Does Jihad Really Have “Nothing to do with Islam”?

Gatestone Institute, by Denis MacEoin, Feb. 24, 2018:

  • “National Security officials are prohibited from developing a factual understanding of Islamic threat doctrines, preferring instead to depend upon 5th column Muslim Brotherhood cultural advisors.” — Richard Higgins, NSC official.
  • At the heart of the problem lies the fantasy that Islam must be very similar to other religions, particularly Judaism and Christianity, out of which it was, in fact derived.
  • The use of force, mainly through jihad, is a basic doctrine in the Qur’an, the Prophetic sayings (ahadith), and in all manuals of Islamic law. It is on these sources that fighters from Islamic State, al-Qa’ida, al-Shabaab, and hundreds of other groupings base their preaching and their actions. To say that such people have “nothing to do with Islam” could not be more wrong.

Recently, US National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster once again downplayed the significance of faith by claiming that Islamic ideology is “irreligious”; meanwhile, up to 1.5 billion Muslims continue claiming, as they have done for 1400 years, that it is.

As Stephen Coughlin, an expert on Islam, told Gatestone, “It is the believers who define their religion, not the non-believers. If someone says his religion is that the moon is made of green cheese, that has to be your starting point.”

On February 20, 2017, President Trump appointed McMaster, a serving Lieutenant General of the US Army, to the important position of National Security Advisor, after the forced resignation of Michael T. Flynn. McMaster came to the post with a reputation for stability, battlefield experience, and intelligence. According to the Los Angeles Times:

“It is not an overstatement to say that Americans and the world should feel a little safer today,” tweeted Andrew Exum, an author and academic who saw combat in Afghanistan and writes widely about military affairs.”

After the controversies surrounding McMaster’s predecessor in office, McMaster came as a safe hand.

It was not long before divisions opened up within the NSC, however, with quarrels, firings, and appeals to the president. Many controversies remain today. By July, it was reported that Trump was planning to fire McMaster and replace him with CIA Director Mike Pompeo. By August, however, McMaster’s position seemed secure.

U.S. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

It is not the purpose of this article to discuss issues McMaster’s spell at the NSC has brought to light, except for one: McMaster’s position on Islam and terrorism. It became a cause for contention early in McMaster’s incumbency and continues to engender divisions, not just among NSC staff, but also with the president. The general’s viewpoint, which he has often expressed, is that international terrorism has nothing to do with the religion of Islam, a notion he seems to believe to the point where he has banned the use of the term “radical Islamic terrorism” — a term that Trump uses often.

In an all-hands meeting of the NSC on February 23, 2017, three days after his appointment as NSC Director, McMaster said jihadist terrorists are not true to their professed religion and that the use of the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” does not help the US in working with allies to defeat terrorist groups:

“The phrase is unhelpful because terrorist organizations like ISIS represent a perversion of Islam, and are thus un-Islamic, McMaster said, according to a source who attended the meeting.”

More recently, on December 3, in an interview with Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace, McMaster stated that “we make sure we never buy into or reinforce the terrorist narrative, this false narrative that this is a war of religion”. He followed this by elaborating on the criminality and supposed secularism of Muslim terrorists:

“Those who adhere to this ideology are really irreligious criminals who use a perverted, what the President has called a wicked interpretation of religion, in an effort to recruit young, impressionable people to their cause, to foment hatred”.

In taking that stance, McMaster has broken with many members of his own staff, several of whom he was later to fire, and with the Trump administration itself. This desire to deny a connection between Islam and terrorism or to distinguish between a “pure” Islamic religion and “perversions” of it had been for many years a characteristic of the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations, as well as Hillary Clinton’s tweets, when “this has nothing to do with Islam” was an oft-repeated refrain.

One of the people whom McMaster fired is Richard Higgins, a top NSC official who had written a memoir in which he warned of the dangers of radical Islam and its alliance with the far Left. In a lengthy document, Higgins wrote:

Globalists and Islamists recognize that for their visions to succeed, America, both as an ideal and as a national and political identity, must be destroyed…Islamists ally with cultural Marxists…[but] Islamists will co-opt the movement in its entirety…

Because the left is aligned with Islamist organizations at local, national, and international levels, recognition should be given to the fact that they seamlessly interoperate through coordinated synchronized interactive narratives…

These attack narratives are pervasive, full spectrum, and institutionalized at all levels. They operate in social media, television, the 24-hour news cycle in all media and are entrenched at the upper levels of the bureaucracies.

Clearly, Higgins did not mince his words, yet what he wrote seems entirely appropriate for the NSC, a body charged with the protection of the United States from radicalism of all kinds. According to Meira Svirsky, writing for the Clarion Project

Lamenting the lack of education given to government officials about radical Islam, Higgins previously wrote, “National Security officials are prohibited from developing a factual understanding of Islamic threat doctrines, preferring instead to depend upon 5th column Muslim Brotherhood cultural advisors.” [1]

Higgins’s stress on the lack of education about Islam is a vital recognition that something has been going wrong for years when it comes to American and European official responses to the religion and its followers. Rightly cautious about genuine Islamophobia, the growth of hate speech and intercommunal strife, governments and their agencies have adopted policies and measures to preserve calm even in the face of growing levels of terrorism by Muslims. Europeans in Paris, Barcelona, Manchester, London, Brussels, Berlin and Nice, to name just a few places, are at the forefront of attacks inspired by Islamic State, al-Qa’ida and other radical groups. But the US has suffered the heaviest casualties, with thousands slaughtered in the 9/11 attacks.

In the face of a renascent and at times violent Islam, politicians have adopted the policy of denying any connection between terrorist events and Islam. Many religious leaders have done the same. McMaster has adopted this policy, keeping him in line with established approaches:

“HR McMaster, a respected army lieutenant general, struck notes more consistent with traditional counterterrorism analysts and espoused consensus foreign-policy views during a meeting he held with his new National Security Council staff on Thursday”.

According to Svirsky:

McMaster believes the “Islamic State is not Islamic,” going so far as to describe jihadists as “really irreligious organizations.” As did former president Obama, he opposes use of any language that connects Islam to terrorism.

McMaster also rejects the notion that jihadists are motivated by religious ideology. Instead, he says they are motivated by “fear,” a “sense of honor” and their “interests,” which he describes as the roots of human conflict for thousands of years. He believes U.S. policy must be based on “understanding those human dimensions.”

There may be signs that McMaster, though he still has some way to go, at least recognizes that some deeply religious Islamic organizations are a threat to the West. Writing on December 13, Meira Svirsky cites a speech McMaster gave at Policy Exchange in Washington:

“Declaring the ideology of radical Islam an obvious and ‘grave threat to all civilized people,’ U.S. National Security Adviser General H.R. McMaster singled out the Muslim Brotherhood and its brand of political Islam as a specific threat”.

In that speech, the general spoke of Turkey and Egypt as two major sources of support for the Brotherhood, including its Palestinian branch, Hamas. He clearly sees the threat, but does not, as yet, fully understand the meaning of its religious dimension (however much other factors play a role in terrorism).

I have no wish to be disrespectful towards McMaster, who carries out a vital task in securing the lives and property of so many Americans, but I fear his statements show that he has little or no knowledge of Islam, its teachings, or its history. Either that or he has invented a form of Islam that bears no resemblance to the religion that many of us have spent most of our lives studying. Not implausibly, he has given ears to advisors, possibly including Muslims, who have sought to play down any possible link between violence and the Muslim faith.

This willingness, even eagerness, to misrepresent Islam plays directly into the hands of anti-Western Muslims, radicals who anticipate the coming of an apocalyptic global Caliphate. In a recent article, Professor Richard Landes of Boston University lists the many ways in which this is done:

Only the most fervent of true believers could think that, even with Allah’s help, the global Caliphate was possible. In order to succeed, da’wa [outreach; proselytizing] Caliphaters needed the assistance of the targeted kuffar population to:

  • Disguise their ambition to subject the kuffar, by downplaying jihadi acts of war and their deployment among the targeted population.
  • Insist that “except for a tiny minority,” the “vast majority” of Muslims are moderate and peaceful, and Islam is a “Religion of Peace” that has nothing to do with the violence of jihadists.
  • Accept those who fight for the Caliphate with da’wa as “moderates” who have “nothing to do” with “violent extremists.”
  • Engage these “moderate” Caliphaters as advisors and consultants in intelligence and police work, as prison chaplains, community liaisons, college teachers, and administrators.
  • Present Caliphater war propaganda as reliable information, as news.
  • Attack those who criticize Islam (including Muslims) as xenophobic and racist Islamophobes.
  • Adopt the Caliphater’s apocalyptic enemy as their own, so that the kuffar join in an attack on one of their key allies.
  • Legitimate jihadi terrorism as “resistance” and denounce any recourse to violence in their own defense as “terrorism.”
  • Respect the dignity of Muslim beliefs even as Muslims heap disdain on their beliefs.
  • Take seriously Caliphater invocations of human rights when, in reality, they despise those rights for women, slaves, and infidels.
  • Welcome an angry “Muslim Street” in the heart of their capital cities.

At the heart of the problem lies the fantasy that Islam must be very similar to other religions, particularly Judaism and Christianity, out of which it was, in fact derived. This would mean that Islam consists only of doctrines about a single God, heaven and hell, sin and punishment, spiritual endeavor, together with practices such as prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, and alms-giving. There would be nothing to concern us were that the case, and certainly no reason to connect the faith with a few supposedly fanatical people who have misguidedly distorted it and turned to violence.

But that would be to ignore the totality of Islam. Apart from 12 years at the start of Muhammad’s mission, Islam has encompassed far more than worship and moral behavior. From the moment Muhammad led his followers from Mecca to Medina in the year 622, his religion became a system of government, of law, and of war. Several battles were fought with his Meccan opponents; the Jews of Medina were either driven out by force or executed and enslaved, and Muhammad returned to Mecca as its conqueror. On his death, his first successor embarked on a two-year war to bring recalcitrant tribes back within the fold, sent out armies to the north and, in just a few years, began the wave of invasions that made Muslims victorious across most of the known world. Of the first four “rightly-guided” caliphs, one was assassinated by an Iranian captive and the other two by other Muslims. Muhammad’s grandson, Husayn, was killed with his family in Karbala in 680 by the second of the Umayyad caliphs, before further internal wars. Jihadi wars continued, year in and year out, after that; they are still invoked by modern terrorists. Islam has never been at peace with the non-Muslim world.

The use of force, mainly through jihad, is a basic doctrine in the Qur’an, the prophetic sayings (ahadith), and in all manuals of Islamic law. (For examples, see hereherehere and here.)

If jihad were permitted only in self-defence, then excuses implying aggression, as we have seen, would need to be readily available to justify attacks. As the Washington Post wrote a fortnight after the attack on the United States on 9/11/2001:

At the heart of the bin Laden opus are two declarations of holy war — jihad — against America. The first, issued in 1996, was directed specifically at “Americans occupying the land of the two holy places,” as bin Laden refers to his native Saudi Arabia, where 5,000 U.S. troops have been stationed since the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The two holy places are Muslim shrines at Mecca and Medina.

In 1998, he broadened the edict to include the killing of “Americans and their allies, civilians and military . . . in any country in which it is possible to do it.”

It is on such Islamic sources that fighters from Islamic State, al-Qa’ida, al-Shabaab, and hundreds of other groupings base their preaching and their actions. To say that such people have “nothing to do with Islam” could not be more wrong.

It is not only wrong, it is demeaning to the many ex-Muslims such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Ibn Warraq and reformist Muslims who are fully aware of the connection, but are often apparently considered delusional or even fanatical. Last year saw the publication of Ibn Warraq’s detailed study, The Islam in Islamic Terrorism: The Importance of Beliefs, Ideas, and Ideology, which takes the reader through all the violent or violence-promoting individuals and groups in Islamic history, with discursions on the thinking behind them. With few exceptions, these individuals and groups are far from minor or obscure.

In chapter one of his book, Ibn Warraq examines what he calls the “Root Cause Fallacy”, whereby politicians, security advisers, and others deflect attention from religion as a motivator for terrorism. He shows that most radicals and terrorists are not primarily inspired or justified by poverty, lack of knowledge of Islam, lack of education, the Arab-Israeli conflict, Palestine, anti-Semitism, U.S. Foreign policy, Western Imperialism, or revenge for the Crusades. He refers (p. 31) to David Wurmser of the American Enterprise Institute and his view that:

“Westerners attribute too many of the Arab world’s problems ‘to specific material issues’ such as land and wealth. This usually means a tendency ‘to belittle belief and strict adherence to principle as genuine and dismiss it as a cynical exploitation of the masses by politicians. As such, Western observers see material issues and leaders, not the spiritual state of the Arab world, as the heart of the problem'”.

Overall, Ibn Warraq draws on an extensive body of scholarship, mainly from leading Western scholars of Islam and authoritative sources such as The Encyclopedia of Islam. McMaster and others, who repeat the mantra that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, are hardly in a position to override comment by individuals who have spent a lifetime deeply involved in the study of Islam through its original sources.

Ibn Warraq, moreover, cites (pp. 139-140) several Western and Muslim scholars who have said repeatedly that the idea that the “true jihad is a spiritual struggle” is completely unauthentic. It is arguments based on a reading of texts in Arabic, Persian, Urdu and other languages that deserve to be treated as the basis for policy-making, identifying which people may be potential terrorists, or evaluating the true intentions of US-based Muslim associations such as CAIR or ISNA.

Clare Lopez, vice president of research and analysis at the Washington-based Center for Security Policy, has commented on the broad lack of knowledge about Islam and how it has distorted thinking within national bodies. Beginning with criticism of McMaster, she raises broader issues:

McMaster is just wrong for NSC on so many counts. I think at least in part because, like others across national security at his level, who made rank in years post-9/11, he was systematically denied fact-based training about Islam, jihad, Shariah and the MB [Muslim Brotherhood] – whose affiliates, associates, operatives, fellow travelers and useful fools remain embedded within and close to the federal government and local law enforcement at various levels.

Now, of course, anyone who’s ever taken the oath to the Constitution has an affirmative obligation to know the enemy and that McMaster did not do this is his responsibility alone.

Those who got promoted within the military-security establishment over the past eight years got there precisely because of a “willful blindness about Islam”.

The problem for the United States government, Congress, Senate — and many important agencies which find themselves called on to discuss, monitor, report on, or make policies about Islam, American Muslims, Muslims worldwide, and more — is knowing where to look for accurate and authentic information. In the past, all of these have depended on Muslim academics, uncritical and cosmetic non-Muslim professors and commentators such as John Esposito, Karen Armstrong and the many teachers identified by Campus Watch; numerous university and college Islamicists with vested interests in posts funded by Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim states (see here); self-appointed Islamic authorities such as CAIR, and amateurs within US institutions.

Criticism of Islam has become taboo and has been denounced as a right-wing or even far-right prejudice. The present writer, however, a political centrist, sees nothing wrong in bringing reasoned and fact-based criticism to bear on Islam, just as one would to every other ideology, from Marxism to Fascism. One can also appreciate the stunning contributions Muslims have made to science, art, architecture, calligraphy, music, and the spiritual endeavors of Sufis and Shi’i mystical philosophers. It is important for everyone to step back and bring accuracy and balance to the way we regard a large and expanding religion. 

Denis MacEoin has an MA in Persian, Arabic and Islamic History from Edinburgh University and a PhD (1979) in an aspect of Shi’i Islam in 19th-century Iran. He taught Arabic and Islamic Studies in the Religious Studies Department of Newcastle University and has published many books and articles on Islamic topics.

[1] There is evidence that the international Muslim Brotherhood is working for influence in US politics and that it has already placed people within several US bodies. See here.

Brief Supports Extreme Vetting for Jihadists

AFLC Files Brief in SCOTUS on Behalf of National Security Experts in Support of Extreme Vetting for Islamist Sharia Ideology


Washington, D.C. (February 28, 2017) — Yesterday, lawyers from the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), a national, nonprofit Judeo-Christian law firm, filed an amicus curiaebrief on behalf of seven national security experts (Andrew C. McCarthyCenter for Security PolicyFrank GaffneyDr. Robert J. ShillmanAdmiral James “Ace” Lyons, Jr., U.S. Navy RetiredLieutenant General William G. Boykin, U.S. Army Retired, and Ambassador Henry F. Cooper) in the United States Supreme Court in the case litigating the President’s proclamation restricting travel from certain countries.

The AFLC-authored brief argues that the President’s most recent executive proclamation suspending entry and creating a more rigorous entry vetting process for immigrants and travelers from certain high-risk countries (Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, and Somalia) was a constitutional and statutorily permitted first step before implementing a more thorough-going “extreme vetting” of potential jihadists.  The brief lays out the policy and legal basis for an extreme vetting of Islamists who advocate or adhere to a political ideology predicated upon Sharia supremacism.  The brief argues that it is classic and extant Islamic law that is the threat doctrine underpinning jihad by the various Islamic groups, whether they be Al Qaeda, the Islamic State, or the Muslim Brotherhood.

David Yerushalmi, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, and described by The New York Times as one of the central leaders of the anti-Sharia movement in the U.S., explained,

“The litigants and other amici will focus on the narrow statutory issues of the proclamation, and especially on the power of the executive branch to exclude travelers from failed states.  Most of the president’s adversaries will claim the revised travel ban is a disguised ban on Muslims while the President and his legal team from the Solicitor General’s Office will flee from that fight by arguing that it has nothing to do with Muslims or Islam.  This brief plants a flag of coherence on the beach we must take if we are to protect this country’s security from the quiet and legal infiltration of jihadists flowing in from not only Muslim failed states, but also Muslim functioning states, Africa, and even Europe.”

Robert Muise, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, and considered one of the country’s top First Amendment litigators, added,

“The AFLC brief argues that the President has not only the authority for a travel ban, he has the constitutional and statutory authority to impose an ideological vetting process to screen for Sharia-adherent Islamists.  This will be the first time since 9-11 that this issue will be squarely and coherently briefed to the Supreme Court.  It begins the all too important policy discussion at the highest levels within the Halls of Justice and, as such, within the inner reaches of the law.  It turns the lawfare of the Islamists and Progressives in on itself and reshapes and indeed opens up new fronts on the legal and policy battlefields enabling those who cherish western civilization and our constitutional republic to take an offensive and ultimately rational posture into the lawfare and policy trenches.”

As one piece of the evidentiary framework for the brief, AFLC cites to a relatively recent peer-reviewed study, co-authored by Mr. Yerushalmi, revealing the statistically relevant correlation between sharia adherence at U.S. mosques and the propensity to preach and to propagate violent jihad against the West.  The study was first published by the Middle East Quarterly and subsequently in expanded form in Perspectives on Terrorism.

Copies of the National Security Experts’ amicus curiae brief may be downloaded here.

When the Government Fails In Its Primary Duty, The People Will Defend Themselves

Written by John Guandolo, President/Founder of Understanding the Threat (UTT) on March 1, 2018:

100% of Islamic Law (sharia) mandates warfare against non-muslims, and obliges stoning, crucifixion and beheading for certain crimes.  Islam’s prophet – a “beautiful pattern of conduct” for all muslims for all times – himself tortured, killed, took sex slaves, waged war on non-muslims, lied, and commanded war until the earth was under Islamic rule.  Yet, the President’s National Security Advisor, Herbert McMaster tells the public the actions of Al Qaeda and the Islamic State have nothing to do with Islam.

Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama all told the American people Islam is not a threat, but a peaceful religion.

They were wrong.  What they said is factually untrue and can never be true.

President Clinton’s Islamic Advisor, who also created the Muslim Chaplain Program for the Department of Defense and, as a “Goodwill Ambassador” for the State Department participated in the Middle East peace process on behalf of the United States, was actually a financier for Al Qaeda (Abdurahman Alamoudi), who is now in federal prison.

The U.S. government modeled the “Countering Violent Extremism” program after the British program of the same name which was handed to the Brits by the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK.  The FBI and DHS dragged that trojan horse into the U.S. national security apparatus, and put senior Muslim Brotherhood operatives in advisory roles across the government to implement it.

Numerous members of Congress and other government officials publicly support known leaders of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which the U.S. Department of Justice identifies as a “Member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee” which is Hamas in the United States.

Members of Congress to include nearly all Democrats, as well as John McCain, Scott Brown, Marco Rubio, John Boehner, Paul Ryan and others have consistently failed to identify the threat from the Islamic Movement, and have attacked those who speak truth about it, like former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.

U.S. military generals and admirals created rules of engagement, policies on training, and wartime strategies all based on a counter-factual understanding of the enemy.  This is why the military’s “win the hearts and minds” crap got thousands of our men and women killed on the battlefield, frustrated our war-fighters, and got some of them put in jail for killing Al Qaeda jihadis outside the bounds of those same rules of engagement.

The FBI investigated:  the Boston Marathon bombers; the Orlando and San Bernadino jihadis; Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, who killed Private Andy Long at a recruiting depot in Little Rock, Arkansas; the Ft Lauderdale jihadi; and so many others.  Yet in all of these cases, the FBI took no action to deter these attacks or kill/capture the men and women who perpetrated them before the attacks.

Why?  Because the U.S. federal government has catastrophically failed in its most basic duty:  to wield the sword and defend this nation and the the inalienable rights given to the American people by God.

We are at war and our government is certainly not acting like it.  They treat it like it is a crime spree.

In my time doing counter-jihad work, I have been physically threatened numerous times.  It is the nature of the business.  Just ask Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer, Pam Geller, and anyone else who speaks truth about Islam.

Ask Theo van Gogh.  Oh wait, you can’t.

I have contacted my old employer, the FBI, many times and filed reports about threats to me from jihadis.  There has been zero follow up by the FBI.

2016 was the first time the FBI followed up on real threats against me.

The FBI’s Oklahoma office opened investigations on two specific threats against me in the fall of 2016.  One of the threats just happened to come immediately after I testified in the Oklahoma State House that  two muslim leaders sitting in the hearing room are jihadis.

They are:  Dr. Imam Imad Enchassi, the Imam of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City; and Adam Soltani, the leader of Hamas in Oklahoma doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

The FBI classified the case, so when they did not prosecute, state and local prosecutors could not use information because it was classified.  By the time the case was declassified, the subject of the investigation fled the country.  See an article here about this incident.

Here is the point:  The United States government has demonstrated since 9/11/01 it is not capable of protecting its citizens, primarily because it refuses to identify Islam/sharia as the doctrinal driver of the jihadis, organizations, and nation states waging war against the West.

Apparently, our leaders are also incapable of reading 1400 years of Islamic history or reading what America’s founders wrote about Islam and the threat it poses to Western civilization.

American leaders are still discussing nuanced strategies, outreach, and interfaith dialogue, while nations have been and are being overthrown, hundreds of thousands of Christians lay dead overseas, and Europe is being overrun by Islamic jihadis (sharia adherent muslims).

America’s leaders play the violin while Rome burns.

The U.S. Department of Justice and the Attorney General of the United States have shown no sign of taking any productive action.  No domestic plan has been formulated to strategically deal with this real threat.

The answer resides, as it always does, in the hands of the American citizens.

Citizens must work to ensure local police/sheriffs get smart on the threat and take action.  Citizens must positively support police in developing aggressive investigative strategies to identify jihadis and their organizations at the local level and shut them down.  Citizens must organize to meet this enemy along every line of operation the enemy has created to stop their forward progress.

This can be done.  It is why Understanding the Threat does what we do, and we are the only ones doing it.

Local media, businesses, and leaders who protect these terrorists/jihadis and minimize the threat, must pay for their actions.  There are local and state laws on the books for individuals (like reporters) aiding and abetting seditious actors and terrorists.  Businesses should be boycotted and shut down if they support jihadi organizations.  Local elected officials should be jailed for propagandizing for, defending, or providing material support to individuals and organizations working to overthrow the state and federal Constitutions.

Many states have RICO statutes which cover many of these violations of the law.  Mostly, Americans must stop being so tolerant of those who support enemies of this nation, and begin taking affirmative actions.

Speak truth boldly IN love and WITHOUT fear.

Get involved in your local school district, local politics, and with your local police and sheriff’s office.  Force them to learn this information and act on it to protect the community, or get new people in positions of authority who will.

Take the fight to the enemy.  Do not wait in a defensive posture.  Put freedom on the offensive where it belongs.

It is late August 1939 in Warsaw, Poland.  As the darkness grows, will you sit and wait or will you do your best to thin the enemy’s ranks here in the U.S. before the larger war begins?

Democracy Promotion is Our Responsibility as Guardians of the Liberal Order

Center for Security Policy, by Luis Fleischman, March 1, 2018:

The concept of democracy promotion has a negative connotation, particularly since the War in Iraq. The cost of the Iraq war and the public controversy over it generated an aversion towards democracy promotion. Such negativity was associated with idea that Americans soldiers are sacrificed for a cause that is not theirs. Losing lives over foreign democracies is not worthwhile and less so when instead of democracy what we see is civil war, anarchy and chaos.

The problem is not so much with the argument raised. In fact, it makes sense to think that sacrificing U.S. troops to build a foreign nation is too high of a price to pay. However, this argument has spilled into a general blindness regarding democracy promotion up to the point that there is aversion to even discussing the issue and against this background a neo-isolationist concept has developed in important sectors of the right and the left.

I will state that there is in the world today a deterioration of democracy that begins with elections, but quickly turns into a rule by executive decrees, subjugation of the branches of power, fraudulent elections, restriction of the press, and eventually violent repression of society.  They begin as illiberal democracies and end up in an authoritarian regime. The cases of Russia, Venezuela and Turkey are the clearest examples. Several countries in the Western hemisphere such as Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua have followed the Venezuelan example of establishing a powerful authority.  In Europe, countries such as Poland and Hungary are following suit.

The problem is that those regimes are not friendly to the liberal world order that the U.S. and its allies have tried to build. In the past, not every authoritarian regime was anti-American or anti-West. Many of them were authoritarian capitalistic or semi-capitalistic regimes that supported the U.S. during the cold war. The famous phrase attributed to President Franklin D. Roosevelt that he is “a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch” no longer applies.

The new authoritarian regimes not only reject democracy but are also afraid of the liberal world order. The European Union has supported the liberal order for decades as democracy was a condition to enter the European Common Market. Spain and Portugal were able to join the group only after they transitioned to democracy. The U.S. also moved from its “Realpolitik” approach to supporting the spread of democracy in the world.

Thus, by definition a modern illiberal regime considers the West an adversary directly or indirectly.  By the same token, it does not feel committed to the same geo-strategic goals and values that the West promotes. As an example, Turkey, a member of NATO, has made alliances with Iran and Russia. It has also allowed ISIS to use its territory to sell its oil. Most recently, Turkey’s president Recep Tayip Erdogan publicly spoke to a six-year-old girl encouraging martyrdom confirming Mr. Erdogan’s radical Islamist views.

The notion of Turkey as an ally was not revisited by Western leaders. When a sector in the military attempted a coup d’état against Erdogan in the summer of 2016, the U.S. and the West condemned the coup more than they condemned the repressive measures and massive purges carried out in response to the coup. But today, we know better. Turkey’s membership in NATO means nothing. Erdogan, will continue to perpetuate himself in power through fraudulent and manipulative elections. He will also continue to claim there is democracy in Turkey because the country holds elections while using the “democratic mandate” to give legitimacy to anti-democratic measures. He will repress the Kurds and if necessarily will make alliances with NATO enemies.

Turkey is not alone. Venezuela has been a major commercial partner of the United States. Its oil sales were mostly to the U.S. The U.S. also refined Venezuela’s oil. The country is located in the heart of the Western Hemisphere. Venezuelan authoritarian leaders openly declared hostility to the United States, made alliances with Iran, terrorist groups and drug cartels.   Lately, we have applied pressure on Venezuela to democratize and even imposed sanctions on some its political and military leadership. However, this is not significant enough considering it is coming a decade too late.

The countries of Central Europe present a worrisome trend as well. Poland took a series of measures and passed laws that subordinated the courts to executive prerogatives. Poland has also curbed public gathering and restricted the freedom of the press. Most recently. it passed a law outlawing public discussion of Poles’ collaboration with the Nazis, something that affects not only freedom of speech but also freedom of research. Hungary has also cracked down on nonprofits, the press and on the judiciary, and has vindicated dubious figures of the past that collaborated with the Nazis. As a result, Poland and Hungary are currently at odds with the European Union. Their conflict with the European Union over democratic practices affects the unity of the free world. Moreover, the illiberal character of these countries and these tensions with Europe may push these countries into Russia or China’s sphere of influence. In fact, Hungary is already very close to the Kremlin. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban warmed up to Moscow and received large loans from Russia. Likewise, there were reports about connections between Russian intelligence officers and far right groups in Hungary. Poland still views Russia as a threat, but nothing guarantees that this situation would not be reversed.

In terms of these countries’ relation with China, Orban enthusiastically opened his country to China. Hungary’s foreign minister Peter Szijjarto has proudly pointed out that Hungary’s is China’s best ally in Central Europe.  Poland is the largest trade partner of China in Central Europe and the overall trade with China in this area is 57 billion dollars.

Nobody can assure that in the future Poland and Hungary will remain loyal to NATO. Both countries may see the West as an annoyance to their authoritarian style rather than an asset. The concept of free world may mean nothing to them in the end. Thus, if Russia is not attractive enough to the Poles, China will certainly be. After all China abhors democracy, and as the most recent decision by the Communist Party shows, authoritarian rulers can rule forever until their deaths. So, Poland and Hungary could well find in China a great source of support.

In February, some of these illiberal authoritarian democracies suffered a setback. Hungary’s ruling party lost a mayoral election raising questions about its chances to win elections in April. Ecuadorians voted not to allow the illiberal president Rafael Correa to run again. In a referendum Bolivian citizens voted against the indefinite reelection of the illiberal Evo Morales, who like Correa is also an ally of the Venezuelan government.

People in those countries are reacting to the authoritarian tendencies through the ballot or through demonstrations. This does not mean that the authoritarian rulers will give up. It is certainly not the case in Venezuela and not likely to be the case in Bolivia, two declared enemies of the United States.

What the United States needs is to develop an active foreign policy that promotes and defends democratic rule. This policy needs still to be designed in order to prevent the emergence of illiberal democracies. Every time such regime surfaces it is a strategic wound to the free world.   This is not a matter of just spreading our values. It is a matter of strengthening world stability and doing it in the strategic interest of the U.S. and its allies.

The time has come for U.S. policy makers to understand that at the end of the day democracy reflects the strength of the free world more than anything. Democracies might elect the wrong leader but they must have the chance to remove him/her from power in the next elections. The U.S. needs to defend this principle since its might makes it responsible to be the main guarantor of an order based on freedom. We are currently far from developing any systematic strategy to undertake such responsibility.

Keith Ellison keynotes CAIR gala in NYC

Center for American Progress | Flickr

Conservative Review, by Jordan  Schachtel, Feb. 28, 2018:

Over the weekend, Congressman Keith Ellison (who also serves as deputy chairman of the DNC) was the keynote speaker for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) New York chapter’s annual gala.

CAIR was founded in the early ’90s with the explicit goal of raising both financial and legislative support for the Hamas terrorist organization that now rules the Gaza Strip. The group was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism-financing case in U.S. history. It is now designatedas a terrorist organization in the UAE.

The New York chapter of CAIR is one of the most extremist-connected entities of a national organization that positions itself as a civil rights group. Quite a few CAIR-NY staffers and officials have in the past expressed support for Hamas and other fringe groups.

Current CAIR-NY board chairman Zead Ramadan has compared “anti-Muslim rhetoric” in America to the Nazi treatment of the Jews. Ramadan has also pointedly refused to condemn Hamas.

Former CAIR-NY board member Lamis Deek has offered support for Islamist uprisings against the “imperialist” United States. Deek also urged Muslims not to comply with federal counterterrorism investigations.

Cyrus McGoldrick, another former CAIR-NY official, has explicitly endorsed Hamas. In 2015, McGoldrick flew to Iran and went on its state-controlled media channels to curse the United States.

The current CAIR-NY legal director, Albert Cahn, recently provided legal representation to the ISIS truck terrorist who killed eight people in Manhattan late last year. In a statement to the press following the attack, Cahn said he was “outraged by the behavior of law enforcement officials” in dealing with his terrorist client.

Here’s a photo of Cahn and Ellison from over the weekend.

The DNC deputy chairman has been in the news lately for all the wrong reasons.

In January, he endorsed a book that promotes the ideology of Antifa, a communist organization that is considered a domestic terrorist group by both the DHS and FBI.

Conservative Review found that the Ellison-endorsed book calls for physical violence against Antifa’s opponents. “In truth, violence represents a small though vital sliver of anti-fascist activity,” a passages from the book reads.

We also recently learned that Ellison has a continuing relationship with the anti-Semitic preacher Louis Farrakhan, who is also a Nazi admirer and a 9/11 truther. Ellison has met with the bigoted Nation of Islam leader at least three times since entering office.

And Ellison recently attended a private dinner hosted by the president of the terrorist regime in Iran.

The DNC deputy chair’s career has been rife with conspiracy theories and fringe positions. His embrace and promotion of the terror-tied CAIR is just Ellison’s latest move in a congressional tenure filled with controversy.


In Anti-Semitic Rant, Louis Farrakhan Confirms DNC’s Keith Ellison Was In Nation Of Islam


Clare Lopez gives wide ranging interview discussing Andre Carson, Keith Ellison, Muslim Brotherhood,Turkey, Iran and Muslim immigration.

In Broward County, Florida, CAIR polices you

Arparslan Esmar | Wikimedia Commons

Sheriff Israel works with terror-linked group.

Conservative Review. by Jordan Schachtel, Feb. 26, 2018:

As the nation reels from the atrocious mass killing of 17 lives, more and more evidence continues to emerge to highlight an entirely broken police department that failed to act in a time of need.

In researching the tenure of Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel, one can find many questionable hiring decisions, prioritization issues, and unsavory partnerships. Residents of the county are rightly infuriated by the cowardice showcased by officers serving under Sheriff Israel, who reportedly failed even to attempt to stop the massacre on February 14 at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. It reflected a police department that appeared unready and unwilling to fulfil its duties.

The police department’s decision to enter into a partnership with a terrorist-linked organization is perhaps the most distinguishing marker that showcases Sheriff Israel’s horrible lack of judgment, one that badly exposes his unfitness for the job.

During his time as county sheriff, Scott Israel has repeatedly cozied up to radical Islamic groups. In a seeming attempt to build bridges, he has elevated several mosques with congregants and leaders who have detailed connections to terrorist organizations. Worse, one of Sheriff Israel’s veteran deputies is Nezar Hamze, a top officer at the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

CAIR was started by members of the Muslim Brotherhood with the goal to raise support and funds for the Hamas terrorist organization that now rules the Gaza Strip. The group was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing case in U.S. history.

Hamze has long been simultaneously a top official at CAIR-Florida and a Broward County deputy sheriff. He is currently listed as the group’s second in command, but has also served as its executive director. As a Broward County police officer, Hamze often frequents mosques to deliver speeches glorifying the Islamic community. He also trains congregants on active shooter situations.

The current executive director of CAIR-Florida is Hassan Shibly, a bigoted preacher who is known to often target homosexuals. Shibly has refused to categorize Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations. He has also praised individuals linked to terrorist movements and sometimes takes to social media to bash U.S. soldiers serving overseas.

When radicals in the Florida Islamic community are exposed, Deputy Hamze has been quick to warn of “backlash” against Muslims.

Hamze follows the modus operandi of many CAIR leaders. Instead of committing to reform, CAIR leaders like Hamze focus on the perceived threats to the Muslim community, especially in the wake of an act committed by co-religionists.

In 2011, when two imams were arrested and charged with funding overseas terrorists, Hamze commented: “I’m positive that some of them are scared and won’t go to the mosque for a period of time.” Any time there’s a terror-linked incident in Florida, you can find Hamze in front of a camera warning about the imminent threat to Muslims.

The Florida chapter of the Hamas-tied group has a long history of radical associations. And during Hamze’s tenure at CAIR, the chapter has directly associated with a who’s who of radical Islamists.

This past year, the CAIR-Florida annual banquet featured Islamist preachers Omar Suleiman and Imam Johari Abdul Malik.

Imam Malik is a top officer at one of the nation’s most infamous mosques, the Dar al Hijrah Islamic Center in Northern Virginia. The mosque was once led by Anwar al-Awlaki, the deceased chief recruiter for Al Qaeda. It was also attended by two of the September 11 hijackers. After a mosque attendee was busted for plotting to assassinate former President George W. Bush, Malik cried: “Our whole community is under siege.” In 2005, when a Virginia Muslim was found guilty of installing a terrorist network inside the United States, Imam Malik commented, “There is a view many Muslims have when they come to America that you could not be arrested for something you say. But now they have discovered they are not free to speak their minds.”

Suleiman, like Imam Malik, is an Islamist preacher who has defended child sex slavery. He also has countless radical associations.

There was no greater indication that Sheriff Israel was not fit to lead than his decision to partner with a group founded to support Islamic terrorism. If the Broward County Sheriff’s Department seeks to reform, it should focus on police work and not enter into partnerships that corrupt the legitimacy of law enforcement officers.

Also see:

Twitter Storm: Devastating “Leadership” & Infiltration at the Broward County Sheriffs

Broward County Considered Hotbed for Terrorism, Sheriff’s Deputy a CAIR Leader

Exposed: The Civilization Jihad Against America’s Popular Culture

Center for Security Policy, February 28, 2018:

New Monograph from Center for Security Policy Reveals Efforts to Manipulate Hollywood Films, and Therefore Popular Culture, to Undermine and Ultimately Dominate America

BUY NOW: Paperback / Kindle

Washington, D.C.: The #MeToo movement has revealed the hypocrisy of prominent individuals in Hollywood who claim to support women’s rights, while at the same time serially violating them. Yet, an even more sinister hypocrisy in Hollywood still lies beneath the surface – under-reported, often unnoticed and sometimes blatantly denied. That is the alliance of Hollywood Lefists with Islamist organizations that present themselves as champions of multiculturalism and inclusion, but in reality oppose everything that the Left claims to hold dear.

This as-yet-unchallenged hypocrisy has, however, just been brilliantly exposed in a new monograph by Center for Security Policy Senior Fellow Deborah Weiss, Esq., an expert on the censorship and other influence operations of Sharia-supremacist organizations, here and abroad. Islamist Influence in Hollywood reveals such groups’ concerted efforts to manipulate Hollywood movies and independent films, and therefore the popular culture, in the service of their agenda of undermining America, and ultimately dominating it.

Of particular concern is the success such operations have had in whitewashing Islamic terrorism and the totalitarian political, military and legal doctrine that animates it: Sharia. To the extent they have effectively targeted the film-making industry in order to shape popular perceptions and control the public narrative on critical issues of the day, these initiatives are insidious and even subversive.

Though purely pietistic aspects of Sharia can be practiced within constitutional bounds, in its entirety, Sharia is antithetical to the U.S. Constitution and the liberties it guarantees. It treats women as second- class citizens, discriminates against non-Muslims, severely punishes homosexuality, and precludes both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Those who whitewash such facts want to keep the American people from understanding their true mission of undermining liberty and human rights as practiced in this country.

As Ms. Weiss documents, Sharia-supremacists are insinuating themselves into script-writing, Hollywood “consulting,” film production, and even financial scholarships designed to facilitate young Muslims’ penetration of the entertainment industry. The public will be surprised to learn of the extent of Islamist influence in Hollywood, both in movies held out as simply entertainment as well as in so-called “documentaries.”

Islamic supremacist organizations, however, cannot succeed on their own. Ms. Weiss’s monograph documents Hollywood’s complicity and collaboration with Islamist organizations, in some cases capitulating to their demands out of fear, and in other cases championing their cause in the name of political correctness.

The election of President Trump has only exacerbated the situation. With the far-Left’s hatred of all things Trump, whatever objectivity the entertainment industry had has largely been lost. Emotions are running high and wittingly or not, many producers, script-writers, and actors are aligning with Islamic supremacists, simply for the sake of delegitimizing the President.

For example, Hollywood, as well as many in the mainstream media and political elite, overwhelmingly and falsely characterized Trump’s Executive Order imposing a temporary immigration pause as a “Muslim ban.” In fact, the order omitted the vast majority of predominantly Muslim countries and was premised on a list of “countries of concern” designated by President Obama as having a high risk of importing terrorism. The Executive Order, eventually determined to be constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, sought only to afford the new Administration a chance to develop an effective approach for screening out terrorists. Yet, many in Hollywood aligned with the Islamists among them in mischaracterizing this eminently sensible, modest and short-duration national security measure as religious discrimination motivated by anti-Muslim animus.

Michael Moore perfectly captured the extent of this alignment when he posted a photo of himself holding a sign saying “We are all Muslim.” Ironically, if the Sharia-supremacists such Hollywood celebrities enable are able to get their way, we all may wind up having to be Muslims or dhimmis the Islamists compel to submit and pay a degrading tax known as the jizya.

Upon the release of Islamist Influence in Hollywood, Frank Gaffney Jr. President of the Center for Security Policy observed:

Deborah Weiss’ well-researched and meticulously documented monograph reminds us of the importance of Hollywood and the film industry as an agent for social change. She reveals how Islamist organizations who believe neither in free speech nor equality for all use that core American freedom to censor information about Sharia and its supremacist agenda. The role of Hollywood’s influence in determining how society and its institutions – notably, academia, law enforcement and the faith community – perceive Sharia’s threat should not be overlooked or underestimated.

Ms. Weiss’ in-depth research connects the dots between Islamist organizations that would do us harm and the script-writers, producers and actors in Hollywood who have made them bedfellows. The Center for Security Policy is proud to present Deborah Weiss’ new monograph as an excellent addition to its Civilization Jihad Reader Series.

Islamist Influence in Hollywood is available for purchase in Kindle and paperback.

It can also be viewed and downloaded for free in PDF format