The Strategy for Victory Begins with Sheriffs and Pastors

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Sept. 26, 2016:

Victory is word few people are using these days when discussing the war – a war against the entire Global Islamic Movement including ISIS, Al Qaeda and the hundreds of other jihadi groups and nation-states supporting them.

Some do not know we are in a war.  Others know but pretend we are not.

But some people know we are at war, know the enemy, and are willing to do whatever it takes to win.  This article is for those people.

surrender_of_lord_cornwallis-768x506

There exists in the United States a massive and growing conglomeration of hard-left/marxist organizations working with jihadi (“terrorist”) leaders and organizations – led primarily by the Muslim Brotherhood – preparing for battle at the ground level in America.  Our enemy has co-opted the elite class in America from both political parties who are providing direct support to them along the way.

When the threat organizations and supporters of the enemy movement are mapped across the U.S., it can be seen that a massive insurgency exists inside the United States.

A cursory examination of jihadi front organizations in America reveals there are now approximately 3,000 Islamic Centers/mosques in all 50 states (most of which are a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement), over 700 Muslim Students Associations (recruiting jihadis) on every university/college campus in the U.S., almost 200 Islamic Societies (all subsidiaries of the MB’s Islamic Society of North America – ISNA), and thousands of other organizations the Muslim Brotherhood has created since it published its Implementation Manual in 1992 dictating the types of organizations which must be created for the Movement to achieve its objectives.

The Brotherhood has organizations dedicated to working with the U.S. Congress (taking them on junkets to Saudi Arabia), at the State Legislature level (taking them on junkets to Turkey), at the local level with school boards and city councils, with Christian and Jewish organizations through the facade of “Interfaith Outreach,” and through many other channels.  President Bush implemented Sharia Compliant Financing measures during his time in office, thereby creating Islamic banking as an official part of the U.S. government – which necessarily funds jihad (“terrorism”).  Legal, media, social, and children’s organizations are all part of this network.

For many, the problem seems too big to tackle.  But that is not the case.

The remedy for an insurgency is a counter-insurgency.  In a counterinsurgency, the focus of the battle is at the local level.

At the local level, local police become the tip of the spear.

In order for local police to identify the jihadi network in their local areas, they must first understand the threat and be able to map it out.  Once they do this, they can rip it out by its roots.

UTT’s experience is that when law enforcement officers hear and understand the information in UTT’s programs detailing Islamic sharia and the jihadi network in the United States, they understand it at a deep and practical level.  Our enemies know this, which is why they work very hard to keep UTT and its programs from ever being heard by professionals in law enforcement or national security.

The most powerful law enforcement officers in America are Sheriffs.

In order for law enforcement to aggressively pursue the enemy, they must have the support of a community who understands the threat and agrees it must be dealt with.

Pastors are key leaders in this effort.  And herein lies the problem.

American Pastors have, for the most part, stood silent since 9/11 while hundreds of thousands of Christians all over the world have been – and continue to be – butchered, tortured, and slaughtered by the armies of Mohammad (ISIS, Al Qaeda, et al).  Many Pastors – of all faiths – have failed to speak truth into this evil that is destroying Christian communities across the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere.  Many Americans are stunned by what they describe as utter cowardice by Christian leaders.

Renowned Islamic expert Bill Warner puts it quite succinctly:

“In Nashville, Tennessee we have a new clerical circumcision.  The ministers to be and the seminarians get their foreskin removed, their testicles removed, their backbone removed, and the frontal lobes of their brain removed.  It produces the perfect clergyman.  He smiles, is very pleasant.  But he grovels and can’t stand up on his back legs and support anything.”

This must change.  The faithful of America cannot passively sit by.  They must take an active role in pushing leaders in their churches to speak truth and take action or step down.

County by county and state by state, this war will be won at the local level.

Citizens must support Sheriffs who understand this threat and are willing to address it head on.  Those who lack the knowledge or courage need to be given an opportunity to do the right thing, but if they do not, they must be replaced with leaders who will speak truth and protect and defend their communities.

Here are a few things you can do:

  1.  Speak the truth about the threat.  Citizens who do understand this threat must get to work on educating others and never let an opportunity go by in public forums, county school board meetings, or other venues to speak truth about this threat and identify local leaders unwilling or unable to do their duties so they can be removed and replaced with leaders who will act boldly.
  2. Share resources with others.  Encourage people to use UTT’s resources to learn about the threat through our training programs, Newsletter, YouTube Channel, Facebook Page, and Twitter.
  3. Encourage your Sheriff.  Help your Sheriff by getting a copy of Raising a Jihadi Generation for him and sharing your concerns with him.  He will need to know the citizens are behind him.  Help other leaders in the community understand the threat and bring them with you to speak with the Sheriff.
  4. Speak to State Legislators.  For Sheriffs to do what is needed to identify and dismantle the jihadi network in America, they will need top cover at the state level to protect them from the DOJ and DHS’s assault which is likely to come on any community which uses facts to identify the threat and deal with it.
  5. Bring the UTT 3-Day Law Enforcement program to your area.  Contact UTT to bring our team to your area to train law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and others so they can identify and address the threat.
  6. Remove MSAs from College/University Campuses in Your Area.  The MSAs are MB organizations and are nodes of jihadi recruitment, propaganda, and hate on our campuses.  Alumni from colleges and universities in your area should join together to pressure these schools to shut down the MSAs.  One productive way to do this is to educate large donors about the jihadi network and the MSA’s role in it.  Get donors to commit to refuse to give any money to their alma mater until the school punts the jihadis (MSAs) from their campus.
  7. Identify organizations in the Community Supporting the Jihadis.  Many organizations in are bringing jihadis into your communities under the guise of “refugee resettlement.”  These include the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and Catholic Charities, Lutheran Immigrant Aid Society (LIAS), World Relief Corporation, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and many others.  Citizens need to shut off the spigot of funding to these organizations until they cease outreach to and support of jihadis and their organizations.
  8. Host a Viewing of Understanding the Threat to America.  Bring citizens together for a viewing of the DVDUnderstanding the Threat to America and have one of UTT’s leaders skype in and answer questions and give updates for them to detail what can be done at the ground level to identify and dismantle the jihadi threat in your area.

As in any war, the majority of people will not get involved.  It is up to the few who are willing and able to stand in the gap and defend the Republic.

You are needed now.

France: Human Rights vs. The People

Gatestone Institute, by Yves Mamou, September 22, 2016:

  • French politicians seem to believe they are elected NOT to defend French people and the French nation, but to impose a “human rights ideology” on society.
  • The rule of law is there to protect citizens from the arbitrary actions of the State. When a group of French Muslims attacks the entire way society is constructed, the rule of law now protects only the perpetrators.
  • For Western leaders, “human rights” have become a kind of new religion. Like a disease, the human rights ideology has proliferated in all areas of life. The UN website shows a list of all the human rights that are now institutionalized: they range from “adequate housing” to “youth.” At least 42 categories of human rights fields are determined, each of which are split into two or three subcategories.
  • With what result? More than 140 countries (out of 193 UN members) engage in torture. The number of authoritarian countries has increased. Women remain a subordinate class in nearly all countries.
  • “Saudi Arabia ratified the treaty banning discrimination against women in 2007, and yet by law subordinates women to men in all areas of life. Child labour exists in countries that have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Powerful western countries, including the US, do business with grave human rights abusers.” — Eric Posner, professor at the University of Chicago Law School.
  • Human rights, originally conceived of as an anti-discrimination tool, became a Trojan horse, a tool manipulated by Islamists and others to dismantle secularism, freedom of speech and freedom of religion in European countries.

On August 13, the Administrative Court in Nice, France, validated the decision of the Mayor of Cannes to prohibit wearing religious clothing on the beaches of Cannes. By “religious clothing,” the judge clearly seemed to be pointing his finger at the burkini, a body-covering bathing suit worn by many Muslim women.

These “Muslim textile affairs” reveal two types of jihad attacking France: one hard, one soft. The hard jihad, internationally known, consists of assassinating journalists of Charlie Hebdo (January 2015), Jewish people at the Hypercacher supermarket (January 2015) and young people at the Bataclan Theater, restaurants and the Stade de France (November 2015). The hard jihad also included stabbing two policeman in Magnanville, a suburb of Paris, (June 2016); truck-ramming to death 84 people in Nice on Bastille Day (July 14), and murdering a priest in the church of Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, among other incidents. The goal of hard jihad, led by ISIS, al-Qaeda, and others, is to impose sharia by terror.

The soft jihad is different. It does not involve murdering people, but its final goal is the same: to impose Islam on France by covering the country in Islamic symbols — veils, burqas, burkinis and so on — at all levels of the society: in schools, universities, hospitals, corporations, streets, beaches, swimming pools and public transportation. By imposing the veil everywhere, soft Islamists seem to want to kill secularism, which, since escaping the grip of the Catholic Church, has become the French way of “living together.”

Scenes from the “hard jihad” against France; the November 2015 shootings in Paris, in which 130 people were murdered by Islamists.

No one can understand secularism in France without a bit of history.

“Secularism is essential if we want the ‘people’ be defined on a political basis” wrote the French historian, Jacques Sapir.

“Religious allegiance, when it turns into fundamentalism, is in conflict with the notion of sovereignty of the people. … the Nation and State in France were built historically by fighting feudalism and the supranational ambition of the Pope and Christian religion. … Secularism is the tool to return to the private sphere all matters that cannot be challenged comfortably …. Freedom for diversity among individuals implies a consensus in the common public sphere. The distinction between the public sphere and the private sphere is fundamental for democracy to exist.”

And this distinction is secularism.

The Problem Now is Political

French politicians seem to believe they are elected NOT to defend French people and the French nation, but to impose a “human rights ideology” on society. They also seem unable to understand the challenges that common people in the streets are currently facing. They are also unable or unwilling to defend the country against either hard or soft jihad.

French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, for instance, said in a July 29 interview for Le Monde:

“We must focus on everything that is effective [to fight Islamism], but there is a line that may not be crossed: the rule of law. … My government will not be the one to create a Guantanamo, French-style.”

Only Yves Michaud, a French philosopher, dared to point out that the rule of law is there to protect citizens from the arbitrary actions of the State. When a group of French Muslims attacks the entire way society is constructed, the rule of law now protects only the perpetrators.

The same is true for French President François Hollande. After the murder by two Islamists of the Father Jacques Hamel in Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray in July 2016, he said: “We must lead the war by all means in respect of the rule of law.”

Elisabeth Levy, publisher of the French magazine, Causeur, wrote in response:

“We need to know: by all means? … Or in respect of the rule of law? What is this rule of law that authorizes a judge to release an Islamist interested in waging jihad in Syria and, because he could not go to Syria, was free while wearing an electronic bracelet, to walk the streets to slit the throat of a priest?”

She concluded: “If we want to protect our liberties, it might be interesting to take some liberties with the rule of law.”

The ideology of human rights is common to all European countries. Because authorities in European countries act, speak and legislate on the basis of human rights, they put themselves in a position of weakness when they have to name, apprehend and fight an Islamist threat.

In Sweden:

A 46-year-old Bosnian ISIS jihadi, considered extremely dangerous, was taken into custody by the Malmö police. The terrorist immediately applied for asylum, the Swedish Migration Agency stepped in, took over the case — and prevented him from being deported. Inspector Leif Fransson of the Border Police told the local daily newspaper, HD/Sydsvenskan: “As soon as these people throw out their trump card and say ‘Asylum’, the gates of heaven open. Sweden has gotten a reputation as a safe haven for terrorists.”

In Germany: Chancellor Angela Merkel said in a press conference, at the end of July 2016, that her mission was not to defend German people and German identity but “to fulfill humanitarian obligations [towards migrants].” She added it was “our historic task… a historic test in times of globalization.”

For Western Leaders, Human Rights Has Become a New Religion

The human rights movement was born in 1948 with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, launched by Eleanor Roosevelt. For 70 years, nine major “core” human rights treaties were written and ratified by the vast majority of countries.

Like a disease, the “human rights ideology” has proliferated in all areas of life. The United Nations website shows a list of all the human rights that are now institutionalized: they range from “adequate housing” to “youth” and include “Food”, “Freedom of Religion and Belief”, “HIV/AIDS”, “Mercenaries”, “Migration”, “Poverty”, “Privacy”, “Sexual orientation and gender identity”, “Situations”, ” Sustainable Development”, “Water and sanitation.” At least 42 categories of human rights fields are determined, each of which are split into two or three subcategories.

With what result? More than 140 countries (out of 193 countries that belong to the UN) engage in torture. The number of authoritarian countries has increased: “105 countries have seen a net decline in terms of freedom, and only 61 have experienced a net improvement” reported the NGO, Freedom House, in 2016. Women remain a subordinate class in nearly all countries. Children continue to work in mines and factories in many countries.

Professor Eric Posner of the University of Chicago Law School, writes:

“Saudi Arabia ratified the treaty banning discrimination against women in 2007, and yet by law subordinates women to men in all areas of life. Child labour exists in countries that have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child: Uzbekistan, Tanzania and India, for example. Powerful western countries, including the US, do business with grave human rights abusers.”

What is disturbing is not that the “religion” of “anti-discrimination” has become a joke. What is disturbing is that human rights, originally conceived of as an anti-discrimination tool, became a Trojan horse, a tool manipulated by Islamists and others to dismantle secularism, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion in European countries. What is disturbing is that human rights and anti-discrimination policies are dismantling nations, and placing States in a position of incapacity — or perhaps just unwillingness — to name Islamism as a problem and take measures against it.

The Religion of Human Rights as a Tool of Europe’s Muslim Brotherhood

Jean-Louis Harouel, Professor of the History of Law at the Paris-Panthéon-Assas University, recently published a book entitled, Les Droits de l’homme contre le peuple (Humans Rights against the People). In an interview with Le Figaro, he said:

“Human rights, are what we call in France ‘fundamental rights’. They were introduced in the 70’s. The great beneficiaries of fundamental rights were foreigners. Islam took advantage of it to install in France, in the name of human rights and under its protection, Islamic civilization, mosques and minarets, the Islamic way of life, halal food prescriptions, clothing and cultural behavior — Islamic laws even in violation of French law: religious marriage without civil marriage, polygamy, unilateral divorce of wife by husband, etc.

“Through the assertion of identity, Islamists and mainly UOIF [Union of Islamic Organizations of France — the French branch of the Muslim Brotherhood] exploited human rights to install their progressive control on populations of Northern African descent, and coerce them to respect the Islamic order. In particular, they do all that they can to prevent young [Arab] people who are born in France from becoming French citizens.”

The human rights and anti-discrimination “religion” also gave Islam and Islamists a comfortable position from which to declare war on France and all other European countries. It seems whatever crime they are committing today and will commit in the future, Muslims and Islamists remain the victim. For example, just after the November 13 terrorist attacks in France, in which more than 130 people were murdered by Islamists at the Bataclan Theater, the Stade de France, cafés and restaurants, Tariq Ramadan, an Islamist professor at Oxford University, tweeted:

“I am not Charlie, nor Paris: I am a warrant search suspect”.

Ramadan meant that because of the emergency laws and because he was a Muslim, he was an automatic suspect, an automatic victim of racism and “Islamophobia.”

In another example, just after the terrorist attack in Nice on July 14, when an Islamist rammed a truck into a crowd celebrating Bastille Day, killing at least 84 people, Abdelkader Sadouni, an imam in Nice, told the Italian newspaper Il Giornale: “French secularism is the main and only thing responsible for terror attacks.”

Global Elites against the People

The question now is: have our leaders decided to cope with the real problems of the real people? In other words, are they motivated enough to throw the human rights ideology overboard, restore secularism in society and fight Islamists? The problem is that they do not even seem to understand the problem. What Peggy Noonan, of the Wall Street Journal, wrote about Angela Merkel can apply to all leaders of European countries:

“Ms. Merkel had put the entire burden of a huge cultural change not on herself and those like her but on regular people who live closer to the edge, who do not have the resources to meet the burden, who have no particular protection or money or connections. Ms. Merkel, her cabinet and government, the media and cultural apparatus that lauded her decision were not in the least affected by it and likely never would be.

Nothing in their lives will get worse. The challenge of integrating different cultures, negotiating daily tensions, dealing with crime and extremism and fearfulness on the street — that was put on those with comparatively little, whom I’ve called the unprotected. They were left to struggle, not gradually and over the years but suddenly and in an air of ongoing crisis that shows no signs of ending — because nobody cares about them enough to stop it.

The powerful show no particular sign of worrying about any of this. When the working and middle class pushed back in shocked indignation, the people on top called them “xenophobic,” “narrow-minded,” “racist.” The detached, who made the decisions and bore none of the costs, got to be called “humanist,” “compassionate,” and “hero of human rights.”

So the fight against Islamism might first consist of a fight against the caste that governs us.

Yves Mamou, based in France, worked for two decades as a journalist for Le Monde.

DEADLIEST LIE: Without ‘Lone Wolf’ Lie, U.S. Could Have Stopped Nearly EVERY ATTACK

lone-wolf-terror-attack-sized-770x415xt

PJ Media, by Andrew C. McCarthy, Sept. 21, 2016:

Some time ago, the invaluable Patrick Poole coined the term “known wolf,” sharply shredding the conventional Washington wisdom that “lone wolf” terrorism is a major domestic threat.

Pat has tracked the phenomenon for years, right up to the jihadist attacks this weekend in both the New York metropolitan area and St. Cloud, Minnesota.

Virtually every time a terror attack has occurred, the actor initially portrayed as a solo plotter lurking under the government’s radar turns out to be — after not much digging – an already known (sometimes even, notorious) Islamic extremist.

As amply demonstrated by Poole’s reporting, catalogued here by PJ Media, “lone wolves” –virtually every single one — end up having actually had extensive connections to other Islamic extremists, radical mosques, and (on not rare occasions) jihadist training facilities.

The overarching point I have been trying to make is fortified by Pat’s factual reporting. It is this: There are, and can be, no lone wolves.

The very concept is inane, and only stems from a willfully blind aversion to the ideological foundation of jihadist terror: Islamic supremacism.

The global, scripturally rooted movement to impose sharia — in the West, to incrementally supersede our culture of reason, liberty, and equality with the repressive, discriminatory norms of classical Islamic law — is a pack. The wolves are members of the pack, and that’s why they are the antithesis of “lone” actors. And, indeed, they always turn out to be “known” precisely because their association with the pack, with components of the global movement, is what ought to have alerted us to the danger they portended before they struck.

This is willful blindness, because of the restrictions we have gratuitously imposed on ourselves.

The U.S. government refuses to acknowledge the ideology that drives the movement until after some violent action is either too imminent to be ignored or, sadly more often, until after the Islamic supremacist has acted out the savagery his ideology commands.

The U.S. government consciously avoids the ideology because it is rooted in a fundamentalist, literalist interpretation of Islam. Though it is but one of many ways to construe that religion, the remorseless fact is that it is a mainstream construction, adhered to by tens of millions of Muslims and supported by centuries of scholarship.

I say “the U.S. government” is at fault here because, contrary to Republican campaign rhetoric that is apparently seized by amnesia, this is not merely an Obama administration dereliction — however much the president and his former secretary of State (and would-be successor) Hillary Clinton have exacerbated the problem.

Since the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, the bipartisan Beltway cognoscenti have “reasoned” (a euphemism for “reckless self-delusion”) that conceding the Islamic doctrinal roots of jihadist terror — which would implicitly concede the vast Islamist (sharia-supremacist) support system without which the global jihadist onslaught would be impossible — is impractical.

But how could acknowledging the truth be impractical?

Especially given that national security hinges on an accurate assessment of threats?

Bipartisan Washington “reasons” that telling the truth would portray the United States as “at war with Islam.” To be blunt, this conventional wisdom can only be described as sheer idiocy.

We know that tens of millions of Muslims worldwide, and what appears to be a preponderance (though perhaps a diminishing one) of Muslims in the West, reject Islamic supremacism and its sharia-encroachment agenda. We know that, by a large percentage, Muslims are the most common victims of jihadist terror. We know that Muslim reformers are courageously working to undermine and reinterpret the scriptural roots of Islamic supremacism — a crucial battle our default from makes far more difficult for them to win. We know that Muslims, particularly those assimilated into the West, have been working with our law enforcement, military, and intelligence agencies for decades to gather intelligence, infiltrate jihadist cells, thwart jihadist attacks, and fight jihadist militias.

None of those Muslims — who are not only our allies, but are in fact us — believes that America is at war with Islam.

So why does Washington base crucial, life-and-death policy on nonsense?

Because it is in the thrall of the enemy. The “war on Islam” propaganda is manufactured by Islamist groups, particularly those tied to the Muslim Brotherhood.

While we resist study of our enemies’ ideology, they go to school on us. They thus grasp three key things:

(1) Washington is so bloated and dysfunctional, it will leap on any excuse to refrain from strong action;(2) the American tradition of religious liberty can be exploited to paralyze our government if national defense against a totalitarian political ideology can be framed as hostility and persecution against an entire religious faith; and

(3) because Washington has so much difficulty taking action, it welcomes claims (or, to be faddish, “narratives”) that minimize the scope and depth of the threat. Topping the “narrative” list is the fantasy that the Islamist ideological support system that nurtures jihadism (e.g., the Muslim Brotherhood and its tentacles) is better seen as a “moderate,” “non-violent” partner with whom we can work, than as what it actually is: the enemy’s most effective agent. The stealth operative that exploits the atmosphere of intimidation created by the jihadists.

In other words, in proceeding from the premise that we must do nothing to convey the notion that we are “at war with Islam” — or, in Obama-Clinton parlance, in proceeding from the premise that we need a good “narrative” rather than a truth-based strategy — we have internalized the enemy’s worldview, a view that is actually rejected by our actual Islamic allies and the vast majority of Americans.

The delusion comes into sharp relief if one listens to Hillary Clinton’s campaign bombast. Robert Spencer incisively quoted it earlier this week:

[W]e know that a lot of the rhetoric we’ve heard from Donald Trump has been seized on by terrorists, in particular ISIS, because they are looking to make this into a war against Islam, rather than a war against jihadists, violent terrorists, people who number maybe in the maybe tens of thousands, not the tens of millions, they want to use that to recruit more fighters to their cause, by turning it into a religious conflict. That’s why I’ve been very clear. We’re going after the bad guys and we’re going to get them, but we’re not going to go after an entire religion and give ISIS exactly what it’s wanting in order for them to enhance their position.

Sheer idiocy.

Our enemy is not the mere “tens of thousands” of jihadists. (She’s probably low-balling the number of jihadists worldwide, but let’s indulge her.) It is not merely ISIS, nor merely ISIS and al-Qaeda — an organization Mrs. Clinton conveniently omits mentioning, since it has replenished, thanks to Obama-Clinton governance and despite Obama-Clinton claims to have defeated it, to the point that it is now at least as much a threat as it was on the eve of 9/11.

ISIS and al-Qaeda are not the sources of the threat against us. They are theinevitable results of that threat.

The actual threat, the source, is Islamic supremacism and its sharia imposition agenda.

The support system, which the threat needs to thrive, does indeed include tens of millions of Islamists, some small percentage of whom will inexorably become violent jihadists, but the rest of whom will nurture the ideological aggression and push the radical sharia agenda — in the media, on the campus, in the courts, and in the policy councils of government that they have so successfully influenced and infiltrated.

Obviously, to acknowledge that we are at war with this movement, at war with Islamic supremacism, is not remotely to be “at war with Islam.” After all, Islamic supremacism seeks conquest over all of Islam, too, and on a much more rapid schedule than its long-term pursuit of conquest over the West. Islamic supremacism is not a fringe movement; it is large and, at the moment, a juggernaut. But too much of Islam opposes Islamic supremacism to be confused with it.

Moreover, even if being at war with Islamic supremacists could be persuasivelyspun as being “at war with Islam” — i.e., even if we were too incompetent to refute our enemies’ propaganda convincingly — it would make no difference.

The war would still be being prosecuted against us. We have to fight it against the actual enemy, and we lose if we allow enemies to dupe us into thinking they are allies. We have to act on reality, even if Washington is too tongue-tied to find the right words for describing reality.

The enemy is in our heads and has shaped our perception of the conflict, to the enemy’s great advantage. That’s how you end up with inanities like “lone wolf.”

The 3 flaws in Rep. McCaul’s plan to secure the homeland

Carolina K. Smith MD | Shutterstock

Carolina K. Smith MD | Shutterstock

Conservative Review, by Daniel Horowitz and Nate Madden, Sept. 21, 2016:

It’s impossible to craft a solution to a security threat when policy-makers refuse to identify the nature of the threat, its source, and its threat doctrine. Given that Democrats refuse to even recognize any correlation between any form of Islam and Jihad, their policies reflect a perfectly consistent and unvarnished willful blindness of the modern jihadist threat. In releasing the House GOP’s plan to combat Islamic terror, however, Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas. (F, 58%) exhibits the same systemic misdiagnosis of the problem, albeit one that is a step or two closer to the truth than the Democrats.

Yesterday, Chairman McCaul unveiled “A National Strategy to Win the War against Islamist Terror.” While the plan at least references Islamic terror as the key threat and very broadly and generally outlines worthy end-goals, the overarching outline has two fatal flaws.

  • It still refuses to name names when it comes to specific threats and;
  • The overall policy objectives, strategies, and suggestions, are overly general, almost vacuous, and obfuscate the true common sense path forward screaming out for much-needed attention from our political leaders.

This all stems from McCaul’s refusal to identify the specific threat of mass Sharia-adherent immigration, unreformed-Islam in general, and the fifth column that operates within this country to ensure that Muslim communities become disenchanted with America’s constitutional system of government.

The introduction sets the tone for the entire policy paper. McCaul asserts that “Islamist terrorists have perverted a major religion into a hateful worldview, and while most Muslims do not share their beliefs, their influence is spreading like wildfire.” While this definitely sounds more refreshing than the Democrat refusal to mention Islam at all, it is still a factually troubled statement because it completely divorces the problem from anything inherent in the practice of the religion itself by those who strictly adhere to Sharia. That is not a small group of people perverting a religion and it’s not isolated to terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS. While ISIS’s successful propaganda campaign has definitely fanned the flames and provided Sharia-adherents with a fulfillment of the caliphate, the problem existed long before 2013 and will continue after the caliphate collapses.

McCaul continues down this false narrative of divorcing “terrorists” (the scary network people abroad) from the general population of Sharia-supporting Muslims already living in America or those who seek to immigrate: “Terrorists are trying to send operatives to our shores and radicalize new ones in U.S. communities.”

Once again, McCaul believes that the threat is limited to potential infiltration of known terror networks into immigrant or native Muslim populations, completely disregarding the inherent threat of large populations of Sharia-adherents clustered together in the West. It’s as if McCaul can’t find Europe on a map.

Moreover, McCaul completely ignores the fact that civilization jihad is being waged on our shores, within the government, and within our political class by the Muslim Brotherhood to radicalize Muslim communities and marginalize reformists. They don’t need to send operatives to our shores when Hamas fundraisers are already here, obtaining security clearances and downright training our law enforcement in “counter terrorism.”

While this is not the bold Hillary/Obama form of willful blindness, it presents us with Bush 2.0, a woefully inadequate approach – especially after eight years of Obama’s malfeasance.

The willful blindness in identifying the threat and its doctrine manifests in many of the polices laid out by the report:

Immigration/Refugees

McCaul’s report speaks of the need for better “vetting” of immigrants. He even mentions researching an applicant’s social media posting to see if they have pledged support to a terror group. But foundationally, he has no inherent problem with the record-high immigration from the Middle East. While this approach is one step ahead of the Obama blindness, in which applicants have a right to “privacy” from DHS officials investigating their social media activity, it misses the point. This is not merely about vetting for known individual terrorists or those espousing support for terrorist networks. This is about those who subscribe to the ideology that cultivates the climate of homegrown terror in the family, neighborhood, and community.

Take the case of Somali immigration, for example. We have admitted well over 100,000 Somali refugees over the past two decades — in contravention to America’s national interests on any level. Dozens from the Minneapolis community have been charged with terrorism-related activities, and statements from the U.S. Attorney in Minnesota indicate that there is a culture that runs much deeper than those numbers suggest. Was this something we could have weeded out through “vetting” 15-25 years ago? Perhaps in a few cases. But for the most part, this is a cumulative problem inherent in mass migration from dangerous Islamic countries.

This is the enduring lesson from the jihadists of Boston, Ft. Hood, Chattanooga, San Bernardino, Orlando, and the pair of Somali and Afghani immigrants who perpetrated attacks this past weekend. Typically, the parents will not engage in terrorism. Nonetheless, they cluster in communities that adhere to Sharia and are educated through Muslim Brotherhood propaganda. The attackers in each of these cases were the second generation; the children brought to America by their parents or born on American soil. McCaul’s plan to look myopically for connections or allegiance to a specific terror group might save a few more lives than under the Obama Administration, but it fails to identify the core of the problem and the enduring lessons from Europe.

Prison jihadism

To its credit, the report rightly warns that our prisons have become veritable jihadist breeding grounds, but it declines to name the biggest contributor to that reality. “As the number of convicted homegrown terrorists grows, so does the risk that our prisons will become wellsprings of fanaticism,” it reads. The report continues,

The federal government must examine non-governmental rehabilitation options for convicted terrorists to prevent more individuals from entering the prison system primed to spread their hateful ideology. The Bureau of Prisons should also take steps to combat prison radicalization, including proactively monitoring known extremists and putting measures in place to prevent them from inspiring fellow inmates to embrace terror.

One can only hope the federal government would be watching for groups with ties to organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood. Or how about the Islamic Society of North America, which was found on a list of Chaplaincy Endorsers provided by the federal government earlier this year. However, without making that clear, we cannot expect the federal government to do just that.

Thirteen years ago, the FBI arrested Abdurahman Alamoudi,the man responsible for establishing the entire Muslim chaplaincy program within the Bureau of Prisons, for funding Al Qaeda. In 2003, Chuck Schumer railed against the Bush administration for doing nothing to investigate all the people Alamoudi appointed (more on this from Ben Weingarten’s article yesterday). What is McCaul doing to this very day to go after the Muslim Brotherhood in the chaplaincy?

Terrorist travel

Here, again, the report confronts us with a premise that, as a baseline, nobody can find much fault. However, in doing so, the report muddles the details. It rightly states that jihadists leaving the United States to visit high-risk countries is a massive security concern, but says very little substantively to directly confront the problem. Perhaps the worst part of the report is that it calls on the Obama administration — which did a phenomenal job of enlisting Muslim Brotherhood affiliates for its ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ program — to develop a plan to stop jihadists from re-entering the United States. It says nothing of the plans already before Congress, like the Expatriate Terrorist Act, which would strip the citizenship of anyone who leaves to train with a foreign terror organization.

Instead, it says, “The White House should produce a strategy to combat terrorist travel and to prevent Americans from leaving to join terrorist organizations.” This is nothing short of laughable, given Obama’s track record.

Conclusion

McCaul is absolutely correct to observe that, fifteen years after 9/11, our counterterrorism policies have failed miserably. But they have failed because we didn’t accurately identify the threat confronting us, and that willful blindness did not begin with the Obama administration. Until political correctness is put aside and the threat is accurately identified, policymakers will continue missing the target with their solutions. This isn’t to say that it’s completely errant, however. Make no mistake, while McCaul’s proposals are far closer to the mark than anything we’ve seen from the Obama Administration thus far, they’re just far enough off of it to still be dangerous. And given McCaul’s prominent role in advising Donald Trump on homeland security, that should concern everyone who wants a bold change in direction.

Germany promotes non-Muslim women wearing hijab

screen-shot-2016-09-16-at-10-11-35-am-596x283WND, by Leo Hohmann, Sept. 16, 2016:

“Enjoy difference – start tolerance,” says the blonde-haired, blue-eyed woman in a new TV ad running in Germany as she appears in a Muslim head covering.

The 18-second ad encourages German women to embrace “tolerance” by wearing the hijab.

The commercial begins with the text “Turkish women wear the hijab,” as a veiled woman is seen with her back to the camera.

But when she turns around she reveals herself as, not a Turk, but a fair-skinned German, before she says, “Me too! It’s beautiful!”

Watch the 18-second TV ad running in Germany:

The ad campaign is funded by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization or UNESCO, as well as German taxpayers.

There has been a international effort to get Western women to wear the Islamic veil to show “solidarity” with Muslims against so-called “Islamophobia.” Special “Hijab Days” have been organized on college campuses throughout Western Europe and the U.S. But on “World Hijab Day” in April, the effort backfired at a prestigious Paris university, where only a few non-Muslim students showed up in hijabs, the New York Times reported. Feminists and secularists condemned the protest as an “insult.”

Rampant sex crimes being covered up

Germany has allowed between 1.5 million and 2 million Muslim migrants to flow across its borders in less than two years, an unprecedented migration that many conservative pundits regard as national suicide.

The country has experienced mass sexual assaults of German women during celebratory events such as New Year’s Eve in Cologne and Hamburg, at public swimming pools and music festivals in other cities.

Gatestone Institute recently reported that sexual violence in Germany has reached “epidemic proportions” and the German government is covering up much of the data that would document this violence.

Up to 90 percent of the sex crimes committed in Germany in 2014 do not appear in the official statistics, according to André Schulz, the head of the Association of Criminal Police.

So instead of unveiling the sex-crime crisis for all to see, the government is teaching its female citizens to cover up and be more tolerant, says Robert Spencer, author of the Jihad Watch blog and numerous books about Islam.

Is that really a hijab?

Not to mention, the ad is deceptive.

“The woman is not wearing a hijab. She’s just wearing a scarf over part of her hair. Much of her hair is showing,” Spencer told WND. “Some of her bare leg shows also as she struts around.”

All these elements of the presentation would make it absolutely unacceptable to the Islamic hardliners that she – and the German government, and UNESCO – are demanding that the Germans tolerate, Spencer said.

“The tolerance is, as always, one way: non-Muslims are told, on pain of charges of ‘racism’ and ‘hate,’ that they must tolerate an authoritarian, supremacist ideology whose adherents aim to take power, and once they do, will not accord non-Muslims that same tolerance.”

Is Germany ‘conquered?’

Anti-Shariah activist Pamela Geller said the ads are not only deceptive but coercive.

“The German government is determined to force its people to accept massive numbers of Muslims into their country, and as this commercial shows, to force them to accept Islamic culture as well,” Geller said. “But this cultural generosity will not be reciprocated. Where are the ads in Saudi Arabia telling Saudis they must accept and tolerate women who go out without their heads covered? It is always only the West that must be tolerant, even to the point of civilizational suicide.

“These are the actions of a conquered people.”

***

The “norming” of Islamic veiling:

***

In this video, Daniel Greenfield explains what Islamic veiling is really about:

See Quran 33:59 English translations – O Prophet ! tell thy wives and thy daughters, and the women of the believers, that they should pull down upon them of their outer cloaks from their heads over their faces. That is more likely that they may thus be recognized and not molested. And ALLAH is Most Forgiving, Merciful.

Also see:

This 9/11 Anniversary is a Call to Action

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Sept. 9, 2016:

It has been fifteen (15) years since September 11, 2001.  It is a day seared in our hearts and minds.

911

Today, we are far from where we thought we would be 15 years after the jihadi attacks of 9/11.  America lost two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we lost thousands of American lives since 9/11.  Many have allowed themselves to be lied to about the true nature of the threat without any evidence they care about their ignorance.

Our leaders in both political parties have betrayed us and brought the Republic to a gravely dangerous point in our history.  Some say we are on the brink of destruction.

This weekend is meant to remember the dead of September 11, 2001, but it is also a time for Americans to dedicate themselves to defending freedom without apology.  It is a time to recall our duties as citizen soldiers, stand in the gap and refuse to surrender one more inch to tyranny and evil.

The cry once again is “Freedom.”

Freedom to speak your mind without concern for whom might be offended.

Freedom to declare the truth about America’s founding as a nation created by God’s divine providence.

Freedom to declare our rights come from God, and no man nor any government nor any tyrannical movement can take them from us.

But Freedom must be fought for.  We are at war whether you like it or not, and this fight requires mature adults who understand what is at stake to step up and engage wherever needed.

And our time is short.

The culmination of decades of work by the hard left/Marxist and Islamic jihadi Movements in the U.S. is coming to fruition right now. The enemy is on the move.  The Marxists and Jihadis are concentrating their forces.

Marxism, Communism and Socialism are evil systems.  They necessarily enslave people and, as history has repeatedly demonstrated, they are systems where few hold power over the masses – and the masses suffer greatly under that tyranny.

Islam obliges jihad (warfare against non-Muslims) until sharia is the law of the land.  This totalitarian system also enslaves and murders those who do not subscribe to its doctrines.

The cry now must be “Freedom.”

f

The four key pillars of our society – Religion, Politics, Education, Media (free press?) – have been nearly obliterated by the hard-left/Marxists.  The Islamic Movement wages their war against Freedom on the very ground given to them by these Marxists.

Action at the local level needs to be taken now.

It is time to take our schools back.  Our universities may be unrecoverable, but our elementary and junior high schools are not.  Teachers teaching lies about America’s history should be aggressively made to teach the truth or bounced out of school.  The Bible should be, once again, the primary text for teaching morality and good character, among other things.

Christian Pastors who preach that any/all behavior is okay, Islam is peaceful, and that we should never offend others, are denying the faith of our founders and undermining the principles of “the law of nature (Natural Law) and nature’s God (Holy Scripture)” upon which our legal system and government are founded.  Such Pastors should be tossed out of their churches by their ears.  That is not “mean,” it is loving to all the people being corrupted by their evil teachings.

Elected officials who continue to violate their Oaths of Office must be held accountable to the people, who are the sovereign in the United States of America.  It begins at the local level.

Media outlets and reporters who continue to be mouthpieces for both the Marxist and Islamic Movements must be held to account.  Whether station sponsors are petitioned or the individual reporters shamed into speaking truth or quitting, action must be taken.

The two most important groups of people in returning the Republic to order and freedom are Sheriffs (most powerful law enforcement officers in America) and Pastors.  If a sheriff and the citizens (motivated by their Pastors) in any given U.S. county or parish understand the dangers we face, they can legally, aggressively, and thoughtfully identify and dismantle the Marxist and Islamic network in their area.

County by county and state by state we can build fortresses of Freedom.

If battle frightens you and you just want peace, you can have it in an instant.  You can surrender.  But we in a battle for the soul of our Republic and that requires action and it requires a fight.

Yes, this Presidential election is critical, and some people may feel a victory for Mr. Trump may not be victory for conservative Patriots. But a defeat for Mr. Trump will be a defeat for all of us.

However, this is a counterinsurgency and the focus of main effort is at the local level.

On this 9/11 anniversary, the cry once again is “Freedom.”  This is not a slogan nor is it hyperbole.  We are in a war and we need to start acting like it.

Lets put Freedom back on the offensive – where it belongs.

We’re at War: The Calm Before the Storm

steve-coughlin

Unconstrained Analytics, by Stephen Coughlin, Sept. 6, 2016:

Stephen Coughlin spoke in Washington, DC at ACTCON 2016, Act for America’s “National Conference and Legislative Briefing: Taking Back America’s Security” about potential terrorist threats to the U.S. homeland. He talked about his former work and his critiques of American intelligence and homeland security agencies. Coughlin also expressed his concern about operational inadequacies at some of those agencies.

Watch the video on the CSPAN website

Transcript of Stephen Coughlin Speech (pdf)

Quotes and Excerpts from the Speech:

WE ARE AT WAR. WE ARE AT WAR WITH AN ENEMY WHO OPENLY DECLARES HIMSELF, THEY IDENTIFY THEIR STRATEGIES, THEY WRITE THEM IN ENGLISH BECAUSE THEY HAVE CONVINCED YOU THAT IF YOU READ THEM, THEY DON’T MEAN ANYTHING, BECAUSE THERE ARE A THOUSAND DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF ISLAM.

THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND. THEY DON’T PLAN TO WIN THE WAR ON THE BATTLEFIELDS OF IRAQ AND SYRIA. THEY PLAN TO WIN THE WAR ON THE INFORMATION BATTLE SPACE HERE. THEY EXECUTE AT THE POLITICAL WARFARE LEVEL, TARGETING CONTROL, TARGETING CONTROL AT DECISIONMAKING TO CONTROL NARRATIVES USED TO ANALYZE AND DISCUSS EVENTS.

FOR EVERY POLITICIAN AND REPORTER AND PEOPLE WHO WANT TO SOUND SMART WHO STARTS OFF THEIR NARRATIVE BY SAYING THAT WHAT ISIS DOES HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ISLAM, I HAVE A SOURCE THAT BEATS EVERY ONE OF THEIR SOURCES AND BEATS IT 50 TIMES OVER. WE ARE BEING CONTROLLED BY NARRATIVES.

THE ENEMY’S MAIN EFFORT IS A SUSTAINED STRATEGIC INFORMATION CAMPAIGN AT THE POLITICAL WARFARE LEVEL. WHAT IS THE OBJECTIVE? TO WIN THE WAR BY DENYING YOU THE ABILITY TO IDENTIFY HIM, THEREBY ALLOWING HIM TO CONTROL YOU.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS AN ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM TO A CULTURAL MARXIST NARRATIVE THAT SEEKS TO DESTROY YOUR IDENTITY.

WHEN YOU HEAR A GENERAL WITH COMBAT RESPONSIBILITIES SAY, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GETS IN THE WAY OF MY DOING MY JOB, WHAT HE JUST TOLD YOU WAS IT WAS MORE IMPORTANT FOR HIM TO BE POLITICALLY CORRECT THAN TO KEEP YOUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS ALIVE AND TO WIN THE WAR.

THE GAME IS THIS WAR IS INTENDED TO BE FOUGHT AT THE POLITICAL WARFARE LEVEL THROUGH CONTROL OF SPEECH. THE ENEMY IT IS NOT JUST THE ISLAMIC ENEMY AT THE POINT AT WHICH THEY TOUCH YOU. IT IS THESE NARRATIVES THAT WERE NOT NECESSARILY CONSTRUCTED BY THEM, BUT ARE BEING ENFORCED THROUGH WHAT ARE CALLED THE HATE SPEECH NARRATIVES.

IN 2005, HE WAS INTERVIEWED IN THIS ARTICLE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT AL QAEDA’S PLAN WAS AS PUBLISHED IN 2005. AND ALL I WANT TO DO IS POINT OUT THAT THEY SAID, IN THE YEAR 2002 THAT BETWEEN 2010 AND 2013 THEY WOULD COLLAPSE THE ARAB STATES, AND THEY WOULD COLLAPSE THE ARAB STATES.

THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO KNOW ME FROM BACK IN 2010 THAT I WAS BRIEFING ON CAPITOL HILL AT THE END OF 2010, WATCH OUT, THE BROTHERHOOD IS GOING TO BE LEADING THE CHARGE TO TAKE DOWN THESE ARAB STATES, IT IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE A FREEDOM MOVEMENT, AND NOBODY IS GOING TO UNDERSTAND THAT FROM BEGINNING TO END IT IS GOING TO BE A TAKEDOWN.

AND THEN FIVE MONTHS LATER, IN FEBRUARY, WE SAW THE ARAB SPRING. OF COURSE THEY KNEW THE ENGLISH SPEAKING JOURNALISTS WOULD GO TO TAHRIR SQUARE AND INTERVIEW ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLE TO TALK ABOUT FREEDOM. THEY KNOW IT IS AS EASY AS GIVING A KID CANDY, GIVING THE WEST WHAT IT WANTS TO HEAR, SO THEY CREATED A PARTY CALLED FREEDOM AND JUSTICE. THEY KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THAT. THEY ALSO KNOW WHAT IT MEANS IS FREEDOM FROM THE LAWS OF MAN, JUSTICE ACCORDING TO SHARIA.

THE FIFTH PHASE WAS TO BEGIN IN 2013 WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CALIPHATE, AND THE FOUNDATION OF THE ISLAMIC STATE. AND, OF COURSE, PHASE SIX WOULD BEGIN IN 2016, AND THAT WOULD BE TOTAL CONFRONTATION.

I THINK THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE HAVE A 2005 ARTICLE WRITTEN BY SOMEBODY INTERVIEWING AL QAEDA ON A DOCUMENT THEY WROTE IN 2002 TELLING YOU WHAT THEIR TIMELINE IS, AND THEY ARE EXACTLY WHERE THEY SAID THEY WOULD BE. EXACTLY WHERE THEY SAID THEY WOULD BE.

WITH SAN BERNARDINO, THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD TOOK CONTROL OF THE NARRATIVE FROM BEGINNING TO END. . . .

OUR NATIONAL LEADERS DECIDED THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD INCLUDING TO ALLOW THEM TO SET THE DEBATE TO ALLOW THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO STAND ON A MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD DIAS TO THREATEN AMERICANS AND TO HAVE THE “LET’S TALK ABOUT HOW MUCH OF A TRAGEDY THIS IS”–AT A MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD MOSQUE.

THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD REPRESENTS LEADERSHIP ELEMENT OF THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY IN AMERICA BECAUSE THEY GET THE MEDIA AND THEY TALK TO OUR GOVERNMENT, IT IS NOT AT ALL CLEAR THAT MOST MUSLIMS AGREE OR EVEN PARTICIPATE IN THAT.

SO THE QUESTION BECOMES, IF YOU ARE MUSLIM, AND YOU WANT TO BE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AND OBEY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, DO YOU THINK YOU’RE GOING TO GO TO THE FBI OR DHS TO REPORT A POSSIBLE TERRORIST EVENT WHEN YOU KNOW THEIR OUTREACH PARTNERS OF THE BROTHERHOOD? ARE YOU GOING TO DO THAT?

WHO GUARANTEES, REALLY, THAT YOU’RE NOT GOING TO GET REPORTS FROM THAT COMMUNITY BESIDES THE BROTHERHOOD WHO ARE THREATENING PEOPLE RIGHT HERE?

WE’RE SEEING THE BROTHERHOOD ACTUALLY ADVERTISE WHAT THEY’RE DOING, WE’RE SEEING OUR GOVERNMENT COMPLETELY AFFILIATE WITH THEM AT THE TIME OF TRAGIC EVENTS, AND IT GOES RIGHT BY PEOPLE.

I WOULD ARGUE THAT OUR WHOLE ORIENTATION TO THE WAR ON TERROR HAS BEEN REDUCED TO INCOHERENCE. AND THAT WE HAVE LOST THE BATTLE AND THE INFORMATION BATTLE SPACE. WE HAVE LOST IT.

THE VERY WAY WE TALK ABOUT THIS WAR ENSURES THAT WE CANNOT EFFECTIVELY ENGAGE IT. LEADERLESS JIHAD, HUMAN TERRAIN, VIOLENT EXTREMISTS, LONE WOLF. EVERY ONE OF THEM ARE NONSENSE. THEY SOUND ANALYTICAL. THEY’RE NOT. THEY ARE DESIGNED TO GET YOU TO TALK ABOUT WHAT A POLITICAL SCIENTIST, A SOCIOLOGIST OR ANTHROPOLOGIST THINKS IS INTELLECTUALLY INTRIGUING WHEN THEY BUILT A MODEL TO UNDERSTAND EVENTS THAT COULD BE EXPLAINED WITHOUT THE MODEL.

IS NATIONAL SECURITY STAFF GOING TO ADMIT THEY GOT IN BED WITH PEOPLE WHO DECLARED THEIR OBJECTIVE WAS TO SUBVERT AMERICA FROM WITHIN BY AMONG OTHER THINGS WORKING WITH THEM? NO.

HOW MANY PEOPLE HEARD WHEN WE HEAR OUR POLITICIANS TALK ABOUT ISIS, THE FIRST THING THEY SAY IS THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ISLAM. HOW MANY PEOPLE HEARD THAT? OKAY. WHY IS IT THAT THEY GET TO TELL YOU WHAT ISLAM IS BUT IF YOU COME UP WITH A FACT-BASED, CITED, USE OF ISLAMIC SOURCES RESPONSE, YOU’RE THE PERSON WHO IS A HATER WHO HAS TO JUSTIFY WHAT HE SAID?

WE GET THE KINETIC PART OF IT, WE’RE ALSO AT WAR WITH THE NONKINETIC STRATEGIES THAT ARE EXECUTING IN PLAIN SIGHT.

SPLINTER MOVEMENT: YOU CREATE A NON-VIOLENT GROUP (LIKE OIC OR THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD), AND THEN A SPLINTER GROUP THAT IS VIOLENT. THEN AS SOON AS THE VIOLENT GROUP HITS, THE NONVIOLENCE SPLINTER SAYS IF YOU WORK WITH US, WE CAN KEEP THEM FROM KILLING YOU. WELL, WHAT DO WE HAVE TO DO? WELL, YOU HAVE TO DO WHAT THEY SAY. OH, OKAY. AND YOU SEE WE’RE GOING TO HELP YOU. WE’RE MODERATE. WE WANT TO HELP YOU. OKAY. THIS IS CLASSICAL SPLINTER MOVEMENT OPERATION. OF COURSE, THE JIHADI ELEMENTS ARE GROUPS LIKE AL QAEDA, OR ISIS, AND THE UMA PAR EXCELLENCE IS THE OIC.

WE DO NOT EVEN UNDERSTAND IN AMERICA THAT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY ESTABLISHMENT DOESN’T EVEN SPEAK IN TERMS OF STRATEGIC DESIGN. SO THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND STRATEGIC INFORMATION OPERATIONS, AND THEY WOULDN’T RECOGNIZE POLITICAL WARFARE INFORMATION CAMPAIGNS COMING AT THEM IF THEIR LIFE DEPENDED ON IT.

POLITICAL WARFARE IS ABOUT CREATING THE COUNTERSTATE WHERE THE OTHER SIDE HAS PEOPLE, TECHNICAL SKILLS, WEAPONS, PROPAGANDA, MEDIA, AND CREATE LINES OF OPERATION THAT ATTACK THE POLITICAL, VIOLENT, NONVIOLENT, ALLIES AND INTERNATIONAL SPEAR HERE. WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO IS RECOGNIZE THAT AT THE STRATEGIC LEVEL AND COUNTER IT. BUT YOU HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT.

ONE OF THE SENIOR GENERALS AT OUR SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND RECENTLY MADE THIS STATEMENT. “WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE MOVEMENT, AND UNTIL WE DO, WE ARE NOT GOING TO DEFEAT IT. WE HAVE NOT DEFEATED THE IDEA. WE DON’T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE IDEA.” THAT’S A GENERAL OFFICER ALLOCATING FORCE TO FIGHT A WAR.

DO YOU THINK THAT ISIS KNOWS THAT OUR GENERALS DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY’RE DOING? DO YOU THINK THE PEOPLE WHO ARE THE OUTREACH PARTNERS FOR OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT KNOW THAT THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY’RE DOING?

LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION. DO YOU THINK THE RUSSIANS KNOW THAT? DO YOU THINK THE CHINESE KNOW THAT?

THE COST OF NOT UNDERSTANDING THE ENEMY IS GETTING HIGH. AND HIGHER EVERY DAY. IT WILL BE INCREASINGLY MEASURED BY NEWS STORIES THAT NARROW IN ON SENIOR LEADERS INABILITY TO ANSWER BASIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE ENEMY. IT WILL MANIFEST ITSELF IN OFFICIAL RESPONSES TO TERRORIST ATTACKS THAT BECOME PROGRESSIVELY LESS REALITY BASED.

HOW MANY PEOPLE FEEL THE CALM BEFORE THE STORM? HOW MANY PEOPLE CAME HERE JUST FEELING A TAD BIT DEMORALIZED?  THE ENEMY’S GOAL IS TO MAKE YOU FEEL HOPELESS AT A TIME WHEN IF YOU REALIZED YOU WEREN’T, YOU COULD TAKE THE UPPER HAND.

Islamists Set Their Sights on Georgia and the Tea Party

unspecified

CounterJihad, y Bruce Cornibe, Sept. 2, 2016:

The Georgia chapter of the Islamist group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), is making a concerted effort to reach out to Republicans and conservative groups in Georgia. Apparently, CAIR wants to reach out to groups that it often demonizes as anti-Muslim bigots and Islamophobes– such as tea party groups— and to educate them on the basics of Islam. Georgia CAIR executive director Edward Ahmed Mitchell thinks that, by concentrating on conservative groups will help “solve the problem.” That is the alleged ‘Islamophobia’ problem. 90.1 FM WABE provides some details on this Muslim Brotherhood inspired outreach:

Georgia CAIR wants to provide an educational ‘Islam 101’ presentation, answer questions and talk about Muslim prayer rituals and demographics.

Mitchell said they typically get a lot of questions about terrorism, and terms like “jihad,” and “Sharia,” and he likes the opportunity to share facts.

We already know that the Muslim Brotherhood in North America is committed to “a Civilization-Jihadist Process” which deals with carrying out a “grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated.” With that said, imagine learning terms like “jihad” and “Sharia” from a Muslim Brotherhood front group like CAIR – a group that is labeled a terrorist organization by the U.A.E. At the very least, folks will not get honest answers from these efforts.

This more intentional type of outreach to conservatives by Islamists might be newer with CAIR Georgia (at least by Mitchell’s comments in the 90.1 FM WABE article), but is has been attempted for years by other Islamists. With conservatives as the Brotherhood’s main opponent in the U.S. one can expect more of these Brotherhood ‘outreaches’ to conservative groups to try to advance their Islamist agenda by deception.

Lately, CAIR Georgia has been doing more than just strategizing about conservative outreach, they have also been heavily involved in helping overturn a moratorium that kept the construction of a mosque and Islamic cemetery on a 135-acre plot of land in Newton County, Georgia at bay. The moratorium has recently been lifted to the dismay of many people of Newton County. Of course, members of the media, Islamists groups like CAIR, and others want to essentially call those opposed to the mosque and cemetery anti-Muslim bigots, haters, Islamophobes, and many other condescending terms instead of seriously addressing legitimate concerns.

First, when “the mosque development proposal was presented to Development Services in June 2015” allegedly “the place of worship was referred to as Avery Community Church and Cemetery.” It sounds pretty misleading. Second, we’re not just talking about a mosque and cemetery – it’s going to be more like a Muslim commune. Off of Masjid At-Taqwa’s (Doraville, Georgia) website, the plans for the 135 acres include: “Cemetery, Burial Preparation Facility, Masjid, Schools and University with their own athletic fields and sports area, Public Park, and lot more.” Furthermore, who’s going to pay for this grand vision? Imam Mohammad Islam said his congregation is comprised “of mostly Bangladeshi middle to lower income Muslims.”

In addition, by the looks of the small size of Masjid At-Taqwa’s current building, via a picture on their website, they have to be expecting a lot more Muslims coming to the area or they are receiving some large outside donations in order to cover the costs for this new construction. Third, are they possibly expecting Muslim refugees? New American Pathways (refugee resettlement organization operating in Georgia) spokeswoman Amy Crownover discussed the prospects of Newton County being an area for refugee resettlement saying:

“We work in partnership with communities, looking for communities where refugees can be successful,” which requires easy access to public transportation, jobs, English classes and other services. Newton County “isn’t an ideal setting,” Crownover said.

Even after the patronizing remarks it’s hard to believe this 135-acre Muslim commune wouldn’t be an area of interest for refugee resettlement. Furthermore, we have already seen how CAIR has advocated for more Muslim refugees.

Also, what kind of ideology is this Muslim community preaching and teaching? Partnering with the Hamas linked CAIR is not a good sign.

We can see by the mosque’s website they seem to favor segregating the genders – such as keeping a member of the “opposite sex from seeing or touching the deceased.” What kind of other Islamic/Sharia guidelines do they abide by? In addition, with cases like Muslims of the Americas it’s not absurd to think that other militant Islamic groups could have the intentions of taking over large areas of land throughout the U.S. to serve as training centers for jihad. There are many other serious concerns about this future Newton County Muslim commune (ex. potential problems associated with Islamic burials) but thanks to groups like CAIR, they are put on the backburner.

CAIR doesn’t care about this country. CAIR may reference the U.S. Constitution and freedom of religion as much as any group, but they are only tricks to bring about their goal of Sharia to America. This is why we need to pass legislation like “the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2015” in order to stop these Muslim Brotherhood front groups from subverting our system.

A Month of Islam and Multiculturalism in Britain: July 2016 Dating Sites for Polygamists, Dog Bans and Pardons, Pardons, Pardons

Gatestone Institute, by Soeren Kern, August 30, 2016:

  • “The law and not religion should be the basis of justice for citizens. We are calling for an impartial judge-led inquiry that places human rights, not theology, at the heart of the investigation.” — Maryam Namazie, head of One Law For All.
  • “This area is home to a large Muslim community. Please have respect for us and for our children and limit the presence of dogs in the public sphere. … those who live in the UK must learn to understand and respect the legacy and lifestyle of Muslims who live alongside them.” — Leaflets distributed by the Muslim group, “Public Purity.”
  • “It’s not gonna be long now before Islam will come to the shores of this country…and if they reject it we’ll fight them. We want to live under sharia not democracy.” — Muslim convert Gavin Rae, 36, a former British soldier who was sentenced to 18 years in prison for trying to buy weapons for the Islamic State.
  • Equality Now, a group that campaigns for women’s human rights, estimates that 137,000 women and girls living in England and Wales have been affected by female genital mutilation (FGM).

July 1. A Muslim taxi driver in Leicester refused to pick up a blind couple because they had a guide dog. Charles Bloch and Jessica Graham had booked a taxi with ADT Taxis for them and their guide dog, Carlo. But when the taxi arrived, the driver said, “Me, I not take the dog. For me, it’s about my religion.” Many Muslims believe dogs are impure and haram (strictly forbidden).

July 1. A judge in London ordered the deportation of Saliman Barci, a 41-year-old Albanian man who posed as a refugee from Kosovo and collected the full range of welfare payments in Britain for 14 years. Barci, it turned out, was a citizen of Albania who had murdered two men there in 1997. Shortly after carrying out the killings, Barci fled Albania and eventually reached Britain, where he claimed asylum as a refugee. In 2009, a court in Albania sentenced Barci in absentia to 25 years in prison for the double murder. British authorities only became aware of Barci’s real identity after an altercation at his London home, when the police arrived and took his fingerprints.

July 2. A Somali man was sentenced to ten years in prison for raping two women inBirmingham. Dahir Ibrahim, 31, had previously been sentenced to ten years in 2005 for raping a woman in Edgbaston. A judge had ordered his deportation after he had served his first sentence, but he appealed and was allowed to remain in Britain. Ibrahim’s attorney, Jabeen Akhtar, successfully argued that he had a lack of understanding of what is acceptable in the United Kingdom.

July 3. Azad Chaiwala, a Muslim entrepreneur in Manchester, launched a campaign to “remove the taboo” behind polygamy by starting two polygamy matchmaking sites: secondwife.com, exclusive to Muslims, and polygamy.com, open to “Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics — whoever you are.” Chaiwala said:

“I was 12 when I came out of the polygamy closet… Changing people’s perception of polygamy. If I can do that, and bring more family stability, happiness and a large support system infrastructure, I’ll be happy. And in the end, I’m a Muslim and I’m rewarded for doing good. So I hope that when I die, my creator will reward me with something better than what I had in this world in return. It’s almost like I get my religious kick out of it, I get my business kick out of it and I also get a lot of thank-you letters.”

Polygamy is illegal in Britain.

July 4. A Muslim man was ordered to bring his nine-year-old daughter back to Britain after taking her to Algeria and leaving her there with his relatives. The man said he did not approve of his estranged wife’s new Christian partner. In his ruling, Mr Justice Hayden said the woman had converted to Islam to marry the man, who was now unhappy about the lifestyle she was leading after their separation:

“The father has been extremely critical of the mother and of what he now regards as her un-Islamic lifestyle, which he has described as ‘debauched.’ He has been dismissive of her care of their daughter and of her choice of partner. He plainly does not consider it appropriate for their daughter to be brought up where her mother lives with a Christian man.”

July 5. ITV News reported that an alleged British member of the infamous Islamic State execution squad made a dating profile before he left Britain; he was advertising for a wife to join him in Syria. Alexander Kotey, a convert to Islam who also uses the name Abu Salih, was identified in February as one of the so-called “Beatles” who detained and killed a string of Western hostages. According to ITV, a profile he made for himself before leaving London for Syria, shows a “more sensitive side” to the killer:

“I am a practicing revert brother of mixed race origin. I enjoy outdoor activities and like getting away from the city. I hope to eventually leave (hijrah from) London and settle elsewhere. I am seeking a sister who is, or at least striving to be serious about her religion, sincere towards Allah (SWT), affectionate, caring and understanding, who understands the importance of always referring matters back to Allah and his messenger. And she should be willing and prepared to migrate to a Muslim land.”

After posting it, Kotey is believed to have used an aid convoy as cover to travel to the Middle East before slipping across the border into Syria. His whereabouts are unknown. According to ITV, it is believed he is still an Islamic State fighter.

July 5. The Labour Party reinstated Naz Shah, a Muslim MP from Bradford who was suspended over anti-Semitic Facebook posts that called on Israelis be deported to the United States. “Antisemitism is racism, full stop,” she said. “As an MP, I will do everything in my power to build relations between Muslims, Jews and people of different faiths and none.”

July 6. A Muslim man appeared at Chelmsford Magistrates’ Court on charges of forcing his wife to wear a headscarf outside of her bedroom, banning her from speaking to other men and beating her. Abdelhadi Ahmed, 39, denied one count of engaging in controlling or coercive behavior in an intimate relationship, one count of criminal damage and two counts of assault by beating.

July 7. A woman who plotted a jihadist attack on a shopping center in Westfield had her sentence reduced for “good behavior.” Sana Khan, 24, was sentenced to 25 years in prison for preparing terrorist acts on the anniversary of the London 7/7 bombings with her husband at the time, Mohammed Rehman. She had her sentence reduced by two years.

July 8. Mohammed Habibullah, a 69-year-old imam who leads prayers at a mosque in Dudley, was given a suspended sentence after he was convicted of sexually assaulting a woman. In determining the sentence, Judge Amjad Nawaz, a fellow Muslim, said that although Habibullah’s victim had been left “psychologically damaged,” he was a man of “positive good character” who had given more than 25 years of service to the Muslim community as an imam.

July 8. Sir Michael Wilshaw, the head of the school inspection service Ofsted, warned that the “Trojan Horse” campaign to impose radical Islamic ideas on Birmingham schools has “gone underground” but has not gone away. He warned that Birmingham was failing to ensure that “children are not being exposed to harm, exploitation or the risk of falling under the influence of extremist views.”

July 9. More than 200 individuals and human rights groups signed an open letter to Prime Minister Theresa May urging her to dismantle a panel chosen to oversee an official inquiry into Sharia courts in Britain. They said that by appointing an Islamic scholar as chair and placing two imams in advisory roles, the panel’s ability to make an impartial assessment of how religious arbitration is used to the detriment of women’s rights will be compromised. “It is patronizing if not racist to fob off minority women with so-called religious experts who wish to legitimate Sharia laws as a form of governance in family and private matters,” the letter said.

The review, announced in May as part of the government’s counter-extremism strategy and due to be completed by 2017, is to be chaired by Mona Siddiqui, a professor of Islamic studies at the University of Edinburgh. Siddiqui said those who signed the letter demonstrated a “profound misunderstanding of Sharia.”

The Iranian-born human rights activist, Maryam Namazie, who leads the campaign One Law For All, countered:

“The law and not religion should be the basis of justice for citizens. We are calling for an impartial judge-led inquiry that places human rights, not theology, at the heart of the investigation.

“Far from examining the connections between religious fundamentalism and women’s rights, the narrow remit of the inquiry will render it a whitewash. It seems more geared to rubberstamping the courts than defending women’s rights.”

July 10. More than 1,500 children — including 257 under the age of 10 — have been referred to the Channel program, the government’s anti-terrorism deradicalization scheme, in the past six months, according to figures released by the National Police Chief’s Council under the Freedom of Information Act. Since July 2015, teachers have been legally obliged to report any suspected extremist behavior to police as part of the government’s anti-radicalization strategy.

July 11. A Pew Research Center survey found that more than half (52%) of Britons surveyed said they believe that incoming refugees and migrants will increase the threat of terrorism in the UK. More than half (54%) of Britons also said that Muslims in the UK “want to be distinct from the larger society.” Nearly half (46%) said that migrants are an economic burden on the UK.

July 12. Residents in Manchester received leaflets in their mail boxes calling for a public ban on dogs. The leaflets, distributed by a group called “Public Purity,” stated:

“This area is home to a large Muslim community. Please have respect for us and for our children and limit the presence of dogs in the public sphere.

“As citizens of a multicultural nation, those who live in the UK must learn to understand and respect the legacy and lifestyle of Muslims who live alongside them.

“Help us make this a reality. Let your local MP know how you feel about this. Make Muslims feel like they live in a safe and accepting space, welcoming them and respecting their beliefs.”

A snapshot of Islamic multiculturalism in Manchester: A local Muslim entrepreneur recently launched two polygamy matchmaking sites (pictured left, an image from secondwife.com), while a local Islamic group distributed leaflets requested that residents “limit the presence of dogs in the public sphere.” Many Muslims believe dogs are impure and haram (strictly forbidden).

July 12. Muslim convert Gavin Rae, 36, was sentenced to 18 years in prison for trying to buy weapons for the Islamic State. Rae, a former soldier with the British Army, was arrested in a sting operation. He told an undercover officer:

“It’s not gonna be long now before Islam will come to the shores of this country…and if they reject it we’ll fight them. But we want to live under sharia not democracy.” He also said that once his family was in a Muslim country, he would “go then and sacrifice my life for Allah.”

July 13. Ian Acheson, the head of a review into extremism in British prisons, warned that there is a hardcore group of jihadi prisoners whose “proselytizing behavior” among the 12,500 Muslim inmates in England and Wales was so dangerous that they should be separated from the rest of the prison population. Addressing the select committee on justice in the House of Commons, Acheson said:

“There is intelligence that there are a small number of people whose behavior is so egregious in relation to proselytizing this pernicious ideology… they need to be completely incapacitated from being able to proselytize to the rest of the prison population.”

July 15. A Muslim teacher visiting a pub in Hertfordshire was asked to remove his school sweatshirt because it had the word “Islam” on the back and it was upsetting customers. Nurul Islam, 32, said he was wearing his school sweatshirt, which has his surname on the back, when a waiter at the pub asked him to remove it because “it was making some customers feel uncomfortable” after the jihadist attack in Nice. Islam added:

“I didn’t know quite what to say, and at first I didn’t link what he’d said with the lorry attack in France, but when it sank in I was shocked. I was being discriminated against because of my surname so I was left really upset after the incident. We all have surnames on the backs of our hoodies, which is the responsible thing to do.

“I’m not a practicing Muslim but I am a Muslim. It makes me feel terrible that my name is the cause of such contention when all it means is peace. If I had the word ‘peace’ on there, would he still have asked me to leave?” [Islam, in fact, means “submission,” not “peace.”]

Hertfordshire Police said: “A specialist hate crime officer is investigating to establish whether offenses have been committed.”

Read more

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

The Burkini is About Sexual Violence Against Women

kl_1

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, August 30, 2016:

The media has found its latest civil rights cause. It’s not the plight of Christians in Muslim countries who are being blocked from coming here as refugees because Obama’s refugee policy favors Muslims. Obama brought over 2,000 Syrians here in July. Only 15 of them were Christians.

It’s not the rising fear of an Islamic terrorist attack in Jewish synagogues. I have lately witnessed unprecedented levels of security at synagogues including guards in body armor and checkpoints. Racist Muslim violence against Jewish synagogues has been a staple of Islamic terrorism for too many years.

But instead the media has highlighted the civil rights cause of the burkini.

The “Burkini”, a portmanteau of “Burka”, the all-encompassing cloth prison inflicted on women in Afghanistan by the Taliban, and “Bikini”, was banned in France along with its parent, the Burka.

While Muslims massacre innocent people in the streets to shouts of “Allahu Akbar”, the media has once again decided to ignore these horrors in favors of broadcasting some petty Muslim grievance.

Does it matter what Muslim women wear to the beach? Arguably the government should not be getting involved in swimwear. But the clothing of Muslim women is not a personal fashion choice.

Muslim women don’t wear hijabs, burkas or any other similar garb as a fashion statement or even an expression of religious piety. Their own religion tells us exactly why they wear them.

“O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies that they may thus be distinguished and not molested.” (Koran 33:59)

It’s not about modesty. It’s not about religion. It’s about putting a “Do Not Rape” sign on Muslim women. And putting a “Free to Molest” sign on non-Muslim women.

This isn’t some paranoid misreading of Islamic scripture. Islamic commentaries use synonyms for “molested” such as “harmed”, “assaulted” and “attacked” because women who aren’t wearing their burkas aren’t “decent” women and can expect to be assaulted by Muslim men. These clothes designate Muslim women as “believing” women or “women of the believers”. That is to say Muslims.

One Koranic commentary is quite explicit. “It is more likely that this way they may be recognized (as pious, free women), and may not be hurt (considered by mistake as roving slave girls.)” The Yazidi girls captured and raped by ISIS are an example of “roving slave girls” who can be assaulted by Muslim men.

Muslim women who don’t want to be mistaken for non-Muslim slave girls had better cover up. And non-Muslim women had better cover up too or they’ll be treated the way ISIS treated Yazidi women and the way that Mohammed and his gang of rapists and bandits treated any woman they came across.

That’s what the burka is. That’s what the hijab is. And that’s what the burkini is.

And this is not just some relic of the past or a horror practiced by Islamic “extremists”. It’s ubiquitous. A French survey found that 77 percent of girls wore the hijab because of threats of Islamist violence. It’s numbers like these that have led to the French ban of the burka and now of the burkini.

When clothing becomes a license to encourage harassment, then it’s no longer a private choice.

Muslim women wearing a burka, a hijab or a burkini are pointing a sign at other women. The sign tells Muslim men to harass those other women instead of them. It’s not modesty. It’s the way that Muslim women choose to function as an instrument of Muslim violence against non-Muslim women.

In the Islamic worldview, sexual violence is the fault of the victim, not the perpetrator.  From the dancing boys of Afghanistan to the abused women of Egypt, the fact of the assault proves the guilt of the child or the woman who was assaulted.

“If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat?” the Grand Mufti of Australia said. “The uncovered meat is the problem.”

The Grand Mufti wasn’t discussing cats or meat. He was talking about gang rapes by fourteen Muslim men. “If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred,” he said.

This is why there is a burka ban and a burkini ban. It’s why there should be a hijab ban. The existence of these garments gives license to Muslim men to target non-Muslim women. They allow Islamists to impose them as a standard by singling out women who don’t wear them. And they encourage Muslim men to carry out assaults on non-Muslim women who don’t comply with Islamic law.

That is what France has rejected. It’s what every country that respects the rights of women to be free from being “molested” by the “believers” who get their morality from Mohammed, a serial rapist and pedophile from whom no woman, including his own son’s wife, was safe, ought to reject.

The media has chosen to be deeply outraged by France’s ban of the burka and the burkini. It does not seem especially interested in the fact that Saudi Arabia forces women to wear the abaya, a covering not too different from the burka, not to mention not being allowed to drive or often leave the house. Or that Sudan’s Islamist regime arrested Christian women in front of a church for wearing pants.

It’s not that the left feels that women ought to be able to wear whatever they want in other countries. Certainly not non-Muslim women in Muslim countries. But that it believes that Muslims ought to be able to do whatever they want, whether it’s impose dress codes at home, resist dress codes abroad or even impose dress codes abroad. And the first targets of these dress codes are inevitably women.

Islam expands through violence. It imposes its standards through violence. Before the ban, the burkini, much like the burka, had already come to be associated with violent clashes. In one such incident in France, a man was shot with a harpoon. It’s not surprising that the French have grown tired of this.

The burkini ban, like the burka ban, is understandable. And yet it’s not a final answer. It limits the scope of Muslim violence against women. But it does not meaningfully contain it or end it.

It’s not the cloth itself that is the problem, but the Islamic attitudes that attach themselves to it. And the only way to stop the spread of Islamic attitudes toward women in Europe is to end Islamic migration.

The wave of sexual assaults by Muslim migrants in Germany make it quite clear that the moralistic amorality of Islam, in which women who aren’t dressed the right way are fair game, cannot coexist with the right of European women to leave the house without wearing approved Islamic garb.

Europe must choose. Australia must choose. Canada must choose. And America must choose.

Banning the burkini or the burka alone will not stop the assaults. Only ending Islamic immigration will.

***

Also see:

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.