Theresa May Calls London Terror Attack “Perversion of a Great Faith”

Answering Muslims, by David Wood, March 24, 2017:

On March 22, 2017, Muslim convert Khalid Masood launched a terrorist attack that began on Westminster Bridge and ended in Parliament Square. The Islamic State (ISIS) claimed responsibility for the attack. In response, British Prime Minister Theresa May insisted that the London terror attack was a “perversion of a great faith.”

***

Gad Saad: Ideas that are grotesque, evil and diabolical should not be granted cover because they are found in a “holy book”

Also see:

Government Report: Islamists Building ‘Parallel Society’ in Sweden Aided By PC Culture of Silence

David Ramos/Getty

Breitbart, by Liam Deacon, March 4, 2017:

Aided by a politically correct culture of “tolerance”, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is secretly building a “parallel” society in Sweden by infiltrating organisations and political parties, a government report has concluded.

Surprisingly, the document takes aim at “political elites” for fostering a doctrine of multiculturalism and silence, which can help and facilitate the nefarious ends of anti-democratic organisation like the Brotherhood.

Somewhat predictably, however, the publication of such claims in Sweden – where open criticism of liberal, multicultural ideals is rare – has caused a row, with critics labelling the report “conspiratorial” and claiming it misrepresents Islam.

Published Friday, the document was commissioned by Sweden’s Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB), part of the country’s Ministry of Defence, which is responsible for civil protection and public safety.

The paper’s authors claim the Brotherhood is working to increase the number of practicing Muslims in Sweden, encouraging tension with Secular society, and targeting political parties, NGOs, academic institutions and other civil society organisations.

They also slam the “established structure of values among the country’s political elite [which] places a high value on ‘acceptance’ and ‘tolerance’ of citizens who are in some sense different from the mainstream”.

In the report, the Islamism of the MB is described as a totalitarian political ideology born out of Islam, a religion. This can make it “difficult to oppose what on the surface appears to be (a vulnerable minority) religious rights”, it explains.

Critics, therefore, “run the risk of being called ‘racist’ or ‘Islamophobic’ and because of the situation in Swedish society such classifications endanger people’s careers”.

The press was quick to label these claims inflammatory, and 22 academics and “experts” in religion have published a blog post questioning the methodology of the research.

The academics – from many of Sweden’s leading universities – say it is “almost conspiratorial” to suggest criticism of Islamism is difficult in Sweden. They also insist the claim that the Brotherhood is building a parallel society is refuted in past research.

In response to the blog post, the department has refuted the criticism of their methodology, and the report’s editor, Magnus Norell, told public service broadcaster SVT:

“Had they smoked something before they read it? You just need to read the report. If someone doesn’t accept this, there’s not much I can do about it. It’s proven.”

Controversially in Sweden, the report also links Islamism and poor social integration to immigration.

“Islamists aim to build a parallel social structure competing with the rest of the Swedish society the values of its citizens. In this sense, MB’s activists pose a long-term challenge in terms of the country’s social cohesion”, it states.

Adding: “Migration from Africa and the Middle East is likely to continue in coming years, both in form of relatives and refugees…

“Given that MB’s goal is to increase the number of practising Muslims in Swedish or European territory, there is a great likelihood that a ‘tug of war’ will occur between the majority community and the Islamic community with the MB’s encouragement…”

The authors of the blog post objected to this claim. “The [report’s] authors seem to conclude that Swedish Islam is a homogeneous phenomenon and that Swedish Muslims are led by the Muslim Brotherhood…” they write.

“It is a conclusion that goes against the overall research, which rather points towards the Muslim community being diverse and there being competition between Muslim groups…”

Founded in 1826, the MB aims to create a global, Sunni Islamic Caliphate by organising Muslims politically. It is arguably the largest Islamist organisation in the world and has links to the Muslim Council of Britain and many other mainstream European Islamic institution.

The group has been accused of fostering links to militants and is considered a terrorist organisation by the governments of Bahrain, Egypt, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

Also see:

***

Our Responsibility to Criticize Islam

The Flight into Egypt by Vittore Carpaccio, c. 1515 [National Gallery, Washington, DC]

The Flight into Egypt by Vittore Carpaccio, c. 1515 [National Gallery, Washington, DC]

The Catholic Thing, by William Kilpatrick, December 28, 2016:

A Commonplace has emerged among media and political elites that criticism of Islam or even of radical Islam will only serve to drive moderate Muslims into the radical camp.

That argument should be questioned because it can just as easily be that lack of criticism has led to the rebirth of militant Islam. Far from being critical of Islam, Western governments, media, academia, and even churches have bent over backward to claim that all the atrocities committed in the name of Islam have nothing to do with Islam. Indeed, the Western media have adopted a rigid system of self-censorship that keeps them from admitting that these atrocities are in fact committed in the name of Islam.

The latest example is the reporting on the assassination of a Russian ambassador by a Turkish policeman. Almost the first words out of the assassin’s mouth after the shooting were: “We are those who have given a pledge of allegiance to Muhammad that we will carry on jihad.” If you don’t remember him saying that, it’s because that part of the statement was omitted from almost all news and television reports. Apparently, our betters in the media were afraid that if we were aware of the man’s devotion to Muhammad, we might say something provocative that would turn untold numbers of peaceful Muslims into bomb-throwing jihadists.

Perhaps the prime example of the wages of silence is the current crisis in Europe. Islamic terrorists have declared war on Europe and the result has been a series of deadly attacks – at airports, subways, cafés, concert halls, and, most recently, Christmas markets. All this mayhem is the indirect result of ignorance about Islam – an ignorance that, in turn, is the result of an almost complete blackout of news unfavorable to Islam.

Anyone with a thorough understanding of Islamic culture and religion could have predicted that, even without the 2015-16 flood of Muslim migrants, the steady flow of Muslim immigrants over the years would create a combustible situation. The amazing thing is that the consequences of this massive migration were never discussed – except in glowing terms. Just about the only thing allowed to be said about the migrants was that they would solve labor shortages, refill welfare coffers, and bring cultural enrichment to Europe.

That was the official line. Anyone who deviated from it could expect censure, possible job loss, or even a criminal trial. Say something negative about Muslim immigration on your Facebook page and you would be visited by police. Say it in public and you would receive a court summons. It didn’t matter if you were a famous writer (Oriana Fallaci), the President of the Danish Free Press Society (Lars Hedegaard), or a popular member of the Dutch Parliament (Geert Wilders). If you couldn’t say something nice about Islam, then you shouldn’t say anything at all.

In the European case, the idea that criticizing Islam will create an army of radicals doesn’t hold up. Criticism of Islam is essentially a crime in many parts of Europe and has been for a long time. In Europe, few dared criticize Islam, but the radicals came anyway. More than anything else, it was silence that allowed Islamization and radicalization to spread through France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Sweden.

Practically no one spoke up about no-go-zones, sharia courts, polygamy, and forced marriages, refusal to integrate, crime waves, and the rape epidemic. Now that many are finally beginning to speak out, it may be too late to avoid capitulation (Sweden’s likely fate) or bloody conflict (more likely in France).

The very argument that criticism of Islam will drive moderates into the radical camp suggests that criticism is needed. If Islam is such a hair-trigger religion that the slightest offense might radicalize adherents, there is something radically wrong with the religion itself. We don’t worry that criticizing Catholicism is going to produce angry Catholic mobs rampaging through the streets. We don’t fear that one wrong word is going to cause a young Southern Baptist to strap on a suicide belt.

Islam invites criticism. Given its bloody past and present, it would be highly irresponsible not to subject it to a searching analysis and critique. Such a critique would not aim at alienating Muslims (although some will inevitably be alienated), but at alerting likely victims of jihad.

One of the basics that non-Muslims need to know is that Islam divides the world in two – the House of Islam, and the House of War (all non-Islamic societies). And every Muslim is expected to do his part to make the House of War submit to the House of Islam. Europeans are now experiencing a “don’t-know-what-hit-me” sense of bewilderment because they never learned this basic fact about Islam.

One reason for our reluctance to analyze and criticize Islam (an idea) is that such criticism seems tantamount to criticizing Muslims (a people). Unfortunately, even if that is not the intention, it is often the result. A person can’t separate himself entirely from his beliefs, and, consequently, we take criticism of our religion personally. That’s a good reason for presenting the critique as tactfully as possible. But it’s not a good reason for offering no critique at all.

If you can’t criticize a belief system because it would hurt the feelings of people who subscribe to that system, then we were wrong to criticize Nazism, Communism, and Japanese imperialism. Ordinarily, we refrain from criticizing other religions. Such a live-and-let-live approach is generally sensible, but when the other religion takes the attitude that you must either convert, submit, or die, then live-and-let-live is no longer an option. That is the position that we are in with regard to Islam. And it is suicidal to pretend that things are otherwise.

The Trump Administration Should Treat Islamists Like The Mafia

9541686914_d48e1acc23_o-1024x680The analogue is so close that, reading public statements from the early 1970s and replacing ‘Italian’ with ‘Muslim,’ you’d be hard-pressed to spot the incongruence.

The Federalist, by David Reaboi and Kyle Shideler, January 2, 2017:

Thousands attend their rallies, claiming widespread discrimination. They wrap themselves in displays of “interfaith” cooperation. National, state, and local officials pay them heed. Words that “offend” them are removed from movies, newscasts, and even official government reports. All the while, the men who lead this organization have appeared extensively on FBI wiretaps and are known to federal law enforcement to be involved in a national criminal conspiracy.

You could be forgiven for thinking this describes the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its Muslim Brotherhood-linked leaders—a group the FBI, federal prosecutors and a federal judge have all affirmed supported the designated terrorist group, Hamas.

But no. The year is 1971, and the pressure group is the Italian American Civil Rights League (IACRL). Its founder, Joe Colombo, is known to federal law enforcement as the head of New York’s Colombo crime family, one of the infamous “Five Families” of the Cosa Nostra. Its most high-profile spokesman is his son, Anthony, who, for more than 30 years would deny the Mafia existed and rail against dark government conspiracies targeting Italian-Americans.

You Fight Crime, You Fight Italians?

It may seem like a punch line now but, in the 1970s, the effort by gangsters to don the mantle of activists and wrap themselves the flag of “civil rights” was taken semi-seriously. Many prominent Italian-American elites (prominenti in Italian) endorsed the call, throwing their influence behind the grievance-mongering. As scholar Joseph Sciorra of the Italian American Review describes,

A blurring occurred in which the mobbed-up League was conflated in the popular imagination with civic-minded spokespeople, thus diminishing the latter’s seemingly altruistic efforts (Kenna 2007, 193). But as historian Philip V. Cannistraro notes, “the prominenti’s constant preoccupation with the Mafia issue” (2005, 83), dating to the early 1930s when newspaper owner Generoso Pope launched an anti-defamation campaign against cinematic depictions of mafiosi, has historically been a self-serving agenda. ‘The dual focus of prominentismo has always been to promote the separate, self-aggrandizing interest of their own particular elite rather than the community as a whole, and to stress what Italian Americans are not’ (Cannistraro 2005, 84). It is no surprise, then, as Fred Gardaphé observes, that ‘more unified acts by Italian Americans have been launched against fictional portrayal of the mafia than ever were mounted against real mafiosi in the United States’ (2015, 365).

The obvious parallel is to the tens of thousands of Muslim-Americans CAIR enlists to bolster crowds condemning “Islamophobia” and any discussion of Islamic terrorism, but offer at best anemic support for pro forma denunciations of terrorism. As The Federalist’s Sean Davis has noted, the analogue between the Council on American Islamic Relations and the Italian American Civil Rights League is so close that, reading the latter’s public statements from the early 1970s and replacing “Italian” with “Muslim,” you’d be hard-pressed to spot the incongruence.

The way Sciorra described “the mobbed-up League” and its efforts could be an apt descriptor for CAIR, a group founded and run by ex-Islamic Association for Palestine staffers that has had more than one of its employees convicted of terror-related criminal activity. As Sciorra explained, while the crowd at the league’s rallies wore pins discussing their Italian pride, the leadership had more strategic concerns. They focused on attacking federal law enforcement and purposefully conflating all investigation of Mafia criminal activities with discrimination against the large Italian-American community.

The only way to end this perceived “discrimination,” the league insisted, was for the government and media to change its ways; not only must it stop using the word “Mafia,” it must deny that any such criminal conspiracy existed. And they did. The Department of Justice adhered to federal regulations, which prohibited use of the word. “There is nothing to be gained by using these terms,” U.S. Attorney General John Mitchell wrote, “except to give gratuitous offense” to “many good Americans of Italian-American descent.” The New York State Police had a similar rule. The word “Mafia” was deleted from the script of “The Godfather” at the behest of Colombo’s league.

Once, the Media Reported These Connections

Not everyone fell for it, including among the Italian-American community. New York state Sen. John Marchi warned that Italian-Americans had “been had” by their endorsement of Colombo’s Italian American Civil Rights League, only to be denounced as a “self-loathing Italian.” One wonders if Marchi didn’t feel then much the way Zhudi Jasser of American Islamic Forum for Democracy must feel now as he warns the American people about the machinations of Islamist groups, only to be denounced as an “Islamophobe” by known terror conspirators.

In the early 1970s, the media was a lot more skeptical of these obvious propaganda efforts, as well. At the end of a syndicated 1971 article about the League’s alliance with the Jewish Defense League, the Jewish Telegraph Agency slips in the following inconvenient information for context, complete with parentheses:

(Joseph Colombo, president of the League, faces a Federal hearing on April 21st on charges of conducting a gambling business. He has also just been convicted in the Manhattan State Court on a perjury charge and was recently arrested for allegedly receiving stolen goods from a robbery of the Long Island Jewelry Exchange in Mineola.)

The JTA obviously thought it was important to describe for its readers the provenance of the league’s complaint, as well as its unsavory record. Of course, one would wait in vain today for a mainstream media outlet to describe CAIR’s troublesome history with the same forthrightness.

In fact, despite U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis ruling that, “The government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR [and other Islamist groups] with Hamas,” none of the nearly 700 articles the New York Times has run about the group has mentioned it. Even more egregiously, the Times covered CAIR’s 2007 efforts to break free of its designation as an unindicted coconspirator in the largest terror finance trial in American history, yet neglected to cover the 2009 rejection of the Islamist group’s appeal.

What It Takes to Fight International Leagues of Terror

The parallels between the League’s censorship efforts in the ‘70s and CAIR’s efforts today aren’t lost on Rudy Giuliani, and for good reason. In 1983, when he was U.S. attorney, Giuliani launched his successful prosecutions against the New York crime families. One of his first acts was to violate the prior decade’s DOJ regulations and say the forbidden word “Mafia.” In a piece for the Wall Street Journal last year, Giuliani made an apt comparison between the battle for accurate vocabulary in both the fight with the mob and with Islamic terrorists.

I had a different view of using the term Mafia. It reflected the truth. The Mafia existed, and denying what people oppressed by those criminals knew to be true only gave the Mafia more power. This hesitancy to identify the enemy accurately and honestly—“Mafia” was how members described themselves and kept its identity Italian or Italian-American—created the impression that the government was incapable of combating them because it was unable even to describe the enemy correctly.

As Giuliani argued, the similarities go beyond mere forbidden words and get at the heart of what it takes to prevail against both the Cosa Nostra and Islamic jihadists. In a recent piece for the Claremont Review of Books, we argued for a new law enforcement approach to dealing with Islamist movements, of which the Muslim Brotherhood is the most consequential, that draws explicitly on efforts to defeat the Mafia:

Instead of approaching Brotherhood members and organizations as respected community leaders for outreach purposes either at home or abroad, the primary goal should be to acquire the intelligence needed to disrupt terror finance or prevent indoctrination. If necessary, officials can use the possibility of prosecution under the Muslim Brotherhood designation to secure cooperation, which would be similar to the way informants are treated when approaching other conspirators, such as crime organizations.

Since Giuliani crippled the New York mob in the 1980s, Colombo’s League and its campaign to ban the word “Mafia” seems more like a quaint throwback to the 1970s than a threat to the integrity of organized crime investigations. Perhaps the Trump administration will be able to accomplish the same for groups like CAIR, when the inappropriate deference, and White House meetings, become a thing of the past.

Of course, some of the league’s bitter holdouts will always remain. Anthony Colombo continues to write on his mob boss father, insisting the FBI had him killed to halt his civic accomplishments. Even more colorfully, Father Louis Gigante—brother to famed Genovese Mafia Boss Vincent “the Chin” Gigante and a well-known Bronx community organizer—holds up mobsters as exemplars for civic minded Americans, in just the way Islamist groups sing the praises of convicted terror financiers.

For most Americans of all ethnic groups, though, government efforts to act against the Mafia are considered appropriate rather than discriminatory. No serious person insists that admitting Mafiosi were largely Italian-Americans is the same as saying all Italian-Americans are mobsters. The same can and must be done for Islamic terrorism.

David Reaboi is a national security consultant and a Claremont fellow. Kyle Shideler is director of the Threat Information Office at the Center for Security Policy.

9/11 Mastermind’s Interrogator: KSM’s Predictions ‘Are Coming to Pass’

694940094001_5257713161001_man-who-interrogated-911-mastermind-has-warning-for-us

Fox News Insider, December 21, 2016:

Dr. James Mitchell, the man who personally interrogated 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, said the avowed terrorist foretold of the dangers that could arise through lax immigration policy.

“[He] was warning of this very kind of thing ten years ago,” Mitchell said, “[His] predictions are already coming to pass.”

Mitchell said Mohammed told him that America’s civil liberties and openness were “gifts from his god” and were the weaknesses and flaws necessary to carry out an infiltration of Sharia law throughout the West.

“Political correctness allows them to operate in our midst without being challenged,” he said,

“Like-minded Jihadi brothers would emigrate, wrap themselves in civil liberties for protection” and fund themselves through the welfare system, he said.

These trends, Mitchell said, could be reflected in terror attacks, like this week’s attack in Berlin.

He said the best way to hinder terrorists’ progress would be to “slow down immigration” from countries that support terrorism.

The Battle of Ohio State

161129ohiostateattack

CHQ, by George Rasley, November 29, 2016:

Yesterday, the war Islam has declared on the West came to America’s heartland when Abdul Razak Ali Artan, an observant Muslim “refugee” from Somalia, rammed his car through a crowd of students and faculty at Ohio State University and then leapt out of the car and began stabbing the stunned onlookers with a butcher knife

In recent months, federal law enforcement officials have raised concerns about online Islamist propaganda that encourages knife and car attacks, which are easier to pull off than bombings.

However, as usual, Republican and Democratic establishment politicians and the establishment media could not bring themselves to confront the reality imposed upon the American people by their support for mass Muslim immigration to the United States.

Establishment Republican Governor of Ohio John Kasich cautioned that “we may never find out” the motivations of the attacker.

Columbus Police Chief Kim Jacobs, whose officers also responded to the attack, said terrorism had not been ruled out. “That’s why our federal partners are here and helping,” she said. “I think we have to consider that it is.”

So, police are investigating whether it was a terrorist attack – no mention of “Islamist terrorist attack” or “radical Islam” or “Muslim extremism” just generic “terrorism.” With no working hypothesis on a motivation attributed to the terrorist what kind of an investigation can they possibly conduct?

He was “upset,” he was “deranged,” he was anything but a motivated Muslim fighter fighting for his cause is where this is undoubtedly headed in Chief Jacobs’ mind, given that under Obama, all references and information about the doctrine of jihad and the Islamic foundations of terrorism have been purged from law enforcement and military training.

“Ohio State University Student Dead After Driving Into Crowd, Stabbing People at OSU Campus” ABC News reported, without mentioning that the attempted mass murder was perpetrated by an outspoken Muslim student and bore a striking similarity to the Muslim terrorist attack in Nice, France.

Columbus, Ohio Mayor Andrew J. Ginther said. “It is important in these difficult times that we come together as a community to support one another, and to resist the temptation to lash out in anger, or to let the actions of one person define an entire community. As an open, diverse and inclusive city, it is especially important to stand with our entire community and work toward productive strategies to stop senseless acts of violence everywhere.”

Ginther made no reference to Artan’s background, but said he is proud that Columbus is “warm and welcoming” to immigrants and refugees. “We welcome people from all over the world,” said the Mayor.

Except Abdul Razak Ali Artan wasn’t a “refugee,” he is part of an invading army, and this act of violence wasn’t “senseless” at all – it was part of a strategy of war Islam has used for 1,700 years to spread terror in the infidel enemy’s heartland.

Rep. Adam Schiff, of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said that while the bloodshed is still under investigation, it ‘‘bears all of the hallmarks of a terror attack carried out by someone who may have been self-radicalized.’’

Self-radicalized to what? The Amish version of Anabaptist Christianity? Cornish nationalism? Independence for the Conch Republic? Mr. Schiff cannot say, but he is quick to sever Artan’s actions from Islam by suggesting he was “self-radicalized.”

Leaders of Muslim organizations and mosques in the Columbus area quickly condemned the attacks while cautioning people against jumping to conclusions or blaming a religion or an ethnicity.

This is now a well-rehearsed bit of taqiyya, the doctrine of deception well-defined in the Quran. In Suras 16:106 and 3:28 the Quran allows Muslims to lie in order to protect themselves or to protect the Muslim community.

And so, almost word for word, the same phrases are mouthed before a compliant establishment media after every attack – don’t blame Islam for 9/11, don’t blame Islam for San Bernardino, don’t blame Islam for Chattanooga, don’t blame Islam for Orlando, don’t blame Islam for the Moore, Oklahoma beheading, don’t blame Islam for the attack on Philadelphia police officer Jesse Hartnett, don’t blame Islam for the Mall of America slashings, don’t blame Islam for the bombings in New York and New Jersey, or the shooting at the Cascade Mall Macy’s in Burlington, Washington and certainly don’t blame Islam for the Boston Marathon bombing.

When are America’s establishment elite, the politicians and media personalities who work behind metal detectors and armed guards and who have staff to run to Macy’s, going to recognize and admit that Islam is indeed to blame when Americans going to class, or to the mall or to work are killed or maimed by jihadis?

And it’s not “radical Islam,” it’s the Islam that is practiced by millions of Muslims throughout the world, including those living right here in America.

If you follow the news from Israel, you might have a better sense of the practical reality of how living with a large population of Muslims actually works.

A year or so ago The Wall Street Journal described two weeks of Palestinian assaults that began when Hamas killed a Jewish couple as they were driving with their four children in the northern West Bank. Two days later, a Palestinian teenager stabbed two Israelis to death in Jerusalem’s Old City, and also slashed a woman and a 2-year-old boy. Hours later, another knife-wielding Palestinian was shot and killed by Israeli police after he slashed a 15-year-old Israeli boy in the chest and back.

Other Palestinian attacks include the stabbing of two elderly Israeli men and an assault with a vegetable peeler on a 14-year-old. On Sunday, an Arab-Israeli man ran over a 19-year-old female soldier at a bus stop, then got out of his car, stabbed her, and attacked two men and a 14-year-old girl. Several attacks have been carried out by women, including a failed suicide bombing.

These attacks are not random acts of “self-radicalized” madmen, they are instigated by Muslim imams preaching hate in mosques, which are not so much religious institutions as they are the command centers of a cultural and military invasion.

“Brothers, this is why we recall today what Allah did to the Jews,” one Gaza imam said in a recorded address, translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute, or Memri, and quoted by The Wall Street Journal. “Today, we realize why the Jews build walls. They do not do this to stop missiles but to prevent the slitting of their throats.”

Then, brandishing a six-inch knife, he added: “My brother in the West Bank: Stab!”

One of the few politicians to get the Battle of Ohio State right was Ohio’s Republican State Treasurer Josh Mandel, who tweeted: “Looks like Radical Islamic terror came to my alma mater today. So sad what happened at OSU. We must remain vigilant against Radical Islam.” About two hours later, he tweeted the last line again.

Mandel’s tweet came after the student responsible for the attack was identified as a Muslim, a Somali refugee who stayed for a short time in Pakistan, characteristics shared by several other Muslim terrorists.

But here’s what truth-tellers like Josh Mandel and President-elect Donald Trump are up against in trying to win this war.

No sooner had Mandel tweeted his call for vigilance than he was attacked by Michael Premo, chief of staff for Ohio Senate Democrats, who blasted Mandel, tweeting, “Looks like knee-jerk islamophobia came to my state today. So sad what @JoshMandelOhio said. We must remain vigilant against prejudice.”

Vigilance is not Islamophobia. As long as establishment politicians like Governor John Kasich, Mayor Andrew J. Ginther, Michael Premo and Congressman Schiff refuse to recognize and name the Muslim enemy – and use every tool of our national power to fight it – more Americans going to class, to work and to the mall will find themselves in the middle of a battle zone, as they did yesterday at Ohio State.

Austrian Activist Fights Charge of “Denigration of Religious Teachings” for Insulting Mohammed

screen-shot-2016-09-30-at-2-07-20-pm

Political correctness married to the Islamic concept of Slander is stifling free speech in the West

CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, Sept. 30, 2016:

Parts of the West are becoming so politically correct that if one even questions Islamic doctrine or a practice associated with Islamic culture one could face serious legal troubles.

An Austrian free speech activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff experienced this first-hand – after giving one of her seminars about Islam for the Austrian Freedom Party she was prosecuted for some of its contents. Apparently, an individual secretly recorded the speech and turned it in to the authorities. Then the public prosecutor went after Sabaditsch-Wolff for a number of statements. In the end she was allegedly charged for the “denigration of religious teachings” because she pointed out how Islam’s prophet Muhammad married a girl (Aisha) when she was six years old and had sex with her when she reached the age of nine years old, which Sabaditsch-Wolff essentially called pedophilia. Apparently, the judge decided what Muhammad did wasn’t pedophilia because Aisha was married to Muhammad until she reached eighteen years old. Sabaditsch-Wolff ended up being found guilty and had to pay a fine – she then appealed the case to several other court levels.

Even though one should be careful when comparing individuals of previous eras to today’s standards, Sabaditsch-Wolff’s criticism of Muhammad’s actions is based on Islamic texts and is legitimate (Sahih Muslim 8.3309). Are we seeing the courts in Austria citing “denigration of religious teachings” when a non-Christian takes issue with a Biblical fact about Jesus?

Or how about when unscriptural conspiracy theories arise surrounding Jesus and his teachings or any other individual in the Bible? Furthermore, when did Western courts become interpreters of Islamic texts? Sabaditsch-Wolff refers to a “hate speech narrative” that is being used “to silence the truth.”

Sabaditsch-Wolff believes that “you have to be intolerant of the intolerable.” These would include female genital mutilation (FGM), child rape, beating one’s wife and the like – whether they stem from Islam or any other religion, culture, etc. Sabaditsch-Wolff also talks about how women in Austria are taking extra security precautions because of the prevalence of migrants abusing women.

Western politicians need to be addressing these concerns. Unfortunately, a lot of them are worried about the political costs, but even if it cost them an election in the short-term it is worth it because the survival of Western civilization is at stake. When we can get punished for having a discussion based on facts and evidence, then we know that the West is heading toward destruction. It’s time to stop this madness before it’s too late.

Europe Needs A Strong America To Stop Multicultural Political Correctness, Says Austrian Activist [VIDEO]

Muslim expert TORCHES Obama’s ‘countering violent extremism’ agenda

terrorist-thunderstormConservative Review, by Nate Madden, September 22, 2016:

The United States should ditch its current efforts at “countering violent extremism” and focus instead on “countering violent Islamism” (CVE), a prominent Muslim reformist told Congress on Thursday.

“Our current direction and lack of deeply flawed and profoundly dangerous for the security of our nation,” Dr. Zhudi Jasser, president of the American Islamic forum for Democracy, said at a House Homeland Security Subcommittee hearing Thursday. “As a devout Muslim who loves my faith, and loves my nation, the de-emphasis of “radical Islam” and the “Islamist” root cause of global Islamist terrorism is the greatest obstacle to both national harmony and national security.”

Jasser went on to say that until America can “name this, and once we can name it, treat it and then counter it,” its national security efforts will remain channeled through a “Whac-a-Mole program” that focuses on tactics, rather than ideology.

A report issued earlier this year from a DC-based counterterrorism consulting firm found the Obama administration’s CVE programs to be a “catastrophic failure” due to its inefficacy, poor management, and, most of all, because of the administration’s engagementwith organizations that have known extremist affiliations, like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America.

Both organizations were unindicted co-conspirators in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation case; trusting such organizations to counter jihadism is akin to “treating arsonists like firefighters,” Jasser said.

While these groups may not be intrinsically extremist in their messaging, Dr. Jasser said, they “are distributing literature that glorifies political Islam, that glorifies sharia state ideology […] that ultimately ends up causing the harms that radicalize our community.”

Not only does government engagement with these organizations further empower the global jihad movement and “leaves us bare against the threat of radical Islamism,” Jasser added, it also “renders our greatest allies within the Muslim community — genuine reformers — entirely impotent and marginalized.”

Throughout the rest of his prepared testimony, Jasser also suggested that Congress reopen investigations into CAIR’s extremist ties, calling the group “one of the most obvious beneficiaries of this embrace of Islamist groups.” He also recommended that the administration stop all engagement with groups that have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and “recognize their misogynist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, and anti-American ideological underpinnings.”

Also on the panel was Shireen Qudosi, a senior contributor at CounterJihad.com, who pointed out to members the difference between Islam and Islamism, and that the latter “is a political ideology that must be studied, understood, and defeated.”

Qudosi went on to attack the “Islamophobe” labelling of anyone who criticizes Muslims, saying that the accusation “moves Islam from a religion into a racial or biological context,” rather than approaching it as a belief system.

“Islam is a religion,” she added, one that should be challenged intellectually without fear of automatically being labeled an Islamophobe or racist for doing so. “It is an idea, a set of concepts and beliefs. As such, ideas, concepts, and beliefs do not have human rights; individuals do.”

“The best way to tackle ISIS, beyond Whac-a-Mole CVE systems, is to tackle their political ideology,” said Qudosi.

During an earlier panel in the hearing, George Selim, Department of Homeland Security Office of Community Partnerships director, told the subcommittee that the current CVE program under his direction isn’t even being guided by a complete, strategic plan, according to a report at the Washington Examiner. After being repeatedly hounded by committee members, Selim admitted that a strategic plan for a $10 million endeavor was “nearly ready,” and that he could only point to “anecdotal” evidence that the program had actually countered some violent extremism.

“I can’t sit here before you today and definitively say that person was going to commit an act of terrorism … but we’re developing that prevention framework in a range of cities across the country,” Selim confessed under oath.

***

Pete Hoekstra: Obama’s Embrace of US Muslim Brotherhood Groups Damages American Foreign Policy:

Texts of all witness testimonies can be found here

Entire Hearing:

Also see:

London Counterterrorism Officer Quits Over Double Standard For Muslims

shutterstock_319837088

Political correctness causes London police to protect Muslim extremists within their ranks and discount reports of crimes they’ve committed, says former counterterrorism officer Javaria Saaed.

The Spectator, by M. G. Oprea, Sept. 19, 2016:

When Javaria Saaed, a member of the counterterrorism division at Scotland Yard, reported extremist behavior and comments from fellow Muslim officers, she expected her concerns to be taken seriously. Several Muslims in the London police force were expressing views consistent with extremist interpretations of Islam, something she assumed would interest her superiors. But she was wrong. She hadn’t counted on the double standard applied to Muslims in the West, or government officials’ intense fear of being labeled Islamaphobic.

According to Saeed, herself a practicing Muslim, a Muslim constable told her that female genital mutilation—a sickening practice that has been outlawed in Britain since 1985—ought to be legal. Another said women should report domestic violence to sharia courts instead of police (except in cases of extreme violence). Yet another Muslim officer said that what Pakistan needs is a “strict religious solution… like the Taliban” to resolve its security problems.

Political Correctness Creates Massive Injustices

Naturally concerned about these radical comments from law enforcement officials, Saeed reported them to her superiors. They told her she shouldn’t pursue any complaints about the beliefs or comments of these Muslim officers because it would hurt her “career progression and tarnish [her] reputation.”

In Saeed’s opinion, her superiors were afraid to punish Muslims in their departments out of fear of being called Islamaphobic or racist. Based on their comments about her career, it seems this fear runs up the chain of command. Eventually, Saeed resigned over what she saw as Scotland Yard’s “political correctness” and the “sickening views and behaviour of some Muslim officers.”

This isn’t the first time Britain has turned a blind eye to actions within the Muslim community for fear of accusations of bigotry. In the English city of Rotherham, city officials, police, and social workers looked the other way for decades while a child sex ring groomed and prostituted more than 1,400 young white girls and women. Why? Because the men running the ring were of Pakistani descent, and no one wanted to be accused of racism for prosecuting them. The horrifying story broke in 2014 and received tremendous attention, but recently it was revealed that the problem persists.

The situation with Scotland Yard, in addition to the Rotherham scandal, points to the double standard applied to Muslims in the West, who get away with behavior that would otherwise be considered offensive or inappropriate—or criminal.

Saeed claims Muslim officers working for London’s Metropolitan Police were often racist toward white officers. But few people take seriously the claim that a minority can be racist against a non-minority. What’s often called “reverse racism” is dismissed as being racist itself. The conversation, it would seem, is closed on this issue. Only whites can be racist. If minorities have negative views of whites, it must be because of their history of oppression.

The Double Standard for Muslims in the West

Saeed also reported that many of her fellow Muslim officers were sexist toward women. They called her a “bad Muslim” because she didn’t wear a head covering, a common practice for Muslim women that’s considered a sign of purity and propriety. She was also told that she was “better off at home looking after [her] husband.”

Compare this to how sensitive we are in the West to even the slightest whiff of sexism in the workplace. We’ve taken the real need to protect women from sexual harassment and turned it into a witch-hunt of sorts, so all a woman has to do is feel uncomfortable, with little producible proof or discrimination, and the man in question is assumed guilty. Yet a Muslim police officer can come out and tell a woman how to dress and that she ought not to be working at all, and face no consequences.

Imagine the outrage if Christians went around telling women they belong at home, not in the workplace. But a Muslim man’s view that a woman should live like a 1940s American housewife, something that today is anathema in the West, is just accepted as part of his culture?

Or take attitudes toward homosexuality. An American baker who won’t design a special-order cake for a gay wedding has his life turned upside down and is painted as the worst kind of bigot. Meanwhile, the mainstream media bends over backwards to avoid talking about homophobia in Islam in the wake of the Orlando shooting in a gay night club, which a Muslim carried out in the name of ISIS.

As Saeed herself pointed out, if a white officer had behaved as her Muslim co-workers had, he would have most definitely been fired. Instead, Scotland Yard gave the officer who made the comment about female genital mutilation “management action,” which usually means some type of training course. It’s no wonder Saeed describes some Muslim officers as feeling like they’re above the law. They essentially are.

Lately there’s been much talk about tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims in Europe and America, especially during the ongoing migrant crisis. Many in the West have decided the solution is to carve out special exceptions for Muslims and treat them with kid gloves.

This is wrong-headed and condescending. The best hope Europe and the United States has for peaceably co-existing with Muslims and inviting them to participate in our society is to hold them to the very same standards to which we hold everyone else. They deserve that much from us.

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

The Mulish Stupidity of Clinton-Obama Counterterrorism

trumphillary-treasonNational Review, by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY, September 19, 2016:

As Rich notes, Hillary Clinton is essentially accusing Donald Trump of treason on the theory that his rhetoric aids and abets ISIS in recruiting Muslims because it affirms their narrative a war between Islam and non-Muslims. This is as stupid as would be a claim that Mrs. Clinton is guilty of treason – as opposed to mere idiocy – because, by refusing to acknowledge the Islamic doctrinal roots of jihadist terror, she and her policymaking cohort blind us to the motivation, objectives, and strategies of our terrorist enemies.

As I have previously recounted, when I prosecuted the Blind Sheikh’s terrorist cell in the mid-Nineties, the defense lawyers for the jihadists – who sounded just like today’s anti-anti-terrorist progressives – claimed that their clients had been lured into terrorist activity by U.S. government policy and by the enticements of a government informant who spouted Islam-against-the-world rhetoric. In response to this fatuous contention, we put a very simple question to the jury: “What would it take to turn you into a mass-murderer?” What policy could be so bad, what rhetorical us-against-them flourishes so inspiring, that a person would join the terrorist cause and commit acts of barbarism?

When a person with a modicum of common sense considers such a question, he or she knows that there could be no such policy. There is no controversial policy or figure that could cause a person to become a terrorist – not Gitmo, not harsh interrogation tactics, not Bosnia, not Abu Ghaib, not torched Korans, not anti-Muslim videos, not Donald Trump … or George Bush … or Dick Cheney … or Bill Clinton … or Pope John Paul II (the latter two of whom jihadists plotted to kill in the mid-Nineties).

Of course, all of these policies and people are exploited pretextually by jihadists in order to justify themselves and to play the West like a fiddle. But it’s all a side show. A person joins the jihad only if the person adopts jihadist ideology. A person is moved to commit mass-murder – an act that requires depraved indifference to the lives and the humanity of his targets – because there is no ideology as powerful as religious ideology, as the notion that God Himself has commanded the aggression because the infidels offend Him by their infidelity.

As I argue in today’s column, the roots of this fervor are found in Islamic scripture, which Islamic supremacists construe literally. Jihadists and their recruits care no more about Donald Trump’s bluntness (including his occasional over-the-top offensiveness, like threatening to kill the families of terrorists) than they do about Hillary Clinton’s inane, self-congratulatory nuance. In fact, regardless of which of them wins the presidency, jihadists will want to kill him or her, as they have wanted to kill all American presidents regardless of party. No matter who wins the presidency, jihadists will target America for mass-murder attacks, and will pretextually blame their actions on either Trump policies or Clinton policies, just as they blamed Bill Clinton’s, George Bush’s, and – yes – Barack Obama’s policies.

Perhaps the only thing more sadly hilarious than watching the political class tie itself in knots over whether a bomb should be called a “bomb” and whether a terrorist attack should be called a “terrorist attack” is Clinton’s claim that ISIS is rooting for Trump to be elected president. Newsflash: Jihadists don’t give a flying fatwa who wins American elections, or even whether there are American elections.

Islamic supremacists and their jihadist front lines are in the business of killing Americans and supplanting our constitutional republic with sharia. To claim that they care about our elections is to exhibit ignorance about who they are, who they think we are, and what they seek to achieve.

This is obviously news to Mrs. Clinton, but there is no point in speculating about what causes jihadist terror. As I explain in today’s column, the cause is Islamic supremacist ideology rooted in a fundamentalist, literalist construction of Islamic scripture. We know this not because I’ve figured it out and am letting you all in on the big secret. We know it because our enemies have explained themselves in the bluntest of terms.

In an essay called “The Caliphate’s Multi-pronged War” for the current (35th Anniversary) issue of The New Criterion, I described a recent edition of ISIS’s Dabiq magazine. The issue, called the “Break the Cross” edition, included a feature that should be required reading across the West. It is called, “Why We Hate You & Why We Fight You.” It asserts, among other things:

Your disbelief is the primary reason we hate you, as we have been commanded to hate the disbelievers until they submit to the authority of Islam, either by becoming Muslims, or by paying jizyah [the poll tax for dhimmis]—for those afforded this option—and living in humiliation under the rule of the Muslims.

Even if you were to stop bombing us . . . we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you. No doubt, we would stop fighting you then as we would stop fighting any disbelievers who enter into a covenant with us, but we would not stop hating you.

That is what causes terrorism, and it will continue to cause terrorism until the animating ideology of Islamic supremacism has been acknowledged, confronted, and marginalized to the point that influential Islamic authorities universally teach that the call to jihad in Islamic scripture is no longer operative in the modern world. That’s got nothing to do with Donald Trump … or, for that matter, with Hillary Clinton.

WARNING: Twitter Warns Twitter World that My Post on Clinton-Obama Counterterrorism MAY BE UNSAFE!

The Response to This Weekend’s Terror Attacks Showed Willful Blindness in Real Time

New York City firemen near the site of the bombings in Chelsea, September 18, 2016. (Retuers photo: Rashid Umar Abbasi)

New York City firemen near the site of the bombings in Chelsea, September 18, 2016. (Retuers photo: Rashid Umar Abbasi)

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, Sept. 19, 2016:

In the all too familiar pattern, things are going boom, Americans are under attack, and the American political class is already busy playing the “See No Jihad” minuet.

In a rational world, where our highest imperative would be to understand the threat that confronts us rather than to find the least offensive way of describing it, it would be patently, undeniably obvious that we are targets of international terrorism fueled by Islamic supremacist ideology. Nevertheless, the political class can only bring itself to say this kicking and screaming, and only if there is no other plausible alternative — which basically means a terrorist caught in the act while wearing an ISIS T-shirt.

That is because Islamic supremacism is a mainstream interpretation of Islam. The political class has convinced itself that uttering the plain truth would be condemning all of Islam, meaning all Muslims — notwithstanding that no one sensible claims Islamic supremacism is the only way of interpreting Islam, and, in fact, jihadist battalions kill more Muslims than non-Muslims.

Speaking forthrightly would also undermine a fiction the political class inanely believes is essential to social cohesion: The notion, oft-repeated by President Obama and Hillary Clinton, that Islam is part of the fabric of American life, as native in our history as apple pie and Judeo-Christian culture.

Islam, of course, is an alien belief system. That doesn’t make it bad per se. Our society is a melting pot and many things alien to it have blended their way in, making us more vibrant, dynamic, innovative, and successful. Clearly, though, not everything alien is benign and welcome.

Many Muslims embrace the Western culture of reason, liberty, and equality, and they flourish in our society, to which they are a real asset. Nevertheless, nothing is more alien and hostile to our society than Islamic supremacism — which, at its core, is sharia supremacism. Its adherents resist assimilation and seek to impose a totalitarian system that suppresses liberty and is systematically discriminatory against non-Muslims, women, apostates from Islam, homosexuals, and other groups.

Because we are trapped in a politically correct fantasy world in which terrorism has nothing to do with Islam and Islam is innately American, the political class can never admit that obvious jihadist attacks — such as those that just occurred in New York, New Jersey, and Minnesota — are international terrorism. Indeed, we are in a state of such self-parody that, this weekend, it somehow became “intemperate” and “un-presidential” to conclude that attempts (some successful) to detonate IEDs — as in, improvised explosive devices, a.k.a. bombs — were in fact bombings.

The playbook has become so tired. Nothing can be considered terrorism, even a mass-casualty attack with the objective of intimidating a civilian population or government (the legal definition of terrorism) unless and until there is convincing evidence connecting it to a known terrorist organization — usually ISIS or al-Qaeda. It is acceptable, you see, to label as “terrorism” an attack connected to these organizations because the political class has pronounced them as non-Islamic (even anti-Islamic), since they do not adhere to the imaginary, relentlessly benign Islam that the political class has dreamt up and designated as the one and only “true” Islam.

Thus, when a terrorist attack happens, the first thing we must do is worry about evil, divisive haters (we know who we are) who dare presume to call it a “terrorist attack.” After all, they could stoke a “blowback” — i.e., “hate crimes” against Muslims, committed mainly by the white racists with which America teems.

This reaction stems from the political class’s designated representatives of the Islamic community in the United States. These are Islamist-activist groups, mostly sprung from the Muslim Brotherhood — CAIR being the most notorious. In point of fact, said groups are not representative of most Muslims in the West. In reality, they are hostile to pro-American Muslims, especially those who oppose sharia encroachment and favor a peaceful solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in which Israel’s right to exist is acknowledged.

Still, the Islamists, aside from being well funded by overseas sources, are loudest and leftist. Therefore, they are the ones who receive the political class’s sympathetic attention. Indeed, over the last two decades (and particularly in the Obama years), they have become government consultants who instruct policymakers on how to think about, and talk about, terrorism.

Here is reality: The enemy that unifies the terrorist siege against the U.S., Israel, and the West is Islamic supremacist ideology, which aims to bring the world under sharia dominion. This ideology is far more important than ISIS and al-Qaeda because it is what created ISIS and al-Qaeda. It was the catalyst before those jihadist organizations existed, and it will be around when they are gone — for as long as we fail to take it on without apology and discredit it in the light of day.

The attacks spurred by this ideology, like those carried out this weekend, are international terrorist attacks, regardless of whether the operatives who execute them are affiliated with or inspired by a designated international terrorist organization. There are no “homegrown” attacks because the ideology is alien. There are no “lone wolves” because the wolves are part of a huge pack — a fundamentalist Islamic anti-Western movement that has millions of adherents, some percentage of which will always be willing to take up arms and kill for the cause.

Pro-American Muslims need us to help them discredit the fundamentalists. We cannot do this without openly acknowledging — as, for example, Egyptian president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has courageously done — that the roots of jihadist aggression are Muslim scriptures. This must not be obscured by political correctness. The scriptures in question must be acknowledged and reinterpreted in a manner that confines them to their historic context and nullifies a literal interpretation of them in modern life.

If we don’t confront the animating ideology and its stealth supporters with every bit as much energy as our police pursue the murderous jihadists, we lose. Winning begins with cashiering political correctness, with speaking openly about, and understanding, what we are up against.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

Sharyl Attkisson Investigates the Cost of Terror

full-measure

Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson, Sept. 8, 2016

COST OF TERROR:
Full Measure investigates how much U.S. tax money has been spent fighting the war against terrorists and its impact on the American way of life. The head of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Sen. Ron Johnson, discusses the vulnerability that worries him most today.


MOST HATED MAN:
Scott Thuman reports from London on the so-called ‘Most Hated Man’ in Britain. Anjem Choudary was jailed for five-and-a-half years for urging support of ISIS. Scott reports on the sentencing as the U.K. tries to stop a generation from being recruited as terrorists.


WAR ON TERROR:
Lt. General Micheal Flynn details his plan for winning the war against terrorists. Hear why he believes speaking out about this plan ultimately cost him his job as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.


REFLECTING & REMEMBERING 9/11
Some of the costs of terror can’t be quantified. Like the cost to our collective psyche. Full Measure host Sharyl Attkisson remembers the events of that day and the impact of reporting the story from Washington, D.C.

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.

People’s Cube: Gurka-Burka, Burkini, and Other Wordplay is Islamophobic

gurka

Truth Revolt, Sept. 8, 2016:

From our favorite satire site The People’s Cube comes their take on the real-life controversy over a cucumber shaped like someone in a burka — yes, it’s a real controversy. Read below:

It has come to our attention that Mayor Simone Stein-Lücke of Bonn, Germany, has come under fire for sharing a picture of a cucumber on social media. If she were to share a picture of a cucumber inside of a condom as an educational visual aide for local kindergartners, she might have been praised for her courage and open-mindedness. Unfortunately, this Mayor chose to share a picture of a cucumber (Gurke in German) that looked like the Islamic burka, and named it “Gurka.”

Read more about it here: WHAT A GHERKIN: German mayor blasted for posting picture of a cucumber that looks like somebody wearing a BURKA

In this regard, our scientists at the Karl Marx Treatment Center have come up with the following recommendation:

All progressive humanity should henceforth abstain from all kinds of humor, puns, spoonerisms, malapropisms, and other forms of wordplay, which by default are offensive to the ever increasing Islamic community, whose culture denounces jokes as bold-faced lies and mandates a strictly literal interpretation of any statement lest the author be accused of blasphemy and executed.

Even if the joke or wordplay has nothing to do with Islam, it is nearly impossible for a Westerner to know the potential extent of offence it may or may not contain for a devout Muslim. Therefore, any humor in public space should be thoroughly rationed and posted on social media only with express permission of trained government professionals, who will review the jokes and/or puns within 72 hours upon written submission and issue a special one-time permit to share the joke and/or pun along with a recommended amount of spontaneous laughter based on a state-approved scale, from one to ten, ten being the loudest and the most heart-felt.

This includes Internet memes, Photoshops, and any other images that contain elements of fantasy, absurdity, or simply allow multiple interpretations, especially if they are based on wordplay.

On the subject of cucumbers or any other vegetables, examples include the renowned People’s Cube classic, “The Beetles on the Abbey Road”…

beetles_abbey_road

…or even this lovely picture of a Muslima wearing a Burkini.

burkini_beach_dress

What Do American Schools Teach About Islam? PC Or Nothing

Photo amrufm / Flickr

Photo amrufm / Flickr

The Federalist, by Joy Pullmann, Aug. 16, 2016:

Jenny McKeigue’s youngest child enters seventh grade this fall, and she plans to excuse him from a world history class requirement to recite a Muslim conversion prayer called the shahada. McKeigue spent four years attempting to convince her school board in Olmsted Falls, Ohio, to alter some lessons and replace history textbooks after her oldest son in 2012 showed her a reality TV episode his teacher had played in class.

In “30 Days: Muslims and America,” an imam tells a Christian man attempting to live as a Muslim for 30 days that Muslims and Christians worship the same god. The Christian struggles with that idea but ultimately accepts it.

Independent reviewers McKeigue requested also found errors in the district’s textbooks such as listing eleven biblical commandments and stating Muslims historically “practiced religious tolerance” by requiring Christians and Jews to pay extra taxes—not mentioning the alternative was often death. McKeigue said comparative class time and materials were not devoted to other major world religions such as Judaism and Christianity.

The district recently did buy new textbooks—a newer version of the one McKeigue had objected to, which contains many of the same errors.

Take and Read

Textbook errors are so common that several independent organizations review textbooks full-time. The Florida-based Citizens for National Security has issued the most comprehensive reviews about how textbooks treat Islam, and Chairman William Saxton says he fields about six related inquiries per day.

CFNS reports chronicle sins of omission and commission—such as saying “war broke out” between Palestinians and Israelis although one side was the aggressor, glossing over historical realities such as Muslims holding slaves and proselytizing by the sword, and inaccuracies such as stating Jesus was a Palestinian when Palestine did not exist until more than 100 years after his crucifixion.

One of CFNS’s YouTube videos points out that the high school history textbook used in the Boston bombers’ public school, Cambridge Latin School, makes straightforward religious claims about Islam no textbook would mimic in a description of any other religion: “Muhammad’s teachings, which are the revealed word of God…” An unbiased textbook would say something like “Muslims believe Muhammad’s teachings are the revealed word of God.”

Saxton is a retired U.S. intelligence officer with a Harvard University doctorate who volunteers for CFNS. He won’t say which agencies he’s worked for besides the Department of Defense, but will say he has investigated jihadist propaganda professionally. He began going through all the textbooks he could find after visiting a grandson in California in 2009 and looking up the sections on Middle Eastern history.

“That’s when the light lit,” he said. “I said ‘Whoa, we have a problem.’ This is a cultural jihad. It’s a dangerous form because no one is going to know about this.”

He quotes Shabir Mansuri, the founder of the Muslim-Brotherhood-connected Council on Islamic Education, who said their work reviewing textbooks for major publishers is intended to produce a “bloodless” cultural revolution. Reaction to such statements prompted CIE to change its name to the Institute for Religion and Civic Values, where Mansuri continues to review history textbooks for major publishers, write lesson plans, and give seminars to teachers.

Follow the Money

Taxpayers often fund these activities through government grants and contracts, and IRCV claims a “significant working partnership” with the U.S. State Department. It reviewed the textbook McKeigue objected to in her kids’ schools (Holt 2006).

Former CIE senior researcher Susan Douglass now runs a education outreach program for an influential Georgetown University center endowed in 2005 by a $20 million gift from Saudi prince Alwaleed Bin Talal. Recently declassified documents suggest links between the Saudi Arabian government, al-Qaeda, and the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks.

Talal, one of the world’s richest men, has suggested America’s foreign policy deserved some blame for 9/11 and donated to the terrorist-linked Council for American-Islamic Relations. John Esposito, the founding director of Talal’s Georgetown center, has raised money for CAIR and publicly promoted organizations the U.S. government later designated terrorist organizations.

The center also receives federal Title VI funds for developing K-12 curriculum materials. Like Mansuri, Douglass travels the country giving seminars at museums, school districts, and conferences. Teacher resources she has written read like Muslim apologetics, including claims such as: “Customs such as honor killing are not part of Islam”; “Of the many current misperceptions about Islam, perhaps the most widespread is that women in Islamic law and Muslim society are oppressed and lack rights”; and “Jihad may not be conducted either to force people to convert or to annihilate or subdue people of other faiths.”

Talal also gave $20 million in 2005 to Harvard University for a similar, federally funded center of resources for K-12 teachers. Many U.S. campuses host such centers, whose employees present themselves as experts to textbook publishers, school teachers, and the media, said Winfield Myers, the director of academic affairs at the Middle Eastern Forum.

“You can see the actual genocide carried against the Christians in the Middle East with very little protest from these departments, because of so many years of Arab supremacism,” Myers said. “In the main, the Middle East studies departments are anti-Western and anti-Israel.”

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

The prevalence of Saudi money in American higher education “gives incentives for not asking critical questions,” Myers said. Exacerbating this tendency is that asking questions about Islam quickly sparks accusations of racism, said Shireen Qudosi, an American Sufi Muslim who lives in California.

“Because we’re limited our ability to have these conversations it leads to this entitled attitude of ‘Because I’m Muslim I deserve something extra,’” she said from her cell phone in the car as her five-year-old son, Reagan, fussed in the back seat. She excused herself to hand him a snack.

Her frustrations with Islam in American schools are largely social: “Arabs see themselves as superior and their culture as the only authentic Islamic culture. And since they’re the ones with the money, what they say gets put into play.” Since they fear losing jobs and reputation if accused of racism, school administrators and social workers often sideline Muslim-related conflicts, leaving families to fend for themselves.

This also affects curriculum, because it motivates curriculum companies to similarly downplay religious and racial conflict, at the expense of accuracy and substance. High school teacher Elizabeth Altman, for example, spent eight weeks last summer with materials all over her dining room table, “tearing my hair out” to rewrite her Advanced Placement European history class to fit new guidelines: “I tried to take Sundays off. Tried.”

College Board’s AP tests can earn students college credit in high school. In 2015, 110,000 students took the AP European history exam, and for most it will be their last world history class.

“I was thinking ‘I hope I die before graduation so I don’t have to do this’” because the new material is so tedious and vague, said Altman, who is also the assistant principal at Our Lady of the Sacred Heart Academy in Rockford, Illinois, before diving into a detailed explanation of what the College Board left out of its new, 237-page course description.

Goodbye, Religion

Islam is almost completely absent, but it’s not just Islam. Religion, period, has been relegated to a few glancing mentions, notes an extensive review of the curriculum changes from the National Association of Scholars. For example, it treats the Holocaust as a political and racial episode, leaving aside the religious elements.

“To leave religion out as a motivation for war or for domestic policy decisions is to leave out half of the human character,” Altham said. “To treat religious belief as simply a convenient belief of the ruling class is to ignore that the ruling class generally has genuine belief.”

So while ISIS is destroying Roman ruins in Syria because they consider them pagan works of infidels not worth preserving, Western intellectuals are performing an analogous intellectual exercise by erasing major human motivations and pivotal historic events in ways that hamper young Americans’ ability to understand historic and current world affairs, said David Randall, the author of the NAS report.

“Islam is the great inheritor and great rival” to Christian civilization throughout European history, Randall said. “You need to know that.” Since “the war-torn edges between Islam and Christianity depend on the rivalry of religious claims,” it’s impossible to understand European history without understanding exactly what motivated people then—and today.

Joy Pullmann is managing editor of The Federalist and author of the forthcoming “The Education Invasion: How Common Core Fights Parents for Control of American Kids,” from Encounter Books.