Islamic Jihad’s Most Effective Weapons

(Artwork by Shutterstock.com.)

(Artwork by Shutterstock.com.)


PJ MEDIA, BY DAVID SOLWAY, AUGUST 24, 2016:

Recently I published a pair of articles proposing in the first a series of severe legislative measures to curtail, if not eliminate, the carnage of jihad inflicted upon innocent people in all walks of life, and suggesting in the second that Islam, unlike Christianity, Judaism, and other faiths, should not be entitled to the protection of the First Amendment. In the sequel, I received a couple of messages accusing me of promoting a “final solution.” One from a former colleague read: Bravo. Your final solution is so simple and elegant. Another from a friend read, in part: Implicit in all your articles is that Islam…should or be made to disappear. The case against Islam taken to its extreme begins to sound very close to a “final solution.” Do we want or should we want to go there? 

My former colleague appears never to have read the Islamic scriptures and ancillary texts and obviously has little knowledge of Islamic history. My friend is considerably more erudite but seems, nonetheless, to believe that direct and aggressive confrontation is not the proper route to take. To imply that I, a Jew, am advocating a “final solution,” an Endlösung, is at the very least rather tactless. It is also, as I hope to show, the height of folly. What I said in my articles is that the terror apparatus needs to be dismantled without delay or equivocation, and that we have to go to the source of the violence, Islam itself. I was not advocating killing anyone, or rounding Muslims up in cattle cars and shipping them off to concentration camps, or burning  ghettoes and no-go zones to the ground.

I said in particular that terror mosques have to be investigated and if necessary shut down (military-grade weapons have been found in a German mosque, but jihadist-inspired sermons are also heavy weapons), that no-go zones have to be disarmed and opened to safe public dwelling, that Sharia, a draconian atavism incompatible with our constitutions, should be outlawed, that unscreened immigration simply has to stop, and that the status of Islam as a “religion” entitled to the shelter of the First Amendment is a legitimate issue to be debated—at least until the Koran, Hadith, Sira, schools of jurisprudence, etc. are sanitized, if ever.

My friend replied to a stern rebuke in partial walkback fashion. Of course, I’m not suggesting that you’re advocating an actual “final solution,” that’s absurd…Explicit in your many articles is that any decent, self-respecting, tolerant Muslim should…defect from Islam (reject the Koran, for all the reasons you have been laying out for years). Their example, taken to the extreme, would have Islam disappear gently into the night, which would be like a “final solution.” That’s all I’m saying. He continued: What your latest article doesn’t allow re. religious protection is a reformation within Islam, which I believe has already begun.

The question is: how long are we willing to wait for this putative reformation to bear fruit? I see a few “moderates” here and there trying to effect change, but they are having little appreciable impact, and most still adhere to the adulation of Mohammed, turn a blind eye to the dictates of their faith, or pretend the offending passages, with which the scriptures and commentaries are replete, mean something other than what they explicitly say.

A substantial and rooted reformation of Islam is the pipe dream of the cowed and complaisant who cannot face the indigestible fact that Islam is at war with us, has been at war with the Judeo-Christian West (and other civilizations) for fourteen hundred years, and shows no sign of relenting. I’d also suggest—assuming reform were conceivable—that my proposals, if taken seriously, might accelerate the reform my correspondent is piously wishing for. With terror mosques closed and fundamentalist Islam in official disgrace, true reformers might gather momentum. But this is only a thought-experiment.

The exception to the rule of Islamic hegemony, according to Supra Zaida Peery, executive director of Muslim World Today, appears to be Azerbaijan, with its history, at least since independence from the Soviet bloc in 1991, of “egalitarianism, democracy, and rule of law.” Such advancements are possible only where the Islamic scriptures are studiously disregarded, which reinforces the argument that canonical Islam is anti-freedom and an ever-present danger.

Ms. Peery admits that traditional Islam, honor codes and all, is making a comeback. Azerbaijan also enjoys strong relations with Erdogan’s Turkey, a political alliance that provokes a degree of skepticism respecting Ms. Peery’s claims. Everything considered, I would agree with Danusha Goska’s critical review of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’sHeretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now—a book which claims that Islam is susceptible, however tardily, to modernization. Goska writes: “We must confront jihad for what it is: a timeless and universal threat that requires an equally timeless and universal response.”

I have nothing against Muslims practicing their faith in their homes, as long as they don’t take its injunctions to rape, enslave, subjugate and murder in the name of Allah literally, and I have nothing against imams sermonizing from an extensively expurgated Koran—though their temples should have no greater legal status than, say, a Masonic clubhouse.

Meanwhile we line up at airports, remove our shoes, wait interminably to be processed, and expect to be groped—followed by the apprehension, shared by many, that the flight we have boarded may disappear off the radar. Meanwhile theFrench police are patrolling the beaches lest some “scantily clad” woman or child is knifed by some offended Muslim, as happened not long ago, a Jewish man in Strasbourg is stabbed by an Allahu Akbarist, seven people including a six-year-old child are injured in a “fire and knife” attack on a Swiss train, and an American tourist is stabbed to death in London’s busy Russell Square by a Somalian. “He’s still here, he’s still here,” were the dying woman’s last words, and indeed he is.

Meanwhile entire cities go into lockdown and people are warned to stay indoors after another jihadist onslaught. Meanwhile Pew polls report that young, second-generation Muslims—those we thought were Westernized “moderates”—increasingly favor death for apostates and gays and harsh punishment for criticism of Islam. Meanwhile countries are being swarmed with military-age “refugees,” a troubling number of whom are estimated to be ISIS plants or sympathizers; German intelligence official Manfred Hauser warns that ISIS has infiltrated the migrant hordes and set up a command structure in the country. Patrick Poolereports that the first two weeks of August 2016 have seen five dozen incidents of Muslim-related domestic insurgency in Europe. (As I write, a Muslim convert armed with detonation devices has just been shot by the RCMP in an Ontario community.)

The very conduct of our lives has changed—it’s called the “new normal.” We now hear from the lips of French Prime Minister Manuel Valls that we will have to “learn to live with terrorism.” Is this OK? Are we prepared to accept the limitations upon our traditional freedoms and the ever-present threat of violence upon our persons as a customary aspect of daily life in the hope that one day in the indefinite future the “religion of peace” will become a religion of peace? As things stand, our enemies are laughing all the way to the future.

More to the point, the irony very few observers wish to acknowledge—and certainly not my interlocutors—is that it is no one and nothing but Islam that is pursuing a “final solution “—and not only for Jews.

Read more

Donald Trump’s National Security Speech: A Presidential Address

The Associated Press

The Associated Press

Breitbart, by Frank Gaffney, Aug. 16, 2016:

Yesterday in Youngstown, Ohio, Donald Trump delivered the best speech of his campaign to date. Newt Gingrich rightly called it the most important since Ronald Reagan left office.

In fact, in many ways, it was very Reaganesque. After all, long before he became president, Mr. Reagan warned that every generation faces an existential threat to freedom. Mr. Trump made clear that he recognizes the threat to freedom in our time, which he explicitly characterized as “Radical Islam” and its guiding, supremacist ideology, Sharia.

The GOP nominee also channeled President Reagan by espousing a comprehensive strategy highly reminiscent of the one the Gipper formally adopted in his National Security Decision Directive 75 and employed to defeat freedom’s last existential threat: Soviet communism. Mr. Trump recognizes that now, as then, we must bring decisively to bear all instruments of national power – economic, military, intelligence, information and ideological.

The last element, which was emphasized repeatedly in the Trump speech, reflects an essential understanding that has eluded past administrations of both parties and some of the candidate’s most vociferous critics, Democrats and Republicans alike: Jihadists who seek the destruction of our country, its Constitution, and people employ different tactics – including violence, migration, material support for terrorism, recruitment, indoctrination, conversions and stealthy subversion. But they are all motivated by the same ideology: Sharia. Donald Trump declared yesterday that if you embrace that supremacist doctrine, you must seek to supplant our Constitution and, therefore, you are not welcome here.

Specifically, the speech adopted a basic principle: As a foreign national and would-be immigrant to this country, you must share our values to gain admission. That filter has for too long been absent and has greatly contributed to the ominous demographic trends facing not just Europe, but this country, as well: growing numbers of transplanted and inherently hostile populations, most of whom have no interest in assimilating and, rather, insist that freedom-loving Americans accommodate their demands and, ultimately, submit to Sharia.

Finally, the Republican candidate to be our next Commander-in-Chief spoke of a reality that can no longer safely be ignored: There are “networks” in America that support “radicalization.” In so doing, he recognized another hard lesson from Europe’s experience. Violent jihadists rely upon and exploit the infrastructure (including Islamist mosques, societies, cultural centers, front groups, influence operations, etc.) that has been systematically put into place in the West over the past fifty years by Islamic supremacists, notably those associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. We have no choice but to identify, designate and roll-up such operations.

Donald Trump’s remarks in Youngstown implicitly addressed another important issue about his candidacy. Particularly for those who have been uncertain about the GOP nominee’s propensity to make provocative comments, concerns played upon by critics’ assailing his judgment, this speech should be comforting. It not only displayed a discipline on the part of the Republican nominee to “stay on script.” It also spoke volumes about the quality of the people who are advising Candidate Trump and writing that script – and, presumably, who would be advising him should he win the White House. At no point since 9/11, and arguably for thirteen years before, has there been a better articulation of what’s at stake and what needs to be done to secure freedom, namely by seeking and achieving Victory over Jihad. We desperately need more such visionary and collaborative leadership.

Donald Trump set the stage yesterday in Youngstown for the sort of national debate – and choice – that is long overdue and absolutely necessary. Bring it on.

***

Levin: Trump is 100 percent right on ‘extreme vetting’ of immigrants 

By: Phil Shiver | August 16, 2016 at Conservative Review

Donald Trump’s national security speech Monday generated a great deal of buzz, especially due to his call for “extreme vetting” of immigrants and the temporary suspension of immigration from countries affected by ISIS.

Trump set the tone that under his administration all incomers to the United States would either accept American values and assimilate, or simply not be allowed in. The Left went crazy. The New York Times editorial board dedicated an entire op-ed to attacking “Mr. Trump’s Foreign Policy Confusions.”

On his radio show Tuesday night Mark Levin fought back. “I want Donald Trump and his team to understand that they are 100 percent right about this issue of ideology and assimilation,” he said.

Listen to the Levin tear into The New York Times and explain why assimilation is so important:

Video: Robert Spencer at the Reagan Ranch Center on why it matters to call it “Islamic terrorism”

RS062516Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, August 1, 2016:

On June 25, 2016, I spoke at the Young America’s Foundation’s Reagan Ranch Center in Santa Barbara, California, on why Barack Obama is wrong, and it is vitally important to call Islamic jihad terrorism “Islamic jihad terrorism.”

ISIS: Orlando Was ‘Hate Crime’ and Terror, But Stop Calling Attacks ‘Senseless Violence’

A mourner reacts at a makeshift memorial for victims of the Pulse nightclub shooting outside the Orlando Regional Medical Center on June 28, 2016, in Orlando, Fla. (Phelan M. Ebenhack via AP)

A mourner reacts at a makeshift memorial for victims of the Pulse nightclub shooting outside the Orlando Regional Medical Center on June 28, 2016, in Orlando, Fla. (Phelan M. Ebenhack via AP)

PJ Media, by Bridget Johnson, July 31, 2016:

In a new issue of their English-language Dabiq magazine, ISIS battles against the term “senseless violence” being used to describe their attacks, stressing that all of their crimes make perfect jihad sense.

One of the articles in the 82-page “Break the Cross” issue, titled “Why We Hate You & Why We Fight You,” notes that “shortly following the blessed attack on a sodomite, Crusader nightclub by the mujahid Omar Mateen, American politicians were quick to jump into the spotlight and denounce the shooting, declaring it a hate crime, an act of terrorism, and an act of senseless violence.”

“A hate crime? Yes. Muslims undoubtedly hate liberalist sodomites, as does anyone else with any shred of their fitrah (inborn human nature) still intact. An act of terrorism? Most definitely. Muslims have been commanded to terrorize the disbelieving enemies of Allah,” the article states. “But an act of senseless violence? One would think that the average Westerner, by now, would have abandoned the tired claim that the actions of the mujahidin – who have repeatedly stated their goals, intentions, and motivations – don’t make sense.”

“Unless you truly – and naively – believe that the crimes of the West against Islam and the Muslims, whether insulting the Prophet, burning the Quran, or waging war against the Caliphate, won’t prompt brutal retaliation from the mujahidin, you know full well that the likes of the attacks carried out by Omar Mateen, Larossi Aballa, and many others before and after them in revenge for Islam and the Muslims make complete sense.”

Aballa, who killed a French police commander and his wife during his June 13 attack on their suburban home, said he was following the directive of ISIS caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi for jihadists in their home countries to kill the infidels in their homes.

“The only thing senseless would be for there to be no violent, fierce retaliation in the first place!” the ISIS piece continues. “Many Westerners, however, are already aware that claiming the attacks of the mujahidin to be senseless and questioning incessantly as to why we hate the West and why we fight them is nothing more than a political act and a propaganda tool.”

“The politicians will say it regardless of how much it stands in opposition to facts and common sense just to garner as many votes as they can for the next election cycle. The analysts and journalists will say it in order to keep themselves from becoming a target for saying something that the masses deem to be ‘politically incorrect.’”

ISIS singles out “exceptions among the disbelievers, no doubt,” called “people who will unabashedly declare that jihad and the laws of the Shari’ah – as well as everything else deemed taboo by the Islam-is-a-peaceful-religion crowd – are in fact completely Islamic, but they tend to be people with far less credibility who are painted as a social fringe, so their voices are dismissed and a large segment of the ignorant masses continues believing the false narrative.”

The article details the reasons why ISIS hates the West: for being disbelievers who “reject the oneness of Allah,” because “your secular, liberal societies permit the very things that Allah has prohibited while banning many of the things He has permitted,” because the West includes an “atheist fringe,” to “punish you for your transgressions against our religion,” for  “crimes against the Muslims” such as drone strikes, and for “invading our lands.”

“Although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary,” the article adds, because “even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam.”

“Even if you were to pay jizyah and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you.”

ISIS stresses that the “gist of the matter is that there is indeed a rhyme to our terrorism, warfare, ruthlessness, and brutality.”

“As much as some liberal journalist would like you to believe that we do what we do because we’re simply monsters with no logic behind our course of action, the fact is that we continue to wage – and escalate – a calculated war that the West thought it had ended several years ago,” the articles continues.

“So you can continue to believe that those ‘despicable terrorists’ hate you because of your lattes and your Timberlands, and continue spending ridiculous amounts of money to try to prevail in an unwinnable war, or you can accept reality and recognize that we will never stop hating you until you embrace Islam, and will never stop fighting you until you’re ready to leave the swamp of warfare and terrorism through the exits we provide.”

The ISIS piece is not bylined, but British jihadist Siddhartha Dhar, dubbed the terror group’s new Jihadi John, dropped a famous latte reference in a bylined booklet last year encouraging Westerners to come to the Islamic State — assuring would-be jihadis that they could find Western comforts in the caliphate including Snickers, Kit-Kat and “some of the best lattes and cappuccinos around.”

Much of the Dabiq issue is focused on telling Westerners what fate awaits if they don’t convert to Islam, with multiple lengthy testimonials from converts from Christianity to Islam and a special focus on slamming the Catholic Church. ISIS has made the conquest of Rome by 2020 a bedrock of their apocalyptic plans.

The terror group said in the foreword that the issue was intended to be reading for Christians, liberal secularists and atheists “between the release of this issue ofDabiq and the next slaughter to be executed against them by the hidden soldiers of the Caliphate – who are ordered to attack without delay.”

Many pages are devoted to picking apart the Bible and branding the Holy Trinity as polytheism. “Would you follow your parents and ancestors if you knew they were walking into a fire? It is clear from their doctrines and the history of their ‘Church’ that they had neither guidance nor comprehension in religion,” the magazine argues.

ISIS takes hits at freedoms enjoyed by women in the West, at people campaigning for the legalization of marijuana, and at openly gay Army Secretary Eric Fanning, calling him “an effeminate sodomite” who “leads the Crusaders.”

The magazine again lauds Mateen for “massacring the filthy Crusaders” in “the most deadly attack in America since the Manhattan raid 15 years ago.”

Within an article on a convert from Christianity, ISIS ran a photo of the gravestone of Capt. Humayun Khan — the soldier killed in Iraq whose parents’ appearance at the Democratic National Convention sparked a war of words with Donald Trump — accompanied by the caption, “Beware of dying as an apostate.”

Also see:

Islamic Jihadists in France Gouged Out Eyes, Castrated and Disemboweled Victims

4221396001_4616462564001_4616354211001-vs

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, July 15, 2016:

Warning: Graphic Content

All for the greater glory of Allah.

A French government committee has heard testimony, suppressed by the French government at the time and not released to the media, that the killers in the Bataclan tortured their victims on the second floor of the club.

Police witnesses in Parliament said they vomited when they saw the disfigured bodies.

Wahhabist killers apparently gouged out eyes, castrated victims, and shoved their testicles in their mouths. They may also have disemboweled some poor souls. Women were stabbed in the genitals – and all the torture was, victims told police, filmed for Daesh or Islamic State propaganda. For that reason, medics did not release the bodies of torture victims to the families, investigators said.

Q. For the information of the Commission of Inquiry….can you tell us how you learned that there had been acts of barbarism within the Bataclan:beheadings, evisceration, eyes gouged out …?

Investigator: After the assault, we were with colleagues at the passage Saint-Pierre Amelot when I saw weeping from one of our colleagues who came outside  to vomit. He told us what he had seen.

Q. Acts of torture happened on the second floor?

A. Bodies have not been presented to families because there were beheaded people there, the murdered people, people who have been disembowelled . There are women who had their genitals stabbed.

Q. All this would have been videotaped for Daesh !

A. I believe so. Survivors have said so.

The French authorities have little interest in seeing more information released that will make it even more clear how horrifying these attacks were.

***

Muslims Celebrate Bastille Day: 80 Dead, 68 Injured

rs

Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, July 15, 2016:

The truck was loaded with explosives and hand grenades as it plowed into a crowd celebrating Bastille Day in Nice, France, Thursday night. It was no accident: Nice authorities emphasized that it was a terror attack, which was fairly clear already from the fact that the driver exchanged gunfire with police after he rammed into the crowd.

At least eighty people are dead and 68 wounded, and Nice Mayor Christian Estrosi calls it “the worst tragedy in the history of Nice.” But given the harsh realities of the contemporary world, it probably won’t be the worst for long.

Jihadis have had their eyes on France for quite some time. The Islamic State issued this call in September 2014:

So O muwahhid, do not let this battle pass you by wherever you may be. You must strike the soldiers, patrons, and troops of the tawaghit. Strike their police, security, and intelligence members, as well as their treacherous agents. Destroy their beds. Embitter their lives for them and busy them with themselves. If you can kill a disbelieving American or European — especially the spiteful and filthy French — or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be….If you are not able to find an IED or a bullet, then single out the disbelieving American, Frenchman, or any of their allies. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him….

Yes, “run him over with your car.”

Then again from the Islamic State in May 2016:

“The French must die by the thousands…. Towards paradise, that is the path….Come, brother, let’s go to paradise, our women are waiting for us there, with angels as servants. You will have a palace, a winged horse of gold and rubies….With a little rocket-launcher, you can easily get one of them… you do something like that in the name of Dawla (Islamic State), and France will be traumatised for a century.”

The French are already traumatized. The BBC reported last week that “more than 5,000 French police will be deployed at key venues in and around Paris ahead of the Euro 2016 football final between France and Portugal,” and that “there will be no victory parade if France win.” Why not? For fear of jihad terror attacks.

The Bastille Day jihad massacre demonstrates that the answer to jihad attacks is not to curtail one’s activities and cower in fear. Even if free people do that, the jihadis will strike anyway. Even without a victory parade, the jihadis struck yet again in France. The response should not be to cower in fear, but to recognize that this is a war and act accordingly. France has just suffered a fresh attack in a war that is being fought by people in service of an ideology that France, like other Western countries, refuses to acknowledge even exists.

France, even as it is under serious attack by the warriors of jihad, continues to pursue policies that will only result in the arrival of still more Muslims to France – and with them will come jihad terrorists, and many, many more jihad massacres like the one on Bastille Day in Nice. French curtailing their activities for fear of being struck by jihadis did not save them. The Bastille Day jihad attack should be the last to take place under the regime of politically correct fantasy that forces law enforcement and intelligence officials to pretend that the threat is other than what it is, and that the remedy is to apply, one more time, policies that have failed again and again and again.

Bastille Day should be a day for the releasing of prisoners. In the war against the global jihad, the truth has been prisoner for too long. It is time to set it free – before it, too, becomes irrevocably a casualty of this war against an enemy no one dares name.

“On behalf of the American people, I condemn in the strongest terms what appears to be a horrific terrorist attack in Nice, France, which killed and wounded dozens of innocent civilians,” Obama said.

Question: did Franklin Delano Roosevelt, on behalf of the American people, condemn in the strongest terms every German and Japanese strike during World War II? Did he add that the U.S. administration was in touch with Hawaiian or Polish or French or Midway etc. officials and was ready to offer any assistance in the investigation?

The answer is no, because there was no need to offer such condemnations. The world was at war, and the world knew it was at war. The fact was obvious, as was which side each combatant was on. Nor was there any need for an investigation after each battle. Everyone knew what was going on, and why.

The reason why Obama offers these condemnations now after each jihad massacre is because he treats each as if it were an isolated incident, not as if it were one more battle in a long war. And he offers help in an investigation for the same reason: if U.S. officials do end up helping the French with an investigation of this latest jihad massacre, they will like come back with a characteristically Obamoid conclusion: they’re unable to determine the motive of the perpetrator.

In reality, there is no need for an investigation, because the jihadi’s motive is obvious. There needs to be an admission that we are in a full-scale war — not just lip-service as French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve offers, but a genuine acknowledgment, followed by a genuine war footing, and an end to the weepy memorials, empty condemnations, and po-faced get-nowhere investigations. This is not crime. This is war.

***

Gen. Flynn: I Want Muslim Leaders to Stand Up Tonight and Condemn This Madness

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn sounded off on the terror attack in Nice, France, tonight, saying that he wants to see the leaders of Muslim-majority nations stand up against “this radical form of this ideology in their bloodstream and declare that this thing cannot exist on this planet.”

The former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency said he doesn’t know who exactly carried out the attack, but said there’s been a lot of “chatter” by jihadist soldiers praising what happened.

“I want these leaders in this Muslim world that have this radical Islamic ideology festering, metastasizing, to stand up, and stand up tonight and be counted, and say something to condemn this attack that we have just seen.”

Flynn said “we have not set up an international set of strategic objectives to go after this very vicious, very barbaric enemy.”

He also called the current situation a “world war,” though not like one anyone has read about in history books.

***

Gingrich calls for deportation of those who ‘believe in Sharia’

Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the House and talked-about pick for Donald Trump’s vice presidential slot, said on Fox News while discussing the Nice, France, terrorist attack that the United States ought to implement a testing system to root out Shariah-compliant Muslims and deport them.

On “Hannity,” Gingrich said the country “should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in Sharia, they should be deported. Sharia is incompatible with Western civilization.”

***

Gorka: Greatest Number of ISIS Foreign Fighters Are from Tunisia

“This isn’t about workplace violence or some other label. This is again an instance of the jihadis taking the war to the infidel on their home territory,” said Gorka.

Frank Gaffney: America Cannot Solve its Terror Problem Without Taking This Step

McCAUL-640x480

Image text:  “To Mustafa and the Council on American Islamic Relations, the moderate Muslim is our most effective weapon—Michael McCaul, TX-10.”

BY CounterJihad · @CounterjihadUS | July 5, 2016

Frank Gaffney, President of the Center for Security Policy and a former Reagan administration official, was named by the Cruz campaign as a national security adviser.  Gaffney has made no secret of his criticisms of the Federal government’s failure to speak plainly about the sharia law roots of the threat of jihad.  Many American officials, like Representative Michael McCaul, have chosen to work with Muslim Brotherhood front organizations instead of treating sharia and jihad themselves as the source of terrorism.

Today, Gaffney provided CounterJihad with a copy of his alternative plan.  It contrasts the government’s “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE) approach with his “Victory over Jihad” (VOJ) plan.

It follows below.

Tenets of CVE vs Fact-Based VOJ

Key Premises of CVE

  • Violence is the problem. We must focus on it, alone.
  • Islam has nothing to do with “violent extremism.”
  • Islam is a religion of peace; those who engage in violence in its name are seeking to “pervert” or “hijack” a great Abrahamic faith.
  • Muslims are peaceful and tolerant.
  • Jihad is about personal struggle; it has nothing to do with “violent extremism.”
  • Mosques are places of worship only and must not be subjected to surveillance.
  • Muslims are routinely victims of “Islamophobia” – irrational fear animated by “haters’” racism, bigotry.
  • Muslim Brotherhood and other Sharia-supremacist “community leaders” can be relied upon for guidance about the threat and outreach.
  • Offense must not be given to Muslims by basing policing policies on – or even using such terms as – jihad, Sharia, Islamism or Islamic supremacism.
  • Right-wing “violent extremists” are more dangerous than Islamic supremacists. 

Fact-based VOJ Premises

  • Sharia is the problem. Those who seek its imposition through stealthy, pre-violent techniques are also enemies, not just “violent” jihadists.
  • Sharia is an inherently violent, totalitarian doctrine derived from the Koran and other sacred Islamic texts.
  • The authorities of Islam declare Sharia to be the true faith. They regard non-adherent Muslims as perverters of Islam and apostates, deserving death.
  • Many Muslims reject Sharia. But hundreds of millions adhere to Sharia and, thus, to its intolerance and jihad.
  • The sacred texts of Islam and authori­tative renderings of Sharia make clear that jihad is “holy war” against infidels.
  • Supremacist mosques are multipurpose facilities, used for worship and recruiting and equipping jihadists.
  • It is not irrational to fear terrifying jihadism. Sharia is intolerant, hateful and requires infidels’ submission.
  • The Muslim Brotherhood seeks to “destroy Western civilization from within.” It and other Sharia-supremacist groups are enemies, not an ally.
  • Insistence on not offending Muslims restricts free expression and clear understanding, deterring people who “see something” from saying anything.
  • We face a global jihad movement that has no counterpart among returning veterans, Tea Party activists, etc.

Victory Over Jihad (VOJ) Program Mission Statement

 The mission of the Victory Over Jihad Program is to resist and defeat the global jihad movement that seeks to replace our Constitution with the totalitarian, Islamic supremacist doctrine known as Sharia.

Jihadists use both violent and pre-violent techniques (including subversion, influence operations, infiltration, propaganda, lawfare, migration, material support for terrorism, etc.) against all pillars of American civilization (in particular, our political system, military/intelligence/law enforcement communities, media, clergy, economy, education system, courts, etc.)  NATO defines subversion as “an action designed to weaken the military, economic or political strength of a nation by undermining the morale, loyalty or reliability of its citizens.”[1]

The jihad must be effectively and decisively countered, rolled back, dismantled and ultimately defeated through the sustained use of a comprehensive, fact-based approach involving all instruments of national power at the federal, state and local levels and, wherever possible, the help of like-minded allies.

[1] NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions, AAP-06 Edition 2012 Version 2

ADOPT A WINNING APPROACH: ‘VICTORY OVER JIHAD’

Background

The “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE) initiative has been, from its inception in the United Kingdom to its implementation here under President Obama, an initiative of hostile Islamic influence operators.  Their object has been to obscure: the nature of the enemy we face (i.e., Islamists who engage in either the violent type of jihad or the stealthy sort of subversion honed by the international Muslim Brotherhood); what impels them(i.e., the Islamists’ totalitarian ideology known as Sharia); and the sorts of measures that would most effectively defeat their agenda (i.e., time-tested, fact-based policing, intelligence and counter-intelligence techniques).

Tragically, under the influence of known Sharia-supremacist groups in America (e.g., Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas fronts like CAIR, ISNA and MPAC), the federal government’s CVE apparatus has given priority to avoiding any offense to Islamists, rather than preventing their jihad.  Federal agents, analysts and state/local police are being trained to remain ignorant of what motivates and enables the global jihadist movement.  They are told that “right-wing” extremism is a greater danger than that posed by Sharia and jihad (terms whose use CVE actually forbids). This practice virtually ensures more Fort Hoods, San Bernardinos and Orlandos as our first lines of defense are effectively precluded from being proactive in the face of knowable threats.

Since Countering Violent Extremism is designed to fail us, it cannot be redirected or redefined, (for example by changing the name to “countering radical Islamist terrorism”). It must be abandoned, dismantled and reversed. U.S. taxpayer resources must go to protecting America, not protecting the Sharia-supremacists in our midst.

‘Victory Over Jihad’

Congress must not endorse, legitimate, institutionalize or otherwise enable CVE as practiced by the Obama administration or under any other name.  The goal of any new congressional initiative must be, instead securing “Victory Over Jihad” (VOJ). Those whose adherence to Sharia obliges them to strive to replace our Constitution with their totalitarian, supremacist doctrine are enemies, not “partners” just because they use pre-violent techniques for advancing this goal (notably, subversive influence operations, lawfare, infiltration, migration, material support for terrorism, etc.), rather than violent ones.

New bureaucracies and funding must not go to institutionalizing and enabling a failed approach.  “Community partnering” must be with anti-jihadist Muslims, not Islamic supremacists.

Victory Over Jihad will require the sustained pursuit of a comprehensive, fact-based approach involving all instruments of national power at the federal, state and local levels and, wherever possible, the help of like-minded allies.

We simply cannot afford to perpetuate what is, at best, official willful blindness and at worst, our first defenders’ unilateral disarmament.  There is no acceptable substitute for Victory Over Jihad.

Obama Doesn’t Understand Jihadist Doctrine

rad islamMEF, by Mark Durie
The Washington Examiner
June 30, 2016

In his June 14 address to the nation, President Obama attributed Omar Mateen’s attack on patrons of Orlando, Fla.’s, Pulse nightclub to “homegrown extremism,” saying “we currently do not have any information to indicate that a foreign terrorist group directed the attack.”

While Obama acknowledged that the Islamic State has called for attacks around the world against “innocent civilians,” he suggested these calls were incidental, emphasizing that Mateen was a “lone actor” and “an angry, disturbed, unstable young man” susceptible to being radicalized “over the Internet.”

It is a terrible thing to misunderstand one’s enemy so deeply. The doctrine of jihad invoked by terrorist groups is an institution with a long history, grounded in legal precedent going back to the time of Muhammad.

Militants who invoke the doctrine of jihad follow principles influenced by Islamic law. The point to be grasped is that the doctrinal basis of jihad generates conditions that can incite “bottom-up” terrorism, which does not need to be directed by jihadi organizations.

The doctrinal basis of jihad generates conditions that can incite bottom-up terrorism.

When the Ottoman Caliphate entered World War I in 1914, it issued an official fatwa calling upon Muslims everywhere to rise up and fight the “infidels.” In 1915, a more detailed ruling was issued, entitled “A Universal Proclamation to All the People of Islam.”

This second fatwa gave advice on the methods of jihad, distinguishing three modes of warfare: “jihad by bands,” which we would today call guerrilla warfare; “jihad by campaigns,” which refers to warfare using armies; and “individual jihad.”

The fatwa cited approvingly as an example of individual jihad the 1910 assassination of Boutros Ghaly, a Christian prime minister of Egypt (and grandfather of former U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghaly), at the hands of Ibrahim Nassif al-Wardani, a Muslim graduate in pharmacology who had been educated in Lausanne, Paris, and London.

Ottoman fatwaWhen the Islamic State issued a call for Muslims around the world to rise up and kill their neighbors, it was invoking the individual mode of jihad. This mode relies upon the teaching that when Muslim lands are attacked or occupied by infidel armies, jihad becomes farḍ al-‘ayn, an “individual obligation,” which a Muslim can act upon without needing to come under anyone else’s command.This Ottoman fatwa cited precedents from the life of Muhammad for each of the three modes of warfare. To support individual jihad, it referenced three instances when companions of Muhammad conducted assassinations of non-Muslims. Two of these involved attacks on Jews that were personally instigated by Muhammad.

This principle of individual obligation has been much emphasized by jihadi clerics. Abdullah Azzam wrote in his influential tract Join the Caravan, “There is agreement … that when the enemy enters an Islamic land or a land that was once part of the Islamic lands, it is obligatory … to go forth to face the enemy.”

It was undoubtedly in response to this dogma that Omar Mateen went forth to kill Americans. In line with this, Mateen reported to his victims that his attack was in retaliation for Americans bombing Afghanistan. By this understanding, it was America’s military action against a Muslim country — the country of origin of Mateen’s family — that justified an act of individual jihad.

Preventing future “lone wolf” attacks requires the disruption of the Islamic doctrine that underpins these acts and legitimizes them in the eyes of many Muslims. Teachers and preachers in Islamic institutions across America must openly reject the dogma of farḍ al-‘ayn in relation to U.S. military action.

They need to teach their congregants that this doctrine does not apply, that anyone who uses it to attempt to legitimize his or her personal jihad is acting against God’s laws and that no martyr’s paradise awaits them.

At the same time, U.S. homeland security agencies need to closely watch and monitor any Muslim teacher who promotes this doctrine, which, once it is taken on board and applied against a nation, will lead to acts of jihadi terrorism as surely as night follows day.

During his June 14 speech, Obama defended his refusal to use the phrase “radical Islam” in connection with terrorism, asking, “What exactly would using this label accomplish?”

The answer is simple. It will be difficult to elicit the cooperation of Muslim religious leaders in discrediting the Islamic doctrine at the heart of America’s homegrown terrorism epidemic when President Obama himself is reluctant to acknowledge that doctrine matters — they can simply point to him and decline.

Mark Durie is the pastor of an Anglican church, a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum, and Founder of the Institute for Spiritual Awareness.

Operation Badr – Beware the 17th of Ramadan – June 23, 2016

Bsq4fBtCQAAkKyN.jpg-large-620x330Vlad Tepes Blog, by Sonia Bailey, June 19, 2016:

If ever there was a date to be remembered and commemorated in Islam, it’s the 17th of Ramadan. This year it falls on Thursday, June 23rd, beginning Wednesday evening at sundown.

This date holds great military and spiritual significance within Islam, as it was on this day that the greatest and most significant battle in Islamic history took place: the Battle and Victory of Badr in 624 AD (about 150 miles south of Medina), in which 313 Muslims defeated 1,000 non-Muslims from the Koresh tribe of Mecca who just wanted to return home safely from Syria with their trade caravans.

This battle marked the first significant military victory for Islam, which solidified Mohammed’s position as ruler of the first Islamic State in Medina.

It was a spiritual victory as well. The Koran (8:11-18) discusses how Allah sent blessings to guide and purify his Muslim warriors in preparation for battle. However, Allah also sent thousands of angels to help his warriors win by making their hearts more firm to Allah’s command to kill unbelievers, and by removing all uncertainty and fear within them. It was also the time when Mohammed mandated the killingof captives in battle.

Dates are significant for jihadists. The 17th of Ramadan is a date that Westerners should become familiar with, and take heed. Jihadists are ramping up attacks against the West during the Islamic military month of Ramadan, especially now that the caliphate has been re-established.

The 17th of Ramadan is a date jihadists hold very close to the heart, a date they memorialize….and wouldn’t think twice about reliving it in order to inflict more horrific carnage upon unbelievers. Next week, June 23rd……

NOTES

1. The 1973 Arab-Israeli War (the Yom Kippur War referred to by Jews, and the Ramadan War referred to by Muslim Arabs), and code-named “Operation Badr” by the Egyptians, began on the 9th of Ramadan, October 6th, on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in Judaism.

However, last year, Islamic terror attacks were actually being plotted for the 17th of Ramadan, coinciding with July 4th (U.S. Independence Day), and they were thwarted. See links here. 

We should be aware of jihadi attacks ON or AROUND the 17th of Ramadan, as it is an extremely significant date for jihad to be waged.

2. It’s not only those days that marked defeat and humiliation in Islamic history that jihadists choose to inflict carnage (such as September 11th, when Islamic armies were defeated at the gates of Vienna in 1683, and in 1697 when they were defeated at Belgrade), but days that marked huge victory and mass carnage of infidels as well, such as the 17th of Ramadan.

 

Homeland Security Advisory Council: Covering for the Enemy Threat Doctrine

Terror Trends Bulletin, by Christopher W. Holton

America is at war and we continue to be prevented from identifying and understanding our enemies as a result of influence operations targeting our bureaucratized counterterrorism apparatus.

The latest evidence of this long-standing and, unfortunately, very effective influence campaign comes from the revelation that the “Countering Violent Extremism Subcommittee” of the Homeland Security Advisory Council to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has issued a recommendation that urges rejecting use of Islamic terms such as “jihad” and “shariah” in communications about the threats that we face….

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/homeland-security-report-calls-rejecting-terms-jihad-sharia/

This is nothing new. We have heard CIA director John Brennan reject the term “jihadist” and the State Department under Condoleezza Rice rejected the use of the term as well.

We have covered the damaging efforts by our enemies to prevent the actual correct use of the term “jihad” extensively here on Terror Trends Bulletin in the past…

https://terrortrendsbulletin.com/2013/01/13/cairs-new-disinformation-campaign-on-jihad/

But the effort to suppress even mere mention of the word “shariah” is actually much more damaging than the suppression of the word “jihad.” That’s because shariah is THE enemy threat doctrine.

To understand our enemies, their motivations, their intentions and their strategy, one must study shariah. Shariah is everything to the jihadists. It is the code that they follow and its full implementation is their goal.

Forbidding the use of the term shariah, much less suppressing study of shariah in the present conflict is the equivalent of forbidding intelligence agencies from studying Mein Kampf in World War II or the works and words of Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao during the Cold War.

Anyone who would recommend that we avoid studying and talking about shariah simply must have a nefarious purpose.

By way of review, shariah is Islamic law. The terms shariah and Islamic law are completely interchangeable; they refer to exactly the same thing. Shariah is an immutable theo-political-legal-military code derived from the Islamic doctrinal trilogy, made up of the Quran, the Sirah (the biography of the prophet Mohammed) and the Hadith (traditions, sayings and stories compiled about the life of Mohammed).

Every single Jihadist terrorist group in the world–without exception–has as its stated goal the imposition of shariah: the Islamic State, Al Qaeda, HAMAS, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, Lashkar e Taiba, Abu Sayyef, Jemaah Islamiyah, Boko Haram, the Taliban, Al Shabaab–all of them.

So, while the U.S. Department of Homeland Security will be carefully avoiding the use of the term shariah, our enemies have been using it quite commonly, frequently and prominently, as if to illustrate the absurdity of the DHS recommendation.

What follows is a compilation of quotes from jihadi leaders and Al Qaeda and Islamic State documents that reveal the central importance of shariah to their movement. This is why Americans must familiarize themselves with shariah.

SHARIAH ACCORDING TO THE JIHADISTS THEMSELVES

• The sharia has forbidden us from taking infidels as confidants, inducting them into our secrets.
• The sharia forbids us from appointing infidels to important posts.
• The sharia forbids us from adopting or praising the beliefs and views of the infidels.
• The sharia forbids us from assisting infidels against Muslims; even the one who is coerced has o excuse to fight under the banner of infidels.
• The sharia commands us to battle infidels—both original infidels and apostates, as well as hypocrites. As for waging jihad against the infidels who have usurped the lands of Islam, this is a duty considered second only to faith, by ulemaic consensus.
• The sharia does not accept the excuses made by hypocrites—that they befriend the infidels because they fear the vicissitudes of time.
• We are duty-bound by the sharia to help Muslims overcome the infidels.

Ayman al-Zawahiri
Al Qaeda leader

Osama bin Laden sits with his adviser and purported successor Ayman al-Zawahiri during an interview in Afghanistan, Barack Obama

Democracy is based on the principle of the power of creatures over other creatures, and rejects the principle of God’s absolute power over all creatures; it is also based on the idea the men’s desires, whatever they may be, replace God absolutely, and on the refusal to obey God’s law. In Islam, when there is a disagreement or a difference of opinion, one refers to God, his Prophet, and the commands of sharia.

Ayman al-Zawahiri
Al Qaeda leader

Read more

Omar Mateen Told Us in His Own Words Why He Carried Out His Terror Attack… But Why Believe Him?

hqdefaultTruth Revolt, by Tiffany Gabbay, June 16, 2016:

Leftists are currently engaged in a concerted effort to bury the truth behind the catalyst for the Orlando terror attack, pushing the narrative that because Omar Mateen drank alcohol and seemed to have gay proclivities (taboos in Islam) he could not have been a religious Muslim and therefore could not have been a radical Islamic terrorist. Some, who try exculpate Islam at all cost, insist that Mateen was “never all that religious” and thus could not have been motivated to carry out the carnage in the name of Islam.

This apologetic — for a butcher who perpetrated the worst terror attack in U.S. history since 9-11 — is gravely flawed on a number of levels.

To begin with, one of ISIS’ trademarks is its effectiveness in radicalizing and recruiting otherwise “normal-seeming” Westerners — even those with no prior Islamic sympathies — in very short order, sometimes in a matter of mere weeks. So to say that Mateen never seemed all that “radical” or “religious” before means nothing, because all that can turn on a dime. But the truth is, Mateen was anything but “normal-seeming” even as far back as high school, when classmates say he celebrated the 9/11 terror attacks.

We know that Mateen’s father openly supported the Afghan Taliban, thus exposing the kind of ideological upbringing Mateen likely had at home. What’s more, Omar Mateen made not one — but two — haj’s (holy pilgrimages) to Mecca in 2011 and 2012. He then found himself on the FBI’s radar back in 2013 for terror ties. Former colleagues also reported Mateen for his disturbing behavior and virulent bigotry against Jews, women, and members of the LGBT community. So no, his “radicalization” did not come out of nowhere.

In terms of Mateen’s vices, those too do not negate the fact that he could simultaneously be a terrorist harboring radical views. For instance, it is well known that the terrorists who carried out the heinous attacks in Paris at the Bataclan nightclub and even the 9-11 hijackers routinely drank alcohol and visited strip clubs, and it is also well-documented that homosexuality — including pedophilia — is practiced even among the “pious” Taliban. In other words, it would not be the first time someone claiming piety were also a hypocrite.

It is likewise plausible that Mateen’s alleged homosexuality catalyzed an internal desire to “prove himself” in the eyes of Islam and seek redemption all the more.

Regarding Mateen’s alleged “lack of religiosity,” even if true, it would not nullify radicalization. One only need look to the late PLO leader Yasser Arafat and just about every other Palestinian terrorist — none of whom have been religious zealots but rather Arab nationalists guided by Islamic ideology — to see that Islamic terror is not a monolith.

And now to the heart of the matter: Mateen’s own words and deeds. Before and during his bloody massacre, Omar Mateen told us in his own words — both verbal and written — the motivation for his attack. In addition to calling 9/11 and pledging allegiance to ISIS, Mateen also called a CNN affiliate from the Pulse night club, informing a network producer that he was indeed the Orlando shooter and that he was carrying out his attack “for ISIS.” It’s now also been revealed that through several different Facebook accounts, Mateen reiterated his loyalty to ISIS and vowed more attacks on the West.

Senate Homeland Security Chairman, Sen. Ron Johnson, led his committee’s investigation into Mateen’s social media accounts, which have since been taken down from public view. Johnson has called on Facebook to hand over all information it has on Mateen.

Here’s a sampling of Mateen’s Facebook posts during the attack, which TruthRevolt shared in an earlier post:

“I pledge my alliance to (ISIS leader) abu bakr al Baghdadi..may Allah accept me,” Mateen wrote in one post early Sunday morning. “The real muslims will never accept the filthy ways of the west” …“You kill innocent women and children by doing us airstrikes..now taste the Islamic state vengeance.”

Rightfully, Sen. Johnson is pressing Facebook about Mateen’s violent rhetoric and asking for more information on his social media activities.

“It is my understanding that Omar Mateen used Facebook before and during the attack to search for and post terrorism-related content,” read Johnson’s letter. “According to information obtained by my staff, five Facebook accounts were apparently associated with Omar Mateen.”

Johnson’s committee uncovered Mateen’s actions in the hours during the attack, revealing that Mateen accessed his Facebook account to search for media reports of the attack with search words like “Pulse Orlando” and “Shooting.”

Mateen also posted the following on Facebook:

“America and Russia stop bombing the Islamic state,” Mateen wrote.

“In the next few days you will see attacks from the Islamic state in the usa.”

Mateen also conducted online searches for the San Bernardino terror couple and speeches given by ISIS leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi.

But you know, why take Mateen at his own words? Let’s instead claim he was not motivated by radical Islam ideology, but was just a self-loathing “psychopath” who could not accept his own sexuality and thus targeted the LGBT community for massacre. Let’s focus on America’s obsession with guns, even though Mateen told officers that he was also wearing a suicide vest.  Interestingly, guns were also used at the Bataclan nightclub in Paris and the Charlie Hebdo massacre (in one of the strictest gun-control countries in the world) — yet those incidents were rightfully labeled as “terrorist acts.” But not this.

One would expect such false narratives from the likes of President Obama, or the leadership of CAIR, but the disturbing reality is that people of goodwill are now also buying into the lie. I’m not quite certain what good that serves — either in honoring the dead, or in ensuring more innocent Americans don’t lose their lives to terror.

***

Also see:

Committed to Denial: Since 9/11, Some 28,000 Terrorist Attacks Worldwide

Jim Lo Scalzo-Pool/Getty Images

Jim Lo Scalzo-Pool/Getty Images

Breitbart, by Brigitte Gabriel, June 14, 2016:

On June 12, 2016, 49 innocent lives were taken at the hands of an ISIS extremist. This marks the most harrowing domestic terrorist attack since 9/11, as well as the deadliest mass shooting in United States history.

As people enjoyed their Saturday night at Pulse nightclub in Orlando, FL., no one could have guessed what terror was around the corner. As dozens of shots rang out, the heinous intentions of a cold-hearted slaughterer were clear.

Since 9/11, we have had 28,135 terrorist attacks committed by Islamic jihadists that have occurred around the world. We know what the problem is, we’re just afraid to say it.

Terrorist activity is on the rise, and President Barack Obama chooses to close his eyes and put his fingers in his ears.

This blatant disregard for our country’s safety is inadmissible, yet U.S. citizens still blindly follow this failed and egocentric leadership. As Americans, we need to wake up and acknowledge the dismal reality: as long as Obama is in office, ISIS is winning. Each time our president pleas for gun control as a remedy to these vicious attacks, ISIS wins. Each time Obama refuses to utter the words “radical Islamic terrorism,” ISIS wins. The longer we stand by and refuse to accept we are at war with a relentless enemy, ISIS wins.

ISIS, the strongest, most ferocious, and best-funded terrorist organization in the world today now has footholds in over a dozen countries ruling over roughly 10 million citizens. They are leveraging our kindness for their own selfish, destructive gain. They are utilizing our open borders, our willingness to accommodate them, and taking advantage of all that America has to offer so that they can ultimately destroy us from within.

Our enemies are laughing at us while reaping the benefits off the backs of hard working taxpayers. Meanwhile, our so-called leaders continue to live in denial while standing in line to ride Islamic unicorns and sing kumbaya. Our government has become so corrupt that they reward bad behavior and offer benefits to illegal immigrants who refuse to assimilate or contribute to the economy. As homeless veterans perish in the streets, thousands of “refugees” are living the high life in their government-funded dwellings. This is an outrage.

It is time we stop evading the truth and confront the issue head-on: the early Sunday morning massacre was a demonic and ruthless act of terrorism inspired by ISIS radicals. The sugarcoated, politically correct culture we reside in will only result in our own demise. As Obama sits back complacently and avoids naming the enemy, Jihadists continue to gain ground as they plot their next attack. The only way we can avert our impending peril is by uniting against these Islamic militants.

Beneath Sharia Law, homosexuality is punishable by death and this sadistic ritual is performed all too often in Middle Eastern countries. If anyone should be leading the fight against Islamic belligerency, should it not be the social justice warriors and gay rights activists? Regrettably, the Obama administration has accomplished the exact opposite. The president has nurtured a false reality where everyone around the planet is best friends with one another. Nefariously, Obama disguises the fact that this parallel universe is unachievable in the real world. The shameless love-fest and glamorization of an oppressive lifestyle that seeks to obliterate our Western values is deplorable and counterproductive to our well-being as an independent nation.

As we stand by and quarrel amongst ourselves about trivial matters, the true foe is systematically devising our extermination. We are hated in the name of ideology while our government claims the solution is nested in more gun control. They are convinced we should “kill ‘em with kindness” as our opposition LITERALLY kills us. ISIS law does not recognize morality or ethics in any form, so why should we feel obligated to welcome such malice into our civilized society?

However, our commander-in-chief did not stealthily worm his way into the oval office by circumstance, he was elected by the vast majority. Twice. Removing one subversive ringleader from authority is not a cure-all for the underlying problem; it is correcting this absurd PC culture as a whole. We have allowed this perspective, constructed solely upon subjectivity and emotion, to reign supreme in a dog-eat-dog world. Battling immoral savages with tolerance and benevolence is a recipe for disaster.

The Obama administration has planted the seed that political correctness should guide significant cultural decisions. Unfortunately, these seeds have sprouted into poisonous weeds that will only choke our very freedom. We must learn from history instead of ignoring the warning signs in fear of being labeled “Islamophobes.” We cannot back down from our American principles that made us who we are. A proud patriot is the most gratifying title an American can attain, and if that means being called a bigot, then we must wear that badge with pride too. Liberty is our greatest asset, so let’s stand up for America before there isn’t one to stand up for.

Brigitte Gabriel is a terrorism analyst and a two times NYT bestselling author of “Because They Hate” and “They Must Be Stopped”. She is the Founder and President of ACT for America, the largest national security grassroots organization in the U.S. dedicated to combating terrorism.

The Pope and the Imam

Published on Jun 7, 2016 by Political Islam

Pope Francis met with a high level imam in order to spread peace and co-existence. The Pope is willing to ignore 1400 years of jihad against Christians to talk about peace. But peace in Islam only comes after submission. Co-existence in Islam comes when the Kafir becomes a dhimmi and accepts Sharia law.

The last Pope to talk about the history of Islamic murder of Christians caused Muslims to riot and kill.

This Pope calls terrorism the problem, not jihad. He also uses the phony phrase “true Islam” as if jihad is not true Islam. The shop-worn word “extremist” is used to divorce the doctrine of Islam from reality of current events and history.

The imam spoke the only word of truth: “We should not treat Muslims as a terrorist threat.” The threat is not Muslims; the threat is the doctrine of political Islam.

The Pope also brought home Muslim migrants, not Christian refugees from Islamic persecution. The Pope, Christians and everybody else ignore the suffering of Christians.

The Pope is no different from the ignorant Protestants and Jews. Ignorance is the problem, ignorance of the political nature of Islam.

Ramadan: Month of Jihad

terrorist

As Muslims struggle to increase their devotion to Allah, expect more mass murder.

Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, June  7, 2016:

Another Ramadan is upon us, and no less an authority on Islam than Barack Hussein Obama has assured us that “for many, this month is an opportunity to focus on reflection and spiritual growth, forgiveness, patience and resilience, compassion for those less fortunate, and unity across communities.” Meanwhile, a Muslim whom Obama would disparage as a “violent extremist” who has hijacked the religion of peace, Islamic State spokesman Abu Mohammad al-Adnani, called on Muslims to use this Ramadan to “get prepared, be ready … to make it a month of calamity everywhere for nonbelievers…especially for the fighters and supporters of the caliphate in Europe and America.”

Ramadan 2016 began with the news that a group of Muslims in Jordan were so filled with pious fervor that they murdered five Jordanian intelligence officers in an attack on a security office. The perpetrators may have been acting upon the understanding of Ramadan that a jihad group enunciated back in 2012: “The month of Ramadan is a month of holy war and death for Allah. It is a month for fighting the enemies of Allah and God’s messenger, the Jews and their American facilitators. One of our groups aided by Allah managed to bomb a bus full of Jewish tourists, plunderers of holy lands, after careful tracking. The holy war is not confined to a particular arena and we shall fight the Jews and the Americans until they leave the land of Islam.”

So which is it? Is Ramadan a time to “an opportunity to focus on reflection and spiritual growth, forgiveness, patience and resilience, compassion for those less fortunate, and unity across communities,” or is it “a month of calamity everywhere for nonbelievers”?

In fact, it’s both. During Ramadan, Muslims are exhorted to renew and deepen their devotion to Allah. Hence it is a time when they’re supposed to grow more generous and kind toward their fellow Muslims. However, the Qur’an says: “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves” (48:29). If the Ramadan imperative is to become more devout, the Muslim who applies himself diligently to the Ramadan observance will simultaneously become more both merciful to his fellow Muslims and more severe against the unbelievers.

Murdering infidels thus doesn’t contradict the spirit of Ramadan; it embodies it. The Kavkaz Center, a website operated by Chechen jihadists, explained in a 2010 article that the idea of Ramadan as a time for warfare against infidels went back to Muhammad’s time: “The month of Ramadan in the life of the Prophet (pbuh) and the righteous ancestors was a month of forthcoming. The greatest battles during the lifetime of the Prophet (pbuh) occurred in this blessed month, the month of jihad, zeal and enthusiasm.”

Obama is, true to form, severely misleading the American people when he focuses exclusively upon Ramadan’s exhortation to charity (the part of the Qur’an verse about being “merciful” to one’s fellow Muslims) without mentioning its imperative to terrorize infidels (the other part, about being “severe” toward the unbelievers). But as we have seen already in Jordan, all too many Muslims around the world are fully aware of that part of the Ramadan observance, and are ready to carry it out.

It is folly to pretend that the aspect of Ramadan that makes it a more dangerous time for non-Muslims doesn’t exist: dangerous, suicidal folly. But the fact that no one in the public square even thinks to question Obama’s Ramadan congratulations, which roll around every year in the same form, shows how widespread that folly is. Obama’s Ramadan message for this year concluded: “I can think of no better way to mark my Administration’s last celebration of Ramadan as President than to honor the contributions of Muslims in America and across the world for Eid. Ramadan Kareem.”

What contributions of Muslims in America? He has alluded to them before, but once again he didn’t bother to list any, and of course no one asked. That Muslims have made great contributions to America (beyond spurring tremendous developments in airline security, that is) is simply an unquestionable dogma of our silly and stupid age; no one needs ask the President for examples, because those contributions are taken as axiomatic, with only “Islamophobes” questioning them. That there aren’t any actual such contributions is an inconvenient fact, to be sure, but one so thoroughly obscured by propaganda that everyone feels it can be safely ignored.

The cognitive dissonance here equals that about Ramadan itself. And as our Ramadan follies and willful blindness continue, more Infidels will die.

***

Ramadon Bombathon scorecard

Also see:

An In-Depth Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Islam and the Defense of Western Civilization

ayaanPublished on Jun 1, 2016 by The New Criterion

For The New Criterion, Ben Weingarten, commentator and Founder & CEO of ChangeUp Media sits down with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, ardent defender of Western civilization and individual liberty against Islamic supremacism, New York Times bestselling author of ‘The Caged Virgin,’ ‘Infidel’ and ‘Nomad’ and ‘Heretic,’ former Dutch MP, fellow with the Future of Diplomacy Project at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School, visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, founder of the AHA Foundation Ayaan Hirsi Ali and recipient of The New Criterion’s fourth annual Edmund Burke Award for Service to Culture & Society for an in-depth interview. During their discussion, Weingarten and Ali discuss America’s inability under both Presidents Obama and Bush to recognize and defend against Islamic supremacism as the totalitarian existential threat of our time, the clash of civilizations between Islam and the West and the ideology of the global jihadist movement, the Islamization of Europe, how the West can defend its freedoms from a subversive global jihadist movement seeking to use those freedoms against us, the war on free speech in the West being waged by Islamic supremacists with the help wittingly or unwittingly of many on the Left and more. For more from The New Criterion’s April 2016 ‘Edmund Burke Award’ gala and other compelling content, check out The New Criterion’s YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/user/TheNewCriterion/featured

Also see:

In defense of dissidence – Text of a lecture delivered by Ayaan Hirsi Ali after she received the fourth Edmund Burke Award for Service to Culture and Society.