Why We Cannot Defeat the Enemy

20160802_constitution_1_house.govsiteFamily Security Matters, by Eileen F. Toplansky, Aug. 15, 2016:

On August 3, 2016 I was invited to speak on Sean Hannity Radio (Hour 3) concerning my American Thinker piece about Khizr Khan.  The other guest speaker was Richard T. Higgins, who is an outspoken critic about the “faulty strategic assessment that is the basis for current U.S. security” since it is ably enabling our enemies.

Higgins has worked with Steve Coughlin, author of Catastrophic FailureBlindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, and Dr. Sebastian Gorka who is “an internationally recognized authority on issues of national security, irregular warfare, terrorism and democratization and has testified before Congress [.]”

These men have devoted their lives to alerting the American public to the true dangers of Islam.  During the Hannity interview, I explained how Khizr Khan was really symptomatic of a much larger issue — that of hijrah or the deliberate immigration of Muslims to the land of the infidel in order to establish a global caliphate.

As a result of this encounter, Higgins was kind enough to send me his 2010 masters thesis entitled “No Common War” which clearly states that the West’s reliance on technology and science, without taking into consideration the impact of religious zeal, has created a strategic security situation that is being exploited by the Islamic Movement; in other words, the West’s dependence on technology is making us blind to the other non-violent forces of Islam which permeate our society making us ripe for eventual dhimmitude or second-class status in an Islamic society.

In fact, “billions of taxpayer dollars are spent on the development and acquisition of technical solutions to problems, often despite their non-technical nature.”  Higgins  explains that “. . .  while many Muslims may eschew violence, this does not imply that the political threat is neutralized.”   Political warfare from the Islamist perspective concentrates on “collapsing the enemy’s belief system” and it is accomplished in a variety of ways. Until we, as a nation, understand that Islam has developed a myriad of front organizations and has infiltrated our media outlets, as well as our scouting, professional social, and military organizations, we cannot properly defeat them.

As a nation, our security framework does not take the religiously inspired terrorism and its attendant features seriously, believing that the defeat of groups such as ISIS only requires strong military intervention while ignoring the enemy’s true nature, strategy and organization.  Higgins emphasizes that the U.S. needs a new security strategy concept that must account for “religion, non-violent warfare, and the digital operating environment.”  Without comprehending the “theological drivers” of the ongoing Islamic war, the West will be hamstrung in its attempts to overcome this enemy.

The Islamic Movement has developed a deceptive narrative of Islam among non-Muslims as a direct result of digital communication and mass media. They accomplish this through the doctrines of Taqqiya and Slander.  The definition of “slander under shariah or Islamic law is very different than in the U.S. legal system.  Thus, as Claire Lopez explains, “[t]he prohibition on telling harbi (non-Muslim residents of Dar al-Harb, the lands where inhabitants do not live under shariah) anything negative about Islam is meant to keep infidels unaware of the true character and intentions of shariah-promoting Muslims. In fact, telling the actual truth about Islam to non-believers is considered so detrimental to the prospects for shariah Islam to achieve its global domination objectives that Muslims can be subject to punishment if they disclose such things.”  It also “explains why smiling imams in Armani suits with nicely-trimmed beards can be heard speaking in soothing tones to gullible non-Muslims about how shariah is just like the U.S. Constitution, and shariah-adherent Muslims are just like any other citizens of liberal democracies, or Islam really means ‘peace’ – while in Arabic, to Muslim audiences, they don’t hesitate to talk about jihad, suicide bombing, and killing Jews. This is the legally-sanctioned code of silence that is imposed and enforced within Islam and goes hand-in-hand with the Islamic concept of taqiyya (which means deceit or dissimulation).”

In fact, “[i]t is not only forbidden for Muslims to tell anything unflattering about Islam and other Muslims, but it is also obligatory for Muslims to try to get non-Muslims (infidels) to refrain from saying anything about Islam that would deter potential converts or alert others to shariah Islam’s predatory intentions.” Hence, Taqiyya and lying are integral tools for shariah-adherent Muslims to use in dealing with non-believers who do not understand such things.  As a result, members of the clergy, police officers, and government officials who are won over, unwittingly help spread duplicitous messages about shariah Islam inside the non-Muslim society.

So much so, that the West, relying on the concept of freedom of religion is actually creating “self-imposed blinders for U.S. security strategists.”  For example, the fraudulent term Islamophobia now dominates the culture.  Yet this term was created to “leverage the term ‘phobia’ . . . and employ political correctness to silence critics of Islam.” Ultimately it is “intended to frighten sheepish Western politicians.” Hence, we find Andrew Cuomo making the breathtakingly ignorant remark that “shariah is not mainstream Muslim thought” when, in fact, “shariah forms the nucleus of Islam itself.”

As Higgins points out “weapons are powerless against the ‘peaceful’ methods of war.  Guerilla tactics, white and black propaganda, subversion, social and economic manipulation, diplomatic pressure . . . — all of these are immune [.]”  In fact, the key players of the jihadist movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) have managed “to create a counter-factual understanding of Islam by prohibiting criticism of Islam and flattering the West into enforcement of the Islamic Law of Slander upon itself.”  It is truly an amazing feat.  The West refuses to acknowledge that there can be no assimilation of a Muslim population into American society since “Islam transcends their loyalty to the United States.”

Consequently, to truly destroy the Islamic threat, the West must irrevocably understand the core Islamic legal and  political doctrines which are intended to bring down the West.  The U.S. security strategists still know almost nothing about Islam and what they do know are “lies propagated by the enemy to create a counter-factual understanding of Islam.”

Islam “is a threat to the United States because it is not simply a religion; it is a complete way of life that includes an alternative political system harboring values contrary to the immutable principles upon which the U.S. was founded.”

Read more

Islam’s “Quiet Conquest” of Europe

Gatestone Institute, by Giulio Meotti, August 10, 2016:

  • “Islam is a French religion and the French language is a language of Islam.” — Tariq Ramadan.
  • In 1989, Dalil Boubakeur, rector of the Grand Mosque of Paris, justified the persecution of Salman Rushdie by Ayatollah Khomeini. Last year, Boubakeur called for the conversion of churches into mosques.
  • In Britain, mainstream Muslim organizations are dispensing “Islamic justice” through more than 85 sharia courts attached to mosques.
  • Civil war in France is what the Islamic State is looking for: unleashing a blind repression so that the Muslim population will show solidarity with the revolutionary minority. Yet, there is still worse possible outcome: that nothing happens and we continue as is.
  • Real “moderate Muslims” are silenced or murdered.

Last month, the Wall Street Journal published an interview with France’s director of domestic intelligence, Patrick Calvar. “The confrontation is inevitable,” Mr. Calvar said. There are an estimated 15,000 Salafists among France’s seven million Muslims, “whose radical-fundamentalist creed dominates many of the predominantly Muslim housing projects at the edges of cities such as Paris, Nice or Lyon. Their preachers call for a civil war, with all Muslims tasked to wipe out the miscreants down the street.”

These Salafists openly challenge France’s way of life and do not make a secret of their willingness to overthrow the existing order in Europe through violent means, terror attacks and physical intimidation. But paradoxically, if the Islamists’ threat to Europe were confined to the Salafists, it would be easier to defeat it.

There is in fact another threat, even more dangerous because it is more difficult to decipher. It has just been dubbed by the magazine Valeurs Actuelles,the quiet conquest“. It is “moderate” Islam’s sinuous project of producing submission. “Its ambition is clear: changing French society. Slowly but surely”.

That threat is personified in the main character of Michel Houellebecq’s novel, Submission: Mohammed Ben Abbes, the “moderate” Muslim who becomes France’s president and converts the state to Islam. And from where does President Ben Abbes start his Islamization? The Sorbonne University. It is already happening: Qatar recently made a significant donation to this famous university, to sponsor the education of migrants.

In France, the quiet conquest has the face of the Union of the Islamic Organizations of France (UOIF), which a Simon Wiesenthal Center report charged with “anti-Semitism, advocacy and financing of terrorism and call to Jihad… ”

Not only does UOIF not encourage the integration of Moslems in France,” the report states, “it actually provides a nursery for the most radical Islamist positions.”

In Italy we have just witnessed the strategy of this “moderate Islam.” The largest and most influential Islamic organization, l’Unione delle comunità ed organizzazione islamiche in Italia (Ucoii), sponsored Milan’s first Muslim councilwoman, Sumaya Abdel Qader, a veiled candidate of the center-left coalition. Qader’s husband, Abdallah Kabakebbji, openly called for the destruction of the State of Israel: “It is a historical mistake, a scam”, he wrote on Facebook. His solution? “Ctrl + Alt + Delete”.

Qader won the race over a real moderate Muslim, the unveiled Somali activist, Maryan Ismail. I met Mrs. Ismail at a pro-Israel forum in Milan. After losing the election, she broke with Italy’s Democratic Party in an open letter: “The Democratic Party has chosen to dialogue with obscurantist Islam. Once again, the souls of modern, plural and inclusive Islam were not heard”.

Take two “stars” of this French “moderate Islam.” The first one is Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, the motto of which is: “Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

Ramadan does not hide in Raqqa or shoot at French citizens. By applying for French citizenship, he would like to become one of them. His office is in the Parisian suburb of Saint Denis; he has written 30 books and he has two million Facebook followers. Ramadan has academic chairs all over the world, he is the director of the Research Center for Islamic Law in Doha (Qatar) and the president of the European Muslim Network. He publicly campaigns for Islam along with Italy’s former prime minister, Massimo D’Alema. Ramadan recently explained his vision for Europe and France: “Islam is a French religion and the French language is a language of Islam”.

Ramadan’s project is not the hoped-for Europeanization of Islam, but the not-hoped-for frightful Islamization of Europe. He opposes the assimilation of Muslims into French culture and society. A few days before the election in Milan, Ramadan was in Italy to endorse the candidacy of Sumaya Abdel Qader.

The second French “star” is Dalil Boubakeur, the rector of the Grand Mosque of Paris. In 1989, Boubakeur justified the persecution of Salman Rushdie by Ayatollah Khomeini. In 2002, he testified for the prosecution against the writer Michel Houellebecq. In 2006, he sued Charlie Hebdo in court, after the publication of the Danish Mohammed cartoons. Last year, Boubakeur called for the conversion of churches into mosques and asked to “double” the number of mosques in France.

Dalil Boubakeur, rector of the Grand Mosque of Paris, last year called for the conversion of churches into mosques and asked to “double” the number of mosques in France. (Image source: TV5 Monde)

In the United Kingdom, mainstream Muslim organizations are dispensing “Islamic justice” through more than 85 sharia courts attached to mosques. Divorce, polygamy, adultery and wife-beating are only some of these courts’ matters of jurisprudence. In Germany, vice-chancellor Sigmar Gabriel criticized Saudi Arabia for financing Islamic extremism in Europe. It is the same kingdom which last year offered to build 200 new mosques in Germany.

Qatar, with its Al Jazeera television megaphone, is also very active in sponsoring Muslim Brotherhood Islamic radicalism all over Europe. The Qatari royal family, for example, in 2015 donated £11 million to Oxford’s St. Anthony’s College, where Tariq Ramadan teaches. Qatar also announced that it was willing to spend $65 million in the French suburbs, home to the vast majority of the six million Muslims in France.

Today in Europe, several scenarios are possible, including the worst. Among them, there is a civil war, which many are beginning to talk about, including Patrick Calvar, the director of domestic intelligence. This is what the Islamic State is looking for: unleashing a blind repression so that the Muslim population will show solidarity with the revolutionary minority. Yet, there is still worse possible outcome: that nothing happens and we continue as is.

The end is more important than the means. The Islamic State has the same goal as most of the members of so-called “moderate Islam”: domination under the sharia. Many supposedly “moderate Muslims”, even if they do not commit violent acts themselves, support them quietly. They support them by not speaking out against them. If they do speak out against them, they usually do so in coded terms, such as that they are “against terrorism,” or that what concerns them about violent acts by Muslims is the possibility of a “backlash” against them.

Violent jihadis, however, are not the only means of transforming Europe, and perhaps are even counterproductive: they could awaken the nations they attack. Soft and more discreet means, such as social pressure and propaganda, are even more dangerous, and possibly even more effective: they are harder to see, such as the West’s acceptance of dual judiciary and legal systems; sharia finance (if there had been a “Nazi finance” system, in which all financial transactions went to strengthening the Third Reich, what effect might that have had on World War II?), and the proliferation in the West of mosques and extremist Islamic websites. Although there are indeed many real “moderate Muslims”, there are also still many who are not.

To conservative Muslims, however, any Muslim who does not accept every word of Allah — the entire Koran — is not a true Muslim, and is open to charges of “apostasy”, the punishment for which is death. According to a leading Sunni theologian, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, based in Qatar, “If they [Muslims] had gotten rid of the punishment for apostasy, Islam would not exist today.”

That is why the late writer Oriana Fallaci once said to The New Yorker: “I do not accept the mendacity of the so-called Moderate Islam”. That is why real “moderate Muslims” are silenced or murdered.

This might summarize the current Islamic mainstream mentality: “Dear Europeans, continue to think about a shorter working week, early retirement, abortion on demand and adultery in the afternoon. With your laws, we will conquer you. With our laws, we will convert you”.

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.

Muslim-American Olympian Criticizes her Country

muslimolympics_1470557862401_3289875_ver1.0_640_360

How Ibtihaj Muhammad describes life in America for Muslims.

Front Page Magazine, by Joseph Klein, Aug. 9, 2016:

A Muslim-American woman competing in the 2016 Olympics in Rio, Ibtihaj Muhammad, made history as the first American Olympic participant to wear a hijab while competing. The fencer won her first round, then lost in a second round. She is due to take part in a team competition later on during the Olympics. However, with all the media attention she has received to date for wearing the hijab and speaking out as a Muslim advocate against her country’s treatment of Muslims as well as against Donald Trump, you would think she had already won the gold.

Rather than focus on the fact that she was representing America as part of Team USA, Ms. Muhammad chose to distance herself from her fellow Americans. Before the competition even began, she complained about not feeling safe in America because she was a Muslim. She has been whining about how she feels threatened because of her faith, and has politicized the Olympic Games with derogatory comments regarding Donald Trump’s candidacy for president.

Considering that “anti-Semitic crimes accounted for roughly 60 percent of religious hate crimes last year,” according to a 2015 Washington Post report, and “anti-Muslim crimes now make up about 13 percent of religiously-motivated hate crimes,” the Jewish-American Olympic competitors would have had more reason to speak out about not feeling safe in America. However, they are in Rio to compete for the gold on behalf of their country, not to trash it.

“I wish that, not just my life, but the lives of Muslims all over the world were a little bit easier, particularly in the United States,” Ms. Muhammad was quoted by the Associated Press as saying after arriving in Rio for the competition.  (Emphasis added.) “I’m hoping that with my first-time appearance as a member of Team USA here at the Olympics, I’m hoping that the rhetoric around the Muslim community will change.”

This is a woman who had the opportunity to meet with President Obama and even offer the First Lady a fencing lesson. Indeed, Ibtihaj Muhammad has lived the American dream. She graduated from a top school, Duke University, where she attended on a scholarship. To fund her ambitions to become a world class fencer, she worked as a substitute teacher and fencing coach. She also founded her own clothing line Louella. And she has gotten some big name corporate endorsements. She missed qualifying for the 2012 Olympics, but continued working hard to make the 2016 team, which, to her credit, she succeeded in doing.

Explaining her primary motivation for going after a spot on the 2016 team, Ibtihaj Muhammad focused on her attachment to the Muslim community, not simply on the honor to represent America. She said, “When I heard that there had never been a Muslim woman on the U.S. team to wear the hijab, that is when I made this conscious decision to go for 2016.” She added: “I am excited to represent not just myself, my family and my country – but also the greater Muslim community.”

 If Ms. Muhammad were truly interested in representing “the greater Muslim community,” she should use her celebrity status to speak out against the atrocious living conditions of women in Saudi Arabia, Iran and other Muslim majority countries.

Did Ms. Muhammad by chance have the opportunity to speak with any of the very few female competitors from Saudi Arabia, for example? That devout Muslim country discriminates against its own female population, all under the banner of Islam’s sharia law. It is allowing just four women athletes to compete in the Olympics this year, after having received an ultimatum from Olympic authorities in 2012. At home in Saudi Arabia, women are not even allowed to attend national team competitions as spectators, let alone participate in any tournaments or state organized sports leagues of their own. “Our society can be very conservative,” said Prince Fahad bin Jalawi al-Saud, a consultant to the Saudi Olympic Committee. “It has a hard time accepting that women can compete in sports.”

More generally, there is strict gender segregation in Saudi Arabia. And merely wearing a hijab head cover would not be enough to keep a woman out of trouble for dressing too immodestly.

In commenting on the recent spate of Islamic terrorism, Ms. Muhammad blamed it on an “unhealthy situation” caused by “(M)isunderstanding of religion, of what different societies need in order to thrive.” It would appear that Ms. Muhammad has a basic misunderstanding of the doctrines in her own religion that have fueled violent jihad around the world.

As an example of political correctness run amok, there was mounting pressure on Michael Phelps, who was elected by his teammates to serve as flag bearer in the opening ceremonies of the Olympics, to decline the honor in favor of Ibtihaj Muhammad, who came in second in the voting. Various media outlets called for Phelps to yield. Perhaps the most ridiculous article was a CNN op-ed piece addressed to Phelps by W. Kamau Bell, in which the author says that “America has enough tall, successful, rich white guys hogging the spotlight” and that “Muhammad carrying the flag would be nearly a one-stop inclusion shop.”

The Olympics should be all about sports competition for the top prize based on merit. It should not be about religious faiths or domestic politics. Phelps, the most decorated Olympian of all time, earned the honor to carry the flag on behalf of the United States. Muhammad has not earned that honor, unless being Muslim, wearing a hijab while competing and trashing her country constitute the new standard of “excellence.”

Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam.

Also see:

How to do Dawah – A Guide

d642b0_70ec316a6f78445f918e867394e136fc-mv2

We Need to Talk About Islam, by Harriet Taylor, August 1, 2016:

Having studied the methods of those operating Dawah stalls, I have compiled a short training manual of Handy Hints for those who wish to ‘Do Dawah’. It also acts as a self-defence manual for those interacting with their friendly neighbourhood High Street Dawah stall.

1. Have large banners proclaiming in massive letters that Islam has nothing whatsoever to do with any violence, with terrorism, with suicide bombings. This will draw people in, especially those anxious to believe that stuff about Islam being a religion of peace.

2. However, your main goal is to convert people. So, have one leaflet about terrorism, but make sure that all your other leaflets and books are just all about Islam. It’s just a bait-and-switch to get them hooked.

3. When a person approaches the stall, quickly establish what religious faith they are, if any. You can use this base from which to argue. For added impact, if they say they are atheist, say you used to be an atheist, if they say they are Christian, say you used to be Christian. Then, if the person is Christian or Jewish, you can say that Moses and Jesus are prophets in Islam, and claim that Islam is just a continuation of their religion, only better. If the person is an atheist or agnostic, simply throw any accusation you like at Christianity, and say that Islam has the perfect solution. They will eagerly believe whatever crap you tell them about how awful Christianity is.

4. If the person knows little about the origins of Islam, explain that Islam is a peaceful religion and that Mohammed only fought the occasional skirmish after being attacked and persecuted viciously by marauding and jealous Jews. You can litter your spiel with references to ‘pagans’ and ‘Jews’ at random, because most people won’t know enough about the history to be able to call you out on that.

5. If the person is ignorant of the Quran and other Islamic texts, you can tell them more or less anything – they came over because they were eager to believe that Islam is a religion of peace, so say that the Quran gives rights for women, that it prohibits the taking of innocent life, that Allah is merciful, that Islam tolerates other religions, and so on and forth.

6. If the person seems to know something of the historical origins of Islam, then any time they bring up a relevant fact, cast scorn upon it. Helpful strategies include, ‘I never heard of that battle’, ‘Mohammed was persecuted by the pagans,’ ‘What year did that battle take place?’ ‘What are your sources for that?’ ‘That’s not in Islamic history you must be reading it somewhere else’. (NB, we’ve found from experience that ‘You must agree the pagans deserved to be punished’ does not work terribly well with contemporary Westerners.) If the person mentions sex slavery, say, ‘but there were no battles prior to Medina so how could there have been sex slaves then?’, distracting your questioner by completely ignoring the obvious point that this implies that there were sex slaves later and does not actually answer the question about sex slaves at all.

7. If the person refers to facts about the life of Mohammed, offer them a booklet you have handy purporting to be a biography of Mohammed. If the person proclaims, ‘That’s not a full biography of Mohammed, it’s really short, what’s been left out?’, then look stunned, and say repeatedly, ‘This is Mohammed’s biography’, pointing to the chapter headings which all refer to how peaceful he was.

8. If the person seems to have read the Quran, tell them that ‘I never heard of that in the Quran, what chapter and verse is that?’, or ask, ‘What translation of the Quran do you use?’, recoil at their reply and snort, ‘That is a terrible translation, full of errors.’

9. If the person mentions abrogation, deny there is such a doctrine. If they do not mention abrogation, then claim that any awkward verses they mention are abrogated.

10. If, worse still, they have read more about Islam, and mention the hadith, reel backwards in surprise and (a) either deny that what they claim is in the hadith is really there, asking them for the precise reference; or (b) deny that the hadith is reliable; or (c) brazen it out and say, ‘yes, of course you go to hell for splashing urine on your clothes, Allah demands basic cleanliness’.

11. If a woman complains that Mohammed said that most of the inhabitants of hell are women, reply, ‘Yes, and do you know why they are there?’ If she correctly replies, ‘because they were disobedient’, just nod gravely and look at her meaningfully. She should get the message.

12. This strategy is multi-purpose for Christians, Jews, and atheists. Explain how the Bible’s prophets behaved appallingly, so how can they be examples to follow, unlike Mohammed who was perfect. Use the example of King David, who behaved atrociously. In an emergency situation where a know-it-all type replies that, ‘Actually, David isn’t held up by Jews and Christians as perfect, in fact, the story of the prophet Nathan shows the reverse: that David’s adultery with Bathsheba was an example NOT to follow’, then either a) cast doubt on their account or b) wave it to one side and insist that Jews and Christians consider David perfect, since he was a prophet. Be vague about whether you think David really was perfect and the Biblical story about his improper conduct is false, or whether you think David really was imperfect and Jews and Christians are wrong to aspire to emulate his conduct. After all, you never heard the story of Nathan before so you are getting confused. Don’t let them see your confusion.

13. Insist that the Bible has to be interpreted literally as absolutely true, so that all episodes of violence are problematic, whereas any tricky passages in the Quran are to be interpreted carefully and in a modern context, and none are actually violent. If the person points out that the Quran is meant to be eternal and for all time, so how can it be interpreted for the modern day, just wave your hand sneeringly and make out like they are dim.

14. You may find Christians and Jews trying to say ‘No, Abraham did not take Ishmael out to the mountain to sacrifice, he took Isaac’. Raise your eyebrows in complete surprise, and say that this is because the Bible is full of error. (Your surprise may be either feigned or real, depending on how ignorant you actually are about the Bible.) Don’t pause to consider how a few moments ago you were insisting that the Bible passages referring to violence be taken as literal truth, in case the person spots the inconsistency.

15. If the person asks about connections with Islam and violence, then deny that there has ever been any link with violence and claim that ISIS and Al Quaeda are abominations. If the person says, ‘But how come there are so many terror groups who “misunderstand Islam”, what about Boko Haram, Al Nusra Front, Al Shabab, the Taliban, Hezbollah, etc, etc,’, just shake your head and start talking about violence in the Bible. If need be, in extreme cases, mention the Crusades.

16. If the person goes on to ask how come Mohammed himself committed so many acts of violence, including having people murdered and tortured, shout loudly and insistently that they are insulting your prophet who did no such actions.

17. Lastly, if the person is still arguing with you, just carry on winding them up until they get exasperated. Then you can literally turn your back on them, and say that you refuse to talk to them if they are ‘going to be like that’.

Your training is complete.

A Multi-Culti Thomas Jefferson

506px-Liberty_Bell_2008

Islamists and progressives both want the Founders to have said something different than what they really said.

CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, July 16, 2016:

When reflecting on the rich history of the city of Philadelphia, one might think of William Penn, Benjamin Franklin, the Liberty Bell, the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution.  The timeless principles of freedom and liberty speak not only to the Philadelphian but also more broadly to the American.  Because of Philadelphia’s significance and contribution to America, its history has become a major target of revisionism.  Despite having different motivations, Liberal-progressives and Islamists both share the common goal of turning our founding fathers into advocates of multiculturalism.

For Islamists it’s all about making the founding fathers supportive of Islam, and of course they mean political Islam.  Philadelphia City Councilman Curtis Jones, Jr. is helping create that narrative by hosting an event in Philadelphia’s City Hall July 26, with Denise Spellberg, author of the controversial book titled Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an: Islam and the Founders.  David F. Forte, Cleveland State University professor of law, lays out two important themes asserted in the book that reveal Spellberg’s prejudices: 

1) that the founders’ references to “imaginary Muslims” led them to include other minorities, such as Jews, Catholic Christians, and Deists, as full citizens, and 2) that America is now in the grip of “Islamophobia,” and many Americans are attempting to “disenfranchise” Muslims from their rights as full citizens.

The ‘Islamophobia’ campaign has propagated a lot of nonsense, from ‘Islamophobia’accelerating global warming to the rewriting of a more ‘inclusive’ American history as Spellberg’s book seems to indicate.  To think that Jefferson and the founding fathers included political Islam when they championed religious liberty is ridiculous.  Religious liberty and Islamic law are incompatible because Islamic law prohibits and punishes beliefs that are in opposition to Islam.  This multiculturalist narrative Spellberg is trying to sell is similar to that advocated by the Muslim Brotherhood linked Congressman Keith Ellison (first Muslim Congressman).  Ellison was the one who took his oath of office by swearing in on the Quran owned by Thomas Jefferson, and tries to insinuate that because Jefferson owned a Quran it helped mold his views on religious liberty and toleration.  A 2007 Seattle Times article reports Ellison’s take on swearing in on the Quran:

“It demonstrates that from the very beginning of our country, we had people who were visionary, who were religiously tolerant, who believed that knowledge and wisdom could be gleaned from any number of sources, including the Quran,” Ellison said in a telephone interview Wednesday.

“A visionary like Thomas Jefferson was not afraid of a different belief system,” Ellison said. “This just shows that religious tolerance is the bedrock of our country, and religious differences are nothing to be afraid of.”

In reality, Jefferson not only had some unflattering things to say about Islam but also got a taste of radical Islam from a conversation with the Ambassador of Tripoli at the time:

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Besides Philadelphia City Councilman Curtis Jones, Jr. who are some of the other supporters of the event with Spellberg in Philadelphia?  Of course, the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is one of the backers of the event. The Muslim Brotherhood in North America is dedicated to “destroying Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated.”  CAIR has even given Spellberg an awardthat epitomizes her work that’s being used for the Islamist cause:

I-CAIR Faith in Freedom Award from the Council American-Islamic Relations, Cleveland, Ohio Chapter, “For promoting a better understanding of the history of religious freedom in America and for writing Muslims back into our nation’s founding narrative through the extraordinary and illuminating scholarly work, Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an: Islam and the Founders,” May 11, 2014.

Militant Islam Monitor.org provides information about some of the other event sponsors such as:

…They include Emerge Pac, the Universal Muslim Business Association, Masjid Masjidullah and ICPIC. The Islamic Cultural Preservation And Information Council which receives funding from the PA Council on the Arts among others.http://icpic.co/. EmergePac is a subsidiary of EmergeUSA which is headed by stealth Islamist lawyer Khurrum Wahid.”Emerge USA, despite its patriotic sounding name, has an extremely radical agenda based on terrorism and bigotry shrouded in the guise of political advocacy. The main individual behind Emerge USA is Khurrum Wahid, a South Florida attorney who has built his name on representing high profile terrorists. They include members of al-Qaeda and financiers of the Taliban. According to the Miami New Times, Wahid himself was placed on a federal terrorist watch list in 2011.

The contact for the event is Imam Salaam Muhsin, who recently spoke at CAIR-Philadelphia’s Interfaith Press Conference after the Orlando massacre.  The sponsors have a long list of Islamist ties to say the least.  On the event/luncheon flyer it is also noted that it occurs during the week of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, advertising for their liberal fan base.  This progressive/Islamist alliance is working together to reinterpret our nation’s founding fathers (and founding documents) in order to change the American narrative to fit their multiculturalist vision for the U.S.  For the Islamists it’s all about using multiculturalism to insert political Islam/Sharia into society under the guise of religious liberty.

An Award-Winning Documentary About Islamic Terrorists Becomes Hate Speech

video grabIPT, by Steven Emerson
Investor’s Business Daily
July 15, 2016

At what point over the past 20 years did citing statements and literature by Islamic terrorists become banned “hate speech?”

A documentary that I produced in 1994 for PBS concerning civilizational jihad won numerous awards, yet YouTube in recent days removed a video posted by CounterJihad that covered the very same topic in much more limited scope.

Both my film, “Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America,” and CounterJihad’s “Killing for a Cause: Sharia Law & Civilizational Jihad” expose the Islamification of the West waged by the Muslim Brotherhood and its front organizations in the U.S. The Brotherhood, born in Egypt in 1928, is the fountainhead of nearly every deadly Islamist organization on the planet today.

I quoted Abdullah Azzam, the Muslim leader most responsible for expanding the jihad into an international holy war, speaking in Brooklyn, N.Y.: “The jihad, the fighting, is obligatory on you wherever you can perform it. And just as when you are in America you must fast – unless you are ill or on a voyage – so, too, must you wage jihad. The word jihad means fighting only, fighting with the sword.”

CounterJihad quotes from a Brotherhood governing document: “The (Muslim Brotherhood) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers.”

YouTube in its “hate speech” policy explains that it refers “to content that promotes violence or hatred against individuals or groups based on certain attributes, such as: race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, sexual orientation/gender identity.”

Neither project did any such thing.

All that’s changed over the past two decades is the ability of Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to successfully exert their will on a very sensitive and politically correct media and cultural elite.

YouTube eventually reposted CounterJihad’s video, but the exercise is telling.

CAIR and its cohorts — including the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Islamic Circle of North America — spend millions to portray all Muslims as the real victims of every Islamic terrorist massacre against innocent Westerners.

After every Islamist terror attack, they rush to the microphones to blame U.S. foreign policy for inciting the sadistic killers, often before law enforcement confirms anything. They reinforce recruitment propaganda that says the West has engaged in a “war with Islam” and therefore deflect responsibility from the murderers themselves.

Their latest stunt is a report on the contrived term “Islamophobia,” which suggests that those who fear Islamic terrorism are racist and behave irrationally toward Muslims.

They have become incredibly effective at inflaming tensions between Muslims and Westerners, who by and large harbor no ill will toward each other.

Their “war on Islam” and claims of Islamophobia distract from the underlying agenda of Islamic terrorists.

They intend to establish a global empire known as a Caliphate governed by Sharia law. They are engaged in a full-scale overt and covert war to cripple every Western ideal that stands in their way.

CAIR sabotages prospects of unification by telling Muslim Americans to not cooperate with law enforcement. They assist in raising money for radical mosques and their fiery imams in the U.S. through their actions. They preach solidarity with their Middle Eastern terrorist overseers.

CAIR’s roots are firmly planted in a Hamas-support network in the U.S. created by the Muslim Brotherhood. Every statement it issues includes that asterisk at the end, although one would be hard-pressed to find anyone working in the media brave enough to cite it.

San Bernardino terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook and Orlando gunman Omar Mateen found resonance in the videos of the late al-Qaida ideologue Anwar al-Awlaki, which indoctrinated them with radical Islamist teachings and instructed them to become martyrs. The jihadists behind the carnage in Brussels and Paris were all directed and influenced by ISIS.

Let’s stop the nonsense.

By portraying all non-Muslims as enemies, CAIR and its allies fail to educate anyone about the true nature of Islamic terrorism.

If CAIR and its fellow travelers were truly concerned about Muslims in the U.S., they should reject assaults on the values of Western culture and condemn those who exploit Islam as the inspiration for horrific murders.

That’s not hate speech. It is a truth that was just as valid 20 years ago as it is today.

Steven Emerson is the Executive Director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

Paul Sutliff on the Islamic “Long March Through the Institutions”

Huma and Hillary

The Rebel, by Victor Laszlo, July 16, 2016:

This is the first part of a two part interview with author and educator Paul Sutliff. Paul discusses infiltration of the US government by Muslim Brotherhood entities in this segment.

This is the second part of the interview with Paul Sutliff. Paul explains the US Government’s use of the office of Countering Violent Extremism to assist the Muslim Brotherhood, and of all things, fund mosques.

Paul recently appeared as a guest on Blog Talk Radio discussing the CVE and Islam in the United States.

The Rebel has published several articles on the Countering Violent Extremism policy previously from a more academic point of view, featuring interviews with retired US Army intelligence officer, Stephen Coughlin.

Rather than reducing the level of terrorism, these so-called “Countering Violent Extremism” policies seem to be part of the strategy of Islamic infiltrators to increase the influence of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in the West, in tandem with UN resolution 16/18. 

Paul is the author of two booksCivilization Jihad and the Myth of Moderate Islam, and Stealth Jihad Phase two. American Colleges.

Paul’s website is here.

“Sheer Horror” in Paris

blackoutCounterJihad, July 11, 2016:

Ben Judah is a journalist who comes especially well-recommended.  His two books, one about Russia and the other about London, have been hailed for their shockingly honest accounts of unpleasant truths.  Of his work on London, the New Statesman reviewer wrote:  “Every MP should be given a copy immediately. On every page lies an uncomfortable truth, in every paragraph sheer horror.”

Now he has turned to the rapid shift towards Islam in France.  Brought on by mass immigration and hardline Islamic preachers, Judah finds a neighborhood in the shadow of the tombs of French kings that is no longer French.

“The French are too scared to come and shop in Saint-Denis since the attacks. There’s fear. There’s less order — less police, more druggies, more dealers and more thieves. It’s getting worse. I tell you — ten years ago it was not this bad.”

How does the French state explain all this? I take the butcher’s accusation to the prefect. Grey-haired Philippe Galli is Saint-Denis’s most powerful official and the president’s envoy to the department of Seine-Saint-Denis. His throaty, gravelly voice is accustomed to power.

“Those same people who say there is a lack of authority,” snaps the 60-year-old prefect, “are the same ones who refuse the police access when they try and enter. Those from the Maghreb, by origin, permit themselves to behave in ways that would be unthinkable where they came from.”

He tells me that the secret services are currently monitoring 700 people at risk of radicalisation in Saint-Denis, and the police are too frightened to enter alone most areas under his control.

The whole of his piece should be read.

The French government has been drawing up counter-insurgency plans against those al Qaeda and the Islamic State (ISIS) have been recruiting.  Last year’s multiple major terror strikes in Paris not only led to the deaths of hundreds, but also highlighted the failure of European police authorities to handle the problem of rising Islamic radicalism.

Meanwhile, with French native birthrates continuing to be below replacement level, mass immigration has continued apace.  A quarter of teenagers in France are now Muslims, implying a future in which any radicalized Islam poses only a greater threat to the stability of the Republic.  Second generation immigrants, according to several major inquiries, seem to be the ones most inclined to radicalization.  The problems of France today may well pale in comparison to the problems of a generation from now.

Already Judah’s article identifies a rising Antisemitism that is driving French Jews from their homes.  But it is also driving non-Jewish French from their homes, and making those who continue to live in the changing neighborhoods feel besieged.

The response by the French has been a rising nationalism.  Even al Qaeda’s top figure in charge of recruting from France has endorsed the National Front.  “If the French don’t want war, they should vote Marine Le Pen,” he said. “OK, she’s a woman, and one can call her a racist.  But at least she defends the true values of France.”

Does she?  Judah cites a gay leftist who has come to feel inclined towards a more nationalist politics.  “I realised… my error of interpretation on immigration and Islamisation, which is a danger to liberty…. [A]ll around us this rise of halal, this halalisation of France through its dishes, it’s a conquest of France through its dishes, if you look closely.”

That has parallels in Germany, where nationalism is also rising as a response.  These stories may not be pleasant to read, but every wise person should consider them, and ponder what is to be done.

Also see:

AOSHQ: YouTube’s Video Ban Proves Rich Higgins Right

Capture-5

Former DOD Official Rich Higgins warned of the Islamist influence shaping America’s policies against “violent extremism.” He was right.

CounterJihad, July 6, 2016:

Just yesterday, the right-of-center blog Ace of Spades described an interview given by former DOD official and Special Forces trainer Rich Higgins.  Higgins said that the Obama administration had adopted a set of counter-terrorism policies that ended up being drafted by many Islamists, including members of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Ostensibly about countering extremism, these policies were really about silencing critics of Islam and Islamism.  That motive, which is a core part of the Brotherhood’s agenda, is also shared by other radical Islamist groups including al Qaeda and the Islamic State (ISIS).

Political warfare includes both non-violent and violent actions working in synthesis, Higgins says. The left, with enemy-friendly Muslim Brotherhood allies, is able to control the dominant cultural narrative with the media and the government, blinding us in the war on terror and impacting how Americans think, he argues.

Higgins calls for a “strategic and operational pause” in America’s misguided battle to stop the terror. He would, instead, ask new leadership to develop a comprehensive political warfare plan, while removing the subversive policies and personnel causing America to lose this paramount battle.

He cites the “purges” carried out by law enforcement and intelligence officials throughout government, which Phil Haney, Sebastian Gorka and Steve Coughlin have made public.

Today, Ace notes, the YouTube controversy proves that he was right.  While YouTube is not a government agency, YouTube’s parent company is involved in a public-private partnership with the US government aimed at “countering violent extremism” — the very program Higgins is describing.  Jigsaw, formerly “Google Ideas,” is being run by a former US State Department employee who has been tasked with figuring out how Alphabet (formerly Google) can “use technology to tackle the toughest geopolitical challenges, from countering violent extremism to thwarting online censorship to mitigating the threats associated with digital attacks.”

Higgins is indeed correct about the root of the issue.  The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) was identified by the FBI as an American front for the Muslim Brotherhood.  Its current president is Mohamed Magid, who has been celebrated in the press for helping the Federal government develop its “countering violent extremism” plan.

Likewise, the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has been an active participant.  By its own admission, its intent is to weaken the degree to which American officials have elected to frame their “relationship with American Muslims through a securitized lens.”  Expressing a concern that this stigmatizes the community, they would like to push security professionals out of the center role.  Efforts like this Google outreach are just what they have been hoping to see.

The effect, though, is to turn the program’s intent on its head.  This was intended to address the dangers of increased terrorism.  Instead, it has made it more difficult for critics of the ideology that produces such terror to speak and be heard.  That happens to be a goal of radical Islamist groups, ironically.

As Ace put it, “somehow our policy has been turned inside-out from being anti-terrorist to anti-upsetting-potential-terrorists — which is the precise goal potential terrorists seek… The goal is to make people afraid to speak negatively about their religion and their Caliphate — to implement sharia’s prohibition against ‘slander’ against Islam.”

CAIR and ISNA will likely say that they have some other goal than advancing the rule of sharia’s prohibitions in America.  However, that has been the effect of their actions.  That effect does line up with the express goals of outlined in the infamous Explanatory Memorandum, which was introduced as evidence by the Department of Justice in the nation’s largest-ever terrorism financing trial.

Perhaps that’s just a coincidence.

YouTube bans video on Muslim Brotherhood, Sharia and Civilization Jihad as “hate speech”

vlcsnap-2016-06-29-12h59m01s200

Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, July 6, 2016:

Here is a full transcript of the video. Where is the “hate speech”? Where is there even any factual inaccuracy?

For the Left, truth is no defense. What they want to do is silence their ideological foes. That’s all. The problem with the increasingly mainstream concept that “hate speech is not free speech” is that what exactly constitutes “hate speech” is a subjective judgment, often based on the political proclivities of the person doing the judging. If a Leftist analyst who subscribes to the fantasy that the Muslim Brotherhood is a “firewall against extremism” is doing the judging, he may think that the information below is “hate speech,” while if someone who is aware of the true nature and magnitude of the jihad threat is the judge, he would more likely consider Hamas-linked CAIR’s “Islamophobia” reports to be genuine “hate speech.”

The concept of “hate speech” is, in reality, a tool of the powerful to silence and demonize their critics. It has no place in a free society. This action by YouTube is ominous in the extreme, and is almost certainly the harbinger of much worse to come.

You can still see the video on Facebook here, and here is the full transcript: “Killing for a Cause: Sharia Law & Civilization Jihad,” Counter Jihad, June 29, 2016:

What is Civilization Jihad? This video explains in three minutes.

We have a new video aimed at non-experts as an introduction to the basic ideas behind the Counterjihad. Please watch it, and share it with those whom you think need to see it. The text of the video is as follows:

Terrorism seems to be everywhere, and it’s getting worse. The bad guys have lots of names—ISIS, al Qaeda, Boko Haram—but they have one thing in common. They are all killing for a cause: Islamic Law known as Sharia.

Sharia is a return to medieval Islam. Sharia demands a Holy War calledJihad. The most widely available book of Islamic Law in English says: “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims.”

There are two kinds of Jihad. Violent Jihad is horribly simple, slaughtering innocents and forcing submission. Violent Jihadists want to conquer land for their Caliphate – essentially an Islamic State where Sharia Law is supreme.

But there is another kind of Jihad. In their Explanatory Memorandum, theMuslim Brotherhood, calls this, “civilization jihad,” saying, “The [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…”

Civilization Jihad has the same goal as the Violent Jihad—to conquer land for their Caliphate—but instead of waging war or staging terror attacks like their brothers in the violent jihad, these Civilization Jihadists wear suits and ties, and their work is much more subtle.

So what do they do? They file lawsuits for Muslim truck drivers who don’t want to drive beer. They convince schools to hold Muslim Day, where the girls wear head scarves and the kids say Muslim prayers. They complain when our government watches to see if their violent buddies are hanging out with them.

They call anyone critical of Islamic Law an “Islamophobe,” a term they invented to make people scared to speak out—like the neighbors of the terrorists in San Bernardino who knew something was wrong, but didn’t want to say anything because they’d be accused of profiling.

These bad guys have lots of names, too: the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR); the Muslim Student Association (MSA); Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). The Justice Department found that these groups were, in fact, started by the Muslim Brotherhood.

These groups like to say that terrorism has no religion, but only Islam has Sharia and Jihad.

Not all Muslims practice Sharia or support it, but an awful lot do. They believe that anyone who insults Islam can be killed; they believe thatwomen are property; that gays should be killed; and that little girls should be mutilated and forced to marry old men they’ve never men. These things are simply not allowed in our free society and are against the Constitution.

There are plenty of Modern Muslims who want to “live and let live,” but unfortunately the groups that speak most often for the Muslim community follow the medieval version based on Sharia.

They are working to make the US more like the Caliphate. They have to go.

The strategy to defeat civilization jihad

1620421133

Secure Freedom Radio, July 1, 2016:

Dr. SEBASTIAN GORKA, Major General Matthew C. Horner Distinguished Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University, author of “Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War”:

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

  • Coming to grips with who the real enemy is
  • Global Jihadi Movement versus violent extremism and lone-wolf terrorism
  • Distinguishing Civilization Jihad

(PART TWO): (podcast2): Play in new window | Download

  • Muslim Brotherhood’s role in the global jihad
  • Practical implications of “willful blindness” on law enforcement
  • CAIR’s involvement in the FBI investigation of the Orlando terror attack

(PART THREE): (podcast3): Play in new window | Download

  • Training with law enforcement
  • Hillary Clinton’s role in the Istanbul process

(PART FOUR): (podcast4): Play in new window | Download

  • Similarities between Sharia and Communism
  • Ties between global Islamist organizations and jihadists

(PART FIVE) (podcast5): Play in new window | Download

  • ISIS’s ideology and the “Last Jihad” message
  • How can the West win the war against Jihad
  • The threat of Saudi Arabia and Qatar
  • Turkey’s turn to fundamental Islam and autocracy

Senate Hearing: While Feds Scrubbed References To Islam, Terrorists Escaped Notice

tedcruz

A Tuesday Senate hearing Sen. Ted Cruz chaired discussed the ‘willful blindness’ of Democrats’ approach to combatting Islamist terrorism.

The Federalist, by M.G. Oprea, June 29, 2016:

On Tuesday, Sen. Ted Cruz chaired an investigative hearing to determine whether law enforcement agencies are deemphasizing radical Islam while investigating terrorism in the United States. Its purpose, according to Cruz’s website, was to “investigate how the federal government has not only refused to appropriately identify the specific threat of radical Islam, but has sought to undermine the people and information who have sought to highlight the threat.”

Provocatively titled “Willful Blindness: Consequences of Agency Efforts to Deemphasize Radical Islam in Combating Terrorism,” the hearing comes just weeks after Omar Mateen shot and killed 49 people in an Orlando night club and injured dozens more. In his opening remarks, Cruz said, “the consequence of the willful blindness of a policy, that is a matter of administration policy, that refuses to acknowledge the threat, means over and over again this administration has allowed the threats to go forward.”

In the weeks following the ISIS-inspired terrorist attack, Democratic leaders and media elites once again tried to blame the attacks on everything under the sun other than Islamic radicalism. White Christians, Republicans, gun laws, and anti-gay bigotry are for liberals the worst culprits.

But it’s not just the mainstream media and the far-left selling this bill of goods. Incredibly, this rhetoric has been coming from our government. President Obama made a public statement in the days after the Orlando attack doubling down on his commitment not to speak about Islam when addressing any terrorist attacks, even when they are manifestly inspired or encouraged by ISIS or other Islamist ideology.

Denying Reality Gets People Killed

Last week, the FBI released a heavily redacted transcript of Mateen’s 911 call, in which he pledged his allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The FBI had scrubbed references to ISIS and changed his use of “Allah” to “God,” as though it were a translation rather than a transcript. Most damning of all, however, was the revelation that the FBI was aware of Mateen’s presence, had interviewed him three times in the past few years, and knew he belonged to the same mosque as Moner Mohammad Abusalha, the first American suicide bomber in Syria.

Of course, this latest foray into delusion vis-à-vis the relationship between terrorism and Salafist interpretations of Islam, or what Andrew McCarthy referred to in the hearing as “Sharia supremacism,” is preceded by a long history of the Obama administration’s systemic denial of this relationship. We saw similar reactions on the Left and in our government after the Charlie Hebdo shootings, a few weeks after which Obama held a summit on “violent extremism,” as though one can be violently extreme about nothing in particular. There were similar reactions after San Bernardino, Paris, and Brussels.

The hearing Tuesday was meant to shine a spotlight on what can only be described as a systematic and willful blindness to the reality that Islamist ideology is closely linked to terrorism and radicalization. This blindness is a natural consequence of the Obama administration’s reckless national-security policy of “countering violent extremism,” or CVE. McCarthy describes the CVE as “delusionally forbid[ing] the conclusion that radical Islamic ideology has any causative effect on terrorist plotting.”

Among those who testified was Philip Haney, a founding member of the Department of Homeland Security, now turned whistleblower. He described ongoing retaliation while working at DHS for investigations he ran that put the dots together for international Islamist groups that also worked within the United States. Haney was ordered by his superiors to redact the use of Islamic terms in 876 documents, something for which none of the Democrats at the hearing expressed even the slightest bit of concern. He surmises that had his work been allowed to continue, DHS very well could have been alerted to the San Bernardino shooters.

As Long As We Keep Saying It, It Will Be True

In the hearing, Cruz repeatedly brought up Nidal Hassan, the Fort Hood shooter, who was known to have visited radical Islamic websites and been in email contact with a radical cleric. This is important because Hassan’s terrorist attack was one of the earliest occurrences of the Obama administration’s insistence that there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism, because the White House fundamentally rejects the notion that Islam inspires violence. The military officially labeled the Fort Hood shooting “workplace violence,” despite what Hassan himself claims it was.

Another major point raised in Tuesday’s hearing was the scrubbing of terms like “Islam” and “jihad” in DHS training materials over the past several years. This was compared with the 9/11 Commission report, where Islam-related words showed up more than 100 times. Notably, one of the panelists, Farhana Khera, is president of Muslim Advocates, the organization that requested in writing that these training materials be “purged” of these “bigoted” terms.

Not surprisingly, Khera spent much of her time testifying in the exact kind of doublespeak that the hearing was there to discuss. She said dangerous political rhetoric regarding Islam is teaching Americans to fear and hate their Muslim neighbors, despite other panelists arguing that Islam is not a monolithic religion and that there are multiple interpretations, including violent ones, and that these, not the peaceful ones, ought to be condemned. But Khera wasn’t listening. She said she was disturbed by what the other panelists said, calling it “garbage.”

La La La, I’m Not Listening

Panelists like Chris Gaubitz, a national security consultant at Understanding the Threat Consulting Firm, pointed out that we could kill every member of ISIS and al-Qaeda, but without addressing the spread of sharia doctrine, Islamist terrorism won’t end. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, urged an honest conversation about Islamist terrorism, arguing that by refusing to talk about it we are infantilizing Muslims by supposing they are too fragile to hear a frank discussion about Islam. According to him, “to say that Islam has no problems is just as problematic as saying Islam and Muslims are the problem”

Several Democratic senators tried to make analogies to the KKK and Christianity, arguing that just like we don’t call white-supremacist groups “radical Christians” neither should we call individuals and groups who perpetrate terrorist acts in the name of Islam “radical Muslims.” Meanwhile, Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, spent much of his time discussing how the focus on Islamic terrorism in the last 15 years has blinded us to the serious problems in our country with radical right-wing terrorists.

During the Senate hearing, Turkey’s Ataturk airport was attacked by suicide bombers, killing dozens, and al-Qaeda released a special edition of their English-language publication Inspire Guide urging lone-wolf attackers to target the “Anglo-Saxon community” so their acts won’t be misinterpreted as “hate crimes” but rather what they really are: religiously motivated terrorist attacks. How painfully ironic that Islamist terrorists are so flummoxed by the liberal West’s insistence on ignoring their motivations that they had to make an official statement to clarify things.

In the end, the hearing appeared an effort in futility. It seemed as though half the room lives in an alternate reality. But only one of those realities is real. And only one of them will win out in the end.

M. G. Oprea is a writer based in Austin, Texas. She holds a PhD in French linguistics from the University of Texas at Austin. You can follow her on Twitter here.

***

Also see:

UTT Testifies About Jihadi Threat at Senate Hearing

Screen-Shot-2016-06-29-at-12.48.12-AMUnderstanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, June 29. 2016:

UTT’s Chris Gaubatz testified on Capitol Hill Tuesday before a U.S. Senate hearing on the use of the term “Radical Islam” in discussing the terrorism threat to the United States.

Mr. Gaubatz set the stage with laying out the threat America faces from the Global Islamic Movement:

“UTT is the only organization in America which trains law enforcement, intelligence professionals, military, and leaders on the threat from the Global Islamic Movement, the doctrine of jihadi groups, and how to identify, investigate, and dismantle them.  At UTT, we hold the firm belief that in order to defeat the Global Jihad, we must understand the enemy. US military war fighting doctrine, specifically the , ‘Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield Manual’, states war-planners must begin all analysis of the enemy threat with (1) who the enemy says they are, and (2) why they are fighting us.  That becomes the basis for determining the enemy threat doctrine, which, in the case of jihadis, is sharia – Islamic law. Universally, the enemy – jihadis – whether they are ISIS, Al Qaeda, or the Muslim Brotherhood, all state they are Muslims waging jihad in the cause of Allah to establish an Islamic State (Caliphate) under sharia.”

After detailing the Muslim Brotherhood’s dangerous doctrine, Mr. Gaubatz related his personal experiences working undercover at Hamas offices in the U.S. (CAIR):

“During my time conducting undercover research as an intern with Hamas, both at CAIR MD/VA in Herndon, VA, and CAIR National in Washington DC, I preserved documents that revealed Hamas doing business as CAIR:

  *Conspired to cover-up fraud committed by one of their attorneys
  *Discussed coordinating with Bin Laden and his associates
  *Placed staffers and interns inside congressional offices
  *Conspired to influence congress, specifically judiciary, intelligence, and homeland security committees
  *Impact congressional districts, tasking each Hamas Chapter with influencing at least two legislators
  *Ordered books from the Saudi embassy on the virtue of jihad and martyrdom
  *Worked with a Muslim law enforcement officer to influence a major terrorism investigation by accessing a classified federal police database and tipping off the suspect

“The current administration and the US national security apparatus continues to use leaders of Muslim Brotherhood groups like ISNA, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), CAIR, and others to provide direct input into American foreign policy and domestic counter-terrorism strategies.”

With a strong finish, Mr. Gaubatz made clear the dire threat America faces if we do not reverse course immediately and address the enemy.

“According to our enemy – the Global Islamic Movement, made up of many groups including Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, Tabligi Jamaat, Boko Haram, Hamas, Hizbollah, many nation states including Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and many others – they all seek to impose sharia on the planet. It is also the blueprint from which they create their war-fighting strategies. From a U.S. war-fighting perspective, that naturally makes sharia the enemy threat doctrine and adherents to sharia a direct threat to the Republic. Until American leaders and national security professionals identify the threat and formulate policies and strategies that address adherents to this ideology we will continue on our current path of defeat and eventually lose this war here at home as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Mr. Gaubatz’s remarks can be seen HERE from 00:55:03-01:02:18

***

If you scroll down to “user created clips” you can view Chris Gaubatz’s testimony

Café Countersuit Accuses Muslim Women of ‘Civilizational Jihad’

Facebook

Facebook

Breitbart, by Adelle Nazarian, June 24, 2016:

The attorney representing the Muslim owner of a popular Orange County café is countersuing a group of Muslim women who initially sued her business for anti-Muslim discrimination. The counter-suit accuses the group of waging “civilizational jihad” and trespassing.

According to the UK Guardian, David Yerushalmi of the Los Angeles-based American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), the lawyer representing Urth Caffé in Laguna Beach and café owner Jilla Berkman alleged that the initial lawsuit was part of a wider “civilizational jihad” being waged by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which aims “to weaken western civilization”. Further, Yerushalmi reportedly said the women’s discrimination suit was a form of “extortion”, calling the lawyers representing the seven female Muslim plaintiffs “ambulance chasers.”

The seven women, six of whom wore hijabs (a traditional head covering required under Sharia law and in most Muslim countries) claimed that they were asked to leave before they finished eating at the café, and suggested the owner called the police on them due to Islamophobia. However, the restaurant has a stated 45-minute time limit per table and Yerushalmi argued that his client said the women “were loud and abusive to the Urth Caffe employees and refused to give up their table per the stated policy.” Berkman personally authorized one of her employees to call the police on the women.

“That night, as every Friday night, a large number of young people, including a majority of whom are Muslim and of Arab descent, make up the base of Urth Caffe’s customers,” Yerushalmi wrote. “Not surprisingly, many of these customers are women wearing hijabs. None of these other Muslim women were asked to leave.”

Mohammad Tajsar, one of the attorneys representing the Muslim women, had painted the incident as just he latest in a series of hate crimes against Muslims in the area.

Yerushalmi pointed out in the initial case that “the lead plaintiff in the frivolous lawsuit is Sara Farsakh, a college-age activist for Palestinian causes who self-promotes her involvement in radical organizations, at least one of which calls for the destruction of Israel.” He also noted that “the organization behind the scenes organizing this fraudulent lawsuit is CAIR.”

(CAIR has been declared a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates and was named by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-funding operation.)

Yet CAIR’s Executive Director in Los Angeles, Hussam Ayloush, told the Guardian that contrary to Yerushalmi’s allegations, his organization was not involved with the Urth Caffé case. He blasted Yerushalmi in an interview with the Guardian‘s Nicky Woolf, saying “if anyone had any doubts about what happened on that day, those doubts are eliminated by the fact that the owners of Urth Caffé decided to retain David Yerushalmi. There are 1.2 million attorneys in America, and for them to choose the most hateful, the most bigoted attorney, tells a lot about the values that Urth Caffe’s owners hold.”

CAIR has often had a hand in representing Muslims in troubling situations. For example, they helped the families of San Bernardino terrorists Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik. a

As for the claims of Islamophobia against Yerushalmi, he issued the following statement to the Guardian:

I represent Muslim Americans, running from jihad and seeking asylum. If you want to say I’m an anti-jihad lawyer, you’re 100% right. Am I anti-Sharia? Yes, I am. Am I anti-Muslim? Not if he doesn’t have a gun in his hand shooting at me.

Follow Adelle Nazarian on Twitter @AdelleNaz