WikiLeaks: Hillary Clinton Says Vetting Refugees Is Impossible

Getty Images

Getty Images

Breitbart, by Ken Klukowski, October 11, 2016:

Hillary Clinton regards vetting refugees as impossible, according to email released by WikiLeaks.

For his part, Donald Trump says his immigration plan does not ban Muslims, but instead requires “extreme vetting” for Muslims arriving from countries with documented problems of Islamic terrorism—consistent with the U.S. Constitution.

Regarding policy, Americans will decide between the sharply contrasting visions of Trump and Clinton—one focusing explicitly on security and America’s interests, the other saying behind closed doors that she believes in “open borders” but does not say so publicly, and that national leaders can have a private position that is different from their public positions.

Apologists for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton say that Trump’s immigration plan is both bad policy and unconstitutional, and that one type of immigrant—Syrian refugees—should be admitted in far greater numbers.

But hacked emails released by Wikileaks show Clinton thinks vetting Syrian refugees is “impossible.” Michael Patrick Leahy reports that Clinton acknowledged this reality for refugees pouring into Jordan.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper already admitted that the U.S. cannot vet these refugees, so this may be an instance of Clinton telling the public a different position than you take in private.

Emails also show Clinton’s inner circle caught in an echo chamber when it comes to constitutional rights for aliens (legal or illegal, not just refugees). Mandy Grunwald writes of wanting to “whack” a Republican “for trying to change the Constitution to deny babies born here the right to American citizenship if their parents aren’t citizens? (basically get rid of the 14th Amendment).”

To the contrary, the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not guarantee citizenship to the children of foreigners, whether they are in the United States legally or not. Congress chooses to grant citizenship very broadly in the Immigration and Nationality Act, but the Constitution does not require it except for the children of American citizens born on American soil.

This is not exclusively a conservative idea; in addition to constitutional conservative stalwarts like Prof. John Eastman, noted judicial activist Judge Richard Posner on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has declared that the Fourteenth Amendment does not confer birthright citizenship, calling the idea “nonsense.”

Moreover, in 1993 now-Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid introduced a bill (the Immigration Stabilization Act) that would change current law, denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. Since the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, the constitutional contours of this issue have not changed from 1993 through 2016—only the politics of a cynical attempt to create millions of Democratic voters for those who racially stereotype foreigners from certain countries.

All this goes back to the famous line of Justice Robert Jackson that the Constitution is not a “suicide pact.” It is a document that ensures several fundamental principles of fairness and justice—like due process and equal protection—to all persons, whether citizens or not. But for the most part, it is a document predicated upon American exceptionalism, and showcasing an “America First” paradigm. The Constitution frames issues like national security and immigration in terms of what is best for America.

The Supreme Court seemed split on what the Constitution requires when it comes to immigrants, including refugees. Liberal justices refer to constitutional limits on immigration laws, while conservative justices say that the Constitution gives Congress complete discretion and full authority to determine who can cross the U.S. border and who can stay in this country.

On issues of immigration, refugees, and the Constitution, Trump and Clinton are worlds apart—presenting voters with a clear choice.

Ken Klukowski is senior legal editor for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter@kenklukowski.

***

Frank Gaffney: Obama Seeks to ‘Shred What Is Left of the Constitution’ by Nullifying Senate’s Role in Treaty-Making

AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

Breitbart, by John Hayward, Sept. 14, 2016:

“I think we are at a turning point nationally, where a choice is going to be made to reject the course that we’ve been on,” said Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, on Wednesday’s Breitbart News Daily.

“It’s not entirely clear to me that we know what the other choice is going to be,” he said, continuing:

But we’re going to see, I think, the American people saying, “You know, another Obama term – or perhaps more, and worse, than what we’ve been served up over the past eight years – is unacceptable to us. We can’t, perhaps, even survive it, as a nation.”

Gaffney said this gave him hope, and made him “feel better than I have about our country for some time, in that the public seems to be getting that choice, and it seems to me – this is maybe anecdotal or just entirely subjective – but I think they’re beginning to say, ‘Enough; we don’t want more of the same.’”

SiriusXM host Alex Marlow built on Gaffney’s comment about how Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy could be even worse than Obama’s, saying the Clintons think about “what the Clintons want, and not what’s best for the American people.”

“Again, you have an agenda, of which the Clintons have been a part for a long time, whether it’s a sort of trans-nationalism, whether it’s leftism,” said Gaffney. He added:

As you know, I’ve been particularly concerned about, with respect to Hillary most especially, has been her deep sympathy for Islamic supremacism. I don’t know how else to describe it. What we’ve seen her do, reflexively, throughout her time as secretary of state and in the period since, has been to espouse, and embrace, and empower, to fund, and in some cases, even to arm people who seek to impose this doctrine they call sharia on the rest of us.

“This is the sort of thing I think the American people are going to choose to say, ‘No more. We can’t afford that. We don’t want any part of it,’” he predicted, drawing further encouragement from news Marlow broke during the show about Donald Trump gaining five points in two days on the L.A. Times tracking poll. Gaffney called that “a trend in the right direction for our country.”

Marlow asked Gaffney about reports that President Obama would veto the bill allowing 9/11 families to sue Saudi Arabia for damages – a bill which passed the House unanimously last week.

Gaffney replied:

The argument is being made, of course, is that you’ve got considerations that will extend beyond the immediate question of whether the Saudis deserve to be sued, for what, I think, is unmistakably the participation of, not just their nationals in actually causing the attacks of 9/11, but in helping arrange those attacks. By the way, the Iranians are also implicated in a similar way, and should be subject to a similar suit.

But you’ve got people making the argument, “Oh, my gosh, we’re going to be ending up opening a true Pandora’s box to Americans being sued for a host of other reasons.” I come down on taking the Saudis to court, myself. I have to tell you, and I think the American people are there, and that’s why you see this overwhelming, probably veto-overriding, majority in the Congress.

He noted President Obama’s stated reason for vetoing the bill is that “we’re going to be subjecting our own people, our government, our personnel, to similar kinds of actions by other governments.”

However, Gaffney thought “at some level, at least, this is about protecting the Saudis.”

“Successive presidents, let’s be honest, Republican as well as Democrats, have been doing it for decades,” he pointed out. Elaborating, he said:

And it has enabled the double game that is – well, unfortunately, really, 9/11 is a prime example of it. They were able to lend, at the level of the Saudi ambassador to the United States – a deep personal friend of the George W. and George H.W. families – to engage in active material support for terrorism, as did his wife. And on and on. These are the sorts of things that, I think, would out, if there were a proper litigation that held them accountable.

“I think they should be held accountable, but I think the U.S. government doesn’t want to go there, quite apart from this other pretext that they’re concerned about being sued ourselves,” Gaffney said.

Marlow also asked for Gaffney’s take on the situation in North Korea, which just conducted its fifth illegal nuclear bomb test. Gaffney said there were “two critically important points” to be made:

One is that the North Koreans are a threat to the United States not just to our friends, and allies, and forces in their immediate area, but now increasingly to the continental United States itself. And that’s because they have been allowed, in part, enabled by a deal that Bill Clinton signed with them, back in 1994 – which was a fraud, not as great a fraud as the one Obama signed with the Iranians, but basically of a piece with it, and it set the stage for what we’re seeing now.

Nuclear weapons? Yes. Miniaturizing of those nuclear weapons? Yes. And placing them on longer and longer-range ballistic missiles, including, it appears, quite possibly, on missiles that are now sending into orbit satellites – which are circling, among other places, the United States, and could be platforms for delivering those nuclear weapons.

And perhaps the most dangerous so far imaginable, and that is an electro-magnetic pulse attack. These weapons seem to be optimized for that purpose. We’ve learned that they have a super EMP design that they got from old Soviet Union.

So these are very serious problems. That’s Point One. Point Two is, Alex, as you know, the President of the United States is in his last days, and determined to shred what is left of the Constitution of the United States. In the foreign policy area, where that is manifesting itself is in connection with doing things that eliminate, essentially, one of the most important checks and balances in our government, and that is the role that the United States Senate plays as a quality-control mechanism on treaty-making arrangements that the Executive Branch might engage in.

We’ve seen this flouted with the Iran deal, we’ve seen it flouted most recently with this so-called Paris climate change accord. Next up is a treaty the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty, that the president would like to get the United Nations Security Council to do some kind of blessing of, that would then supplant the rejection of that treaty by an actual majority of the United States Senate, back in 1999.

Gaffney concluded:

The reason all this matters is that you’ve got the North Koreans testing nuclear weapons at will. I believe the Russians and Chinese are doing the same, albeit in a less obvious way. Everybody on the planet, in other words, that threatens us is using this kind of capability to modernize the threat they pose to us. And it’s real, and it’s growing. And the President of the United States is hoping to bind his successor never to be able to modernize – or, I’m afraid, even maintain our nuclear deterrent.

LISTEN:

Khizr Khan No Constitutional ‘Expert’; Passed Bar at Age 60

Khizr Khan, father of fallen US Army Capt. Humayun S. M. Khan waves as he stands near the podium before speaking during the final day of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia , Thursday, July 28, 2016. (AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill)

Khizr Khan, father of fallen US Army Capt. Humayun S. M. Khan waves as he stands near the podium before speaking during the final day of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia , Thursday, July 28, 2016. (AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill)

Breitbart, by Paul Sperry, Aug. 12, 2016:

Khizr Khan, the Gold Star father who lectured Donald Trump about the Constitution at the Democratic National Convention last month, has been touted by the media as a constitutional expert, on par with a Supreme Court Justice. However, far from being a constitutional expert or even a seasoned attorney, the 66-year-old Pakistani immigrant only recently obtained a license to practice law.

On August 1, Chris Matthews of MSNBC likened Khan to Justice Anthony Kennedy (emphasis added):

MATTHEWS: When you pulled out that Constitution the other night and said,
Here, read it, basically, to Trump, did that remind you of the fact you had
to learn it?

K. KHAN: Of course. Of course. Read it page to page. I – that was not
the plan, to pull out the Constitution.

MATTHEWS: You have it there?

K. KHAN: What I – what I…

MATTHEWS: Where`d you get that, by the way?

K. KHAN: Well, look – look at its condition.

MATTHEWS: It’s all marked up.

K. KHAN: It’s marked up because I read it. And this 14th Amendment, equal
protection of law, is my favorite part of the Bill of Rights.

MATTHEWS: That means that your children…

K. KHAN: Exactly.

MATTHEWS: … get all the rights of somebody who`s been here 20
generations.

K. KHAN: Exactly. And I did not realize up until I was in the cab to the convention that I had this in my pocket. We talked – I was to say that when you read the Constitution, look for the word liberty and equal protection of law. So I`m putting my coat on, and I touched this, and here it is. So I said, If I pull it like this, it will be this. So I had to place it in this form so when I pull it, it comes like this. We practiced.

MATTHEWS: You`re like Justice Kennedy because Justice Kennedy, Anthony  Kennedy, who Ronald Reagan appointed, is the swing vote, you know, and he uses the liberty clause and the equal protection clause for all of his recent big decisions.

But the hype is more about Khan’s use as a political pawn than his actual qualifications.

A résumé posted on his website (removed from the Internet last week) lists court admission and bar membership for New York state only.

A spokeswoman for the New York State Office of Court Administration in Albany, N.Y., said that Khan was admitted to the New York bar on June 22, 2010, which means he became eligible to practice law just six years ago — at the age of 60. He is not listed as a member of any other state bar.

No citations appear in court databases for Khan as attorney of record, based on a search of federal and state court filings through PACER and Lexis.

Nor does Khan appear to have published academic papers or law journal articles about constitutional law. In contrast, Khan’s academic papers touting Sharia law have been cited in dozens of Islamic law articles and have been used in college syllabi for Islamic law courses as recently as 2013.

Sharia law, the barbaric legal code enforced by Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the former Taliban government of Afghanistan, is at odds with most of the individual freedoms and rights protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Other media outlets, such as the Washington Post, have been keen to point out that Khan is a “a Harvard-trained lawyer.”

While Khan did graduate from Harvard in 1986, he did not obtain a typical law degree, but instead earned an LL. M. — a one-year international program tailored to foreign students. He has a similar degree from the University of Missouri-Kansas City. The LL. M. coursework is separate from the three-year law program required to earn a Juris Doctor, or J.D., which is the formal law degree that most licensed attorneys obtain.

“It is most often pursued by students who obtained a law degree in another country,” explained Harvard Law School spokeswoman Michelle Deakin in an interview.

In fact, 97% of students enrolled in the graduate program that accepted Khan are foreign nationals.

Like others applying to the program, Khan submitted a law degree from another country — Pakistan. He received his basic training at the University Law College of Punjab University in Lahore, Pakistan. The LL.B., or “bachelor of laws,” which Khan earned there is a two-year program no longer offered in the United States.

Furthermore, University Law College is a small college where courses are taught by professors trained in British as well as Sharia law, the brutally oppressive Islamic legal code that Khan, a devout Muslim, has said supersedes “all other juridical works.” In fact, Khan is a world-renowned expert on Sharia, not the Constitution.

Khan’s alma mater is run by vice chancellor Mujahid Kamran, an anti-Semitic 9/11 denier who in 2013 published a book that blames the Saudi-sponsored 9/11 attacks by al-Qaida on “Zionists,” and trashes the U.S. as a complete dictatorship. His book, 9/11 and the New World Order, was published by the University of Punjab.

In September 2012, Karmran posted on his website excerpts from his forthcoming book, claiming: “Currently 95% of the U.S. media is owned by only six corporations, whose top echelons are dominated by Zionists allied with the banking cabal. With the US military and intelligence apparatus in their control, with their ownership of the media, and with their control of academia, it is easy for them to direct assassinations and false flag operations, such as the murder of JFK and 9/11.”

Added Kamran: “9/11 was an inside job. It was not carried out by Osama Bin Laden or the al Qaeda.”

In September 2013, while promoting his 9/11 book on campus, Kamran was quoted in the Pakistani press saying “that the cabal [of Zionists] wanted to establish a global government and install microchips in every human being in order to control them.” He also claimed “that Nato airplanes had flown the families of Al Qaeda leaders including Aiman Al Zawahri and some members of the Bin Laden family to Central Asia to destabilise the region,” and “that Nato was sponsoring terrorist and suicide attacks in Pakistan.”

The media have also implied that Khan practiced law while working at the law firm of Hogan & Hartson in Washington. Instead, he managed information technology services, or IT, for litigators during his 1998-2007 employment at the Hogan & Hartson firm (now Hogan Lovells), a predominantly Democrat shop with ties to the Clinton Foundation. His job apparently involved pre-wiring the projectors, monitors and laptops, and video conferencing equipment for lawyers making graphic presentations in court. He also helped lawyers search and managed electronically stored records.

After leaving Hogan & Hartson, Khan opened what he described on his business website as a “law office” in New York to, among other things, represent clients seeking E2 and EB5 immigration visas — a practice that Trump’s proposed moratorium on Muslim immigration would throw into jeopardy.

Khan and his wife lost their son when his Iraq post came under attack in 2004. U.S. Army Capt. Humayan Khan was posthumously awarded the Purple Heart and Bronze Star.

Democrats are now actively recruiting Khan to run for political office and appear in Clinton campaign ads attacking Trump and his policies. They hope to exploit the media-manufactured narrative that it took a Muslim immigrant-turned-“Harvard-trained lawyer” to school Donald Trump on the U.S. Constitution and put him in his place.

Khan did not return phone calls or emails seeking comment.

Paul Sperry is a former Hoover Institution media fellow and author of Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington.

Also see:

Prof. John Banzhaf: ‘Virtually All Constitutional Scholars Agree’ Muslim Immigration Ban Would Be Legal

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

Breitbart, by John Hayward, August 2, 2016:

George Washington University Law School Professor John Banzhaf was a guest on Tuesday’s Breitbart News Daily, where he discussed the constitutionality of Donald Trump’s proposed ban on Muslim immigration with SiriusXM host Stephen K. Bannon.

Bannon asked if Democratic National Convention speaker Khizr Khan was correct to assert that Trump’s idea violated the Constitution, a point he made by waving a pocket copy of the document and asking if Trump has ever read it.

Banzhaf said it was the view of “virtually all constitutional professors who have written on the topic” that Khan was wrong.

“First of all, it is legal under current law for the president – by himself, without even getting the consent of Congress – under current law, Title VIII, Section 1182, to prohibit – well, I’ll read it.” He read, “‘Any aliens, or any class of aliens, into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the U.S.’” Therefore, he said, “He doesn’t have to provide any reason for doing it. If Congress joins him, it makes it even stronger, more likely to be constitutional.”

“We’ve done this for over a hundred years,” Banzhaf noted. “We had something called the Chinese Exclusion Act, which is excluding, obviously, people on the basis of race.”

“Reason Number One why it is constitutional is something called the Plenary Power Doctrine. What this says, in simple terms, is that the ordinary constitutional protections, primarily equal protection, do not apply to people who are not U.S. citizens, and who are trying to enter the country,” he said. “This has been true for over a hundred years. Our Supreme Court has, time after time, turned away objections to restrictions based upon race, national origin, political belief, even under free speech grounds.”

He continued:

So, on that ground, very clearly it’s constitutional. The other is, even if we just look within the United States at people who are already here, what the courts have said is that you can distinguish on the basis of factors like race or religion, if it serves a compelling state interest, and if it is only one of several factors.

Elaborating, Banzhaf stated:

That’s the reason why, for example, we have affirmative action. Colleges can discriminate on the basis of race because we want to have diversity. Well, preventing terrorism is at least as important as having diversity in the classroom, and so as long as race is used as only one factor – or, in this case, religion is used as only one factor – we can apply different standards even in the U.S., for example in secondary searches on airplanes.

Banzhaf said it was a problem for the U.S. that “a lot of people haven’t read the Constitution,” but they “kinda think anything which they don’t like, any proposal which they don’t like, is both unconstitutional and un-American.”

He pointed to the current controversy regarding the Muslim immigration ban, which he again noted was a perfect mirror image of affirmative action, and rattled off a list of prominent politicians who have no doubts about the constitutionality of the latter: “Governor Jeb Bush, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, Rep. Peter King, a woman named Hillary Clinton, President Barack Obama, and one of our most Democratic senators, Chuck Schumer.”

He further noted that effective anti-terrorism programs involve this sort of allegedly unconstitutional discrimination based on race and religion, but support for such initiatives has not harmed the political fortunes of such figures as the NYPD’s Ray Kelly, who has been touted as a potential secretary of Homeland Security.

“A lot of people have supported the basic idea that, particularly to protect against terrorism, we can, to some extent, distinguish on the basis of factors like religion,” Banzhaf said, adding:

So, for example, rather than treating all passengers exactly the same – same risk, 6-year-old child, 98-year-old Asian woman, no greater risk than a young Arabic or Muslim male, which makes no sense at all – we could provide more secondary screening to people who are, for example, young Muslim males or young Arabic males. That only makes sense, with regard to people coming into the country.

“I’m not saying whether it’s a good idea or a bad idea, but it would be constitutional, as we said, to bar all Muslims trying to come in.” He then suggested:

Another compromise proposal might be, because we can’t vet them very well when they’re coming in as refugees, we don’t have the paperwork and so on, we could say, “Okay, where there are doubts, we’re going to let you in, but we’re going to ask you to wear an ankle tracer.”

Banzhaf offered further details of how such a program would work and analyzed its constitutionality:

We do that for people who are arrested for drunk driving and so on. It makes it a lot easier to track them – and, as you know, from our Paris experience and for others, one of the big problems is, there are a lot of people out there. The authorities are worried about them. There are lots of red flags, but they can’t track them 24 hours a day. Therefore, they don’t  do anything.

If you have ankle bracelets, one guy can sit in a room with a hundred television screens, track their movements – either in real-time or retroactively if something happens. If they wander near airports, or nuclear facilities, or some place which is suspicious, then the authorities can do something.

Would it work? I don’t know. Would it be constitutional? Almost certainly yes.

Banzhaf allowed that he has not followed everything Trump has said about his proposal to temporarily ban Muslim immigration. “Quite frankly, I get the impression that his plan is not too clear or precisely spelled out,” he said.

He summarized:

But the basic idea of limiting, or even preventing, the importation of non-citizens into the U.S. to become citizens, based upon factors like religion, or race, or nationality, I think virtually all constitutional scholars would say they may not like it, but we can’t say it’s unconstitutional, particularly given this Plenary Power Doctrine, the equal protection clause does not apply to foreigners seeking admission to the U.S. That’s been the law for over a hundred years.

Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.

LISTEN:

Trump’s Muslim Immigration Ban Should Touch Off a Badly Needed Discussion

falls church mosqueNational Review, By Andrew C. McCarthy — December 8, 2015:

Donald Trump’s rhetorical excesses aside, he has a way of pushing us into important debates, particularly on immigration. He has done it again with his bracing proposal to force “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

I have no idea what Mr. Trump knows about either immigration law or Islam. But it should be obvious to any objective person that Muslim immigration to the West is a vexing challenge.

Some Muslims come to the United States to practice their religion peacefully, and assimilate into the Western tradition of tolerance of other people’s liberties, including religious liberty — a tradition alien to the theocratic societies in which they grew up. Others come here to champion sharia, Islam’s authoritarian societal framework and legal code, resisting assimilation into our pluralistic society.

Since we want to both honor religious liberty and preserve the Constitution that enshrines and protects it, we have a dilemma.

The assumption that is central to this dilemma — the one that Trump has stumbled on and that Washington refuses to examine — is that Islam is merely a religion. If that’s true, then it is likely that religious liberty will trump constitutional and national-security concerns. How, after all, can a mere religion be a threat to a constitutional system dedicated to religious liberty?

But Islam is no mere religion.

As understood by the mainstream of Muslim-majority countries that are the source of immigration to America and the West, Islam is a comprehensive ideological system that governs all human affairs, from political, economic, and military matters to interpersonal relations and even hygiene. It is beyond dispute that Islam has religious tenets — the oneness of Allah, the belief that Mohammed is the final prophet, the obligation of ritual prayer. Yet these make up only a fraction of what is overwhelmingly a political ideology.

Our constitutional principle of religious liberty is derived from the Western concept that the spiritual realm should be separate from civic and political life. The concept flows from the New Testament injunction to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.

Crucially, the interpretation of Islam that is mainstream in most Muslim-majority countries does not accept a division between mosque and state. In fact, to invoke “mosque” as the equivalent of “church” in referring to a division between spiritual and political life is itself a misleading projection of Western principles onto Islamic society. A mosque is not merely a house of worship. It does not separate politics from religion any more than Islam as a whole does. There is a reason why many of the fiery political protests that turn riotous in the Middle East occur on Fridays — the Muslim Sabbath, on which people pour out of the mosques with ears still burning from the imam’s sermon.

The lack of separation between spiritual and civic life is not the only problem with Islam. Sharia is counter-constitutional in its most basic elements — beginning with the elementary belief that people do not have a right to govern themselves freely. Islam, instead, requires adherence to sharia and rejection of all law that contradicts it. So we start with fundamental incompatibility, before we ever get to other aspects of sharia: its systematic discrimination against non-Muslims and women; its denial of religious liberty, free speech, economic freedom, privacy rights, due process, and protection from cruel and unusual punishments; and its endorsement of violent jihad in furtherance of protecting and expanding the territory it governs.

Let’s bear in mind that permitting immigration is a discretionary national act. There is no right to immigrate to the United States, and the United States has no obligation to accept immigrants from any country, including Muslim-majority countries. We could lawfully cut off all immigration, period, if we wanted to. Plus, it has always been a basic tenet of legal immigration to promote fidelity to the Constitution and assimilation into American society — principles to which classical sharia is antithetical.

So why isn’t that the end of the matter? Why is Trump being vilified? Why isn’t he being hailed for speaking truth and refusing to bow to political correctness?

Because Islam is more complex in practice than in theory.

In our non-Muslim country, there is no point in debating what the “true” Islam says or whether Muslims are at liberty to ignore or reform classical sharia. There may not be a true Islam. Even if there is one, what non-Muslims think or say about it is of little interest to Muslims. Our job, in any event, is to preserve the Constitution and protect our national security regardless of how Islam’s internal debates are ultimately resolved — if they ever are.

With that understanding, it is simply a fact that many Muslims accept our constitutional principles and do not seek to impose sharia on our society. They have varying rationales for taking this position: Some believe sharia mandates that immigrants accept their host country’s laws; some believe sharia’s troublesome elements are confined to the historical time and place where they arose and are no longer applicable; some think sharia can evolve; some simply ignore sharia altogether but deem themselves devout Muslims because they remain Islamic spiritually and — within the strictures of American law — culturally.

For those Muslims, Islam is, in effect, merely a religion, and as such it deserves our Constitution’s protections.

For other Muslims, however, Islam is a political program with a religious veneer. It does not merit the liberty protections our law accords to religion. It undermines our Constitution and threatens our security. Its anti-assimilationist dictates create a breeding ground for violent jihad.

If we continue mindlessly treating Islam as if it were merely a religion, if we continue ignoring the salient differences between constitutional and sharia principles — thoughtlessly assuming these antithetical systems are compatible — we will never have a sensible immigration policy.

I have no idea what, if anything, Donald Trump knows about sharia. I do know that it’s a system we must account for if we are going to succeed in welcoming pro-Western Muslims who will be a boon to our society while excluding Islamic supremacists who want to destroy it.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

51% of U.S. Muslims Want Sharia. What could possibly go wrong?

quran (3)

Frontpage, by Robert Spencer, Oct. 16, 2015:

Lost in the controversy over Ben Carson’s remarks on Sharia and a Muslim President was the fact that a recent poll bears out his concerns.

Investigative journalist Paul Sperry reported during the Carson brouhaha that “Muslims living in the U.S….just this June told Polling Co. they preferred having ‘the choice of being governed according to Shariah,’ or Islamic law.” He also noted “the 60% of Muslim-Americans under 30 who told Pew Research they’re more loyal to Islam than America.”

Many key Muslim leaders in the U.S. have said the same thing. “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.” So said the cofounder and longtime Board chairman of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Omar Ahmad, back in 1998. He has since denied saying this, but the original reporter stands by her story.

Ahmed’s longtime colleague, Hamas-linked CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, said in 1993: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”

Another prominent Muslim leader in the U.S., Siraj Wahhaj, said back in 2002: “If only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate.”

Younger Muslims have expressed the same sentiments. “We reject the U.N., reject America, reject all law and order. Don’t lobby Congress or protest because we don’t recognize Congress. The only relationship you should have with America is to topple it. . . . Eventually there will be a Muslim in the White House dictating the laws of Shariah.” That was Muhammad Faheed, a young Muslim leader at a Muslim Students Association meeting at Queensborough Community College in 2003.

Some may object that none of these quotes are newer than twelve years old. One wonders, then, what transformation in Islam in the United States has taken place over the last twelve years to make it likely that these men have changed their views.

Others may suggest that these men don’t speak for the vast majority of Muslims. If that is so, however, then where is the Muslim group that equals the power and influence of Hamas-linked CAIR while eschewing jihad violence, Islamic supremacism, and any desire to impose Sharia in the United States now or in the future? Where is the Muslim student group that rivals the Muslim Students Association in the number of campuses on which it has chapters (the MSA has hundreds, all over the country) while rejecting all attachment to the aspects of Sharia that are incompatible with U.S. law, such as its denial of the freedom of speech and of the equality of rights of women and non-Muslims?

And there are others as well. Sperry quotes Muzammil Siddiqi, the chairman of the Fiqh Council of North America and the North American Islamic Trust: “As Muslims, we should participate in the system to safeguard our interests and try to bring gradual change, (but) we must not forget that Allah’s rules have to be established in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction.”

Sperry also quotes the Imam Zaid Shakir, co-founder of Zaytuna College in Berkeley, California, has said: “If we put a nationwide infrastructure in place and marshaled our resources, we’d take over this country in a very short time….What a great victory it will be for Islam to have this country in the fold and ranks of the Muslims.”

Really, what did you expect? Islam has been supremacist, authoritarian, and expansionist since its inception. U.S. Muslims are not from some sect that rejects all that. Yet a considerable portion of U.S. domestic and foreign policy is based on the assumption that Islam in the U.S. will be different: that Muslims here believe differently from those elsewhere, and do not accept the doctrines of violence against and subjugation of unbelievers that have characterized Islam throughout its history.

But on what is that assumption based? Nothing but wishful thinking. And future generations of non-Muslims will pay the price.

Pentagon: Bible and U.S. Founding Documents Promote ‘Sexism’

By Raymond Ibrahim, April 14, 2015:

Here again we see why Western “elites,” including the highest echelons of the U.S. military, are clueless and incapable of acknowledging — much less responding to — Islam:

Modern sexism is rooted in the Bible, U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, according to a Pentagon-approved seminar.

In a presentation prepared by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI), a Department of Defense joint services school based in Florida, the Bible, U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, along with Great Man theory, are to blame for “historical influences that allow sexism to continue,” The Daily Caller reported.

“Quotes from the Bible can be misinterpreted as having a sexist influence when brought out of context and not fully understood,” the course says. “In 1776, ‘We the people…’ only included white men: Slaves and women were not included until later in history.”

The course also cites the Declaration of Independence as a historical cause of sexism for referring to only “all men” being created equal.

[…]

“While there is no DoD Policy that requires persons to take these online courses,” the spokesman told The Daily Caller, 2,075 Department of Defense personnel have taken the “Sexism” course since 2011.

Meanwhile, to even hint that Islam’s core texts promote sexism — if not downright misogny — can get one fired.  Yet the Koran declares that women are inferior to men, that men have authority over them and are permitted to beat them, that polygamy is permissible — each man can have four wives — that females only inherit half of males’ inheritance, that female testimony in an Islamic court of law is equivalent to half a man’s.

And every day, in every Muslim country, every woman experiences these very real, “non-abstract” distinctions.

Islamic prophet Muhammad himself likened females to dogs and other animals — “for all are ridden” —  and said that women are deficient in intelligence and make up the majority of hell’s denizens.

Yet, it’s the Bible, U.S. Constitution, and Declaration of Independence that women need fear, says the Pentagon.