A Muslim Woman’s Fight Against Radical Islam

farhana-qaziby Abigail R. Esman
Special to IPT News
February 23, 2017

If one were to find a single question that defines the geo-politics of our age, it might well be the question Farhana Qazi has been asking herself for almost 20 years: why do so many Muslims kill in the name of their religion?

If she has not found all the answers, Qazi has done much to facilitate our understanding of the issues, primarily as they relate to Muslim women and the rise in women extremists. A Muslim herself, she has worked largely behind the scenes: at the Counter-Terrorism Center in Washington, D.C.; at the Rand Corporation think tank; as an instructor on terrorism for the U.S. military; and as an author. Her work has taken her back to her native Pakistan, where she has immersed herself in the lives of Muslim extremist women, met with the mothers of suicide bombers, come to know women who have endured imprisonment, and shared stories with women who, in her words, “have tried to break the barriers of patriarchy and patrilineal traditions.”

Born in Lahore, Pakistan, Qazi came to America with her mother at the age of 1, joining her father who was already working in Tennessee. Soon after, the family moved to Austin, Texas, which Qazi considers her hometown. Her work since then, both in the service of her country and as a beacon for moderate Muslims seeking to reconcile their beliefs with the violent extremism facing the world, has received lavish praise and numerous awards. She is now working on a book that examines why Muslims turn violent, and the ways in which recent political events contribute to violent extremism.

She told us her story in a recent interview, and shared her crucial insights on radical Islam, women terrorists, and where we stand now in the face of the radical Islamist threat.

Abigail R. Esman: Why did your family move to the U.S., and how old were you at the time?

Farhana Qazi: My father came to the U.S. because it was his dream since he was a child. He admired Western values and later, he worked with American clients when he was a young accountant in Lahore, Pakistan. He came to the U.S. (to the rolling hills of Tennessee to pursue an MBA), and thanks to Al Gore, my father was allowed to stay in this country to work after his student visa expired. Gore wrote a letter on my father’s behalf. I was a year old when I moved here with my mother. I barely remember my birth city, Lahore – the cultural nerve of Pakistan. I lived in a small town in Tenn. before moving to the capital city of Austin, Texas, my childhood home.

ARE: How important was religion to you growing up?

FQ: My parents were born Muslim but their practice was liberal, almost secular. My father is an intellectual and philosopher who admires all religions; he values the Ten Commandments that came from Moses. He idolizes the principles of Buddhism and he believes in the Christian concept of charity. My father has raised me to be a “humanist” rather than a Muslim. I embraced Sunni Islam later in life

ARE: Many women in Pakistan face oppression, forced marriage, and family violence. How do you explain the freedom you have had in your life?

FQ: I am blessed to be an American Muslim woman. My father often tells me he came to the U.S. for me; because I am a girl from a middle-class family in Pakistan who would not have had the same opportunities in life had I lived in a country with patriarchal norms, age-old customs, and traditions, most of which deny girls and women their basic rights in Islam. Culture trumps religion in Pakistan. But it’s not true in America, where I can practice faith openly or privately. Because I am free in America, I chose a male-dominated field – in the 1990s, counter-terrorism work was dominated and dictated by men mostly. Often, I was the only female speaker at international conferences and addressed why Muslims kill in the name of my religion. Now, there are more women in the CT field, but at the time, I was not only female, American, but also Muslim – the combination of the three made me stand alone, which is a blessing in disguise. I welcome the opportunity (and attention) for speaking on a subject that I understood. And that’s how my father raised me: to be a bridge between the East and the West. To learn from both worlds, both cultures and to close the gap of misunderstanding.

ARE: Was having that freedom part of what has guided you in your work?

FQ: Yes, my unique cultural and linguistic background made me marketable for the intelligence community. There were no female Muslims in the Counter-Terrorism Center. I believe I was hired to help the Center understand the extremists’ narrative, rhetoric, and recruitment patterns. Later, upon leaving the Center, I joined the RAND Corp as a policy analyst-researcher and traveled to the Muslim world to engage local communities. Because I understand both cultures, I have been able to speak to women who might have not been accessible to other American men or women. When I trained the U.S. forces as a senior instructor, I received the highest honor – the 21st Century Leader Award from The National Committee on American Foreign Policy (NCAFP) in 2012 for my service as an American Muslim woman – when I was presented with the award, I was told that because I knew how to serve the U.S. government as a woman and Muslim is the reason why I was chosen for the award.

ARE: You in fact began working in the area of counterterrorism and issues surrounding the lives of Muslim women very early in your career. What motivated this?

FQ: My mother is a war hero to me. She joined the Pakistani Army when she was barely 20 years old to fight for Kashmir. In the 1960s, Pakistan was at war with India for the second time to fight for the valley of Kashmir. My mama, barely five feet tall and a petite frame, volunteered for the Army and trained at Qaddafi stadium in Lahore, holding a British .303 rifle which was taller than she was. She often told me, “I wanted to prove to my country that women can fight, too.” She was raised in a country at a time when women and girls had few career choices and were often bound by familial responsibilities. But not my mother, who dreamed of being a politician had she not married my father and then settled in the U.S.

ARE: Mostly, you’ve focused your work on women.

FQ: I’d say my work focuses on understanding radical Islam and the divisions in the Muslim world today – a broken mass of billions blinded by age-old customs, traditions, and patriarchal norms steeped in ancient cultures. I’m trying to understand the way that Islam has been destroyed by splinter groups, religious fanatics, and hardline conservatives, issuing fatwas that oppose women’s rights. I’ve come to learn has that while terrorists claim to empower women, the reality is that women are cannon fodder or a ‘riding wave of terrorists’ success.’ In the end, women don’t matter, which begs the question: why do they join?

ARE: Then for many years you worked at Rand. What did you do there?

FQ: Research on Al Qaeda networks and the female suicide trend that began to capture headlines in the conflict in Iraq. I was the first to predict that there would be a series of bombings by women – I wrote my first op-ed on the subject in The Baltimore Sun, predicting more attacks. Women were an anomaly so no one paid attention, until females strapped on the bomb. And then a Newsweek piece caught the attention of multi-national forces in Iraq and the U.S. embassy. Suddenly, we began to pay attention to a trend that would continue to this day, though I have been saying this for the past 17 years: women are deadly, too.

ARE: And the Counter-Terrorism Center.

FQ: I was the first American Muslim girl to be hired. I was 25 years old.

ARE: How serious is the problem of Muslim women extremists right now? Is it a threat that is growing?

FQ: This is an ongoing threat that is shielded by men. We don’t hear of attacks by women because it is unreported. For example, I know from my U.S. military contacts that there were a number of Afghan women strapping on the bomb and I am writing about this in a chapter for my next book on female terrorists, but that phenomenon was not reported. Because we don’t hear of it in the news doesn’t mean it’s not happening. The real concern is women who support extremist men – women have done this since the Afghan jihad. Women write in jihadi magazines. Women raise their children to be terrorists. And women stand by their radical men. This is nothing new.

ARE: Are Muslim women in the West generally more or less likely to radicalize than their counterparts in the Islamic world?

FQ: Western women have different challenges; the main concern for a Muslim girl or woman in the West has to do with identity. Often, girls who join ISIS are trapped between two opposing cultures and societies – the life at home and their life outside the home (at school, for example).

One of my chapters in my new book is called “The Denver Girls” – I remember visiting with the community that was affected by the three East African girls who boarded a plane to join ISIS but were brought back home (the father of one of the girls reported his daughter missing). A Sudanese woman I interviewed told me that ISIS empowers our girls, and I can see why. Because many Muslim girls living in the West are still bound by cultural (read controlled) rules and have little freedom outside of their home environment; they aren’t allowed to ‘hang out’ with Western friends and these girls certainly don’t have the same opportunities as their brothers or male cousins. In these cases, girls look for alternatives, which terrorism provides.

Further, I believe the teachings of Islam (which I live by: peace, compassion and mercy) are not preached or taught at home. When Muslims have spiritual pride and believe that God’s love is only for the select few, then this teaching restricts children in many ways: they are unable to cope in a Western society and compelled to stay within their own communities, which makes girls more vulnerable to extremist recruitment and makes them feel they do not belong.

ARE: What are some of the major reasons you’ve found that explain the phenomenon of female Muslim terrorists?

FQ: No two Muslim female terrorists are alike. And while the motives will vary, I do believe that patterns don’t lie. Contextual clues are important indicators for violence, and by context, this would include a girl’s home (private) and public life; her exposure to violence or trauma or abuse; her access to violent messaging online and the time she spends reading and engaging with violent individuals in the digital space; a personal tragedy (did she lose someone to violence?); and much more. I’ve learned that there is no “aha” moment or trigger point but a sequence of triggers and “aha” moments that lead to the path of violence.

ARE: Based on your expertise, what do you think of Trump’s “Muslim ban” or travel ban?

FQ: The travel ban may have the adverse effect. I believe in protecting our country from external threats. What worries me is that the threat is already here. If we look back at attacks or attempted attacks over the past decade, radical Muslims have been living in our midst. [Orlando shooter] Omar Mateen, [San Bernardino killers] Syed and Tashfeen Farook, [Chattanooga shooter] Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, [Fort Hood shooter] Nidal M. Hassan, and more. Many of these terrorists were not from the countries listed in the travel ban. What we need is greater civic involvement and community policing.

ARE: Have you experienced threats of any kind in relation to your work?

FQ: I have been warned to change careers and not talk about Muslim terrorists. But to do that would be to ignore the realities of our time. As a devout Muslim woman, who still believes in Islam’s core message of peace, I have to acknowledge that there are Muslims who kill in the name of Islam, manipulating the faith for political or personal reasons. And these individuals, male or female, need to be stopped and countered by Muslims, too.

ARE: In the now-infamous words of Mitch McConnell, “she persisted.” Why do you persist?

FQ: My father taught me the word “persistence’ when I was a young girl in Texas. He often said, “every challenge is an opportunity,” which made the word “persist’ a positive term in my mind. To persist is to succeed and to succeed is to make a difference. I live by the maxim: lead a life of service – and the only way to do that is to persist.

Abigail R. Esman, the author, most recently, of Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy in the West (Praeger, 2010), is a freelance writer based in New York and the Netherlands. Follow her at @radicalstates.

Gorka: Left Cares About Alinsky Tactics and Political ‘Triangulation’ More Than Safety of Americans

Scott Olson/Getty Images

Scott Olson/Getty Images

Breitbart, by John Hayward, February 13, 2017:

Deputy Assistant to the President Dr. Sebastian Gorka, formerly National Security editor for Breitbart News, addressed the controversy over National Security Adviser Mike Flynn’s pre-inauguration phone calls to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak on Monday’s Breitbart News Daily.

“I can’t comment on what was said, or what wasn’t said, on those telephone calls even though the good general himself says that he can’t remember all the details,” Gorka said. “All I can tell you is my personal experience. I spent several months working very closely with General Flynn and the transition team, in his National Security Council transition team. He’s a man you would trust with your life. He’s a great patriot, man of honor, worn the cloth of the Republic.

“The bottom line is, he shook things up in the DIA, and there are a lot of people who want to take revenge on him. Names I’m not going to list across the airwaves right now, but people who do a little bit of research can work out. The Establishment doesn’t like General Flynn, and for me, that’s a good thing,” he told SiriusXM host Alex Marlow.

Marlow proposed that Flynn was but the latest target of the Left’s “pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it” strategy, as defined by Saul Alinsky in Rules for Radicals.

“You’re absolutely correct,” Gorka said. “Whether it’s Steve Bannon, whether it’s Stephen Miller, whether it was Monica Crowley, or whether it’s General Flynn now. Important point for the listeners, and this is what has to be grasped: it’s never about the issues. It’s not about Russia, it’s not about the safety of Americans, it’s not about preventing attacks like Paris or Nice happening in America. It’s the triangulation. We have to isolate and take down the individuals, separate them from their community, pillory them, and then just make their position untenable. It’s classic Alinsky, and I’m sorry, they’re just picking on the wrong guy, because this guy is as hard as nails.”

[CJR: I feel very bad about Monica Crowley. She deserves her reputation back. Read this – Rising to Monica Crowley’s defense ]

Turning to President Donald Trump’s meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Gorka said “the message that has to be taken home by everybody – our allies, our partners, and our competitors and our potential enemies – is that our relationship with Japan is back on track.

“Do you remember the ‘Asia pivot’ that wasn’t a pivot, that ended in China intimidating all her neighbors, building fake atolls with military installations on top of them? That age is over. Whether it’s sending a message to put Iran on notice, or whether it’s rekindling one of our closest ties in the region with Japan, this is a new age for America in foreign policy.”

Gorka said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s upcoming visit to the White House would cover the “obvious issues,” such as “what can we do, as the outside potential interlocutor, to bring stability, to bring some kind of lasting peace to the region?”

“As part of that, it’s going to have to be a discussion of settlements, what is the status of settlements,” he said. “On top of that, one of the things that we are very keen on is to represent an understanding to the world that Israel isn’t alone. It’s not the threat to Israel from local terrorists. It’s the same thing as Orlando, as the attacks in New York, in Boston. There is this, what I like to call the global jihadi movement, and Israel is as much on the frontline – if not more – than any other country. So we want to bring that international recognition that Israel isn’t just our strongest partner in the region, it’s also really on the frontline of the war against the global jihadists.”

Gorka said the White House was not so much “shifting policy” with its latest statements on Israeli settlements, but offering a “nuanced explication of what our policy is.”

“I’m not part of that team, but I’ve spoken to the people that are working that issue, and it’s a fine line,” he said. “What we have suggested is that when it comes to the settlements, you can build on what you’ve already got. So if you’ve got a building, and you want to go up another story, it’s fine. But going to new territories is not going to help anybody. So we’d like to see a little bit of a snapshot in time. Let’s not have any more territory taken as part of the settlements, so that we can get down to some serious negotiations right now.

“That’s a nuanced policy statement from the team, but I think it bears recognition as acting in good faith, so we can bring the partners to the table.”

Another imminent presidential meeting will involve Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, described by Marlow as “pretty much the anti-Trump” for being “a young man who is very photogenic,” raised in an atmosphere of deep left-wing politics for his entire life.

Gorka thought the two leaders might find common ground by acknowledging “there are issues that have to be dealt with in every country,” including “the tension with regard to the terrorist threat internally.”

“We may be from different political communities, but the bottom line, it’s our northerly neighbor. They share a lot of the same issues that we share, especially when it comes to national security,” he observed. “President Trump is the master of the deal, and he can negotiate with people who even have different political opinions. So let’s see what the day brings, but I think it will be a substantive meeting for both parties.”

Gorka said President Trump will soon decide how to proceed on his immigration executive order, after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a judicial restraining order against it. He praised the analysis Breitbart News has offered on the decision.

“Let’s not talk about the fact that the Ninth Circuit Court has been reversed 82 times. That’s their batting average. What Breitbart has very, very rightly revealed is that of the seven nations on the list that came from the Obama administration, 72 nationals of those nations have been convicted of jihadi terrorist activity in America since September the 11th,” he said.

“This narrative, this politicized narrative that it’s Islamophobic, and it has nothing to do with terrorism, and nobody from those countries has ever committed terrorist acts in America is so totally and utterly fallacious that we need to reset the standard of the discussion. It’s about national security. Seventy-two people – think about that. That’s more than five times the number of hijackers that did September the 11th. So we are going to maintain our commitment to that executive order and those seven countries being on a temporary halt.”

Same interview:

Gorka: Radical Islam Has Grown ‘Much, Much Stronger’ Since 9/11

On Monday’s Breitbart News Daily, SiriusXM host Alex Marlow asked for Deputy Assistant to the President Dr. Sebastian Gorka’s assessment of radical Islam and its position in the world today, compared to its influence on the morning of September 11, 2001. “Is radical Islam stronger now as a movement, or has it been weakened since 9/11?” he asked.

“Superb question,” Gorka replied. “And the answer is unequivocally, without a doubt, much much stronger.”

“Just think about one metric. Let’s look at ISIS. ISIS, the Islamic State, has achieved that which no other jihadi group has been able to do in 90 years since the dissolution of the Caliphate by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in 1924. He fired the caliph, he dissolved the Caliphate, when he created the secular republic of Turkey. For 90 years, the bad guys – al-Qaeda included – have tried to re-establish a theocratic Caliphate. ISIS didn’t talk about it. They did it,” he noted.

“They did it in 2014 from the pulpit of the Grand Mosque in Mosul,” he continued. “According to our own counterterrorism center – this is open source – ISIS has 18 operational affiliates around the world. Compare that to just three years ago, when they had seven. They are getting stronger.”

“This is why it’s very important to understand, we’re not at war with Islam, but there is a war inside Islam, for which version is going to win. And right now, it’s the wrong version,” he warned. “It’s the seventh-century atavistic bloodcurdling version that is represented by the Islamic State. The version that is portrayed by Jordan, by Egypt, by the Emiratis, that needs our support because we cannot see the Islamic State expand any more. That is why the president used the phrase, ‘We are going to eradicate the Islamic State.’”

Gorka said there were two important conclusions to draw from the foreign policy speech President Trump gave in Youngstown, Ohio, during the campaign, principles that continue to shape his policy outlook since the election.

“Number one, it’s very clear, he’s given the generals 30 days to come up with a war plan to defeat the Islamic State, as the epitome of the threat right now – destroy it in theater with our allies, with our partners,” he said. “But that’s the smaller part. We’re the most powerful nation the world has ever seen. We can do that relatively easily.”

“Long-term victory, if you read General Flynn’s book, you’ll see this explicitly laid out,” he continued, referring to The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies by retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who is now national security adviser to President Trump’s. “Long-term victory comes when people don’t want to become jihadis anymore.”

He said this would require a longer and more difficult second-stage strategy to “delegitimize the narrative of jihad.”

“Just as Ronald Reagan undermined the narrative of the communists, we have to help our allies, the Sunnis of the region, make the totalitarian ideology of the jihadists look hollow and crumble in upon itself,” Gorka urged. “The larger part of our task is to have a very, very full-throated counter-propaganda campaign, which means the Islam of our allies against the Islam of groups like the Islamic State.”

Dr. Sebastian Gorka is the author of the best-selling book Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War and was national security editor for Breitbart News before joining the Trump administration.

GABRIEL: Why President Trump’s Executive Order Is Vital to Protecting America

The Associated Press

The Associated Press

Breitbart, by Brigitte Gabriel, February 7, 2017:

President Trump’s executive order regarding seven terror-infested countries could not be more critical to ensuring the safety of all Americans. Those who oppose this executive order do so at their own peril and that of their fellow citizens.

First of all, there is no “Muslim ban,” contrary to what the fake news media would have you believe.

There is a ban against travel to the U.S. from seven of the highest risk countries for terrorist activity. It isn’t President Trump’s fault all seven of those countries happen to be almost entirely Islamic. If the Vatican presented the same risk for terrorism as Somalia, they too would have been listed in the executive order. Fortunately, we seem to have the Catholic suicide bomber threat under control.

For too long, Americans have been held captive by the chains of political correctness. While the election of President Trump signaled the beginning of our nation’s awakening, many would prefer we go back to sleep.

After September 11th, 2001, Americans couldn’t understand the psychology of someone who would fly a plane into a building, in exchange for what they believed would be 72 virgins in paradise. They couldn’t understand because they were assigning their own civilized ideals to Islamic radicals, whose beliefs were from a different realm.

More than a decade later, we are still battling this same enemy, which has metastasized tremendously. Not only are we struggling to eliminate Islamic terrorism in the Middle East, we are welcoming this enemy onto our shores with open arms.

Refugee resettlement from terror-ridden countries is one of the most dangerous endeavors our nation could implement.

Contrary to what some lawmakers and the fake news media have repeated, it is an incontrovertible fact that refugees have committed alarming crimes, and terrorist attacks against our nation.

To outline just a sample of these attacks:

  • Somali refugee Abdul Razak Ali Artan went on a jihadi stabbing rampage at Ohio State.
  • In 2016, an Iraqi refugee Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan was accused of planning to bomb a local mall in Texas.
  • In September 2016, a Somali-Kenyan immigrant named Dahir Adan went on a stabbing spree at a mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota.
  • Somali refugee Mohamed Osman Mohamed was arrested for planning to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon back in 2010.
  • In 2012, Abdullatif Ali Aldosary, an Iraqi refugee, bombed a Social Security Office in Arizona.
  • Two Iraqi refugees were convicted for having aided Al-Qaeda in Iraq in killing American servicemen. These so-called “refugees,” lied on their applications, and as proof that the screening process is ineffective, were allowed entry without issue.
  • Both Boston Bombers, the Tsarnaev Brothers, were asylum-seekers fleeing Russia and living in Kyrgyzstan before entering the United States.

For some, the facts simply don’t matter. They are going to push their radical, anti-American, open borders propaganda no matter what.

But the average American needs to hear the truth!

Not only are we allowing large numbers of un-vetted Islamic refugees from terror haven nations, we are doing so courtesy of the U.S. tax payer. Americans are literally financing their own endangerment!

So why the continued opposition to a safer America?

While big businesses like Starbucks pathetically virtue signal by pledging to hire 10,000 refugees, what they don’t tell you is that for each refugee hired, they receive a $2,400 tax credit. You do the math.

But don’t make Starbucks feel like the Lone Ranger.  Religious institutions have also benefited financially to an enormous extent from refugee resettlement.

Catholic Charities, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, World Relief Corporation, Church World Service, and Domestic and Foreign Missionary Service of the Episcopal Church of the USA all have contracts with the federal government to resettle refugees, with a significant number of them Islamic. These religious institutions often use collection plates on Sunday that their members believe is going to help poor Christians, or the Church itself, then turn around to use them for refugee resettlement.

Within four months, these institutions have no responsibility to even know where the refugee is. It’s a beautiful thing for them. They get rich, and can still fly the false flag of moral superiority.

We cannot stay on this suicidal path any longer. Either we do what is necessary to protect our borders and our way of life, or we suffer the consequences Europe is now enduring.

One of the Islamic radicals who participated in the slaughter of innocent Parisians in November 2015 did so by gaining entry using a Syrian passport, gaining entry as a “refugee.

Is this the future we want for ourselves? For our children?

That is why we must stand behind President Trump’s executive order, not out of “Islamophobia,” as the usual anti-American fringe proclaims, but out of safety, and common sense.

To stand in solidarity with President Trump’s executive order to protect the nation, go to actforamerica.org/petition.

The time has come to end political correctness, before it ends us.

Brigitte Gabriel is a terrorism analyst and a two times New York Times best-selling author of “Because They Hate” and “They Must Be Stopped”.  She is the Founder of ACT for America, the nation’s largest grassroots organization devoted to promoting national security and defeating terrorism.

Sharia Commands Muslims To Lie To Non-Muslims

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, February 5, 2017:

KORAN  98:6

The Koran says non-Muslims are the worst of all creatures (98:6), so it should be no surprise the Koran and the Sunna (example of the Islamic prophet Mohammad) allow and oblige Muslims to lie to non-Muslims.

screen-shot-2017-02-05-at-11-07-16-pm-768x507

All authoritative Islamic law (sharia) obliges jihad until the world is under Islamic rule.

Therefore, when Muslim leaders are speaking to non-Muslims about Islam, there is a high probability they are lying.

It is not just a few “radicalized” Muslims who want sharia and all that goes with it.

At the Norway Peace Conference, the founder of Islam.net and host of the conference Fahad Qureshi polled the audience of hundreds of Muslims who unanimously raised their hands indicating they want sharia to be the law of the land to include stoning for adultery, death penalty for homosexuals, and everything that comes with it because their law comes from Allah in the Koran and the example of their prophet Mohammad.

Qureshi stated, “These are general views that every Muslim actually has.  Every Muslim believes in these things.  Just because they’re not telling you about it or just because they’re not out there in the media doesn’t mean they don’t believe in that.”

A 2013 Pew poll reveals most Muslims want sharia to be the law of the land, and most of the Muslim world believes there is only ONE version of sharia – not the “thousands of interpretations” Islamic advisors to the U.S. government have lied about for the last 15 years (and beyond).

Specifically, a sampling of 10 countries/areas of all the Muslim areas polled – Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Morocco, Nigeria, and the Palestinian Territories – reveals out of 785 million Muslims living in these areas, 617 million told the Pew pollsters they want to live under sharia (Islamic law).

For those of you without calculators handy, that is 79% of the Muslim world.  That is a big number.  So is 617 million Muslims, and that’s just a sampling of the world’s Muslims.

The majority of the Muslim world wants the sharia that:  commands pagans to convert to Islam or die; commands Christians and Jews to convert to Islam, submit to sharia and pay the non-Muslim poll tax, or die; calls for apostates to be killed; identifies woman as property; and commands jihad as perpetual warfare until sharia is the law of the land over the entire world.

This is also the sharia that obliges Muslims to lie to non-Muslims.

As UTT’s own Chris Gaubatz experienced in his recent encounter with a sharia scholar and Imam from Texas, they will lie to your face and then feign offense when you call them out on their lies.

See the video HERE.

screen-shot-2017-02-05-at-11-20-54-pm-768x473

Think about this the next time an Islamic scholar, leader of an Islamic organization, the local Imam, or any prominent Muslims are talking to you about Islam.

Flynn’s plan to beat radical Islam starts with schools and social media

National Security Adviser Michael Flynn AP

National Security Adviser Michael Flynn AP

New York Post, by Paul Sperry, February 4, 2017:

President Trump’s national security adviser wants to fight not just Islamic terrorists but the “radical ideology of Islam,” and he plans to do it from the grass roots up, starting with our children at schools while also using social media.

Dealing with the global Islamist threat on a tactical level through drone strikes and arrests hasn’t worked, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn argues, according to his largely overlooked 2016 book, “The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies.” He wants to combat it more broadly, using informational warfare, among other things, on a scale not seen since World War II.

But first, he writes, the government has to overcome the political taboo of tying Islamic violence to the religion of Islam, including its sacred texts, which he says the enemy is using as a manual of warfare.

Last week, Trump asked Flynn to work with the Pentagon and other security agencies to draft a comprehensive plan to not only defeat ISIS on the battlefield but “delegitimize its radical Islamist ideology,” and have it on his desk by the end of this month.

Advance details of the plan can be gleaned from Flynn’s book. In it, the 33-year Army veteran proposes discrediting the “evil (religious) doctrines” motivating jihadists — namely the Islamic rewards for martyrdom (or suicidal terrorism) and the totalitarian tenets of Sharia law — using psy-ops and counter-propaganda, not just through federal government channels but also through “our schools, media and social networks.”

“If we can’t tackle enemy doctrines that call for our domination or extinction,” Flynn writes, “we aren’t going to destroy their jihadis.”

He says in the book that the government may have to draft digital media giants to help “wage ideological warfare” against radical Islam: “We can’t possibly have an effective campaign against Radical Islamic ideology without the cooperation of the likes of Google, Facebook and Twitter.”

He also wants to use radio and TV to conduct psychological warfare.

“It’s long past time for us to denounce the many evils of Radical Islam,” he writes, while highlighting the many defeats of ISIS and al Qaeda to show potential recruits that “the Almighty has changed sides in the holy war.”

Fired by former President Barack Obama from the Defense Intelligence Agency for taking such stands, Flynn vows to reverse the longstanding government practice of whitewashing the violent nature of the enemy’s faith through pleasant platitudes like, “The terrorists are hijacking a religion of peace” and other apologia. He calls such policies “Islamophilia,” and complains they border on appeasement.

“I firmly believe that Radical Islam is a tribal cult, and must be crushed,” he writes.

In his book, Flynn says the Islamist enemy studies our culture “very carefully” and excels at “identifying our weaknesses,” while we, on the other hand, have done very little to exploit weak points in their ideology. We suffer pangs of guilt just “calling them by name and identifying them as fanatical killers acting on behalf of a failed civilization.”

That “failed civilization,” he notes, is Islam, and he says the government must publicly point out its failures, from depressed economies to high illiteracy rates to oppression of women, while supporting “a complete reformation of the Islamic religion” throughout the Muslim world.

He suggests working closely with the president of Egypt, who has called for a renewal of Islam. He also praises reforms pushed by Singapore to convince Muslims that there’s no requirement to follow Sharia in a secular state and that Allah hasn’t blessed jihad against the West. He also cites the half dozen countries that have banned Islamic headscarves around the world.

“We’ve got to get inside the minds of the jihadis” and understand the doctrinal justification for “the cult of killing, the worship of death” and why they, literally, “eagerly drink the blood of their dying enemies,” Flynn writes. What in their scripture brainwashes them into thinking, “We love death more than you love life?” Once that doctrine is exposed, it can be undermined to the point where it loses its potency.

In his 2016 book, Flynn writes ““I firmly believe that Radical Islam is a tribal cult, and must be crushed.”Getty Images

In his 2016 book, Flynn writes ““I firmly believe that Radical Islam is a tribal cult, and must be crushed.”Getty Images

“People need to recognize the strategic power of words and pictures,” Flynn writes. “Ideas, and the words that express them, are very much a part of war, but we have deliberately deprived ourselves of using them.”

He proposes using a modern psy-ops unit to wage psychological warfare against radical Islam — not just abroad but at home, in the American Muslim community.

“The war against Radical Islamists must begin at home,” he writes. “Muslims want to apply Sharia law by using our own legal system to strengthen what many believe to be a violent religious law that has no place in the United States,” he writes, adding the government must stop implying Islamic and Western civilizations “are morally equivalent.”

“Let us accept what we were founded upon: a Judeo-Christian ideology built on a moral set of rules and laws,” he writes. “Let us not fear, but instead fight those who want to impose Sharia law and their Radical Islamist views.”

The West overcame the fascist ideology of the Nazis and Imperial Japanese with ruthlessly effective counter-propaganda. Likewise, defeating the jihadists will require discrediting the Islamofascist ideology that catalyzes them.

“There has to be an entirely new strategy,” Flynn insists, “because nothing we are doing seems to be a winning strategy” after 15 years of war.

“We can’t win this war by treating Radical Islamic terrorists as a handful of crazies and dealing with them as a policing issue,” he writes. “The political and theological underpinnings of their immoral actions have to be demolished.”

Sperry is editor of CounterJihad.com and author of “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington.”

Terror experts hail Trump promise to wipe out ‘radical’ Islam

trump_inaugural_speech2Bachmann: ‘After 8 long, painful years Islamists finally on defense’

WND, by Leo Hohmann, January 20, 2017:

President Donald Trump let the world know up front that he will not shy away from naming the enemy of the United States and the free world.

He didn’t name Russia, China, or any other country.

He named a radical ideology that draws upon religious texts to wage war against Western values.

“We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones, and unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the earth,” he declared in his inaugural speech.

He said people are tired of empty words by whiny politicians. “Now is the hour for action.”

As the Times of Israel astutely pointed out, Trump’s promise to form new alliances hinted at the cultivation of common interests with another Christian nation and super power, Russia, in eliminating the global Islamic threat.

“Trump’s predecessors George W. Bush – who invaded Afghanistan and ousted the Taliban regime – and Barack Obama – who ordered the raid that killed Osama bin Laden – also fought extremism. But Trump has gone further than both in his use of language, suggesting that he sees the fight as a civilizational battle between America and a threat springing from the Islamic faith itself.

“And, in an inaugural address otherwise thin on policy specifics, his vow to form new alliances against terror suggests that he intends to work with Vladimir Putin’s Russia.”

WND contacted a roster of experts on the Islamic threat to get their reaction to Trump’s first words about foreign policy since becoming president.

Michele Bachmann, former Republican congresswoman from Minnesota, said Trump sent the right message on day one of his presidency:

“Today, President Trump made the important first move in defeating radical Islam by naming it as a malignant force requiring defeat.

“I cannot underscore enough the importance of President Trump’s Inaugural statement which named radical Islam. His statement was not lost on the Arab world and now the Islamic supremacists, after eight long, painful years are finally on defense.

“By contrast, President Obama’s infamous Cairo speech delivered in June of 2009 lit the match that inspired Islamists to jihad across the globe.

“In Obama’s failed leadership Islamic supremacists did not see the U.S. as a barrier to achieving their goals. That was all they needed to advance jihad.

“The purpose of Obama’s failed Countering Violent Extremism program was to protect Islam from blame as a motivator for Islamic violence.

How long it will take to defeat radical Islam, no one knows, Bachmann said.

“But today, Donald J. Trump, the 45th president of the United States, took the first step toward victory.”

Robert Spencer, author of the Jihad Watch blog for the David Horowitz Freedom Center and of several bestselling books on Islam, said Trump may have been speaking in hyperbole when he talked about wiping Islamic terrorists off the face of the earth.

“Strictly speaking, it isn’t possible within four years, or eight, or as long as there are people who believe the Quran is the perfect and eternal word of Allah,” Spencer said. “However, Trump’s declaration, while hyperbolic, was a welcome indication of Trump’s apparent determination to speak honestly about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, and to combat it and roll it back.”

Clare Lopez, vice president of research and analysis for the Center for Security Policy in D.C., said Trump’s heart is in the right place but he will find out soon enough that his task is more complex than just “radical” Islam.

“I think about this challenge a bit differently: We are not fighting ‘radical Islam,’ nor are we fighting ‘extremism,’ or ‘terrorism.’ We fight the forces of the global jihad movement to live free from the forcible or stealthy imposition of Islamic law. We Americans fight to defend our right to live as free citizens under the man-made laws of our Constitution.

“That fight will not be won in four years, but it is heartening to hear our new president speak so forthrightly about the enemy we face, which unfortunately is not ‘radical’ at all, but rather all too normative for those who are faithful followers of Muhammad, the Qur’an, and Shariah.

“I think we begin as President Trump has demonstrated: by confronting the enemy and that enemy’s threat doctrine with honesty, courage and conviction in who we are as Americans.”

Phil Haney, a recently retired Homeland Security officer and co-author of the whistleblower book “See Something Say Nothing,” said he was “pretty encouraged” by Trump’s comments.

“Overall I don’t think we’ve had such a constitutional/biblical worldview event in quite a long time. It was refreshing,” he said.

“As far as the semantics of how he put it, I think we need to address the threat that is right in front of us, first, before we go wiping it off the face of the earth,” Haney added. “As he so forcefully indicated, it’s America first. He’s exactly right. Let’s recognize the threat that’s right in front of us, address that first.”

More than a physical wall is needed

Haney said Trump needs to think of his overall immigration policy as a series of “walls” that will protect America in these perilous times. And not just a physical wall at the border.

“I’m talking about shoring up our immigration policy, that’s the strongest wall, shoring up the defenses that are already in our constitutional system, using proper vetting and when people apply for visas we go back to requiring them to really prove who they are, and using a whole common-sense approach to immigration that was really abandoned by the last administration.”

Even refugees stayed at Ellis Island for weeks at a time in previous eras of U.S. history, Haney said. They stayed there and were screened, and that was before the day of Islamic terrorism. So how much more so should they be screened today, with real, authentic documents on who they are and where they’ve been, not just a personal testimony.

Finally, says Haney, Trump must re-instate a common-sense approach to counter terrorism.

“This means providing training for our law enforcement that is based on our ability to determine the radical Islamic threat and study the doctrines that are evident in the Islamic texts, and use the Constitution as the strongest wall of all, because Shariah openly and plainly says it is superior to all other forms of law,” he said.

“Article 6 of our Constitution is our strongest wall,” he added. “There are different kinds of walls. There are not just walls of stone or iron there are walls of protection provided by the constitution, and the protection provided by immigration law and also the protection provided by our counter-terrorism policies.”

‘Pass Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act’

Finally, Haney says President Trump should jump-start the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act that is sitting in the U.S. Congress.

“That sends a message both domestically, and around the world,” he said.

“Tactically, in any kind of military conflict you always have to do that. If you have forces 100 yards from your camp you have to address that before you talk about a large tactical operation miles away. You’ve got to make sure your own camp is secure first. That may be the first realization that President Trump needs to come to, that it’s not just ‘over there.’ It’s a difficult tactical approach, it’s cryptic, it’s a chameleon, but it’s there, right in our own back yard.”

***

Donald Trump’s inauguration speech:

TRANSCRIPT

Connecting the Dots Between Boston, Columbus and Berlin

161228bostonmarathonbombersConservative Headquarters, by George Rasley, CHQ Editor | 12/28/16

After every Muslim terrorist attack the establishment media, and others who refuse to take the Koran at face value, seem astonished that a young Muslim “immigrant” or “refugee” would wreak death on innocent non-believers.

They always want to discount the attack as the work of a “lone wolf” or someone who was disaffected or mentally ill.

And they are never prepared to admit that had the authorities acted on the clear information at hand and not been blinded or hog-tied by political correctness the attack could have been stopped.

In the case of the Boston Marathon bombing that killed 3, and injured an estimated 264 others, the perpetrators, Chechen “refugee” brothers Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, should have been on the authorities’ radar because both the FBI and the CIA had been alerted to Tamerlan Tsarnaev by no less an authority on Chechen Muslim terrorism than the Russian security services.

The Russians, who have been fighting the Chechen Muslims since the 19th Century, had separately asked both the FBI (at least twice: during March and November 2011) and the CIA (September 2011) to look carefully into Tamerlan Tsarnaev and provide more information about him back to Russia.

The Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) even secretly recorded phone conversations between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his mother Zubeidat Tsarnaeva (they vaguely and indirectly discussed jihad) and sent these to the FBI as evidence of possible extremist links within the family.

The March 2011, Russian Federal Security Service alert provided the FBI with information that Tamerlan and his mother Zubeidat Tsarnaeva were “adherents of radical Islam and that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was preparing to travel to Russia to join unspecified ‘bandit underground groups’ in Dagestan and Chechnya.

A government report released in April of 2014 detailed the failures of federal law enforcement officials to recognize Tamerlan Tsarnaev as a potential source of terrorism in the years before the Boston Marathon bombing. The document—an unclassified summary report from the Inspectors General of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Homeland Security—called particular attention to an FBI interview of Tsarnaev in 2011 and the failure of a Boston agent of the Joint Terrorism Task Force to follow up on an automated alert that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was leaving the country for Dagestan.

Despite all of these revelations, the report concludes that “based on all of the information gathered during our coordinated review, we believe that the FBI, CIA, DHS, and NCTC…followed procedures appropriately.”

Translation: The information to stop this Muslim terrorist attack was there, but Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were allowed to carry out their deadly attack because the FBI, CIA, DHS, and NCTC procedures allowed them to.

In the case of Abdul Razak Ali Artan, the Ohio State Muslim terrorist who ran over and slashed 13 people who were hospitalized for injuries once again the signs that Artan was a potential terrorist were there.

According to Senator Chuck Grassley, while applying for entrance into the U.S. as a “refugee” from Somalia in 2013, Artan’s mother told immigration officials she feared persecution from al-Shabaab, an al-Qaida affiliated terrorist group, and believed Abdul and his siblings would be recruited into the organization if they remained in Somalia, the Daily Caller reported.

That knowledge should have led USCIS officials to “conduct additional questioning to better understand ties to a group that the United States designated as a foreign terrorist organization in 2008,” a letter Sen. Grassley sent to DHS said. But the additional questioning, which the Senator’s committee describes as “common practice” in those situations, never happened.

Artan’s mother also told government screeners that her husband had been kidnapped by al-Shabab.

All of these facts should have been red flags our friend Phil Haney, a former DHS screening officer, told WND’s Leo Hohmann.

Haney, a recently retired Homeland Security officer and co-author of the bombshell book “See Something Say Nothing,” said it’s not all that rare that a case with obvious red flags gets no response when passed up the line from the original interviewer at DHS because, says Haney, concerns about certain refugee cases began to be ignored as soon as Obama took office.

Translation: The information to stop this Muslim terrorist attack was there, but Abdul Razak Ali Artan was allowed to carry out his attack because the FBI, CIA, DHS, and NCTC procedures allowed him to.

Anis Amri, the main suspect in the Berlin Christmas market truck attack, was also on the radar as a potential terrorist before he entered Germany.

A Moroccan security official says that his country’s intelligence service warned Germany twice about the risk posed by Anis Amri, the radical Muslim who slaughtered 12 people at a Christmas market in Berlin earlier this month.

“Correspondence from the Moroccan security agencies had a clear warning about the Tunisian man’s desire to carry out a terrorist act,” an unnamed Moroccan official told the Turkish newspaper Daily Sabah.

The UK’s Daily Mail has documented that Amri was under surveillance for months, arrested and freed three times, and not deported allegedly because of a clerical error.

According to team reporting by the Daily Mail, German security officials had Amri under close surveillance between March and September this year because he was suspected of dealing drugs and planning robberies to finance the purchase of assault rifles.

The Tunisian radical was known to be a supporter of Islamic State and to have received weapons training.  He also tried to recruit an accomplice for a terror plot – which the authorities knew about – but still remained at large.

Amri was also under investigation for planning a ‘serious act of violence against the state’ and counter-terrorism officials had exchanged information about him last month and after he was named as the suspect it emerged Amri spent four years in an Italian prison for acts of violence and vandalism inside a migrant center where he was being kept following his arrival in Europe, the Daily Mail reported.

Before he was killed in a gun battle with a heroic Italian police officer, it was revealed that Amri had used at least six different aliases under three different nationalities and photographs show how he had changed his appearance over his years of freely moving about Europe even as the signs he was a dangerous terrorist mounted.

The Daily Mail reported that a senior German politician blamed the atrocity on “institutional political correctness,” arguing that Amri would not have been free to act if police had enforced the law.

Hugh Theodore Bronson, the deputy leader of the German political party AfD, said that German deportation law was ignored because the authorities were afraid of offending Muslims, reports Karin Bredenkamp of Free West Media.

Anis Amri, who was being monitored by police, would have been deported long ago if it wasn’t for a liberal “ideological agenda,” Bronson told MailOnline. “The law as it stands is not being implemented,” he said. “If it was, 12 people would still be alive, 48 people would not be in hospital, and there would have been no attack on Monday.”

“We are being too lenient in our implementation of the law. You can call it political correctness, you can call it an ideological agenda, but it cost 12 people their lives.”

No translation needed for Mr. Bronson’s comments.

The German authorities say they have at least 7,000 active Muslim terror suspects at large in their country and they do not have the resources to track them. The FBI and American Department of Homeland Security say that there are too many people like Tsarnaev and Artan across America today for the FBI to track them all—leaving the vast majority of people who the FBI suspects might harbor terrorist aspirations to plan their attacks without government surveillance.

So why would we allow more potential Muslim terrorists into our country?

The dots or common thread that runs through all of these Muslim atrocities is that the perpetrators entered their target countries as “refugees,” took the Koranic directives to kill unbelievers at face value, and most importantly, were allowed to carry out their plans by failed security procedures based upon institutional political correctness.

Recognizing that Islam is the threat, and implementing threat-based security procedures devoid of political correctness or ideological agendas is the only way to stop these attacks from continuing in what Muslims now consider to be “the era of total confrontation” with the West.

Gaffney: The ‘Big Lie’ Is Back

The Associated Press

The Associated Press

Breitbart, by Frank Gaffney, November 22, 2016:

In 2011, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to use “some old fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming” against those whose exercise of free speech “we abhor.”

At the time, she had in mind specifically perpetrators of what the OIC, the Muslim Brotherhood, other Islamic supremacists and their enablers on the Left call “defamation of Islam.” But the same playbook – in the tradition of Mrs. Clinton’s mentor, Saul Alinsky – is now being followed with a vengeance against what is abhorred by the cabal best described as the Red-Green Axis.

Much in evidence among such “old-fashioned techniques” now being employed is what’s known as “the Big Lie.” It entails the endless repetition of outrageous falsehoods to defame, and ultimately silence, one’s political opponents.

Three good men Donald Trump has selected for key strategic and national security positions are currently getting the Big Lie treatment: his White House Counsel Steve Bannon, Attorney General-designate Senator Jeff Sessions, and incoming National Security Advisor Lieutenant General Michael Flynn. They are being relentlessly vilified as “racists,” “bigots” and “haters.”

I feel these able public servants’ pain. Indeed, I know what it’s like to be subjected to the Big Lie. For years, the Islamists and their allies on the hard Left – notably, the discredited (for example, here and here) Southern Poverty Law Center – have used character assassination and vitriol against me (for example, here, here and here) to protect what they otherwise cannot defend: the totalitarian program its adherents call Sharia. The false assertion last week that I had been asked to serve on the Trump transition team sent these rogues into fresh paroxysms of hateful denunciation, repeated like a mantra by their media echo chamber (for example, here, here, here and here).

I am hardly alone in being diagnosed by such charlatans with the made-up condition of “Islamophobia.” Indeed, I am proud to be included in the company of men and women being pilloried for what Islamic supremacists and their enablers would have us believe is “defamation of Islam.” In fact, it is simply informed, astute and courageous truth-telling about the global jihad movement and threat it poses. Steve Bannon, Jeff Sessions and Mike Flynn are under assault for doing the same in this and other contexts.

It seems that critics are particularly unhinged by the clarity of these three men and the president they will serve about the fact that Islamic supremacism is not simply a menace overseas. The Red-Green types are determined to prevent Donald Trump from operationalizing the plan of action he described in a major address on the topic on August 15, 2016. Among its highlights are the following:

Our new approach, which must be shared by both parties in America, by our allies overseas, and by our friends in the Middle East, must be to halt the spread of Radical Islam. All actions should be oriented around this goal….Just as we won the Cold War, in part, by exposing the evils of communism and the virtues of free markets, so too must we take on the ideology of Radical Islam….

In the Cold War, we had an ideological screening test. The time is overdue to develop a new screening test for the threats we face today. In addition to screening out all members or sympathizers of terrorist groups, we must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles – or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law. Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country….

Finally, we will pursue aggressive criminal or immigration charges against anyone who lends material support to terrorism. Similar to the effort to take down the mafia, this will be the understood mission of every federal investigator and prosecutor in the country. To accomplish a goal, you must state a mission: the support networks for Radical Islam in this country will be stripped out and removed one by one. Immigration officers will also have their powers restored: those who are guests in our country that are preaching hate will be asked to return home. (Emphasis added)

In short, the Red-Green Axis is having conniptions because the American people have now chosen to lead them a president and an administration that will not just be sensible about this threat. It is also determined to do the job Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and their minions have adamantly shirked: protecting us against, rather than accommodating, Sharia. So the Big Lie and “other techniques of shaming and peer pressure” are now being applied with abandon to outstanding public servants in the hope of reducing their effectiveness and that of the presidency they will serve.

The transparent falsity and political agenda being served by such lies should, instead, discredit their perpetrators. For that to happen, however, the so-called “mainstream press” will have to stop lionizing the Big Liars and uncritically promoting their handiwork.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. acted as an Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration. He is President of the Center for Security Policy.

Under Hillary Clinton Presidency, U.S. Muslim Population Would Exceed France’s by 2024

muslims-pray-at-white-house-evan-vucci-ap-photo-640x480-640x480Breitbart, by Julia Hahn, November 2, 2016:

If Hillary Clinton’s expansionist immigration policies were put into effect, the U.S. Muslim population could exceed France’s current Muslim population by the end of a President Clinton’s second term, according to data from Pew Research and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The Muslim population of France is reportedly 4.7 million and the current U.S. Muslim population is roughly 3.3 million, according to estimates from the Pew Research Center.

Based on the most recent DHS data available, the U.S. permanently resettled roughly 149,000 migrants from predominantly Muslim countries on green cards in 2014. Yet Clinton has indicated that if she were elected president, she would expand Muslim migration by admitting an additional 65,000 Syrian refugees during the course of a single fiscal year. Clinton has made no indication that she would limit her proposed Syrian refugee program to one year.

Adding Clinton’s 65,000 Syrian refugees to the approximately 149,000 Muslim migrants the U.S. resettled on green cards in the course of one year means that Clinton could permanently resettle roughly 214,000 Muslim migrants in her first year as president. If Clinton were to continue her Syrian refugee program throughout her presidency, she could potentially resettle roughly 1.7 million Muslim migrants during her first two terms.

These projections suggest that after seven years of a Hillary Clinton presidency, the U.S. could have a Muslim population that is larger than France’s current Muslim population of 4.7 million.

These projections are rough estimates, and the population size could be impacted by additional various factors— including births, deaths, and conversions.

Hillary Clinton’s support for open borders is shared by Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan.

Ryan has championed policies to expand Muslim migration into the United States. Last year, Ryan voted to increase Muslim migration and fund visas for nearly 300,000 (permanent and temporary) Muslim migrants in a single year.

While polling data shows that his constituents overwhelmingly back proposals to temporarily pause Muslim migration, Ryan has also repeatedly ruled out the possibility of making any cuts to Muslim migration— insisting that “that’s not who we are,” and that such a proposal is “not reflective of our principles.”

Neither Ryan nor Clinton have explained how importing hundreds of thousands of migrants that come from nations which may hold sentiments that are anti-women, anti-gay, anti-religious tolerance, and anti-America, benefits the United States or helps to protect our Western liberal values.

Many have warned if the U.S. continues at its current record pace of Muslim migration—or if pro-Islamic migration politicians, such as Ryan and Clinton, further increase Muslim migration—the U.S. risks following in Europe’s footsteps.

As Sen. Jeff Sessions has previously explained, “It’s an unpleasant, but unavoidable fact that bringing in large unassimilated flows of migrants from the Muslim world creates the conditions possible for radicalisation and extremism to take hold, just like they’re seeing in Europe.”

France’s struggle to curb the spread of Islamic extremism has been well documented. As Time has reported:

Some 1,800 people left France to join ISIS and other militant groups in Iraq and Syria as of May 2015, according to the Soufan Group, a security firm based in New York, citing estimates from the French authorities… Jihadist groups find fertile ground for recruitment in France and Belgium due to those states’ staunch secularism “coupled with a sense of marginalization among immigrant communities, especially those from North Africa,” according to the report from the Soufan Group.

Almost precisely one year ago, the Paris terror attacks killed 130 people and injured more than 360 others in what was the deadliest day of attacks on French soil since World War II. Last month, the Telegraph reported that “the majority of the ISIL extremist who carried out the November 13 Paris attacks entered Europe… [and] slipped through Hungary’s borders while posing as migrants.”

Similarly this summer, 84 people were killed and hundreds were injured in Nice when a Tunisian native mowed down civilians with a 19-ton truck as the civilians were watching a fireworks display to celebrate Bastille Day.

Multiple reports have also documented a rise in anti-Semitism throughout France, which has pushed French Jews to “flee” in record numbers.

As USA Today reported in September:

“The number of French Jews immigrating to Israel rose from 1,900 in 2011 to nearly 8,000 last year, said Jacques Canet, president of La Victoire, the great synagogue of Paris. He said the country’s 500,000 to 600,000 French Jews — the third largest Jewish population in the world — “feel threatened.”

“Increasingly, Jews in Paris, Marseilles, Toulouse, Sarcelles feel they can’t safely wear a kippah (yarmulke, or skull cap) outside their homes or send their children to public schools, where Muslim children bully Jewish children,” Canet said.

A poll by the French Institute of Public Opinion in January showed 43% of France’s Jewish Community are considering a move to Israel, and 51% said they have “been threatened” because they are Jewish.

Under current federal policy, Pew projects that the number of Muslims in America will outnumber Jews by 2040– however, as projections based on DHS data have suggested, under a President Hillary Clinton, that date could likely come much sooner.

Al Qaeda and ISIS’ Jihad for the Long Haul

ISIS killers in Syria.

ISIS killers in Syria.

By Andrew Harrod, PhD. exclusive to the Religious Freedom Coalition, Oct 13th, 2016

Al-Qaeda (AQ) and the Islamic State in Iraq and (Greater) Syria (ISIS) have troubling potentials to withstand recent significant defeats and conduct long-term jihad campaigns, particularly absent any political stabilization greater Mesopotamia.   So analyzed policy experts before an audience of about 60 at the Hudson Institute’s September 13 panel “ISIS:  On the Verge of Defeat or Transforming Itself for the Long Haul?” in Washington, DC.

Hudson Institute Adjunct Fellow Michael Pregent noted that ISIS is “quickly learning, if you don’t have the ability to shoot down an American aircraft, you shouldn’t plant a black flag, because you are likely to lose territory.”  If ISIS’ ambition to maintain a caliphate state within a certain territory became untenable, ISIS could then emulate AQ as a covert jihadist terrorist organization.  Foreign Policy Research Institute Senior Fellow Nada Bakos stated that ISIS has “already metamorphosed into another type of organization where they are inciting and directing attacks outside the territory they control.”

ISIS’ caliphate currently crumbling in the face of conventional military assault appeared to validate the strategy of AQ, a jihadist group “in this for the long haul” and “still there as a long-term threat” for the West, Bokos stated.  AQ “is still very focused on the West and the United States.  They are still very focused on various stages before they get to a caliphate” while ISIS “jumped about six of those steps.”  AQ founder Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al Zawahiri evinced such a strategy in AQ documents recovered during the May 1, 2011, killing of bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan.  The AQ leaders had argued “don’t establish a caliphate until you can pay everybody in the caliphate and you can give them a job and you can feed them,” Pregent noted.

In an “obvious competition between the two organizations,” AQ “has a much more sophisticated and coherent ideology” and a “much more sophisticated structure” than ISIS, Bokos noted.  Pregent noted that AQ’s Syrian affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra, was much more selective in recruitment than ISIS, placing higher ideological and military training demands upon inductees.  Similarly, Zawahiri had previously advocated making Nigeria’s Boko Haram jihadist group, currently an ISIS affiliate, an AQ affiliate, but met opposition from bin Laden, who distrusted Boko Haram’s discipline and qualifications.

Bokos suggested that AQ could eventually absorb an ISIS bereft of its caliphate territory and lacking AQ’s covert expertise.  Although tempted to go covert, ISIS’ “central effort is still holding the caliphate together.  That is what they centered and built this whole organization around.  They lose face if they lose that territory.”  Yet extortion, now a leading ISIS revenue source, alienates ISIS’ subject population of Sunni Muslims, recalling a similar alienation under ISIS’ predecessor, Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).  Pregent noted speculation that bin Laden had tolerated lax communication security with AQI’s leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in order to allow his 2006 killing by American troops in Iraq given his refusal to heed bin Laden’s opposition to AQI’s brutality.

Nonetheless, Pregent worried that current strategy against ISIS affiliates from Libya to Iraq is “simply resetting the conditions that led to ISIS to begin with” and allowing for a future iteration of the organization.  Anti-ISIS coalition nations are “willing to commit an air force, commit a fighter jet, maybe commit some special operators on the ground, some snipers, but the default has been to use a proxy force.”  Often distrusted by local Sunnis, such proxies “depopulate a Sunni area that ISIS controls, disperse ISIS, replace the ISIS flag with an Iraqi flag, a Syrian flag, a Libyan flag, whatever flag that may be,” then “call it a PR event.”  Yet in Iraq ISIS cells have continued to operate in towns taken from ISIS such as Fallujah, Ramadi, and Tikrit, while ISIS attacks have plagued Iraq’s capital Baghdad itself.

Considering Iraq’s Shiite militias and Shiite-dominated central government, both supported by Iran, the “last thing the United States should do is provide air cover to Iranian Shia proxies as they take back these towns from ISIS,” Pregent stated.  Northwestern Iraq’s “Sunni population is more distrustful than ever of Baghdad, now more distrustful of us” after the United States’ 2011 Iraq troop withdrawal left Iraqi Sunnis alone amidst sectarian repression under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.   Continuing Shiite-Sunni animosity therefore provides fertile soil for ISIS to reestablish itself as a defender of Sunnis, meaning that after ISIS’ impending loss of Mosul “June 2017 will be June 2014 all over again,” he fears.

nazarene_pin_ad_300pxPregent’s alternative strategy is an “intelligence-driven operation where we decapitate ISIS key leaders, bring in Sunni recruits, put pressure on Baghdad to basically bring back the US-trained Sunnis that Malik purged” from Iraqi security forces.  While the CIA has estimated that ISIS has 8,000 fighters, most of them foreigners, 350,000 military-age Sunni males in Mosul have not joined ISIS, allowing for an operation in which “Mosul turns on ISIS.”  Beyond Mosul, Iraq’s lasting pacification requires getting “Baghdad to be a government Sunnis trust” while Bokos noted the need to replace Jabhat al-Nusra’s provision of municipal services, a key element of its popularity among Sunnis.

Pregent’s strategy necessitated renewed American leverage in Iraq’s region, something desired by many Sunni refugees he had met in camps in Iraq and Turkey.  Yet Sunni tribes who had helped defeat AQI during the Iraq War’s Anbar Awakening were weary of renewed alliance with America after facing both Baghdad’s repression and retaliation from AQI members who later joined ISIS.  “Our strategy is based on hope, and the tribal strategy is based on pragmatism,” he noted, while Bokos warned that ISIS had co-opted many Sunnis who once served Iraqi security forces.

Lack of a political settlement in Iraq would only give rise to future, greater dangers, Pregent worried.  The fall of ISIS’ caliphate would lead to an ISIS “2.0, Al Qaeda version, in the interim.”  Then “ISIS 3.0 comes back with an ability to shoot down an American aircraft.”

Andrew E. Harrod is a researcher and writer who holds a PhD from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a JD from George Washington University Law School. He is a fellow with the Lawfare Project, an organization combating the misuse of human rights law against Western societies. He can be followed on twitter at @AEHarrod.

Hacked Memos: George Soros Network Hyped ‘Islamophobia’ After Muslim Terror Attacks

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Breitbart, by Aaron Klein, Sept, 28, 2016:

NEW YORK – In the wake of Islamic terrorist attacks in the U.S. and abroad, grantees of George Soros’s Open Society Foundations mobilized to counter anti-refugee and anti-Muslim immigration sentiment while using the attacks to push gun control and advocate against the surveillance of Muslims in major U.S. cities such as New York.

Hacked Foundations memos reviewed by Breitbart Jerusalem betray the symbiotic relationship between Soros’ grantees and prominent politicians, including Attorney General Loretta Lynch, in working to push these agendas.

One December 3, 2015 document, titled “Aftermath of ISIS attacks,” outlined a network of grantees that immediately sprung to action pushing specific policy agendas immediately after the December 2, 2015 terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California.

“Anticipating a backlash against Muslims, advocates swung into high gear,” the memo relates.

The grantee actions included attacks on those who spoke against immigration from Islamic countries, a push for gun control, and a speech by Attorney General Lynch at the annual dinner of a grantee, Muslim Advocates.

Here are some actions, as cited in the document:

*ReThink Media, funded in part through NSHR grantee the Security and Rights Collaborative, distributed a set of talking points to organizations working to combat Islamophobia and arranging a series of conference calls to discuss messaging and crisis communications tactics.

*Muslim Advocates was set to host a conversation with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on efforts to battle hate speech and anti-Muslim discrimination at its annual dinner in Washington DC.

* Advocates of greater gun control took to Twitter, chiding the parade of politicians who sent “thoughts and prayers” without taking concrete steps to improve public safety. The Center for American Progress convened calls on mass gun violence—one of a number of efforts to follow through on President Obama’s exhortation to revive efforts to enact new controls, such as universal background checks or a ban on assault rifles.

* The National Security Network released a new policy report entitled Mainstreaming Hate: The Far-Right Fringe Origins of Islamophobic and Anti-Refugee Politics in their handling of the Syrian refugee resettlement.

* The Refugee Council USA and some of its members issued calls to action to safeguard the Syrian refugee resettlement program.

After the Lynch event, a second Foundations’ memo boasted, “Appearing at the annual dinner hosted by grantee Muslim Advocates, Attorney General Loretta Lynch vowed that her department would vigorously investigate claims of hate speech that could lead to anti-Muslim violence.”

The first document relates a specific rapid response deployment of Foundations grantees to combat calls for restrictions on the visa waiver program after it was made public that Tashfeen Malik, one of the San Bernardino attackers, passed three background checks by U.S. immigration officials and was granted a K-1 visa to immigrate from Pakistan as the fiance of attacker Syed Rizwan Farook.

The document reveals:

Following the San Bernardino shootings in December by a U.S. citizen and his Pakistani spouse, there were additional proposals to limit the immigration of foreign nationals from specific Muslim countries, including restrictions on the visa waiver program.

US Programs’ Reserve Fund request, already in pipeline since the Syrian refugee crisis erupted last summer, received tentative approval. This request, which includes both c3 and c4 components, will provide communications capacity and advocacy support to refugee groups. It will also bolster immigrant rights groups’ ability to respond to anti-Muslim and anti-refugee rhetoric, which has been prominent in the race for the Republican 2016 presidential nomination.

The issue of refugee resettlement is central to the Open Society Foundations’ domestic aims. As recently reported by Breitbart News, hacked Soros documents state that the billionaire and his foundation helped to successfully press the Obama administration into increasing to 100,000 the total number of refugees taken in by the U.S. annually. The documents reveal that the billionaire personally sent President Obama a letter on the issue of accepting refugees.

Meanwhile, another document, titled, “ISIS Attacks Aftermath” and dated November 17, 2015, lamented that “Tuesday brought a more concerted effort to push back against efforts, fueled by key leaders in Congress and governors in over half the states, to bar Syrian refugees from resettlement in whole swaths of the U.S.”

According to that memo, among the prescriptions from grantees was:

Cities United for Immigration Action, a coalition of nearly 100 mayors, municipalities and counties organized by New York City’s Bill de Blasio, sought to counter the wave of governors opposed to allowing in Syrian refugees with a message of welcome and inclusion. “We should not close our borders to any group of people fleeing the atrocities and horrors of terrorism,” said Mayor de Blasio.

Yet another document listing grantee response to Islamic State attacks, dated January 7, 2016, addressed grantee opposition activism to the domestic surveillance of Muslims. The actions, the document states, included a lawsuit “contesting the NYPD’s surveillance of Muslims in New Jersey, brought by grantees Muslim Advocates and the Center for Constitutional Rights.”

Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

With research by Joshua Klein.

Also see:

Extremist Islam in Canada

minaret

Front Page Magazine, by Lloyd Billingsley, Aug. 25, 2016:

Leading Canadian politicians have been proclaiming that, despite what former prime minister Stephen Harper contended, Islamic extremism is rare or nonexistent in Canada’s mosques, and that to believe otherwise is racist or Islamophobic. On the other hand, an investigation by two experts finds that in some Canadian mosques and school libraries, extremist Islamic literature is the only brand available.

That is the contention of “The Lovers of Death”? Islamist Extremism in Our Mosques, Schools and Libraries, a recent study by Thomas Quiggin, formerly an intelligence analyst with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and the Privy Council Office. Quiggin is also a court-qualified expert on the structure of jihadist terrorism. Co-author Saied Shoaaib, a journalist originally from Egypt, has written extensively on Islamic extremism in the Middle East and in Canada.

“It is not the presence of extremist literature in the mosque libraries that is worrisome,” the new report contends. “The problem is that there was nothing but extremist literature in the mosque libraries.”

Examples include In the Shade of the Qur’an and Milestones by Sayyid Qutb, an author al-Qaida leaders found inspirational, as Lawrence Wright noted in The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11. Quiggin and Shoaaib also found prevalent the complete works of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the founder of Wahhabism, perhaps the most extremist form of Islam, heavily promoted by Saudi Arabia.

This type of material, the authors argue, has eclipsed Canadian Muslims with humanist and modernist outlooks. At certain mosques in Montreal and Toronto, authors Quiggin and Shoaaib found statements that promoted jihad and homophobia. Likewise, Canada’s CIJ news found that some Islamic private schools in Canada use textbooks produced by the Saudi Ministry of Education. In two textbooks homosexuality is depicted as “one of the most heinous sins” and punishable by death.

The National Council of Canadian Muslims denounced the Quiggin and Shoaaib study as an anecdotal attempt at vilification, an exercise in shoddy research, and attempt to sew fear and distrust toward Canadian Muslims. The Council’s statement charged that Quiggin and Shoaaib’s report “only fans the flames of ignorance at a time when vandalism of mosques and hate incidents against Canadian Muslims are increasing.”

Quiggin told reporters that “The Lovers of Death”? was not about bashing Muslims but an attempt to “provoke the government and the media into addressing the actual issues of what’s going on.” He and Shoaaib had presented the material that is being taught, where it came from and posed the question: “Is this acceptable in Canada, yes or no?”

As they put it in the study, “Is it possible that Canadian politicians are misleading or deliberately lying to the population about the threat of Islamist extremism in Canada? Have the forces of political correctness and cultural relativism captured them so completely that they are unable to speak on these sensitive subjects?”

A vice.com article by Davide Mastracci came headlined: “That Study About Extremist Mosques in Canada Is Mostly Bullshit” and argued that it had not been peer-reviewed. On the other hand, there can be little dispute that young Canadians are indeed being radicalized.

As Frontpage noted, on August 10, Muslim convert Aaron Driver, 24, targeted a London shopping mall but the RCMP shot him dead before he could denote a powerful explosive. In October, 2014, Muslim convert Michael Zehaf-Bibeau killed a Canadian soldier on ceremonial sentry and wounded a guard in the House of Commons. In 2013, Muslim convert Canadian Muslim convert John Stewart Nuttall plotted to plant pressure-cooker bombs at the British Columbia legislature in Victoria, scene of a mass celebration for Canada Day, July 1.

Further, ease of entry to Canada for Muslims has not prompted terrorists to go easy on Canadians at home or abroad. At least 24 Canadians perished in the attacks of September 11, 2001. Last January, an attack by Al Qaeda jihadists in Burkina Faso claimed six Canadian lives and more than 20 others from 18 different countries. In April, Muslim Abu Sayyaf terrorists in the Philippines beheaded Canadian hostage John Ridsdel of Calgary, held since last September with another Canadian and a Norwegian national for $6.5 million in ransom. According to one news report, “Two men on a motorcycle left Ridsdel’s head, placed inside a plastic bag, along a street in Jolo town in Sulu province and then fled.”

Canada may be officially multicultural, tolerant, and politically correct, but Islamic extremism knows no bounds.

Lloyd Billingsley is the author of Bill of Writes: Dispatches from the Political Correctness Battlefield and Hollywood Party: Stalinist Adventures in the American Film Industry

Also see:

Huma Abedin’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood

Greg Nash

Greg Nash

The Hill, by Kenneth R. Timmerman, Aug. 23, 2016:

The Clinton campaign is attempting once again to sweep important questions under the rug about top aide Huma Abedin, her family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and to Saudi Arabia, and her role in the ballooning Clinton email scandal.

The New York Post ran a detailed investigative piece over the weekend about Ms. Abedin’s work at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs from 1995 through 2008, a Sharia law journal whose editor in chief was Abedin’s own mother.

This is not some accidental association. Ms. Abedin was, for many years, listed as an associate editor of the London-based publication and wrote for the journal while working as an intern in the Clinton White House in the mid-1990s.

Her mother, Saleha Abedin, sits on the Presidency Staff Council of the International Islamic Council for Da’wa and Relief, a group that is chaired by the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

Perhaps recognizing how offensive such ties will be to voters concerned over future terrorist attacks on this country by radical Muslims professing allegiance to Sharia law, the Clinton campaign on Monday tried to downplay Ms. Abedin’s involvement in the Journal and the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Clinton surrogate group Media Matters claimed predictably there was “no evidence” that Ms. Abedin or her family had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and that Trump campaign staffers who spoke of these ties were conspiracy theorists.

To debunk the evidence, Media Matters pointed to a Snopes.com “fact-check” piece that cited as its sole source… Senator John McCain. This is the same John McCain who met Libyan militia leader Abdelkarim Belhaj, a known al Qaeda associate, and saluted him as “my hero” during a 2011 visit to Benghazi.

Senator McCain and others roundly criticized Rep. Michele Bachmann in 2012 when she and four members of the House Permanent Select Committee Intelligence and the House Judiciary Committee cited Ms. Abedin in letters sent to the Inspectors General of the Department of Defense, Department of State, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, warning about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the United States government.

In response to those critiques, Rep. Bachmann laid out the evidence in a 16-page memo, which has never been refuted by Senator McCain or the elite media.

The evidence, in my opinion, is overwhelming: Huma Abedin is nothing short of a Muslim Brotherhood princess, born into an illustrious family of Brotherhood leaders.

Her father, Syed Zaynul Abedin, was a professor in Saudi Arabia who founded the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs, an institution established by the Government of Saudi Arabia with the support of the Muslim World League.

The Muslim World League was “perhaps the most significant Muslim Brotherhood organization in the world,” according to former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy. Its then-General Secretary, Umar Nasif, founded the Rabita Trust, “which is formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization under American law due to its support of al Qaeda,” he wrote.

That is not guilt by association but what federal prosecutors would call a “nexus” of like-minded people who shared the same goals.

A Saudi government document inspired by Ms. Abedin’s father explains the concept of “Muslim Minority Affairs,” the title of the Journal Mr. Abedin founded, and its goal to “establish a global Sharia in our modern times.”

Simply put, Huma Abedin worked for thirteen years as part of an enterprise whose explicit goal was to conquer the West in the name of Islam. No wonder the Clinton campaign wants to sweep this issue under the rug.

Mrs. Clinton has sometimes referred to Huma Abedin as her “second daughter.” Whether it was because of their close relationship or for some other reason, Mrs. Clinton has done much to further the Muslim Brotherhood agenda while Secretary of State, and can be counted on doing more as president.

As Secretary of State, she relentlessly pushed the overthrow of Libyan leader Mohammar Qaddafi, a dire enemy of the Brotherhood, even when President Obama and his Secretary of Defense were reluctant to go to war.

Along with Obama, she pushed for the overthrow of Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak and his replacement by Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammad Morsi.

She pushed for direct U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war, including the arming of Syrian rebels allied with al Qaeda.

As I reveal in my new book, she worked side by side with the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the umbrella group where 57 majority Muslim states pushed their agenda of imposing Sharia law on the non-Muslim world, to use hate crime laws in the United States to criminalize speech critical of Islam, in accordance with United Nations Resolution 16/18.

Their first victim in the United States was a Coptic Christian named Nakoula Bassiley Nakoula, the maker of the YouTube video Hillary and Obama blamed for Benghazi.

New Abedin emails released to Judicial Watch this week show that Huma Abedin served as liaison between Clinton Foundation donors, including foreign governments, and the State Department.

When foreign donors had difficult in getting appointments with Mrs. Clinton through normal State Department channels, Clinton Foundation executive Douglas Band would email Huma Abedin, and poof! the doors would open as if by magic.

Donald Trump has criticized this as “pay for play.” But it also raises questions as to whether Huma Abedin and Mrs. Clinton were in fact serving as unregistered agents for foreign powers who sought to impose their anti-freedom agenda on the United States.

The United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization in 2014. But by then, the damage had been done.

Do Americans want eight years of a President Clinton, who will do even more to empower the Muslim Brotherhood and impose its agenda on America?

Timmerman is a Donald Trump supporter. He was the 2012 Republican Congressional nominee for MD-8 and is the author of Deception: The Making of the YouTube Video Hillary & Obama Blamed for Benghazi, published by Post Hill Press.

Donald Trump’s Outreach to Moderate Muslim Leaders Highlights Clinton Failure in Egypt

AFP

AFP

Breitbart, by Tera Dahl, Aug. 17, 2016:

In his foreign policy speech on Monday, Donald Trump stated that he would “amplify the voice” of moderate Muslim reformers in the Middle East, saying, “Our Administration will be a friend to all moderate Muslim reformers in the Middle East, and will amplify their voices.”

He also said that he would work with Egypt, Jordan and Israel in combating radical Islam, saying, “As President, I will call for an international conference focused on this goal. We will work side-by-side with our friends in the Middle East, including our greatest ally, Israel. We will partner with King Abdullah of Jordan, and President Sisi of Egypt, and all others who recognize this ideology of death that must be extinguished.”

He said that, as President, he would establish a “Commission on Radical Islam,” saying, “That is why one of my first acts as President will be to establish a Commission on Radical Islam – which will include reformist voices in the Muslim community who will hopefully work with us. We want to build bridges and erase divisions.”

His comments about cooperating with Egypt, Israel and Jordan were highlighted in the Arab world’s media, with headlines reading “Donald Trump Announces Plan to Cooperate with Egypt, Jordan, Israel to Combat Radical Islam” and “Trump vows to work with Egypt’s Sisi to ‘stop radical Islam’ if elected.”

Under the Obama Administration, US policy has not been friendly towards our Muslim allies such as Egypt. Hillary Clinton recently said in a primary debate with Bernie Sanders that, in Egypt, you basically have an “army dictatorship”.

Egypt is one of the most catastrophic foreign policy failures of the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton’s State Department. President Obama started his outreach to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood when he delivered his 2009 Cairo speech. The US Embassy invited 10 members of the Muslim Brotherhood to attend the speech, undermining US ally Mubarak – who had rejected to previous U.S. efforts to reach out to the Brotherhood.

The Obama Administration, and Clinton’s State Department, again undermined President Mubarak in 2011 when they urged him to step down and pressured Egypt to hold elections“ immediately” after the 2011 revolution. This policy favored the Muslim Brotherhood to win elections since they were the most organized at the time.

Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Muslim Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi in Cairo offering “strong support” for the Islamist President, saying, “I have come to Cairo to reaffirm the strong support of the United States for the Egyptian people and their democratic transition… We want to be a good partner and we want to support the democracy that has been achieved by the courage and sacrifice of the Egyptian people.”

The Obama Administration embraced the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, but when millions of Egyptians took to the streets one year later, calling for early elections against the Muslim Brotherhood government, the Obama Administration did all they could to undermine their efforts.

Over 30 million Egyptians took to the streets on June 30, 2013 calling for the removal of the Muslim Brotherhood from power. After one year of being in power, the Brotherhood was taking Egypt towards an Iranian theocracy and the Egyptian people stood against political Islam. The 2011 Egyptian Constitution had no impeachment mechanism included, so the only democratic way to remove the Brotherhood was signing a petition and taking to the streets in the masses. Millions of Egyptians took to the streets again in July, supporting then Defense Minister General el-Sisi and the Egyptian military in their efforts to fight terrorism.

The Obama Administration condemned the Egyptian military and police after the removal of the Muslim Brotherhood and punished Egypt by freezing military and economic aid to Egypt. This was done while the Egyptian military had launched a major offensive to “crush terrorist activity” in the Sinai that had built up during the Muslim Brotherhood government. Egypt had to fight terrorism alone – not only without support from the US – but with pressure to succumb to the requests from the US Administration to release the Muslim Brotherhood members from prison and reconcile.

The pressure from the Obama Administration against the removal of the Morsi regime emboldened the Muslim Brotherhood and they waged an Islamist insurgency, not only in the Sinai but on the streets of Cairo. The Muslim Brotherhood specifically targeted the Christian community and burned down over 65 Christian Churches and hundreds of Christian shops.

The Obama Administration sent U.S. Deputy Secretary of State William Burns to Egypt for “U.S. mediation efforts” and met with Khairat el-Shater, the deputy leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, who was in jail at the time and sentenced for life in prison. Our State Department, under John Kerry, sent a representative to Egypt pressuring the Egyptian government to release terrorists from jail.

The Obama Administration also sent Senators McCain and Graham to Egypt to ask the Egyptian government and military to find an agreement with the Muslim Brotherhood. They asked the Egyptian government to “sit down and talk” to the Muslim Brotherhood, who had waged war on the Egyptian people.

Since being democratically elected in 2014, winning with 97% of the vote, Egyptian President al-Sisi has made history speaking out for equality between Muslims and Christians. He was the first President in Egyptian history to visit the Coptic Christian Christmas mass service in January 2015. During his speech at the Christmas mass, he emphasized the need to look at each other as “Egyptians” and not as Muslim or Christian. He said, “We will love each other for real, so that people may see.” President Sisi again visited the Coptic Christmas mass in January 2016 where he vowed to rebuild the Christian churches that were destroyed by Islamists in 2013 after the Muslim Brotherhood were removed from power.

President Sisi has called for “Islamic reform” within Islam numerous times. During a speech to Islamic scholars in 2015, marking the anniversary of Muhammad’s birth, President Sisi urged reform of Islamic discourse and called on Islamic scholars to send Christmas greetings to Christians. In the televised speech to Islamic scholars, President Sisi stated, “We talk a lot about the importance of religious discourse… In our schools, institutes and universities, do we teach and practice respect for the others? We neither teach or practice it.”

The Egyptian government has also addressed the ideology by banning thousands of radical clerics from preaching in the mosques that are not licensed.

Recently, the government of President al-Sisi introduced a textbook for Egyptian public schools that requires Egyptian pupils to memorize the provisions of the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty and delineate the “advantages of peace for Egypt and the Arab states”. This is a major reform taken from the Egyptian government in normalizing and strengthening relations between Israel and Egypt.

President Sisi should be considered a key ally of America as he is leading Egypt towards democracy and also is leading the fight against global jihad, both militarily and politically, in countering radical Islamic ideology. Instead, he has yet to be invited to the United States from President Obama.

Hillary Clinton has been critical of Trump’s position towards Russia, but policies implemented under the Obama Administration have pushed Egypt towards Russia and have alienated our strongest Arab ally for over 40 years. Egypt and Russia signed a $2billion arms deal after the United States abandoned them during their fight against terrorism. Russia also is providing Egypt with $25 billion to build Egypt’s first nuclear power plant.

Donald Trump in his speech recognized the need to support our Muslim allies in the global war on terrorism. This is critical in defeating global jihad. We cannot afford another four years of a policy of alienating our allies and emboldening our enemies as we have seen under the Obama Administration.

Tera Dahl is Executive Director of the Council on Global Security.

Donald Trump’s National Security Speech: A Presidential Address

The Associated Press

The Associated Press

Breitbart, by Frank Gaffney, Aug. 16, 2016:

Yesterday in Youngstown, Ohio, Donald Trump delivered the best speech of his campaign to date. Newt Gingrich rightly called it the most important since Ronald Reagan left office.

In fact, in many ways, it was very Reaganesque. After all, long before he became president, Mr. Reagan warned that every generation faces an existential threat to freedom. Mr. Trump made clear that he recognizes the threat to freedom in our time, which he explicitly characterized as “Radical Islam” and its guiding, supremacist ideology, Sharia.

The GOP nominee also channeled President Reagan by espousing a comprehensive strategy highly reminiscent of the one the Gipper formally adopted in his National Security Decision Directive 75 and employed to defeat freedom’s last existential threat: Soviet communism. Mr. Trump recognizes that now, as then, we must bring decisively to bear all instruments of national power – economic, military, intelligence, information and ideological.

The last element, which was emphasized repeatedly in the Trump speech, reflects an essential understanding that has eluded past administrations of both parties and some of the candidate’s most vociferous critics, Democrats and Republicans alike: Jihadists who seek the destruction of our country, its Constitution, and people employ different tactics – including violence, migration, material support for terrorism, recruitment, indoctrination, conversions and stealthy subversion. But they are all motivated by the same ideology: Sharia. Donald Trump declared yesterday that if you embrace that supremacist doctrine, you must seek to supplant our Constitution and, therefore, you are not welcome here.

Specifically, the speech adopted a basic principle: As a foreign national and would-be immigrant to this country, you must share our values to gain admission. That filter has for too long been absent and has greatly contributed to the ominous demographic trends facing not just Europe, but this country, as well: growing numbers of transplanted and inherently hostile populations, most of whom have no interest in assimilating and, rather, insist that freedom-loving Americans accommodate their demands and, ultimately, submit to Sharia.

Finally, the Republican candidate to be our next Commander-in-Chief spoke of a reality that can no longer safely be ignored: There are “networks” in America that support “radicalization.” In so doing, he recognized another hard lesson from Europe’s experience. Violent jihadists rely upon and exploit the infrastructure (including Islamist mosques, societies, cultural centers, front groups, influence operations, etc.) that has been systematically put into place in the West over the past fifty years by Islamic supremacists, notably those associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. We have no choice but to identify, designate and roll-up such operations.

Donald Trump’s remarks in Youngstown implicitly addressed another important issue about his candidacy. Particularly for those who have been uncertain about the GOP nominee’s propensity to make provocative comments, concerns played upon by critics’ assailing his judgment, this speech should be comforting. It not only displayed a discipline on the part of the Republican nominee to “stay on script.” It also spoke volumes about the quality of the people who are advising Candidate Trump and writing that script – and, presumably, who would be advising him should he win the White House. At no point since 9/11, and arguably for thirteen years before, has there been a better articulation of what’s at stake and what needs to be done to secure freedom, namely by seeking and achieving Victory over Jihad. We desperately need more such visionary and collaborative leadership.

Donald Trump set the stage yesterday in Youngstown for the sort of national debate – and choice – that is long overdue and absolutely necessary. Bring it on.

***

Levin: Trump is 100 percent right on ‘extreme vetting’ of immigrants 

By: Phil Shiver | August 16, 2016 at Conservative Review

Donald Trump’s national security speech Monday generated a great deal of buzz, especially due to his call for “extreme vetting” of immigrants and the temporary suspension of immigration from countries affected by ISIS.

Trump set the tone that under his administration all incomers to the United States would either accept American values and assimilate, or simply not be allowed in. The Left went crazy. The New York Times editorial board dedicated an entire op-ed to attacking “Mr. Trump’s Foreign Policy Confusions.”

On his radio show Tuesday night Mark Levin fought back. “I want Donald Trump and his team to understand that they are 100 percent right about this issue of ideology and assimilation,” he said.

Listen to the Levin tear into The New York Times and explain why assimilation is so important: