why utopian dreams inevitably become totalitarian nightmares

A watch tower stands in a museum commemorating victims of Soviet-era political repressions located in a former prison camp, some 110 kms (69 miles) northeast of the west Siberian city of Perm, Russia, Friday, March 6, 2015.  (AP Photo/Alexander Agafonov)

A watch tower stands in a museum commemorating victims of Soviet-era political repressions located in a former prison camp, some 110 kms (69 miles) northeast of the west Siberian city of Perm, Russia, Friday, March 6, 2015. (AP Photo/Alexander Agafonov)

PJ Media, By David Solway, March, 13, 2015:

There are many threats to the continuity of the modern world, of which Islam in its manifold guises — international terrorism, the razia of unfettered immigration, Iranian nuclear ambitions — is the most prominent. But the Islamic agenda would not be what it is without the “progressivist” mentality and attendant policy making that are handing the barbarians the keys to the city. Islam and progressivism, to cite Jamie Glazov, are United in Hate. Indeed, as Executive Director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism Stephen Schwartz remarks in First Things, the deep complicity between Islam and the left goes a long way back, to the writings of the chief Communist impresarios, Marx and Lenin, as well as to lesser lights like Bolshevik intellectual Karl Radek. America’s far-left, pro-Muslim president has merely continued the dismal tradition.

Thus, we need to consider the broader canvas to which the camel in the room directs our attention. The obsession with multiculturalism that is destroying our civilizational patrimony is a sign of the feverish intoxication with the humanly improbable that characterizes leftist thinking: that we are all born equal (true with respect to rights, but not with respect to talent, intelligence or personal qualities); that sociopolitical changes can eradicate the flaws and blemishes of our nature (demonstrably wrong); that competition is a social evil that must be eliminated for the general advantage (pure fairyland); that education should be politically motivated to promote what is absurdly termed “social justice” (the death knell of critical thought); that tolerance for the “Other,” however defined, trumps due process in the courts (the erosion of equity); that ancient guilts require present expiation (rank unfairness); and, the great canard of our time, that all cultures are on an existential par, none being “better,” more ethical or more advanced than any other (manifestly false).

Hence the dogma of cultural and moral equivalence to which the liberal/left adheres, as practiced most conspicuously by the jerk in the White House and by the majority of our political, community and institutional leadership. No culture, religion or civilization, apparently, is superior to any other, an axiom derived, as I observed in a 2011 PJM article, “The Origins of Postmodernitis,” from the early anthropologist Franz Boas. Boas laid it down in his seminal The Mind of Primitive Man that all cultures should be regarded with sympathy, that we should hold the conviction that all “races” —  today we would say “ethnicities” —  have “contributed to cultural progress in one way or another” and that they are equally capable of “advancing the interests of mankind.” Unfortunately, as I conclude there, what started out as a methodological discipline in the field of anthropology has mutated into an intellectual sickness that regards our own culture as nothing more than a provisional adaptation. We are all, it appears, moral and cultural isomorphs.

The utopian malady runs deep in the leftist psychodrama. Consider the irony of the Charlie Hebdo attack. As Clash Daily contributor William Spencer-Hale points out, “The employees, artists, writers and editors of Charlie Hebdo were all true to life followers of the Church of Leftism. They…eagerly embraced all the tenets of liberalism. They, like so many of their fellow countrymen, voted to implement those policies that are the hallmark of the modern leftist. Among them being gun control and unfettered immigration.” The fantasy world continues to impinge upon the real one, regardless of deadly consequences.

There is a lesson to be learned from contemplating the lasting damage that such torpid maunderings and emotional convulsions can inflict.  Of course, one should try to be circumspect and impartial in one’s judgments. I recall in this connection James Madison’s summation in Federalist #55: “As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence.” In other words, both facets of human nature need to be taken into account in forming our view of life, arriving at a mature conception of morality and determining the substance of our political commitments. A strong element of human sympathy leavens Madison’s skepticism. But he had already recognized in Federalist #37 just where choice and temptation tend to lead, making him — like the Founders in general — a reliable authority on the follies and perils of uninstructed human nature and their political implications. The “brighter aspects” of our nature, he wrote, “serve only as exceptions to…darken the gloom of the adverse prospects to which they are contrasted.” Madison is referring chiefly to narcissism, self-righteousness and bickering self-interest leading to political faction.

Such vices are inherent in the utopian prepossession, issuing inevitably in the assumption of infallibility and the application of ruthless force. Utopianism envisages a world in which the concepts of merit, achievement, genuine novelty and civic responsibility have been retired in favor of the misguided and banausic program of affirmative action, mandated mediocrity and cultural self-abasement. And, according to its promoters, it is a world that must be imposed, whether through violence or legislation. As such it cannot be separated from what Madison in #37 calls the “infirmities of human character,” or what we might call the tyranny of results. As Milan Kundera memorably puts it inThe Book of Laughter and Forgetting: “Once the dream of paradise starts to turn into reality…people begin to crop up who stand in its way. And so the rulers of paradise must build a little gulag on the side of Eden. In the course of time this gulag grows ever bigger…while the adjoining paradise gets even smaller and poorer.”

Gulags come in many shapes and forms. The physical hell the Soviets built. The moral and intellectual quicksand of leftist ideology. The prison-house of thought built by the mainstream media. And the fetid oubliette of the contemporary Academy to the legal and verbal constraints, aka political correctness, we ourselves impose upon our freedom to serve the purposes of those who would limit it. The conviction that Islam is a “religion of peace,” despite its millennium and a half of conquest, massacre, looting, slavery, punitive cruelty and cultural desecration, and that something called Islamism is merely a violent deformation of its central tenets, is a mental gulag that its deluded captives actually relish. Some gulags, it appears, are readily mistaken for idyllic acreage. They may not be discernible as gulags, but each is a cordon sanitaire of intellectual besottedness. The gulag from which one rarely escapes is a species of enchantment, namely, the shuttered enclosure of Edenic infatuations that inevitably brings and prolongs human suffering — the wages of cognitive imbecility. Living inside a stockade of groundless and uninhibited raptures does not represent a viable political future.

Whether we believe in the discredited canard of global warming, or the easily dispelled myth of Palestinian stewardship in the Holy Land, or the utterly transparent falsehood of Israeli apartheid, or the facile notion that anything but the Koran is the “root cause” of Islamic terror, or the lethal illusion that unbridled multiculturalism is a social blessing, or that big government stimulates rather than stifles economic vigor, or that gender is a social construct, or that we live in a rape culture or that being a white male is an unwarranted privilege — or any of a virtual calendar of such idols and figments, we are living in a gulag of our own gratuitous making. We are no longer self-reliant and independent human beings capable of responsible thought or of embarking on a free-ranging journey toward the truth of things.

Indeed, we have done more than surrender to the “infirmities” of our nature; we have consciously revalued them as ornaments of the moral life and embellishments of character. This is perhaps an even greater plummet than Madison envisaged, the cultural diagnosis of a crippling malady as a form of robust health. With this sordid declension in mind, one’s redemptive ambitions — assuming a modicum of sanity and prudence — should be oriented toward reality and not anchored in childish illusions, quixotic fictions and mellifluous fables. The world is a damn serious place and the romantic infantilisms, along with the venal calculations, of our elites must somehow be checked. Nor are ordinary people exempt from such rainbow apparitions. As Victor Davis Hanson writes in a comprehensive sweep of the political cretinism and cultural stupefaction afflicting the West today, “either the chaos grows and civilization wanes and tribalism follows, or the iron hand of the radical authoritarian Left or Right correction is just as scary, or a few good people in democratic fashion convince the mob to let them stop the madness and rebuild civilization. I hope for option three. I fear option one is more likely at home. And I assume that option two will be, as it always is, the choice abroad.”

All sensible people hope for option three. Only in this way is minimal progress at least conceivable — or at best, illimitable harm partially avoidable. We must not give up the effort to reclaim what we are in danger of losing. But reality compels us to recognize that options one and two are the more likely alternatives. German philosopher Johann Christian Friedrich Schiller was probably right when he declared, Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens: Against stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain. This is the self-imposed gulag from which even the Lord despairs of freeing us.

The bleakness of our condition, as Madison recognized, is only partly relieved by the thoughtful exceptions among us. Let us thank the Lord that they exist. But it is, I suspect, only when the gulag becomes unsustainable, when it collapses upon itself, that a few fortunate inmates may glimpse their salvation.

David Solway is a Canadian poet and essayist. He is the author of The Big Lie: On Terror, Antisemitism, and Identity, and is currently working on a sequel, Living in the Valley of Shmoon. His new book on Jewish and Israeli themes, Hear, O Israel!, was released by Mantua Books. His latest book is The Boxthorn Tree, published in December 2012. Visit his Website at www.davidsolway.com and his Facebook page here.

Also see:

Birds of a Feather: Obama, the Left, and Islam

!cid_image003_jpg@01D059FAAmerican Thinker, By Victor Volsky, March 11, 2015:

Is Barack Obama a Muslim or even an Islamist? Or is there another explanation for his open, heartfelt affinity for all things Muslim?

There is a veritable mountain of indirect evidence that he is indeed an acolyte of Islam. His late father was a Muslim. At the tender age of six, little Barack was taken by his mother to her new Indonesian husband’s homeland where he spent four crucial, formative years in a Muslim environment.

As president, he openly indicates his reverence for Islam — from a carefully mimicked Arabic accent when pronouncing the word the Muslim Scripture, the Quran, invariably preceded by the obligatory qualifier “Holy”, and a dewy-eyed reference to “one of the most beautiful sounds on Earth at sunset”, the muezzin’s call to prayer, to his declaration from the U.N. General Assembly rostrum that “the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”. Obama’s long-time spiritual guide, the Reverent Jeremiah Wright, interviewed by Ed Klein for his book, related that when Obama had joined his church, he “was steeped in Islam, but knew nothing about Christianity.”

And what about his public tirades about America’s sins and apologies for its “crimes?” What about his ridiculous statement that “Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding” or that Muslims have made a tremendous impact on American history and culture? What about his order to reorient NASA from space research to building bridges to the world of Islam and extolling the (imaginary) contributions of Muslims to space exploration?

Obama’s first telephone call to a foreign leader was to the head of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmud Abbas; his first trip abroad was to several Muslim countries; his first public speech during that trip delivered in Cairo was an appeal to the Muslims of the world to be friends. When Obama broke the tradition and rules of etiquette by slavishly bowing to Saudi King Abdullah, was he honoring a monarch or the keeper of the greatest sacred sites of Islam?

He took an active part in overthrowing Egyptian President Mubarak, an old, loyal friend of the United States, and eagerly supported the Muslim Brotherhood – so much so that to this day he refuses to forgive the Army and people of Egypt who threw Islamist President Mohamed Morsi out of office. Likewise, he helped destroy Col. Qaddafi, destabilizing Libya with grave consequences for the entire Middle East. His half-hearted aerial campaign against ISIS, a reluctant response to public pressure, is a joke, and he refuses to help Egypt and Jordan repel the Islamist threat.

He has been trying to ingratiate himself with Iran at the expense of America’s old Arab allies, but ignores the genocide of Christians in the region. He doesn’t like Israel, to put it mildly, and during last year’s Gaza War he all but openly took the side of Hamas even though it shows up on the State Department list of terrorist organizations. He demanded that Israel agree to a ceasefire on terms tantamount to capitulation; in the midst of fighting he instituted a partial embargo on military supplies to Israel and on a ludicrous pretext banned U.S. aircraft from using the Ben Gurion Airport, in effect declaring economic war on the Jewish state.

And to add insult to injury, he steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that the worldwide Islamist terrorist campaign has anything to do with Islam or even that terrorism exists. At least that’s the impression from the administration’s official vocabulary which bans such words as “terrorist”, “jihad” and the like. It’s always “violent extremism” or “workplace violence” or some such ludicrous euphemism. His Middle East policy can be summed up as antagonism toward America’s friends and appeasement of if not collusion with her enemies.

Worse, he insists that we have no right to get high and mighty about ISIS in view of the awful crimes committed in the name of Jesus Christ during the Crusades and Inquisition. The implication is that the 900-year-old campaign to liberate the Holy Sepulcher from the clutches of the Muslims is equivalent to the Jihadists enslaving and killing women and children, beheading Western journalists and “people of the Cross,” burning and burying prisoners alive. This is a page straight out of the Islamist playbook.

So there is no escaping a highly plausible conclusion that Obama is indeed a Muslim, right? Not so fast. A pretty strong case could be made that rather than an acolyte of Islam, he is in fact a far-left radical with a destructive, anti-American agenda.

He was raised by his mother, a fanatical America-hater, and leftist grandparents. His early mentor was Frank Marshall Davis, a card-carrying Communist. He attended three colleges, Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard, all known hotbeds of student radicalism. He admits in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father, that in college he sought out the company of the most radical professors and students. Upon graduation, he went to Chicago, Frank Marshall Davis’s old stomping grounds and home of the country’s most powerful black political machine, where he again fell in with the revolutionary crowd. As president, he brought with him a large retinue of like-minded radicals, such as Eric Holder, Van Jones, etc. And the mainstay of his domestic policy is “social justice,” a barely disguised revolutionary program to radically transform America that he openly advocated running for president.

America is the source of all evil in the world; her prosperity was built on the sweat of black slaves and exploitation of the oppressed peoples of the Third World. America is the enemy of mankind and must be destroyed and her wealth returned to the rightful owners: African-Americans and the oppressed masses of the Third World. Israel is America Lite and likewise must be wiped off the face of the world. Muslims are part of the Third World and thus are always beyond reproach. They are innocent victims of U.S. imperialism; anything they do is justified by their suffering. Terrorism is a legitimate response to the depredations of America — in short, she deserves her fate.

And then there is a time-honored tradition of American revolutionaries colluding with their country’s enemies, from the North Vietnamese communist regime to the Muslim Brotherhood that openly describes its activities in America as “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within…”  What’s not to like, if you are an American revolutionary? And so Obama and his circle are very cozy with this outfit and with its U.S. offshoot, CAIR, which the White House views as the go-to organization on all matters Muslim.

Another case in point is Hillary Clinton’s long-time, confidential aide Huma Abedin (Mrs. Anthony Weiner) who belongs to an activist family with extensive Muslim Brotherhood and Wahhabist connections. By all accounts, Huma Abedin is extremely close to Hillary and was privy to the nation’s highest secrets when her boss was secretary of state. Thus it is likely that the Muslim Brotherhood was fully informed about the decision-making process behind the U.S. Middle East policy. Yet it appears that Secretary Clinton was not at all concerned about the penetration of the U.S. government by the Islamists. Huma Abedin still enjoys the prospective presidential candidate’s full confidence.  On at least one occasion Hillary Clinton, at Huma’s behest, personally intervened to allow prominent Muslim Brotherhood leader Tariq Ramadan to enter the United States, overturning the ban imposed by the previous administration.

So tell me the difference between the Islamist enemies of the United States and its radical foes of the home-grown variety as far as their attitude toward America is concerned? Their ultimate goals dovetail to such an extent that from where I sit, it’s six of one and half a dozen of the other. Whether as a Muslim or a far-left radical, Obama is indifferent to the national interests of the country he swore to defend when taking an oath of office. His sympathies clearly lie with the world of Islam and his foreign policy for all intents and purposes boils down to the support of Islamism.

So is Barack Obama a Muslim or a Communist? What difference, at this point, does it make?!

Muslims Trump All Other Minorities Because of the Victim Value Index

terrorism-2-450x337Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Feb. 27, 2015:

James Kirchick has written an extensive piece on the Victimhood Olympics replete with examples and references. He notes that…

Trans beats gay and Muslim beats black. As someone who writes frequently on the topic of homosexuality, I have learned the hard way what happens to those who challenge the orthodoxy of transgender activists…

This is because in the progressive imagination, the perceived plight of Muslims now trumps the sufferings of all other groups. It is this conceit that goes the furthest in explaining President Obama’s remark to Vox earlier this month that the murder of four Jews at a kosher supermarket in Paris last month was “random,”…

But he fails to explain what the basis for this hierarchy is. Why do Muslims trump Jews and why do trannies trump gay men?

There is a clear Victim Value Index. It’s not random. It has a definitive basis. That basis is the value of a victim identity to the left.

The first thing to understand is the dirty little secret of the Victim Value Index. While loud vocal assertions of suffering are very important, the substance of such suffering is unimportant when moving up the ladder of the Victim Value Index…

Actual suffering doesn’t matter. Neither does historical justice. Both of those are easy to make up, and in a dogma-ridden environment no one will look past the politically correct line anyway.

The Victim Value Index is calculated based on one overriding factor: Disruptiveness. Those who are most disruptive go to the head of the line.

This is the most obvious thing that people have noted about the Social Justice Warrior twitter mobs. They’re angry. They’re disruptive. This is also their virtue.

SJW code assumes that the angrier you are, the more oppressed you are. (Unless you’re a straight white male who isn’t pretending to be a woman and isn’t angry on behalf of an oppressed minority group.) But your anger is only useful if it serves the left.

The angriest groups, the ones with the newest rawest edge make the cut. A propensity for violence helps. Ergo, Muslims win.

Progressivism is a revolution in slow motion, and revolutions need revolutionaries. Disruption is more than just grievance, it’s violence. Those who are willing to ruthlessly attack the status quo clearing the ground for revolution are the ones who go to the head of the line and the dais of honor on top. A little murder and mayhem, and progressives will trot out “moderate” versions of the murderers and mayhemists, usually linked to them, and offer to represent them and tamp down the violence in exchange for meeting their demands.

September 11 and its aftermath is why Muslims have gone to the top of the Victim Value Index. The left may swear up and down that they are interested in Muslim civil rights, but if the Muslims were Sikhs, they would merit a place somewhere in the back. Before Muslims began prominently blowing things up in the United States, the left barely paid any attention to them. Once they did, they began outweighing every other group in the country because killing 3,000 people is the gold standard of revolutionary mayhem.

The Victim Value Index places the most disruptive groups at the front, the somewhat disruptive groups in the middle and the least disruptive groups at the back. The status of groups within the Index can change with their behavior. Muslims used to be shelved in the back with Asians, Indians and Jews. The War on Terror dramatically upgraded their status. The other groups are stuck there because they are relatively successful and aren’t rioting or blowing things up.

Latinos are still somewhere in the middle. Native Americans are in the back along with most unclassified minorities. Homosexuals are somewhere near the front, but behind African-Americans. Their status tends to drift wildly depending on current events, but they cannot overtake African-Americans or fall behind Latinos. Not unless some drastic events take place that change their status. Women are, and have always been, in the back.

The hierarchy can and does change. If Muslim violence were to suddenly disappear, the left’s interest in them in the US would go away. That’s a simple fact. The left values violent groups over non-violent ones. In the social media era, that can be virtual  violence, cyberbullying and social media mobs. All that counts as activism and the left is keen to recruit activists for its cause.

The Political Left Marriage to the Islamic Jihad: Are the Progressives Insane or Intentional?

735159_336012886512158_310320558_nUnderstanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Feb. 23, 2025:

This is the fourth of a 4-part series on The Political Left’s Marriage to the Islamic Jihad

********

As has been detailed in several articles on the UTT Blog as well as in the first, second, and third iterations of this 4-part series, the Political Left in America is:  promoting the Muslim Brotherhood’s (MB) Jihadi Movement in the United States; “negotiating” with Iran and the Taliban; providing material support to Al Qaeda/MB in Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere; promoting Palestinian (Hamas) causes and showing deference to them while failing to stand with Israel; flooding America with people from hostile nations (Somalia, Syria, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, etc) through the State Department’s Refugee Resettlement Program and various student programs; and failing to clearly articulate the threat while demonstrating weakness and inviting greater danger to our nation and its people.

On February 18, 2015, President Obama’s Department of State issued a statement which reads, in part:  “We are pleased to announce the appointment of Rashad Hussain as United States Special Envoy and Coordinator for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications. Special Envoy Hussain will lead a staff drawn from a number of U.S. departments and agencies to expand international engagement and partnerships to counter violent extremism and to develop strategic counterterrorism communications around the world.”

Is a Muslim with direct ties to the International Muslim Brotherhood the only qualified person in America this administration could find to hold this post?

It also seems odd this administration exclusively uses Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas organizations such as ISNA, CAIR, MPAC and others as their primary outreach partners to advise senior government officials and agencies on how to combat the “violent extremists” (read: Jihadis) across the globe and here domestically.  The President himself produced a video applauding and promoting ISNA at their annual convention.

Either the administration is divorced from the reality of what it is doing or it is being intentional.

The legal definition for “insanity” is:  “A mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality.” (Source: Psychology Today)

The question must be asked, is the President and his National Security team divorced from the reality of the facts and evidence that are clear about the organizations with which they are working, Islamic doctrine (Sharia), and the actions being taken at the ground level by Muslim armies across the globe?

This is a real and serious question, because if the answer is a resounding “No,” and the President is thoughtful, discerning and lucid, then he is intentionally working with our enemies to support their agenda.

That is called “Treason.”

On the other hand, the Islamic Jihadi Movement is not “crazy” or “insane.”  They are following the doctrine of Sharia in pursuit of destroying all “man-made governments” to impose Sharia and establish the global Islamic State (caliphate).  What is striking when you listen to leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al Shabab, or any of the other hundreds of jihadi organizations across the globe speak, they are measured and consistent in their message.  Even when they are preparing to behead someone, they go through the motions of reading the statement and then coldly do the deed of sawing another human being’s head off without any show of emotion.  While the act is barbaric, they are following what they believe they have been commanded to do within the reality of the Islamic system.

Not so with this administration and the Political Left in general.  The Progressives openly claim they support the rights of the “oppressed” and minority groups in society including religious minorities, homosexuals, women, and others – the very groups of people the Islamic Movement is currently slaughtering, or at least, enslaving.

So what is to be done?  Ultimately, we as Americans must decide.  We the people are the government and we hold the authority.  So long as our system is intact with a functioning government in all three branches, we must work within the system to make it work.

The reality is that our federal leadership is catastrophically failing to protect our nation and its people.  The burden now lies at the state and county levels to protect the citizens of America.  Strong Governors must exert the Constitutional power given to them with the support of state legislatures.  Citizens must be educated about the Muslim Brotherhood Jihadi network in America so they can put positive pressure on elected county officials to allow local police to do whatever they need to do to identify jihadis (wearing suits or planning attacks), and to weed these jihadis out of every state – one county at a time.

As citizens, we cannot fix the threat at the international level, but we can educate friends and colleagues about the true nature of this threat, especially those we know in law enforcement, military service, or the intelligence community.

We are at a dire point in American history.  The time for half measures has come and gone.  We must be engaged at the local and state level to defeat this enemy and realize that local police are now the tip of the spear.

********

Want to get engaged?  Here are a few things you can do:
1.  Get educated on the threat and educate others.  Get a copy of Raising a Jihadi Generation for yourself and others you know. Get a copy of the DVD “Understanding the Threat to America” and show it at your church or community group meeting.  Make use of other educational resources:
     * Political Islam
     * CSP 10 Part Video Series on the MB in America
     * The Global MB Watch
2.  Plug into a national grass roots organization focused on this threat, such as ACT! for America.
3.  The leaders who most need to know this information who can have the greatest impact are Sheriffs and Pastors.  Work with them to educate them and help them organize the citizens and congregations to rally behind them.
4.  Share the Thin Blue Line Project with Law enforcement officers you know.  This is a web based program designed specifically for Law Enforcement to educate them on the MB Jihadi Network in the U.S. and the broader jihadi threat.
5.  Educate local and county officials, especially local school boards.  Pay attention to what your children are being taught in school about American history, Islam, and related topics (Israel, 9/11, etc).
6.  Brighten the lamp of liberty by educating your children (and yourselves) about the Founding Principles of America, and our Godly heritage from such resources asWallbuilders.com and others.
7.  Remember that as citizens we have duties and responsibilities.  From our founding we are all citizen-soldiers whether we join the military or not.  Per Title 10 U.S. Code Section 311, all able body males (with specific exceptions) from age 17 to 45 are members of the “Unorganized Militia” of the United States.  Educate yourself about the duties of citizens.  Claremont.org is a great resource.
8.  Only elect people to office who respect the Oath they swear in allegiance to our Constitution.  If nobody fits that bill, get someone who does to run and support him/her.
9.  Hold all elected officials accountable to their Oaths of Office.
10.  Make a decision you are all in to defend you family, your community, and this nation and refuse to back down.  This is a fight, but a fight that is worth all the effort for the sake of future generations, including your children and grand children.  What price for liberty are we willing to pay?

O Beautiful, For Specious Guys

by Mark Steyn
Steyn on America
February 20, 2015

1178The US media have had a fit of the vapors over Rudy Giuliani’s suggestion that Barack Obama does not love America. As the Instapundit says, their reaction suggests that Giuliani hit a nerve.

For my own part, I am way beyond that. By the way, I’m growing rather weary of the cheap comparisons of Obama with Neville Chamberlain. The British Prime Minister got the biggest issue of the day wrong. But no one ever doubted that he loved his country. That’s why, after his eviction from Downing Street, Churchill kept him on in his ministry as Lord President of the Council, and indeed made Chamberlain part of the five-man war cabinet and had him chair it during his frequent absences. When he died of cancer in October 1940, Churchill wept over his coffin.

So please don’t insult Neville Chamberlain by comparing him to Obama. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, because conspiracies are generally a comforting illusion: the real problem with Obama is that the citizens of the global superpower twice elected him to office. Yet one way to look at the current “leader of the free world” is this: If he were working for the other side, what exactly would he be doing differently?

For example, he has spent most of this week hosting an international conference on something called “violent extremism”. Whatever may be said of Munich, Chamberlain never hosted a three-day summit on “rearmament” in general whose entire purpose was to deny that “rearmament” and “Germany” were in any way connected. Yet that is exactly the message the United States government has just offered to the world – in between such eccentric side spectacles as Marie Harf, star of the hilarious new comedy Geopolitically Blonde, explaining her jobs-for-jihadis program, and the new hombre in charge of the planet’s mightiest military machine having his woman felt up on camera by Joe Biden. Now there’s a message to send to the misogynists of Burqastan about what happens when you let the missuses out of their body bags.

Here’s John Kerry in The Wall Street Journal:

The rise of violent extremism represents the pre-eminent challenge of the young 21st century…

A safer and more prosperous future requires us to recognize that violent extremism can’t be justified by resorting to religion…

Violent extremism has claimed lives in every corner of the globe, and Muslim lives most of all…

This summit at the White House and State Department will expand the global conversation and, more important, adopt an action agenda that identifies, shares and utilizes best practices in preventing and countering violent extremism

Put simply, we are building a global partnership against violent extremism.

Success requires showing the world the power of peaceful communities instead of extremist violence.

Wait a minute, “extremist violence”? How come the spell-check didn’t catch that? Don’t worry. The very next sentence is back on track:

Success requires offering a vision that is positive and proactive: a world with more concrete alternatives to the nihilistic worldview of violent extremists

We have to devote ourselves not just to combating violent extremism, but to preventing it…

We’ve combated violent extremism before…

The 20th century was defined by the struggle to overcome depression, slavery, fascism and totalitarianism. Now it’s our turn. The rise of violent extremism challenges every one of us…

By now you may be saying, “Oh, ‘violent extremism’, I get it. You mean…” Whoa, don’t go there, girlfriend. “This is not true Islam,” insists President Obama.

Roger Kimball observes:

“ISIL is not ‘Islamic.'” Really? Was the Ayatollah Khomeini “Islamic?” How about Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Erdogan: is he “Islamic”? A few years ago, Erdogan told the world that the phrase “moderate Islam” is “ugly”because “Islam is Islam.” Democracy, he said, is just an express stop on the train whose destination is Islam…

The Saudis, the biggest and richest Sunni nation? They torture bloggers for “insulting Islam,” stone adulteresses, maim thieves, and treat women like chattel. Do they represent Islam?

But Obama has ambitions way beyond the Turks and Saudis. If the Islamic State isn’t “true Islam”, is the Taliban, our “partners for peace” in Aghanistan? Is “true Islam” the Iranian mullahs, our “partners for peace” in the Persian Gulf and beyond? How about the Houthi? They’re our Iranian partners for peace’s partners for peace in Yemen, and they were awfully sporting to let our diplomats flee without beheading them.

“Violent extremism” may have nothing to do with Islam, yet Obama’s summit on “violent extremism” was oddly preoccupied with Islam, to the extent of according it a special deference:

A Muslim prayer was recited at the start of the second day of the White House summit on “Countering Violent Extremism,” but no other religious text was presented during the portion of the event that was open to the press.

Imam Sheikh Sa’ad Musse Roble, president of the World Peace Organization in Minneapolis, Minn., recited a “verse from the Quran” following remarks by Obama administration officials and Democratic members of Congress.

But hey, what’s so odd about that? “Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding,” says the President. You might think that Islam has been entirely irrelevant to “the fabric of our country” for its first two centuries, and you might further think that Islam, being self-segregating, tends not to weave itself into anybody’s fabric but instead tends to unravel it – as it’s doing in, say, Copenhagen, where 500 mourners turned up for the funeral of an ISIS-supporting Jew-hating anti-free-speech murderer.

But President Obama knows better than you. So he organized a summit dedicated to creating and promoting a self-invented phantom enemy. Conveniently enough, the main problem with “violent extremists” is that its principal victims are Muslims. No, no, I don’t mean the thousands of Muslims being slaughtered, beheaded, burned alive, raped, sold into sex slavery, etc, etc, in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, and so on. The Muslims most at risk are right here in America. Just ask Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson:

We in the administration and the government should give voice to the plight of Muslims living in this countryand the discrimination that they face. And so I personally have committed to speak out about the situation that very often people in the Muslim community in this country face. The fact that there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world and the Islamic faith is one about peace and brotherhood.

I opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security on the basic Thatcherite principle that if you create a government bureaucracy in order to deal with a problem you’ll never be rid of the problem. But I underestimated the creativity of our rulers: The DHS was set up because 19 Muslims flew planes into skyscrapers and killed thousands of people. Thirteen years later, the head of the DHS thinks his department’s priority should be to “give voice to the plight of Muslims” who have the misfortune to live in America.

How about “the plight of Muslims” who live in Muslim countries? As I wrote in 2006 in the very prologue of the highly prescientAmerica Alone:

In the 2005 rankings of Freedom House’s survey of personal liberty and democracy around the world, five of the eight countries with the lowest “freedom” score were Muslim. Of the 46 Muslim majority nations in the world, only three were free. Of the 16 nations in which Muslims form between 20 and 50 per cent of the population, only another three were ranked as free: Benin, Serbia and Montenegro, and Suriname. It will be interesting to follow France’s fortunes as a fourth member of that group.

The “plight” of Muslim communities in America and the west is that they enjoy freedoms they could never dream of back in Somalia or Syria or anywhere else – but that they value those freedoms less than they value the pre-eminence of Islam. Canadian reader Sam Williamson wrote to me with what I thought was an interesting insight into the millions of “moderate Muslims”:

Hello Mark:

Suppose the moderate shoe was in the other foot:

You are a moderate Christian and there is a radical bunch at the far end of the spectrum of the faith that causing violence, even in your new country. Your faith is growing worldwide in numbers. You see other faiths abandoning their beliefs, and even making laws about where they may practice. But your religion is more welcomed. They say it strengthens the country. It’s in their constitution. Other countries are asking you to come.

So you can’t help but see your faith gaining influence. In some places no shopping on the Holy Day laws are being re-introduced. In some public schools they are allowing Mass to be said in the cafeteria during the day. Offensive comments about our Church, Saviour, and Saints are being condemned. And items from other religions are being hidden or removed so we don’t have to see them. Many people, including their wise teachers, professors, and prominent people in the papers and television are helping getting rid of many customs that we do not support as Catholics. Why even the other day a leader in government told the Prime Minister that it was wrong not to allow us to say the rosary during the Citizenship Ceremony.

Sure, we will condemn that bombing and those extremists if asked. They don’t represent my beliefs. But looking at the future I’m thinking my family, my children and grandchildren are going to do better in this country when it’s all Christians, and those wrong beliefs have left, and the atheists driven out, even if it is accomplished with some fear and violence. After all, ours is the one true religion and our people will once again be great.

Sam Williamson

If you were a “moderate Muslim”, what would you make of an extraordinary week in which the global superpower has piled up a mountain of preposterous, mutually contradictory official lies all designed to flatter you: Islam has been part of the fabric of America since the 18th century, and yet the plight of Muslims in this country and the discrimination they face has never been worse. We are at war with the mysterious shadowy Empire of Violentia-Extremistan, which is nothing to do with Islam, yet necessitates the saying of Muslim prayers – and Muslim prayers only – at official US government events.

On The Hugh Hewitt Show yesterday, I pointed out that the French Government estimates that some nine thousand “Frenchmen” have volunteered to fight for ISIS. That is approximately half the total western deployment in Afghanistan of around 18,000 troops from some four dozen countries. It is larger than any French military deployment in the last half-century. That 500-strong congregation of mourners for the Copenhagen killer may not be the largest funeral turnout in Denmark’s history, but it’s similarly impressive.

And yet none of that could be discussed in Washington, at a summit arising directly out of the Charlie Hebdo slaughter.

I have quoted before my old friend Theodore Dalrymple on the purposes of lies in totalitarian societies:

In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.

We are at war with a depraved enemy, but we cannot be allowed to assert our moral superiority even to head-choppers, rapists, slavers and immolators. Thus the priority of Barack (“Hey, how ’bout those Crusades?”) Obama has been to undermine our sense of probity, and make us not merely equivalent to but worse than our enemies. That was the purpose of this last week of Official Lies.

The Political Left’s Marriage to the Islamic Jihad: Silencing Truth and Lying as a Strategy

behead_those_who_insult_islamUTT, by John Guandolo, Feb. 20, 2015:

This is the third in a 4-part series on The Political Left’s Marriage to the Islamic Jihad

The truth always offends those who do not have it.

In the Sharia (Islamic Law), “Slander” is defined as follows:  “To mention anything concerning a person (Muslim) that he would dislike (Um Dat al Salik, Islamic Sacred Law, r2.2).”   The Quran, the Hadith, and a consensus of the Muslim scholars all agree that anyone who insults the Prophet and/or Islam must be killed (e.g. Surah 9:12, Hadith – Abu Dawud and al-Nasa’i, from Ibn-‘Abbas).  The punishment for Slander in Islam is death.

Currently, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) – the largest international body in the world second only to the UN, made up of all 57 Islamic nations on the planet – is officially calling for “deterrent punishments” (Section VII, para 3) for anyone who offends Islam, and continues to petition the United Nations for such action.  This campaign is called “Islamophobia.”

Islamophobia is the imposition of the Islamic Law of Slander.  To be called an “Islamophobe” is to be threatened.

Islamophobia

Book R of the Um Dat al Salik (Islamic Sacred Law) is entitled “Holding One’s Tongue.”  Section 8 is “Lying” with a sub-section titled “Permissible Lying.”  This alone is telling.  The Sharia quotes the Prophet Mohammad from the authoritative Hadiths of Bukhari and Muslim:  “I did not hear (the Prophet) him permit untruth in anything people say, except for three things:  war, settling disagreements, and a man talking with his wife.”

The law is clarified further:  “It is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible…it is obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory (ibid, r8.2).”  Jihad is obligatory.

The Political Left around the globe, and especially in the United States, also uses lying, deceit, and the destruction of those who speak the truth as weapons for their own ends.

The current “Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Summit”  is a tremendous example of the deceit of the Obama administration.  The U.S. CVE program was adopted from our British allies who created this program in tandem with the British Muslim Brotherhood (MAB and MCB).  This ongoing effort identifies “Violent Extremists” as the threat to America.  Yet, our enemy self-identifies themselves as “Muslims” waging “Jihad in the Cause of Allah” in order to impose “Sharia” and establish the “Caliphate” (global Islamic State).  The Department of Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, Pentagon, and other intelligence and law enforcement agencies at the federal level forbid the use of the above-quoted terms.

If you cannot define the enemy, you cannot defeat the enemy.

It is worth noting that the DHS CVE Working Group has Muslim Brothers Imam Mohamed Magid and Arif Alikhan as members, as well as Muslim Sister Dalia Mogahed.  Magid was the VP then President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) which is the “nucleus” for the Islamic Movement in North America and a financial support arm for Hamas, according to documents entered into evidence at the largest Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in U.S. history (US v Holy Land Foundation, Dallas 2008).

Imam Magid continues as the Executive Director of the Muslim Brotherhood’s ADAMS Center in Sterling, Virginia, which is one of three primary outreach partners with the FBI (along with MB group MPAC).

Another lie peddled by this administration is that Muslims were an important part of America’s founding, which is utter nonsense and historically untrue.  Two notable occasions where this lie was repeated:  March 6, 2011 at aspeech given by the President’s Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough (now the President’s Chief of Staff) at the Muslim Brotherhood’s ADAMS Center in Sterling, Virginia where he thanked MB leader Imam Mohamed Magid for leading prayers at the White House Iftar Dinner (the end of Eid – the celebration of the first Islamic military victory over non-Muslim forces, but I digress).  He continued, “A dinner which, as the President  noted at the time, is a tradition that goes all the way back more than two centuries when Thomas Jefferson hosted the first iftar at the White House.”

Thomas Jefferson waged war on the Islamic states (Barbary states).  We built up the U.S. Navy to “meet the menace” of the Islamic jihadis, and Jefferson himself, as the Ambassador to France – along with John Adams in a letter to Congress – explained the Muslims were waging war on America’s ships and citizens because it was acommand from Allah to do so.

In a speech this week, the President said, “Here in America, Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding.”

One has to ask, what is the purpose of the President of the United States and his senior advisors repeating an easily refutable lie other than to soften the response from Americans to an overt threat from the Islamic Movement, and aid our enemies.

The President, Attorney General, leadership of both political parties, Cabinet Members, and others all parrot the phrase that this war “has nothing to do with Islam.”  Yet, our enemies say Jihad is an obligation Islam commands them to undertake.  Either our government is extremely ignorant, naive or this is an intentional move to deceive the public about a massive threat to our security.

Those who speak the truth about this threat are attacked, not just by the jihadi organizations like ISNA, CAIR, and Islamic Centers across the country (not to mention the Southern Poverty Law Center and the ACLU who overtly defend the jihadis), but by the administration.

The Joint Forces Staff College (JFSC) previously had one of the best programs in the nation educating senior military officers on the threat of the Global Islamic Movement until ISNA, CAIR, MPAC and others petitioned the White House, deeming the training “offensive” to Muslims.  This action was initiated after a Muslim, who was not even a part of the course, complained.  The proctor for the JFSC course, Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley, was publicly chastised by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Dempsey who stated, “It was just totally objectionable, against our values, and it wasn’t academically sound.”

It would be nice for the General to provide the public with any of the evidence, doctrine or facts taught about the Islamic Movement or Sharia that were not locked down in truth.  He cannot.  I know, because I was one of the instructors at that course.

Together, the Political Left and the Islamic Jihadi Movement are silencing those who speak the truth about a real threat to our Republic.  The very Muslims and Islamic organizations our government is directly working with are ideologically and practically aligned with ISIS, Al Qaeda, and all the other jihadi organizations we claim we are fighting.

We are being lied to by both sides of this unholy marriage.

Find the ‘Countering Violent Extremism Summit’ at the Intersection of Islamists and Leftists

Salam al-Marayati (MPAC)

Salam al-Marayati (MPAC)

National Review, by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY February 19, 2015:

You may understandably think of it as an ISIS jobs fair, but the ongoing confab in Washington is officially known as President Obama’s “summit” on “Countering Violent Extremism.” That being the case, many Americans seem surprised at the appearance of Salam al-Marayati, leader of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). After all, the White House is having a public hissy fit over the upcoming speech to Congress by Obama’s bête noire, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. An odd time, one might think, for the POTUS to be so chummy with a Muslim activist best know for theorizing, right after the 9/11 attacks, that “we should put the State of Israel on the suspect list.”

But National Review readers will not be surprised. Marayati and MPAC figured in my 2010 book on the Muslim Brotherhood’s U.S. operations – The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America (“grand jihad” and “sabotage” are lifted verbatim from an internal Brotherhood memo that describes the Islamists’ objective to infiltrate and destroy our country). And three years ago, I profiled Marayati and MPAC in this NRO column.

There is a reason why Obama’s summit is striking all the wrong chords with the public: strangely sympathetic to Islamist sensibilities and grievances at the very time when rampaging jihadists, while quoting Islamic scripture, are barbarically slaughtering their enemies and conducting a pogrom against Christians (there being no Jews left to mass-murder in Syria, Iraq and Libya).

The reason is that the summit serves exactly the same purpose as is served by MPAC and Marayati: It is the nexus between Islamists and Leftists.

For the Left, radical Islamic terrorism cannot be called “radical Islamic terrorism”; it must be called “violent extremism,” to avoid offending the Left’s Islamist allies. Still, while the labeling of terrorism may be problematic, the fact of terrorism is an opportunity – a crisis that, like all crises, can be used to advance the “social justice” agenda.

Just have a look at President Obama’s op-ed in the Los Angeles Times this week. ISIS and al-Qaeda are on the march, so what does the president suppose this is the occasion for? “Our focus [in the “summit on countering violent extremism”] will be on empowering local communities.”

The public is worried about our national security because, after six years of Obama, jihadists have more safe-haven than ever to plot and train for attacks against America, Israel and Western Europe. Obama, however, sees the situation as grist for a large-scale exercise in community-organizing: A summit that gathers “governments, civil society groups, and community leaders from more than 60 nations” to address “the anger that festers when people feel that injustice and corruption leave them no chance of improving their lives.” By the president’s lights, what causes terrorism is not sharia supremacist ideology, something that is not to be discussed. Instead, “anger” over “legitimate grievances” — that always turn out to be the same grievances the Left grieves over – makes young Muslims vulnerable to “exploitation” by al Qaeda and ISIS.

For their part, Islamists share the Left’s affinity for muscular government that suffocates individual liberty. They are also anxious to gull Westerners into seeing their grievances as driven by wayward American policies rather than sharia principles. That makes an alliance with the Left a good fit – notwithstanding important differences on such matters as abortion and the rights of women and homosexuals (differences that allies can set aside when defeating a common opponent is the higher objective).

Read more

The Political Left’s Marriage to the Islamic Jihad: Culture of Death

jihad1-300x200UTT, by John Guandolo, Feb. 18, 2015:

In this second of a 4-part series on The Political Left’s Marriage to the Islamic Jihad, we will explore the Culture of Death that pervades both ideologies at their core.

To read the first installment, click here.

************

Let us begin with the fact that the Political Left is responsible for more murders in the last 90 years than all other ideologies combined, including the Islamic Jihad.  From Vladamir Lenin to Mao Zedung to Pol Pot to Adolf Hitler to Josef Stalin the communists and socialists in the 20th century killed tens of millions of people – in brutal and barbaric ways.

Elites on the Political Left will say these “extreme” examples of Stalin and Hitler are not related to their efforts to bring “equality” and “justice” to the average man and woman, and they would never support such treatment of people.  This soft-spoken language of socialism is no less dangerous because it lays the foundation for the likes of Stalins and Hitlers, and have for over 90 years.

We must also begin with the fact that America was founded on the principle that God gave us our right to life and, therefore, each of us has value and dignity in the eyes of God.  This “unalienable right” as written by Thomas Jefferson in our Declaration of Independence, is defined in legal dictionaries in the 1800’s to mean “a right that could not be taken away from you even if you tried to give it up.”  When free people surrender the right to life in any manner, we surrender it for all of us.  Tyranny knows no boundaries.

The programs and policies of the Political Left (or “Progressives” if you will) give no heed to God and call for the extermination of the unwanted in society.  A notable data point is a darling of the Left, George Bernard Shaw, who acknowledges his support for the Hitler regime and for killing people who could not justify their existence.  In this video, Shaw says, “I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board…every five years…and say sir or madam, would you be kind enough to justify your existence.”  The implications of such a statement, and his broader comments on this matter, exemplify the mindset and darkness of the Political Left.

Whether it be  forced abortions (China) or the promotion of abortion in the United States to the tune of over 1.2 million children killed each year (and over 57 million since Roe v Wade), to programs which promote the killing of elderly who are past their functional use, mentally ill people, and the disabled, the Political Left has a recorded history of a willingness to kill unjustly.  One can think of few things more institutionally evil.

Putting cover phrases on euthanasia like “dying with dignity” does not minimize the effect on society by attempting to control when the lives of its citizens should end.

There is also a more subtle angle on the Left’s Culture of Death – their silence towards a Culture of Life.  From the 1600’s when pilgrims and settlers came to places like Plymouth and Jamestown, the Bible was the first and primary book used to teach children moral principles and guide them in their lives, and is also the moral guide Americans were admonished by our Founders if this nation is to survive.  The New England Primer and other such books followed, which taught biblical principles to school children across this nation up through the 1930s.  Principles like “Love thy Neighbor” were taught to our children, and they learned their self-esteem came from knowing that the creator of the universe sees them and loves them, and, therefore, they have value.  In the 1930’s, the Progressives began working diligently to remove God from our classrooms and from the public square in direct contradiction to the ideals espoused in our Declaration, and against the legal framework of the Constitution.

By intentionally removing the principles which teach the dignity and importance of life, the Political Left made it easier for the Culture of Death to creep into our society.

The Political Left’s disconnect from reality cannot be discarded as an accelerant as we discuss this topic.  Just this week, State Department Spokeswoman Maria Harf stated on a television interview that ISIS can only be stopped if we get to the root cause of the problem (ISIS) – a lack of jobs.  This kind of soft-mindedness promotes the Culture of Death of the Islamic Movement (and others for that matter) because it intentionally refuses to address a massive threat to humans across the globe that is clear and present in our midst, and that has clearly identified itself.

That Culture of Death in Islam, is not a difficult one to uncover.  There is no disagreement among the scholars of Islam that it is a permanent obligation upon the Muslim community to wage Jihad until the entire world is subordinated to Islamic Law (Sharia).  Islamic Law specifically calls for beheadings, stonings, crucifixions, and other such punishments.  Islam teaches – because Allah commanded it – that Muslims cannot take Jews and Christians for friends (Quran 5:51: “Take not the Jews and Christians as friends and protectors…”) – although they can pretend to befriend them if it suits a purpose – so hatred that energizes the violence is a part of this ideology as well.

And all of this is taught at the first grade level in Islamic schools around the world today.

The Jihadis teach toddlers to hate and kill non-Muslims for the sake of Allah.  In this video a small girl speaks succinctly about her hatred for the Jews.  In Iran, huge crowds chant “Death to America.”

But the more compelling evidence is in the reality of what we see on the ground level daily, and the example of the Islamic prophet Mohammad.  Across the globe the world witnesses Islamic Jihadis beheading children and putting their heads on stakes, burning people alive, burying women up to their chests and stoning them to death, and similar barbaric behavior.  And the Muslim world, for the most part, is silent.

ISIS

 

The silence we hear is the silence of consent because this behavior is directly supported in the Quran and by the example of the prophet Mohammad.  Mohammad himself cut the heads off of Jews at the Battle of the Trench, instructed his followers to kill anyone who slanders Islam, taught that the Jews and Christians are the enemies of Islam, and called for Jihad until Islam rules the world.

The behavior we are witnessing by ISIS and other jihadi groups is a part of the Culture of Death in the Islamic Movement, and it finds common ground with the Progressives on the Political Left.

The Left must not be aware that when the Caliphate is established, the Muslims will kill them first.

The Political Left’s Marriage to the Islamic Jihad

LEFT_Islam-300x169UTT, by John Guandolo, Feb. 16, 2015:

This is the first of a four (4) part series on the long historical relationship between the political left/Progressives and the global Jihadi Movement over the last century and its current culmination in the attempt to bring down Western civilization in general, and the United States specifically.

In this first edition, we will review the general history of the relationship between the Left and the Islamic Jihad movement, and the disconnect from reality that must take place for the Left to believe the leaders of any totalitarian movement will allow them to survive despite a hundred years of history to the contrary.

This unholy marriage has several key areas of common ground:

   * They seek to undermine the security of Western nations in furtherance of their ultimate destruction
   * They seek to destroy the moral fabric that has undergirded the West for centuries
   * They use propaganda, lies, and deceit strategically and tactically to move their efforts forward
   * They have a culture of death that focuses on eliminating or subjugating those they see as threats
   * They are both anti-Semitic
  * They work against the Law of Nature and Nature’s God attacking our inherent rights to life and liberty while diminishing God to a position of non-existence (Political Left) or as a harsh non-loving judge of mankind (Islam)

 

During the Russian Revolution, the new Soviet government saw the Islamic community as a tactical ally in its “anti-imperialist” battle against the Western governments, and from that time through today the political Left in Europe, the United States and elsewhere continues to side with communist and socialist ideologies.  That is because they are nearly one in the same.

It can be argued that today in the United States the Political Left is the American Socialist Party.

Adolf Hitler’s alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood during World War II was born out of Hitler’s belief the Muslim hatred for the Jews was common ground.  The formation of an all-Bosnian Muslim SS Division was the culmination of this relationship.

In more recent years, the influence of the communist/socialist movements impact on the West can be seen in significant strategic examples.  One of these is the anti-nuclear movement that was strongest in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s.  Today we know all of the protests in Europe and the United States were funded by the KGB.  This is relevant because the KGB (now FSB) and leftist support for jihadis continues today.

While many groups in the U.S. from Code Pink (funded by Political Left wing mogul George Soros) to ANSWER to Occupy Wall Street claim they are for “equality” and an end to racism, these are simply covers for working at all levels of our society to see their objectives are met (see the list above).  And we see these organizations working on the ground directly with Muslim Brotherhood and other jihadi entities from obtaining joint anti-war protest permits to the international support for terrorists.

Hugo Chavez’s relationship with Iranian President Ahmadinijad, former British Member of Parliament George Galloway raising money at a Muslim Brotherhood mosque in Florida which he gave directly to the leaders of Hamas in Palestine, and protesters in London (and even in the U.S.) calling for “No War with Iran” and “We are all Hamas” are a few examples at the international level.

The America  media has to answer for its culpability for promoting and defending the political left and the terrorists here in America.  It is no secret there is an overt left-wing agenda in U.S. Media to report only that which supports a socialist/political left agenda.  With very few exceptions, there has been no hard look by the major media outlets to factually report on the Muslim Brotherhood’s jihadi network in the U.S. or globally.

The religious left in America is also directly partnered with jihadi organizations.  Nearly all “Interfaith Outreach” in America is led by the Muslim Brotherhood, specifically the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and affiliates of these organizations.  ISNA is a Hamas support entity according to evidence in the largest Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in U.S. history (US v HLF, Dallas 2008), and CAIR is a Hamas entity.

Left-wing religious organizations like the Virginians Organized for Interfaith Community Engagement (VOICE) is directly partnered with the Saul Alinsky premier organization, the Industrial Areas Foundation.  One look at the VOICE website and your research is done – http://www.voice-iaf.org.  VOICE dutifully follows the guidance provided by the Muslim Brotherhood Islamic Centers with which they work.

Most confusing of all are the Jewish organizations in America (and elsewhere) which nearly unanimously continue to work with Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood organizations, much to the dismay of thoughtful and faithful Jewish organizations and leaders.  Some Jewish leaders have even accompanied the Jihadi leaders overseas to visit former Concentration Camps in the name of “peace and tolerance.”  This is denial at a grand scale.

This denial, however, is not limited to leaders in the community who are simply blind to the truth of their adversaries.  Whether witting or unwitting, these leaders are helping to build the very situations which will lead to the destruction of their people.  The Global Jihadi Movement believes all systems of government outside of the Islamic State under Sharia – socialists, communists, capitalists, and any others – must be destroyed.

Tough-minded people must speak truth into these combined threats and bold about our founding principles.  We must courageously move around or through anyone who does not understand these truths to be victorious so that Western civilization and, specifically, our Constitutional Republic survive.

Coming Up:  Second Edition of “The Political Left’s Marriage to the Islamic Jihad” will focus on The Culture of Death they both share.

Hating Valentine’s

10942667_868958896488865_4732619675833776081_nFrontpage, By Jamie Glazov On February 13, 2015:

[Editor’s note: This article is reprinted from our Valentine’s issue of Feb. 15, 2014. It has been updated and edited to fit this year’s Day of Love.]

This Saturday, February 14, is Valentine’s Day, the sacred day that intimate companions mark to celebrate their love and affection for one another. If you’re thinking about making a study of how couples celebrate this day, the Muslim world and the milieus of the radical Left are not the places you should be spending  your time. Indeed, it’s pretty hard to outdo jihadists and “progressives” when it comes to the hatred of Valentine’s Day. And this hatred is precisely the territory on which the contemporary romance between the radical Left and Islamic fanaticism is formed.

The train is never late: every year that Valentine’s comes around, the Muslim world erupts with ferocious rage, with its leaders doing everything in their power to suffocate the festivity that comes with the celebration of private romance. Imams around the world thunder against Valentine’s every year — and the celebration of the day itself is literally outlawed in Islamist states.

This year, for example, Islamic religious leaders and officials in Malaysia have warned Muslims against celebrating Valentine’s Day. In Saudi Arabia, the morality police have, as always, outlawed the sale of all Valentine’s Day items, forcing shopkeepers to remove any red items, because the day is considered a Christian holiday.

Malaysia and Saudi Arabia are carrying the torch for the Indonesian Ulema Council in Dumai, Riau, and for the Education, Youth and Sport Agency in Mataram, West Nusa Tenggara, both of which issued a dire warning last year to people against celebrating Valentine’s Day, stating that the Day of Love “is against Islam.” This is because, as the Indonesian Ulema Council 2011 judgment explained, Valentine’s Day takes young people into a “dark world.”

Malaysia’s State mufti chief assistant Mat Jais Kamos always keeps his mind focused on that dark world and so, last year a few days before Valentine’s Day, he ordered young people to stay clear of celebrating the Day of Love: “The celebration emphasizes the relationship between two individuals rather than the love between family members or married couples,” he affirmed, and department officials backed up his command by distributing leaflets to remind Muslims of the 2006 ban on Valentine’s Day issued by the state fatwa council.

In Islamic Uzbekistan, several universities always make sure that students actually sign contracts promising not to celebrate Valentine’s.

In Pakistan on Valentine’s Day in 2013, supporters of Jamat-e-Islami, Pakistan’s main religious party, took to the streets in Peshawar to vehemently denounce the Day of Love. Demonizing it as “un-Islamic,” the Muslim protestors shouted that the day has “spread immodesty in the world.” Shahzad Ahmed, the local leader of the student wing of Jamat-e-Islami, declared that the organization will not “allow” any Valentine’s Day functions, warning that if Pakistani law enforcement did not prevent Pakistanis from holding such functions, that the Jamat-e-Islami would stop them “in our own way.” Khalid Waqas Chamkani, a leader in Jamat-e-Islami, calls Valentine’s a “shameful day.”

These Islamist forces in Pakistan cannot, of course, completely succeed in preventing couples from showing love to each other on this special day, and so many Pakistanis still cryptically celebrate Valentine’s Day and exchange presents in secret.

All these Islamic outcries against Valentine’s Day reflect myriad other efforts to suffocate the day of love throughout the Muslim War. For instance, in Aceh province in Indonesia every year, Muslim clerics issue stern warnings to Muslims against observing Valentine’s Day. Tgk Feisal, general secretary of the Aceh Ulema Association (HUDA), stated three years ago that “It is haram for Muslims to observe Valentine’s Day because it does not accord with Islamic Sharia.” He added that the government must watch out for youths participating in Valentine’s Day activities in Aceh. One can only imagine what happens to the guilty parties.

As mentioned, the Saudis consistently punish the slightest hint of celebrating Valentine’s Day. The Kingdom and its religious police always officially issue a stern warning that anyone caught even thinking about Valentine’s Day will suffer some of the most painful penalties of Sharia Law. This is typical of the Saudis of course. As Daniel Pipes has reported, the Saudi regime takes a firm stand against Valentine’s every year, and the Saudi religious police monitor stores selling roses and other gifts. They arrest women for wearing red on that day. Every year the Saudis announce that, starting the week of Valentine’s and until a certain day in the future, it is illegal for a merchant to sell any item that is red, or that in any way hints of being connected to Valentine’s Day. AsClaude Cartaginese has reported, any merchant in Saudi Arabia found selling such items as red roses, red clothing of any kind (especially dresses), toys, heart-shaped products, candy, greeting cards or any items wrapped in red, has to destroy them or face the wrath of Saudi justice.

Christian overseas workers living in Saudi Arabia from the Philippines and other countries always take extra precautions, heeding the Saudis’ warning to them specifically to avoid greeting anyone with the words “Happy Valentine’s Day” or exchanging any gift that reeks of romance. A spokesman for a Philippine workers group has commented:

“We are urging fellow Filipinos in the Middle East, especially lovers, just to celebrate their Valentine’s Day secretly and with utmost care.”

The Iranian despots, meanwhile, consistently try to make sure that the Saudis don’t outdo them in annihilating Valentine’s Day. Iran’s “morality” police consistently order shops to remove heart-and-flower decorations and images of couples embracing on this day — and anytime around this day.

Typical of this whole pathology in the Islamic world was a development witnessed back on February 10, 2006, when activists of the radical Kashmiri Islamic group Dukhtaran-e-Millat (Daughters of the Community) went on a rampage in Srinagar, the main city of the Indian portion of Kashmir. Some two dozen black-veiled Muslim women stormed gift and stationery shops, burning Valentine’s Day cards and posters showing couples together.

In the West, meanwhile, leftist feminists are not to be outdone by their jihadi allies in reviling — and trying to exterminate — Valentine’s Day. Throughout all Women’s Studies Programs on American campuses, for instance, you will find the demonization of this day, since, as the disciples of Andrea Dworkin angrily explain, the day is a manifestation of how capitalist and homophobic patriarchs brainwash and oppress women and push them into spheres of powerlessness.

As an individual who spent more than a decade in academia, I was privileged to witness this war against Valentine’s Day up close and personal. Feminist icons like Jane Fonda, meanwhile, help lead the assault on Valentine’s Day in society at large. As David Horowitz has documented, Fonda has led the campaign to transform this special day into “V-Day” (“Violence against Women Day”) — which is, when it all comes down to it, a day of hate, featuring a mass indictment of men.

So what exactly is transpiring here? What explains this hatred of Valentine’s Day by leftist feminists and jihadis? And how and why does it serve as the sacred bond that brings the radical Left and Islam together into its feast of hate?

The core issue at the foundation of this phenomenon is that Islam and the radical Left both revile the notion of private love, a non-tangible and divine entity that draws individuals to each other and, therefore, distracts them from submitting themselves to a secular deity.

The highest objective of both Islam and the radical Left is clear: to shatter the sacred intimacy that a man and a woman can share with one another, for such a bond is inaccessible to the order. History, therefore, demonstrates how Islam, like Communism, wages a ferocious war on any kind of private and unregulated love. In the case of Islam, the reality is epitomized in its monstrous structures of gender apartheid and the terror that keeps it in place. Indeed,female sexuality and freedom are demonized and, therefore, forced veiling, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, honor killings and other misogynist monstrosities become mandatory parts of the sadistic paradigm.

The puritanical nature of totalist systems (whether Fascist, Communist, or Islamist) is another manifestation of this phenomenon. In Stalinist Russia, sexual pleasure was portrayed as unsocialist and counter-revolutionary. More recent Communist societies have also waged war on sexuality — a war that Islam, as we know, wages with similar ferocity. These totalist structures cannot survive in environments filled with self-interested, pleasure-seeking individuals who prioritize devotion to other individual human beings over the collective and the state. Because the leftist believer viscerally hates the notion and reality of personal love and “the couple,” he champions the enforcement of totalitarian puritanism by the despotic regimes he worships.

The famous twentieth-century novels of dystopia, Yevgeny Zamyatin’s We, George Orwell’s 1984, and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, all powerfully depict totalitarian society’s assault on the realm of personal love in its violent attempt to dehumanize human beings and completely subject them to its rule. In Zamyatin’s We, the earliest of the three novels, the despotic regime keeps human beings in line by giving them license for regulated sexual promiscuity, while private love is illegal. The hero breaks the rules with a woman who seduces him — not only into forbidden love but also into a counterrevolutionary struggle. In the end, the totality forces the hero, like the rest of the world’s population, to undergo the Great Operation, which annihilates the part of the brain that gives life to passion and imagination, and therefore spawns the potential for love. In Orwell’s 1984, the main character ends up being tortured and broken at the Ministry of Truth for having engaged in the outlawed behavior of unregulated love. In Huxley’s Brave New World, promiscuity is encouraged — everyone has sex with everyone else under regime rules, but no one is allowed to make a deep and independent private connection.

Yet as these novels demonstrate, no tyranny’s attempt to turn human beings into obedient robots can fully succeed. There is always someone who has doubts, who is uncomfortable, and who questions the secular deity — even though it would be safer for him to conform like everyone else. The desire that thus overcomes the instinct for self-preservation is erotic passion. And that is why love presents such a threat to the totalitarian order: it dares to serve itself. It is a force more powerful than the all-pervading fear that a totalitarian order needs to impose in order to survive. Leftist and Muslim social engineers, therefore, in their twisted and human-hating imaginations, believe that the road toward earthly redemption (under a classless society or Sharia) stands a chance only if private love and affection is purged from the human condition.

This is exactly why, forty years ago, as Peter Collier and David Horowitz demonstrate in Destructive Generation, the Weather Underground not only waged war against American society through violence and mayhem, but also waged war on private love within its own ranks. Bill Ayers, one of the leading terrorists in the group, argued in a speech defending the campaign: “Any notion that people can have responsibility for one person, that they can have that ‘out’ — we have to destroy that notion in order to build a collective; we have to destroy all ‘outs,’ to destroy the notion that people can lean on one person and not be responsible to the entire collective.”

Thus, the Weather Underground destroyed any signs of monogamy within its ranks and forced couples, some of whom had been together for years, to admit their “political error” and split apart. Like their icon Margaret Mead, they fought the notions of romantic love, jealousy, and other “oppressive” manifestations of one-on-one intimacy and commitment. This was followed by forced group sex and “national orgies,” whose main objective was to crush the spirit of individualism. This constituted an eerie replay of the sexual promiscuity that was encouraged (while private love was forbidden) in We, 1984, and Brave New World.

It becomes completely understandable, therefore, why leftist believers were so inspired by the tyrannies in the Soviet Union, Communist China, Communist North Vietnam and many other countries. As sociologist Paul Hollander has documented in his classic Political Pilgrims, fellow travelers were especially enthralled with the desexualized dress that the Maoist regime imposed on its citizens. This at once satisfied the leftist’s desire for enforced sameness and the imperative of erasing attractions between private citizens. The Maoists’ unisex clothing finds its parallel in fundamentalist Islam’s mandate for shapeless coverings to be worn by both males and females. The collective “uniform” symbolizes submission to a higher entity and frustrates individual expression, mutual physical attraction, and private connection and affection. And so, once again, the Western leftist remains not only uncritical, but completely supportive of — and enthralled in — this form of totalitarian puritanism.

This is precisely why leftist feminists today do not condemn the forced veiling of women in the Islamic world; because they support everything that forced veiling engenders. It should be no surprise, therefore, that Naomi Wolf finds the burqa “sexy.” And it should be no surprise that Oslo Professor of Anthropology, Dr. Unni Wikan, found a solution for the high incidence of Muslims raping Norwegian women: the rapists must not be punished, but Norwegian women must veil themselves.

Valentine’s Day is a “shameful day” for the Muslim world and for the radical Left. It is shameful because private love is considered obscene, since it threatens the highest of values: the need for a totalitarian order to attract the complete and undivided attention, allegiance and veneration of every citizen. Love serves as the most lethal threat to the tyrants seeking to build Sharia and a classless utopia on earth, and so these tyrants yearn for the annihilation of every ingredient in man that smacks of anything that it means to be human.

And so perhaps it is precisely on this Valentine’s Day that we are reminded of the hope that we can realistically have in our battle with the ugly and pernicious unholy alliance that seeks to destroy our civilization.

On this day, we are reminded that we have a weapon, the most powerful arsenal on the face of the earth, in front of which despots and terrorists quiver and shake, and sprint from in horror into the shadows of darkness, desperately avoiding its piercing light.

That arsenal is love.

And no Maoist Red Guard or Saudi fascist cop ever stamped it out — no matter how much they beat and tortured their victims. And no al-Qaeda jihadist in Pakistan or Feminazi on any American campus will ever succeed in suffocating it, no matter how ferociously they lust to disinfect man of who and what he is.

Love will prevail.

Happy Valentine’s Day.

To get the whole story on Islam’s and the Left’s war on private love, see Ann-Marie Murrell’s interview with Jamie Glazov about his book United in Hate: The Left’s Romance With Tyranny and Terror.

Pretense, Denial, and Treason

Gates of Vienna, Feb. 8, 2015:

On February 5 Sean Hannity featured former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich as a guest during the second hour of his radio show. During the discussion about ISIS and Islamic terrorism, Mr. Gingrich advised Americans to read Diana West’s book American Betrayal as a way to better understand the way in which the political leadership of this country has been infiltrated and suborned by agents of the Muslim Brotherhood. In particular, he discussed the Saudi funding of the terror attacks on September 11, 2001, which was allegedly redacted from the 9/11 Report.

At one point Mr. Gingrich said:

“…and I would say second, read Diana West’s book American Betrayal, which is very chilling in telling us about a similar period in the 1940s and early 1950s in which we were confronted by a Communist threat, and a very large part of our elite tried to pretend that it did not exist …”

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for editing the audio recording to make this video:

Go to Gates of Vienna for the audio…I can’t embed it here.

Newt

 

***

Newt Gingrich CItes American Betrayal by Diana West, Jan. 29,2015:

I couldn’t have been more delighted to see that Newt Gingrich has cited American Betrayal in his latest column:

As Diana West writes in her remarkable book American Betrayal, we have “new totalitarians who look to Mecca instead of Moscow.”

Old totalitarians, of course, still look to Moscow — or to the Moscow of their Marxist memories, or, perhaps better, the “Moscow” of their totalitarian fantasties where the central state controls the lives of the citizenry, and the self-selected, self-elected few control the central state. Liberals!

Newt GIngrich is discussing the clear preference President Obama shows for tyranny (Islam) over liberty, and, by extension, how far “the modern left has strayed … from the classical liberal commitment to a free society.”

More and more, I doubt the ideological Left ever had such a commitment.

Newt sums up (links from the original):

As Diana West writes in her remarkable book American Betrayal, we have “new totalitarians who look to Mecca instead of Moscow.”

Maybe we should be grateful that First Lady Michelle Obama declined to wear a headscarf during her visit there [Saudi Arabia]. It was a tiny demonstration of freedom in a country where rape victims have been sentenced to 200 lashes for being alone in a car with a man who was not a relative.

The First Lady’s fashion choices aside, the modern left has strayed so far from the classical liberal commitment to a free society that they condemn irreverent cartoonists (victims of a terrorist massacre, no less) even while they praise a totalitarian regime as a powerful voice for tolerance, moderation and peace.

It’s simply extraordinary to have an administration that “questions the judgment” of Charlie Hebdo but calls Saudi tyrants “important partners in the fight against terrorism.” And to have a president who personally attends the funeral of an Islamist monarch but sends no senior officials to the Unity March in Paris or to the funeral of Margaret Thatcher (an authentic hero in the fight against totalitarianism).

We have an administration that offers too many apologies for Islamists and too weak a defense of freedom.

For at least thirteen years since 9/11, our elites in both parties have failed to take seriously the radical Islamist war against Western civilization. As I described in a speech in Iowa on Saturday, this is a danger we can no longer afford to ignore.

Clearly the current occupants of the White House have no intention of being honest about the threats we face. Congress can and should lead with hearings to present the facts, despite the administration’s apologies of and appeasement for those who would impose tyranny.