No, the Problem in London Is Not ‘Islamist Extremism’

Prime Minister Theresa May speaks outside 10 Downing Street, June 4, 2017. (Reuters photo: Kevin Coombs)

Islamists want to impose sharia law on the West — which means all Islamists are ‘extremists.’

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, June 5, 2017:

The Western schizophrenia about radical Islam is on full display in Britain, in the aftermath of the latest jihadist atrocity, the third in just the past three months.

Three terrorists rammed a van into a crowd on London Bridge and then went on a stabbing rampage, brutally assaulting pedestrians while braying that each blow was struck “for Allah.” A duly outraged Theresa May donned her prime-minister hat to announce that her government is “leading international efforts to take on and defeat the ideology of Islamist extremism around the world.” She also slipped on her amateur-imam cap, adjusted her rose-tinted glasses, and proclaimed that “Islamist extremism” is an ideology

that preaches hatred, sows division and promotes sectarianism. It is an ideology that claims our Western values of freedom, democracy, and human rights are incompatible with the religion of Islam.

And what right-thinking Western politico’s post-mass-murder speech would be complete without May’s insistence that this ideology is — all together now! — “a perversion of Islam and a perversion of the truth.”

Sigh.

What does Theresa May know about Islam such that she can decide what is a perversion of it? Precious little, I’d wager. Otherwise, she’d not babble on about “Islamist extremism,” a term right out of the Department of Redundancy Department.

If you are an Islamist in the West, you are, by definition, an extremist. An Islamist is a Muslim who believes Islam requires the imposition of sharia, Islam’s ancient, totalitarian societal system and legal code.

“Islamist” is a term we in the West use in the hope that, because there are Muslims who are tolerant, pro-Western people, it must not be inevitable that Islam itself — or at least some interpretations of Islam — will breed the fundamentalist, literalist, supremacist construction of Islam.

It may be a grave error to adopt this hope, especially since it has been elevated into seemingly incorrigible policy. Does the incontestable existence of moderate Muslim individuals necessarily translate into a coherent, viable doctrine of moderate Islam? Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to take just one very influential Muslim leader, says no: The West’s invocation of “moderate Islam” is “ugly,” he counters, because “Islam is Islam, and that’s it.” Erdogan is a close ally of the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s most influential Islamist organization. If he’s right that there’s just one true Islam, rest assured that it’s not friendly to the West. Erdogan describes the Western call for Muslim migrants to assimilate in their new European societies as “a crime against humanity.”

Meanwhile, many students of Islam observe that its aggressiveness, intolerance of non-Muslims, and subjugation of women are indisputably rooted in Islamic scripture. Wherever there is Islam, they maintain, there will inevitably be Islamists; and when those Islamists reach a critical mass of population (which can be considerably less than 50 percent), there will inevitably be sharia activism.

They may be right. I don’t want them to be . . . but hope is not a national-security strategy — even if it has been the West’s national-security strategy for a quarter-century.

Obviously, there are gradations of extremism. Some Islamists are violent jihadists. Some support violent jihadists but eschew violence themselves. Some may reject violence (or at least say they do) and claim to seek sharia imposition only by peaceful persuasion. Some may lie about their intentions, pretending to oppose both violence and the imposition of sharia, or pretending that sharia is really moderate, peaceful, and perfectly compatible with Western notions of freedom, democracy, and human rights. But they all want sharia. If you are a Muslim who wants British law supplanted by Islamic law, that is not a moderate position, even if you’re not prepared to drive a van into a crowd of infidels over it. If that’s where you’re coming from, you are a Muslim extremist — an Islamist.

To speak of “Islamist extremists” is either gibberish or a form of political correctness designed to conceal a position one knows makes no sense but feels compelled to take anyway. Since I believe Prime Minister May is no dolt, I am betting on the latter: She is using “Islamist extremist” as code for “terrorist,” even though she knows, deep down, that this makes no sense — i.e., it is inconsistent with her correct insistence that the violence that aggrieves Britain is ideologically motivated.

Jihadist terrorists do not kill wantonly. They kill for a purpose: namely, to impose sharia. The ideology that motivates them does not endorse violence for its own sake. It reflects what Islam takes as the divine imperative that life be lived under the strictures of sharia. That is the ideology.

The problem that Mrs. May has is that it is an ideology shared by many Muslims who are not terrorists. Britain, like many in America, wants to embrace these Muslims as “moderates,” notwithstanding their hostility to Western society and law. May would prefer not to connect the dots that tell us these Muslims, even if not jihadists themselves, are pillars of the ideological support system in which jihadism thrives — they are, as some have aptly put it, the sea in which the jihadist sharks swim, and without which the sharks could not survive.

It is not merely al-Qaeda or the Islamic State that says Islam is incompatible with the Western understanding of human rights. In 1990, the 57 member-governments of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (now renamed the Organization of Islamic Cooperation) issued the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. These representatives of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims took this action precisely because Islam could not be content with the so-called Universal Declaration of Human Rights promulgated in 1948 by the United Nations General Assembly. The latter is incompatible with the two key provisions of the Cairo Declaration: Articles 24, which states: “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah”; and Article 25, which adds: “The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.”

The Western understanding of freedom and democracy holds that people have a right to govern themselves. We draw a line between the secular and the sacred, rejecting the establishment of a state religion. To the contrary, as explained by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, perhaps the world’s most influential Sunni sharia scholar, “secularism can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society,” because “the acceptance of secularism means abandonment of Shari’ah, a denial of the divine guidance and a rejection of Allah’s injunctions.” Qaradawi elaborated (in his book, How the Imported Solutions Disastrously Affected Our Ummah), “Islam is a comprehensive system of workship (Ibadah) and legislation (Shari’ah).” Thus: “The call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of Shari’ah is downright apostasy.”

Lest we forget, apostasy from Islam is a capital offense in Islamic law. It is punished as such not just by terrorist organizations but by governments in Muslim-majority countries. In the Middle East, at least, sharia is not extremist Islam. It is Islam.

Pace Prime Minister May, it is not “Islamist extremism” that “claims our Western values of freedom, democracy and human rights are incompatible with the religion of Islam.” This is a conceit of leading Islamic scholars and governments. One need not agree with them or concede that theirs is the only interpretation of Islam. But one should grant that their interpretation is no perversion — and that they just might know a lot more about the subject than non-Muslim politicians in the West.

Mrs. May is half right. We are confronted by an ideology. But it is sharia supremacism, the belief that Islamic law must be imposed on society. To limit our attention to violent jihadists is to remain willfully blind to what inspires the jihadists. That is what has to be confronted, if we have the stomach for it.

Frank Gaffney: FBI Will Probably Find Huma Abedin ‘Playing Fast and Loose’ with Facts

Getty

Getty

Breitbart, by John Hayward, November 3, 2016:

On Wednesday’s Breitbart News Daily, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney said he “takes no satisfaction” from the renewed FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton, even though the latest developments have thrown a spotlight on top Clinton aide Huma Abedin – someone Gaffney and the Center for Security Policy have long warned was a more important, and troubling, figure than the mainstream media admit.

“I’d rather be wrong,” he told SiriusXM host Alex Marlow. “I really mean that. For the country’s sake, to be honest with you. But in this case, four years ago, we produced a course that’s still available online called MuslimBrotherhoodInAmerica.com. And Hillary’s right-hand woman, Huma Abedin, featured prominently in it as an example – just one example, but as an example of Islamist influence operations inside the United States government.”

“I made that contention on the grounds that Huma Abedin, at that time, was known to have essentially her entire family involved in what was a Muslim Brotherhood front group called the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs,” he explained. “And the question occurred to me – and, in due course, to several members of Congress, led by Congresswoman Michele Bachmann – that hey, wait, maybe if you have somebody that’s got that kind of personal investment in Islamic supremacism, it might have something to do with the fact that the State Department (and the Obama administration, more generally, but specifically the department in whom Huma Abedin then worked as a deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton) was aligning its policies so dramatically with the dictates of the Brotherhood, on a whole host of issues.”

Gaffney provided some examples of those issues: “You know, letting in Tariq Ramadan, something Hillary Clinton personally did. One of the, you know, sort of capo de capos of the Muslim Brotherhood, the grandson of its founder. Engaging the Brotherhood and suppressing freedom of speech. Helping overthrow friends of ours, such as they were, in the Middle East in favor of Muslim Brotherhood regimes or jihadist groups of other stripes. And on and on. Now we’ve learned, of course, of mishandling of classified information and the like.”

“But Alex, here’s the point: This was an inquiry, the concerns of Michele Bachmann and four other congressmen, that led to an official request of the State Department’s inspector general to look into this possible, very troubling correlation. And you know who stepped up to shut that down? None other than Republican Senator John McCain. And we now know, thanks to WikiLeaks explorations of John Podesta’s emails, that John Podesta and the Clinton team took credit for setting John McCain up to that,” Gaffney revealed.

“And the real message here – and why I feel regretful about this vindication, such as it is – is poor Michele Bachmann, who simply was doing her job in Congress, suffered the consequences of it. Her career was essentially destroyed when John McCain denounced her on the Floor of the United States Senate. And what’s really bad is that every other member of Congress basically, until very recently, had taken the message: You don’t want to touch this question of Islamist influence operations,” he warned.

“Thanks to Breitbart, you guys have done your heroic work in exploring this. Few others have, but not nearly enough. Had we done more – had that inquiry gone forward, Alex – perhaps some of the damage I believe Huma Abedin is now being examined for having done might have been prevented. At least we would have known about it four years ago,” Gaffney said.

Marlow asked Gaffney if he thinks FBI Director James Comey has “got the goods” on Hillary Clinton and her aides or if the renewed investigation is just a “political thing.”

“We don’t know, but my guess is, in 650,000 emails which we’re told are on Anthony Weiner’s computer, that were from Huma Abedin’s account, I’m reasonably sure you’re gonna find lots of classified information that shouldn’t have been there,” Gaffney replied.

He also anticipated the FBI would discover more evidence that “Huma Abedin was playing fast and loose – in the service of Hillary Clinton, to be sure – with all of the procedures for handling such classified information.”

“And that has resulted, according to Congressman Chris Stewart, who I talked with yesterday, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, that the compromise not just of that information, but of sources and methods by which it’s obtained, which is a hugely serious problem,” Gaffney said.

“I think you’re also going to see that Hillary’s right-hand gal perjured herself repeatedly in the course of the investigations conducted to date, and that in so doing has helped to cover up Hillary’s own malfeasance in many of these areas,” he added. “It’s the tip of the iceberg, what we know so far. I think if the FBI does do its job, and that’s a big ‘if,’ we’re going to find out a lot more about what was really a criminal conspiracy.”

Gaffney recommended a video called “Who is Huma Abedin?” which he said exposes “not simply that her father and her mother and her sister and her brother are all in a family business that was established by a guy by the name of Abdullah Omar Nasif – one of the top Saudi financiers of al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood – but that Huma herself was involved in this family business, the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs, through its Journal for Muslim Minority Affairs.”

“And here’s the other thing about this, Alex: the Journal, and the Institute of which it was the sort of mainstay, had as its express purpose, in a radical Islamist sense, promoting Muslim minority rights by encouraging Muslims not to assimilate in countries in which they were minorities – to become, in other words, part of the Muslim Brotherhood infrastructure that was ultimately designed to take down those non-Muslim majority countries,” he said.

“This is the thing that’s so troubling,” Gaffney argued. “You had a woman with this in her DNA, if you will, at the right hand of the Secretary of State, and before that, the Senator from New York, and before that the First Lady of the United States. There’s no question, the more we look into this, Alex, with these emails hopefully shedding further light on it, we’re gonna find more and more evidence, I think, not only of Huma Abedin’s direct involvement in the compromise of classified information and various other misconduct with respect to treating classified communications and conversations and devices in inappropriate ways, but also advancing the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

He said the “most worrying” example was “promoting this idea that our freedom of speech must be restricted so as not to give offense to Muslims.”

“This is being used against Breitbart. It’s being used against me and my Center for Security Policy. We’re attending a meeting up in Stoughton, Massachusetts, tonight, which will be picketed by – get this – not only the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Hamas front group, but also rabbis and interfaith dialoguers of various stripes, and who knows who all else – all designed to suppress me and other patriots who are warning about this Islamist supremacist agenda that Huma Abedin has advanced,” Gaffney said. “The object is to silence us because the President has said, at the United Nations, ‘The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.’ Think about it.”

“This is the story of our time,” he concluded. “It could be the time bomb that actually takes down Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. At the very least, the American people need to know, as they vote, whether we’re going to get more of the same – more of this embrace of the Islamists and enabling of their agenda – or whether we’re gonna get a course correction. I pray it will be the latter.”

LISTEN:

Chris Gaubatz: President Hillary Clinton Is ‘Exactly What the Muslim Brotherhood Would Want’

Zoraida Diaz/REUTERS

Zoraida Diaz/REUTERS

Breitbart, by John Hayward, October 31, 2016:

Chris Gaubatz, vice president of UnderstandingTheThreat.com, joined Breitbart News Daily with SiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Monday to talk about the time he spent undercover at the Council on Islamic-American Relations (CAIR). The results of that investigation are chronicled in the book Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America.

Gaubatz said one surprising discovery he made about CAIR is that “we all hear CAIR is a civil-rights firm, and while I was in CAIR-Maryland’s Virginia office, before I worked in D.C.’s national office, I was the intern there, and their lawyer – Morris Days at the time – was taking money from Muslims that were working on their immigration case.”

“Now, if CAIR was a civil-rights firm, they actually would have vetted their lawyer, but they’re not. They’re Hamas,” Gaubatz said. “So this lawyer was taking money from Muslims, working on their immigration cases, except that he wasn’t a lawyer. He never passed the state bar exam. He wasn’t licensed to practice law anywhere in the country. In fact, he had a rap sheet out of Philadelphia.”

“So CAIR shut down the emails, they shut down their bank accounts, and they closed the office down. Their only problem was … they asked their intern to shred documents related to the case – and that was me,” he continued. “So we ended up exposing that in Muslim Mafia, but CAIR never reported that to the police. CAIR never reported that to the state bar association. They tried to cover it up, and it backfired on them. We actually got several of the Muslims that were defrauded by CAIR to sue CAIR. That should be going to trial soon.”

“They also worked with Osama bin Laden,” he added. “There was a document we found where, one of their board meeting notes, they were discussing working with bin Laden. That shouldn’t surprise anybody, since as I’ve testified in front of the U.S. Senate and at the Oklahoma State Capitol last week, that the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood – or Hamas, if it’s CAIR – are no different than those of al-Qaeda or the Islamic State, which is to establish an Islamic state under sharia.”

Gaubatz said that from a national security perspective, the 2016 election was a “clear-cut choice” because “if Hillary Clinton wins, that is exactly what the global Islamic movement would want. That is exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood would want.”

“She will work with them. It’ll be a continuation of the Obama policies of working with the Muslim Brotherhood and working with the global Islamic movement,” he warned.

“Mr. Trump scares them to death. He does that because they know that he is the type of person that is willing to go out and dismantle the jihadi network in America. Muslim Brotherhood groups like CAIR, like the Islamic Society of North America, like the Muslim Students’ Association, are shaking in their boots right now because if he wins, there’s a very real possibility that network is dismantled within the first year,” he predicted.

“Look, the evidence is already there. There’s enough evidence just from the Holy Land Foundation trial to prosecute CAIR, ISNA, the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT). There is enough evidence to indict and prosecute all of those groups,” Gaubatz declared. “It’s never been the lack of evidence. It’s been the lack of will.”

LISTEN:

British Home Office Trying to Censor Report Accusing Government of Allowing “Muslim-Only Zones”

Louise Casey says politicians tend to ‘hope it will go away’ when confronted with Islamist pressure in schools and universities FRANCESCO GUIDICINI

Louise Casey says politicians tend to ‘hope it will go away’ when confronted with Islamist pressure in schools and universities
FRANCESCO GUIDICINI

by IPT News  •  Oct 11, 2016:

According to the Sunday Times of London, the British Home Office is attempting to censor a new report that accuses the government of failing to integrate immigrants and tackle counter extremism, “by allowing some areas to operate as if they were Muslim-only zones.”

Authored by Dame Louise Casey, the government’s integration tsar appointed by David Cameron, the report’s release has been delayed for months after Home Office officials intervened because of its findings.

In an October 9 article, the Sunday Times states the report blames the government for its failure to mitigate the rapid pace of immigration and to implement a coherent strategy to enhance the integration of various communities. The report also describes how the government allows certain Muslim-dominated regions to operate independently, where state schools shut down for Islamic prayers on Friday.

Heavy criticism is also levied at the government for failing to defend the UK’s counter extremism program (Prevent) with the consequence of allowing Islamists to freely label the program as an attack targeting all Muslims.

A senior Home Office official, Charlie Edwards, revealed that the report will be drastically rewritten to minimize the findings, according to several professional sources speaking to the Sunday Times.

“He (Edwards) told us the Home Office didn’t like it and was trying to find a way to water it down,” one source said. A Home Office spokesperson refused to deny these allegations. Another source told the Sunday Times that Edwards believes the “report focused too narrowly on Muslim extremism and integration.”

Moreover, the report allegedly counters Islamists’ assertions that right wing extremism is as much of an issue in Britain as radical Islamism. In the past 15 years, Islamists were responsible for almost all terrorist plots in the country.

Last year, Dame Casey, the report’s author, launched an anti-extremism strategy that featured investigations into the possibility that Islamists were infiltrating public institutions and seeking to promote Shari’a law. She has asserted that some officials just ‘mak[e] excuses’…’looking at [their] shoes and hoping it will go away’ in the face of extremist and separatist pressure in institutions such as schools and universities.”

IPT has previously reported on Islamist infiltrations in various UK institutions, including the state school system.

Islamist Ties and Security Clearances: An Urgent National Security Debate

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

Breitbart, by John Hayward, October 7, 2016:

In a lengthy article at CounterJihad.com, Christine Brim asks, “Should Family Affiliation With Foreign Islamist Movements Prevent a Security Clearance?”

While the article concerns an official in the office of the Defense Department Inspector General named John Crane, an even more urgent example would be longtime Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin, who has similar family connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, and might be just a few months away from access to the Oval Office.

John Crane rose to the position of Assistant Inspector General after 25 years with the Defense Department, even though his father Robert Crane converted to Islam in 1980 and became “a high-level official in multiple Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas-affiliated organizations in the U.S. and Qatar.” Crane told Brim he was never once asked about his father’s affiliations during his long DoD career.

The younger Crane has a position in the battle over Edward Snowden, who has lately been the beneficiary of a massive left-wing effort to rehabilitate his reputation as a “whistleblower” and secure a pardon for his offenses. As Brim explains:

Crane has recently been the subject of numerous media interviews as “The Third Man” in the new book Bravehearts: Whistleblowing in the Age of Snowden, a defense of Edward Snowden’s theft of classified documents from the U.S., UK and Australia. John Crane was quietly removed from his Inspector General and whistleblower office positions in February 2013, four months before the Edward Snowden case became public knowledge.  He immediately became a consultant for the General Accountability Project (GAP), the legal counsel for Snowden. GAP was founded in 1977 by the extreme far left Institute for Policy Studies.

[…] Crane’s allegations against the DoD in Bravehearts have been cited as a vindication of Snowden’s acts by the Intercept, the website of Snowden advocate Glenn Greenwald (“Vindication for Edward Snowden From a New Player in NSA Whistleblowing Saga”).

He was suspended from his job as Defense Department Assistant Inspector General in 2013, accompanied by the loss of his security clearances, but is now appealing for reinstatement. This means Crane will have to complete a new security clearance questionnaire, Form SF 86, which now asks about the affiliation of relatives with any “foreign government, military, security, defense industry, foreign movement, or intelligence service.” This is where the elder Crane’s relationship with Islamist groups could enter the picture.

The problem is that the Muslim Brotherhood might not be as problematic as it should be. The Obama Administration has labored mightily to rehabilitate the group’s image, but Brim lays out a convincing case that it is exactly the kind of “foreign movement” our guardians of national security should worry about. It is already been designated a terrorist organization by a number of U.S. allies (plus Russia), and will obtain that designation in the United States if the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2015 is enacted.

Brim recalls the Muslim Brotherhood’s motto – “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” – and notes their determination to “impose strict Islamic law in Muslim-majority countries and the world, using a mix of politics and violence.” They have ideological ties to some of America’s worst non-state enemies, including Hamas, al-Qaeda, and by extension, the Islamic State.

And yet, there does not seem to have been any effort made by this Administration, or its predecessors, to explore Robert Crane’s Muslim Brotherhood ties, or the possibility that they might compromise his son. CounterJihad’s exhaustive investigation ended with picking up the phone, calling John Crane, and asking if his father was that Robert Crane. He answered in the affirmative, but based on Brim’s report, no one in the U.S. government bothered to ask.

Robert Crane, who did not respond to an interview request from CounterJihad, has a lively resume, explored in detail by CounterJihad. He was, for example, appointed Deputy Director for National Security Planning by Richard Nixon, and then fired by Henry Kissinger; his connections in the Gulf Arab states made him Ronald Reagan’s choice for ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, but his appointment was scuttled by Secretary of State Alexander Haig.

Brim writes of Robert Crane’s conversion to Islam:

In 1980 Crane “became Muslim after seeing Sudanese leader Hasan al-Turabi preach and pray at an Islamic affairs conference in New Hampshire” (a variation on the conversion anecdote here). That Robert Crane would credit Hasan al-Turabi for his conversion is both surprising and concerning. Hasan al-Turabi became a leader of the Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood starting in the 1960s, was best known for inviting Osama Bin Laden to shelter his entire operation in Sudan from 1991-1996 and according to Human Rights Watch, imposed brutal sharia law as head of the National Islamic Front (the Muslim Brotherhood party) and in high office as Minister of Justice starting in 1979.

Brim relates many disturbing activities conducted by the organizations on Robert Crane’s resume, but the central question would be how much any of it reflects on his son John Crane. Brim’s antennae went up when the authors of the Bravehearts book about Snowden devoted a paragraph to Robert Crane, without naming him, or saying a single word about what he did after his spell with the Nixon Administration. Crane told Brim the authors did not ask about his father’s conversion to Islam or ties to extremist groups, and he did not volunteer the information – which seems to be a fair summary of his relationship with U.S. intelligence as well.

“If Crane undergoes a new background investigation, what answer will he give regarding his father’s affiliations to a foreign movement? Will it be the factual one, or the whitewashed one he provided for Bravehearts: Whistleblowing in the Age of Snowden?Would a factual answer bar a return to his old position – or facilitate it, in a future administration that may actively support the Muslim Brotherhood?” Brim asks.

Similar questions could be asked about Huma Abedin, whose family journal, where she is listed as an assistant editor, has advocated some disturbing interpretations of Islamic law, as well as accusing the United States of inviting the 9/11 attack by heaping “various kinds of injustices and sanctions” upon the Muslim world.

Her mother is an official in a group chaired by the Muslim Brotherhood’s leader, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Her father founded an institute supported by a major Muslim Brotherhood splinter group.

Questions about Abedin are never answered. They are deflected by furious allegations of conspiracy-mongering and anti-Muslim bigotry. Hillary Clinton and her top aides are clearly above the law, and above all reasonable national security scrutiny.

Crane does not have the magical Clinton immunity, but as Brim pointed out, the Muslim Brotherhood certainly has not been shunned by the Obama Administration, and it is poised to do even better in Washington if Hillary Clinton becomes President. The current climate of political correctness treats very few Islamic organizations as security risks, unless they’ve been directly classified as terrorist organizations under American law.

The web of connections between hardcore Islamists and more “mainstream” groups is complicated, making it easy to caricature discussion of those links as “conspiracy-mongering.” The groups cluttering these complex flowcharts tend to have the word “Muslim” in their benevolent-sounding names, and that’s all the dominant political culture in Washington needs to see before averting its eyes.

It’s fair to ask whether someone like John Crane has been unduly influenced by his father, or might compromise sensitive information by talking to him. The answer to that question could be “no.” It is terrifying beyond belief to consider that no one at the Defense Department had the desire, or maybe the courage, to ask.

University Spikes Lecture Due to ‘Hateful’ Chalk Messages Criticizing Terrorists

Nonie-Darwish-facebook-photo-640x480

Breitbart, by John Hayward, April 21, 2016:

It’s yet another story of politically-correct lunacy involving a university losing its collective cookies over chalk writings, but this time the “hateful” speech isn’t Donald Trump’s name.

It’s the question: “Why do terrorists hate America?”

That message, repeated in chalk advertisements and flyers, is the reason Wingate University in North Carolina cited when revoking the funding for a lecture by Nonie Darwish, a former Muslim of Egyptian descent. She is the author of several books, including Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad For America, Israel, and the War on Terror, and most recently The Devil We Don’t Know: The Dark Side of Revolutions in the Middle East.

An administrator for Wingate University emailed Young Americans for Freedom, organizers of the event, to say that chalk advertisements for the lecture were of “extreme concern.”

“Concerns have also come to my attention regarding ‘flyers’ that have been posted around campus and although I have not seen them personally, this in conjunction with the concern of a number of individuals that have reached out to me is yet again concerning,” the administrator added.

Evidently not a matter of concern was the administrator’s admission that she hadn’t even seen the concerning messages that made her concerned enough to pull the plug on the concerning lecture this uncertain number of unnamed individuals expressed their concerns about.

The flyers and chalk drawings in question included the title of Darwish’s lecture: “Why Terrorists Hate America and the West.”

“We do not promote and/or associate hate with a Faith Lyceum event,” the administrator declared — an interesting standard, given that the Lyceum program compares itself to Aristotle’s lectures, boasts of airing “big ideas,” and claims to be a program “designed to expose students to ideas and opportunities they don’t have in the classroom.”

“I am requesting that you immediately remove all flyers that promote this event as a Lyceum and would ask that you remove all chalk advertisements as well,” the administrator told the YAF. “With this no longer being a Lyceum, I also am no longer able to fund this event and ask that you please plan accordingly.”

The Wingate YAF denounced the administrator’s decision as “cowardly” and “stepped in to pay the additional cost in order to ensure that students at Wingate University will have the opportunity to hear Nonie Darwish speak.”

“There are constant attempts to silence us by many Islamic organizations. We are the No. 1 target of jihadists and ISIS sympathizers who are now in all fifty states,” Darwish told Fox News just a few weeks ago, when discussing the fatwa (Islamic religious edict) that has been issued for her death.

She said “we” because the Fox report discussed five other women sentenced to death by Islamist edicts. One of them, cartoonist Molly Norris, was literally erased from society by a tidal wave of death threats, and a fatwa from Al-Qaeda guru Anwar al-Awlaki, because she drew unpublished images of Mohammed that were leaked onto the Internet. “There is no more Molly,” her erstwhile publisher Seattle Weekly wrote, by way of bidding her farewell when she went into hiding.

Apparently the jihad sympathizers Darwish spoke of are active at Wingate University, and their “concerns” are taken very seriously by the administration.

Frank Gaffney: Erdogan Transformed Turkey into an ‘Islamist Police State’ That Is No Longer a ‘Reliable NATO Ally’

AFP

AFP

Breitbart, by John Hayward, April 15, 2016:

Center for Security Policy founder and Sen. Ted Cruz foreign-policy adviser Frank Gaffney joined host Stephen K. Bannon on Breitbart News Daily Friday morning to talk about the recent proclamation of “Islamic unity” from Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose country will now assume the chairmanship of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) for two years.

Gaffney argued that Erdogan’s statement was actually an example of taqqiya, the Muslim practice of lying for the greater good of the faith, and Erdogan’s true agenda was Islamic supremacism.

“I think what he’s trying to tell us is different from what he’s trying to tell his own people,” Gaffney said of Erdogan’s proclamation.  “He’s telling us that he’s all about solidarity, and tolerance, and ecumenicalism, and we all need to pull together, and so on.”

“But the main message he’s been sending to his own people, for something like 13 years now, is Islamic supremacism,” Gaffney continued.  “It has nothing to do with [singing] ‘Kumbaya’ with infidels.  It is about forcing them to submit, in the classic tradition ofsharia.

He described Erdogan as “Muslim Brotherhood old Islamist who believes, at the end of the day, that he is going to be the new Caliph.”

“He is going to create a neo-Ottoman Empire.  And anything that is communicated to the West – in various international fora, or through proclamations, or through other means – is what is known, in the traditions of sharia, as taqqiya – that is, essentially, lying for the Faith.  And I think this should be discounted as such,” said Gaffney.

Gaffney explained that it’s not just permitted, but “obligatory,” for followers of the Islamic supremacist doctrine to “dissemble, to deceive the unbeliever, and to use deception as Mohammed did – the perfect Muslim – to triumph over the infidel, and to successfully create conditions under which they will be effectively enslaved, or reduced to a dhimmistatus.”

He thought the Turkish president’s carefully crafted message would play well to Western media and government, which are suffused with the endless hope that “there’s a degree of moderation on the part of people like Erdogan, or others in the Muslim Brotherhood movement – the global jihad movement, for that matter.”

“It just ain’t so,” Gaffney argued.  “This is a guy who has transformed his country, let’s be clear, from a secular democratic nation – a Muslim one to be sure, but definitely in the secular tradition of Ataturk – into what is now an Islamist police state.”

“Particularly people in the press, who are trying to portray this in the most rose-colored glass mode, should understand what he’s doing to the press in Turkey,” Gaffney stressed.  “He’s crushing it, unless it bends to his will.”

He noted that Erdogan is famous for having said “Democracy is like a bus – you take it to your destination, and then you get off.”

“He’s long since gotten off, internally,” Gaffney warned.  “We should be under no illusion: he is not aligned with us.  He is aligned with the Islamists around the world – with Iran, with China, with Hamas of course.  This is a guy who is no longer, in his country, a reliable NATO ally.  And that’s the unvarnished and unhappy truth.”

Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00AM to 9:00AM EST.

You can listen to the full interview with Frank Gaffney below:

Also see: