Archive for April 2016

Op-Ed: Merkel submits to Erdogan on freedom of expression

April 15, 2016

Op-Ed: Merkel submits to Erdogan on freedom of expression, Israel National News, Giulio Meotti, April 15, 2016

Germany has not tested its freedom of expression so deeply since the saga of Mozart’s Idomeneo in 2006 when the Deutsche Oper Company canceled the opera because there was the severed head of Muhammad in it and that could offend the largest Islamic community in Europe. The director, Hans Neuenfels, then asked: “Where will it all end if we allow ourselves to be artistically blackmailed?”.

The answer came this week with the case of Jan Böhmermann, the famous comedian who mocked Turkish president Recep Erdogan. “What I’m going to read is not allowed” said Böhmermann on ZDF, the German public network. His poetry routine suggests that Erdogan watches child porn movies while he enjoys “repressing minorities and beating up Christians”.

The prosecutor of Mainz, in the Rhineland-Palatinate, received more than twenty complaints from private citizens which forced him to open a case against Böhmermann under paragraph 103 of the Penal Code, which provides three years of imprisonment for insulting a foreign head of state. Chancellor Angela Merkel has condemned the poem, calling it a “deliberate insult” and wanted to phone Turkey’s Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu to appease the wrath of Ankara.

Then came Erdogan’s personal complaint against Böhmermann who, according to Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus, committed a “grave crime against humanity” and “offended 78 million Turks”, no less. The case could go to the Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe. Not satisfied with imprisoning Turkish journalists, President Erdogan wants to imprison Germans as well.

Three weeks ago, another German video sparked Turkish protests. Meanwhile, the ZDF removed the video of Jan Böhmermann, even before the Turkish protests. If Merkel has sided with the Turks, the German press is united around Böhmermann.

Mathias Döpfner, the editor of the Springer publishing giant, defended the comedian and criticized Merkel, although Döpfner is her supporter: “As written by Michel Houellebecq in his masterpiece on the self-sacrifice of the West: Submission.” Demonstrations were held under the offices of the ZDF in Turkey. Former Finance Minister of Greece, Yanis Varoufakis, commented: “Europe first lost its soul, then lost its sense of humor”.

“Böhmermann is not very brave and this story is bigger than he is” said Henryk Broder, born in 1946 in Katowice, Poland, and today one of the most popular writers of Germany who writes for Die Welt and Bild Zeitung, in an interview with me. “He didn’t show up to withdraw the Grimm Award. I would have been there to say these people: ‘F*** you’”. The German Max Mauff actor was presented at the ceremony with a picture of Böhmermann and the word “missing”.

“Böhmermann behaved like a dhimmi, but we must show solidarity” – continues Broder – “This is a case of governmental interference in the freedom of expression. We face the contradictory policy of Angela Merkel, who said is said in favor of freedom of expression but then takes action against it.

“When the book by Thilo Sarrazin ‘Germany abolishes itself’ appeared in 2010, it was disqualified by Merkel as ‘defamatory’ and ‘not useful’. There is no such thing as ‘good’ and ‘bad’ satire. In communist East Germany it was the party who was left to decide what should be published and this is in Merkel’s DNA, she is a daughter of Eastern Germany.  At that time they called it ‘socialization’. Merkel wants Erdogan to do the dirty work for her on migrants, so she doesn’t want a comedian to spoil relations with Turkey”.

In Turkey, Article 299 of the Criminal Code provides four years in prison for those who insult the President (Can Dündar and Erdem Gül, director and editor in chief of Cumhuriyet, now face a trial). Yesterday Deutsche Welle explained that there are 2,000 pending legal cases involving defamation of Erdogan. The defendants are artists, journalists, academics and cartoonists. The same punishment is now evoked in Germany against a comedian.

The cultural-geographical border of Europe has always been drawn on the Bosphorus and not on the Turkish border. Böhmermann’s case moved that border nearer to Ankara.

The Unserious West and the Serious Jihadists

April 15, 2016

The Unserious West and the Serious Jihadists, Front Page MagazineBruce Thornton, April 15, 2016

Obama 0000

The Obama administration and the “nuisance of terrorism.”

Instead of paying the price of aggression, partly because of the Cold War, more recently because of Western failure of nerve and civilizational exhaustion, Muslims have been the beneficiaries of billions in Western aid, Western arms, Western defense against enemies, Western lax immigration policies, Western appeasement, and Western suicidal ideas like cultural and moral relativism. In short, Muslims have never accepted their defeats, and have never experienced the humiliating cost of their aggression, because the modern West has never forced them to pay for it.

*********************************

In Terry Gilliam’s dystopian film-classic Brazil, London is under assault from a 13-year-long terrorist campaign that Londoners won’t stop and so just live with. A bomb goes off in a restaurant, and the waiters scurry to screen off the mangled and dying so survivors can continue eating. When reminded by a journalist that “The bombing campaign is now in it 13th year,” the Deputy Minister laughs, “Beginner’s luck!” The West today is rapidly approaching the surreal insouciance of Gilliam’s fantasy.

Think about Obama, hanging out with head of terror-state Raul Castro at a baseball game during the Brussels attacks that killed 34, including four Americans. Obama told Chris Wallace that the terrorists “win” if we don’t go about our daily business, like the diners in Brazil ordering dessert among the screams and moans of the dying and wounded. After all, ISIS is not an “existential threat,” as the president keeps saying, and more of us die in bathtub falls than are killed by terrorists. Obama apparently thinks he has achieved John Kerry’s goal during the 2004 presidential campaign to reduce terrorism to a “nuisance” like prostitution.

I suppose the absurd security measures we endure every time we board a plane is the sort of “nuisance” Kerry and Obama are talking about. I guess we “win” when we dutifully take off our shoes and coats, put our computers and three ounces of liquids in a tray, and submit to aggressive wanding by surly TSA functionaries. Are such silly measures now part of the daily life we should just get on with? Of course Obama’s attitude is preposterous, and he should know that it is the terrorists who “win” every time an 80-year-old has to endure being felt up by a federal worker. Meanwhile, in breach tests of TSA inspectors in 2015, 95% of fake explosives and contraband sailed through the screening process.

These inefficient and intrusive procedures have been put in place mainly to avoid stigmatizing Muslims. Such obeisance to politically correct proscriptions against “profiling” is just one of the myriad ways in which we tell the jihadist enemy we really aren’t serious about the latest battle in the 14-century-long war of Islam against the infidel West.

Take Obama’s Executive Order 1341, which banned waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation techniques” of captured jihadists. Now only those practices in the Army Field Manual can be used to question detainees, despite the fact that the document is public and so jihadists can use it to train terrorists how to resist. Forget that one technique, waterboarding, is legal under U.S. law, and generated actionable intelligence––according to former CIA chief George Tenet, waterboarding a few high-value suspects helped foil over 20 al Qaida plots against the U.S. Those facts cannot outweigh Obama’s need to preen morally and gratify international anti-Americanism.

More recently, his notoriously political CIA director John Brennan displayed once again this administration’s lack of seriousness about the war against Islamic jihad. In 2009 Brennan “corrected” 14 centuries of Islamic scripture, practice, and law by calling jihad a way “to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral good.” Obviously, the most revered Shi’a Islamic theologian, the Ayatollah Khomeini, was wrong when he said, “Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers,” or “Those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world.” That’s also the “moral good” for which ISIS wages jihad.

Brennan apparently learned nothing since 2009 about the nature of this war. Responding last week to Donald Trump’s promise to bring back waterboarding of detainees, Brennan huffed that should any president revoke Obama’s executive order and allow waterboarding and other EIT’s, “I will not agree to carry out some of these tactics and techniques I’ve heard bandied about, because this institution needs to endure.” Only someone profoundly unserious about his duty to protect the lives and safety of his fellow citizens would promise to disobey the Commander-in-Chief just so the bureaucracy he oversees can “endure,” whatever that means. The CIA has one job, protecting America’s security and interests, and it will “endure” only by successfully doing so, not by moral exhibitionism.

This lack of seriousness is endemic in this administration. Refusing to call ISIS “Islamic,” even going so far as to censor comments by French president François Hollande that used the word, bespeaks a dangerous frivolity. So too do symbolic tactics like droning an endless parade of ISIS “number twos” instead of committing enough forces and dropping enough bombs to make a strategic difference in the region. Instead, the American-led bombing campaign has averaged a mere seven strikes a day, with 75% of the planes returning with their bombs. Meanwhile Russia was averaging 60 strikes a day, freed from the squeamish rules of engagement that inhibit our forces from taking out an oil truck because it would kill the driver. Obama’s war against ISIS is a symbolic one typical of unserious politicians.

Our problem, however, goes beyond the politicians. Too many of us have failed to understand that this war did not begin on 9/11. It did not begin when al Qaeda declared war on us in the 90s and attacked our embassies and naval vessels. It did not begin in 1979, when our alleged neo-colonialist depredations supposedly sparked the Iranian revolution and created today’s Islamic (N.B., Mr. President) Republic of Iran, the world’s premier state sponsor of terrorism. It did not begin in 1948, when five Arab nations, all but one members of the U.N., violated Resolution 191 and attacked Israel. It did not begin when after World War I the victorious Entente powers exercised mandatory powers, granted by the League of Nations and codified in international treaties, over the territory of the Ottoman Empire that had sided with the Central Powers.

All these acts of aggression were merely the latest in a war begun in the 7th century when Islam attacked the eastern Roman Empire and began its serial dismemberment of the heart of Christendom, the old word for the West. For a thousand years the armies of Allah successfully invaded, conquered, occupied, enslaved, and raided the West, in accordance with its doctrine of jihad in the service of Muslim domination, and in homage to Mohammed’s injunction, “I was told to fight all men until they say there is no god but Allah.” This record of success began to end in the 17th century with the rise of the modern West and its technological, economic, and political advantages.

But the war didn’t end with that Muslim retreat, even after what bin Laden called the “catastrophe” –– the demise of the Ottoman Caliphate, and the division of its territory into Western-style nation-states. The West won that battle, but it did not win the war. One reason is the Muslim nations of the Middle East never suffered the wages of their aggression. They sided with the Central Powers in World War I. They sat out World War II––apart from the many thousands who fought on the side of the Nazis––and received fugitive Nazis as guests after the war. Their serial aggression and terror against Israel has never been repaid with bombed-out capitals or punitive postwar reprisals. Their governments have never been punished for funding and proliferating mosques and madrassas teaching hatred of the infidel and terrorist violence in the service of jihad.

Instead of paying the price of aggression, partly because of the Cold War, more recently because of Western failure of nerve and civilizational exhaustion, Muslims have been the beneficiaries of billions in Western aid, Western arms, Western defense against enemies, Western lax immigration policies, Western appeasement, and Western suicidal ideas like cultural and moral relativism. In short, Muslims have never accepted their defeats, and have never experienced the humiliating cost of their aggression, because the modern West has never forced them to pay for it.

Thus they look at our unserious, godless culture of consumption and frivolity, of self-loathing and guilt, and these serious believers are confident that 350 years of defeat in battle have not led to defeat in the long war. And so the war goes on. The frivolous Western dogs bark, but Allah’s caravan moves on.

What is a ‘Reformist’ in the Context of Iranian Politics?

April 15, 2016

What is a ‘Reformist’ in the Context of Iranian Politics? American ThinkerReza Parchizadeh, April 15, 2016

When both the “Hardliners” and the “Reformists” stem from the same ideological springhead of Islamism, Anti-Westernism, and Export of Revolution, whatever appellation they give themselves will make no difference in practice: it’s a deadlock.

**********************

When talking about politics in contemporary Iran, Western media tend to divide the Iranian political sphere into two distinct hemispheres, namely the “Reformists” and the “Hardliners.” In this division, the Reformists are supposed to be the “good guys” and the Hardliners the “bad guys.” Here I am going to tell you why this division is misleading. Not that it is completely nonexistent. Rather, the manner of its application by Western media and the implications it makes are misleading.

There is indeed a difference between the Reformists and the Hardliners. The difference is that they belong to two major classes of the Islamic Republic. It is not necessarily the core ideology, but personal affiliation and power politics that make the difference. Simply put, while the Reformists belong to the Khomeinist faction, the Hardliners belong to the Khameneist faction of the Islamic Republic.

To clarify, those who call themselves Reformists were mostly close affiliates of the first Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. These were sidelined after Khomeini’s death in 1989 by the advocates of the next – and now incumbent – Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It is the followers of Khomeini, who now call themselves “Reformist,” that have given the derogatory epithet “Hardliner” to the followers of Khamenei.

However, the truth is that many of these so-called Reformists who are regarded as “Western-friendly Islamists” by Western media were the first to scale the walls of the American Embassy in Tehran while chanting “Death to America” right after the 1979 Revolution. They were also the main ideological and operational force behind the large-scale execution of all sorts of political dissidents in Iran during the 1980s. As a case study, a glance at the history of the three foremost Khomeinist personages that later became known as “Reformist” sheds light on their true nature and origins.

To begin with, Sadegh Khalkhali (1926-2003) was appointed head of Islamic Revolutionary Court by Khomeini immediately after the 1979 Revolution. In that capacity, he unleashed such a reign of terror that earned him the epithets “Hanging Judge” and “Butcher of Revolution.” Hundreds were summarily executed as a result of Khalkhali’s swift death sentences and even by his own hand, most without access to even a rudimentary defense. Among them was Amir-Abbas Hoveyda (1919-1979), a long-time Prime Minister (1965-1977) under the Shah, whom Khalkhali himself reportedly shot in prison.

Years later, in the mid-1990s, when Radio BBC Farsi interviewed Khalkhali, defiantly defending his previous actions, Khalkhali stated that he had no remorse for what he had done, and that he would once more execute those he had executed before if they were alive. When Khalkhali died in 2003, a great number of Reformist figures, including President Mohammad Khatami and Speaker of Parliament Mehdi Karroubi, issued endearing condolences. Karroubi, who is now regarded as a leading Reformist by Western media, in particular praised Khalkhali’s performance“in the early days of the Revolution.”

Next, Ali Akbar Mohtashamipour (b. 1947) was the Iranian ambassador to Syria in the early 1980s. In that capacity and as part of the Khomeinist project of “Export of Revolution,” he established the formidable Hezbollah in Lebanon. Under Mohtashamipour’s supervision and with Hafez Assad’s approval, a contingent of IRGC elite was sent through Syria to the Beqaa Valley in Lebanon to train the Lebanese Shiite militia, both militarily and ideologically.

Tenets like Jihadism and acts like suicide bombing that are now typically associated with the Sunni extremists by Western media were in fact among the main principles that the Mohtashamipour-led IRGC elite instilled in the Lebanese Shiite militia for the first time in the history of modern Islamism. Since then, Hezbollah has carried out some of the deadliest attacks against all those whom the Iranian regime regards as rivals or troublemakers, including Westerners, Jews and Arabs.

Mohtashamipour was later appointed Minister of the Interior by Prime Minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi, now promoted as a major Reformist figure by Western media. In the sixth Islamic Republic Parliament (2000-2004), which was a majority Reformist Parliament chaired by Karroubi, Mohtashamipour was head of the Reforms Front Coordination Council. Mohtashamipour was also head of the Staff for Karroubi’s Election Campaign during the notorious 2009 presidential election in Iran.

Last but not least, Mohammad Mousavi-Khoeiniha (b. 1942) is the secretary general of the Association of Combatant Clerics, the once chief Khomeinist faction that is now a Reformist association and in whom originate almost all the major Reformist figures. Regarded as the Grey Eminence of the Islamic Republic Left for his mostly “behind-the-scene” performances, Khoeiniha was the real architect of the American Embassy takeover in Tehran on November 4, 1979. According to Bowden in Guests of the Ayatollah, Khoeiniha was still a staunch defender of the embassy takeover in 2006 when the book was published. Khoeiniha was one of the most important backers of Khatami in the late 1990s, and, true to his sobriquet, is seen as a major behind-the-scene influence in getting Khatami to presidency.

Iran reformers

Now, those all-powerful people, which in the 1980s used to style themselves as the “Line of Imam” in reference to “Imam” Khomeini, were later sidelined by Khamenei’s clique after Khomeini’s death in 1989. Divested of power, pragmatism and convenience dictated that they choose a more appealing and “moderate-sounding” appellation for themselves than the blood-loaded “Line of Imam,” namely “Reformist,” so that they can mend fences with their archetypal enemy, the United States.

As such, by making overtures to the Americans, these Reformists hoped to enlist the services of the “Great Satan” to undermine the clique of the Supreme Leader so that they themselves can re-attain power in Iran. Ideology-wise, however, as was noted in the case of the three Reformist figures studied above, they are still the very “Line of Imam” that mass-executed Iranian dissidents and bombed the American barracks and called – and are still calling – for the annihilation of Israel.

This can now be easily perceived in the positions some of the personages associated with the Reformists assume; namely President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. For instance, with regard to the question of the recent ballistic missile tests by the Islamic Republic that explicitly threatened Israel, Rouhani and Zarif both toed the Supreme Leader’s line by passionately defending the Iranian regime’s missile development program.

As a matter of fact, since their inception, the Reformists’ foremost function has been to follow the objectives that the so-called Hardliners set forth for them, but with a catch: they are supposed to do it through diplomacy and show of goodwill rather than threat and coercion. During their seeming ascendency in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the so-called Reformists did not implement even a single constitutional reform in Iran. Instead, they have been somewhat successful in furthering the Islamist ideology and strategic objectives of the Iranian regime by misleading the West. As such, what the Reformists constitute in effect is the Islamic Republic’s showcase for the eyes of the world.

Therefore, one can say that these two appellations, i.e. Reformist and Hardliner, mostly reflect the rhetorical struggle between the Khomeinists and the Khameneists rather than having any real substance. However, since the Khomeinists/Reformists have somehow managed to infiltrate the Western media, they have been able to cast their own vocabulary and version of the story as “truth and nothing but the truth.” Indeed, it can be said that one owns the truth when one has a monopoly on defining it.

We should know better. When both the “Hardliners” and the “Reformists” stem from the same ideological springhead of Islamism, Anti-Westernism, and Export of Revolution, whatever appellation they give themselves will make no difference in practice: it’s a deadlock. That is why, as I predicted a long time ago, the much-eulogized Nuclear Deal was doomed to failure even before it had been concluded. That reality is now only being laid bare before our eyes.

John Kerry’s Latest Excuse for Terrorism? ‘Human Rights Abuses’

April 15, 2016

John Kerry’s Latest Excuse for Terrorism? ‘Human Rights Abuses’ Truth RevoltTiffany Gabbay. April 14, 2016

kerry_24

Because it couldn’t have anything to do with Islam.

Where would the Left be if it couldn’t make up asinine excuses for why terrorists go on murderous rampages and are proliferating at record speed? During the Arab Spring, President Obama blamed the uprising on the fact that “middle class folks” were just trying to “catch a break.” Then, Sec. of State John Kerry blamed the crisis in Syria on “climate change” and “climate refugees.”

Of course the so-called “Israeli ‘occupation’ of Palestine” is a favorite among leftists who attempt to excuse violence within Islam at all levels, regardless of where in the world that violence is committed.

And now the latest excuse for Islamic terrorism? Well, it’s because human rights abuses are being committed against Muslims. Stars and Stripes reports:

A crackdown on dissent by authoritarian governments last year contributed to a rising tide of human rights abuses that has allowed terrorist groups to flourish, according to the State Department’s annual human rights report released Wednesday.

Although the report found human rights abuses on every continent, Secretary of State John F. Kerry singled out the Middle East.

“The most widespread and dramatic violations in 2015 were those in the Middle East, where the confluence of terrorism and the Syrian conflict caused enormous suffering,” he said.

“Given the horrors of these past five years, I cannot imagine a more powerful blow for human rights than putting a decisive end to this war, to the terror, to the repression and especially to the torture, to the indiscriminate bombing,” he said, “and therefore make possible a new beginning for the Syrian people.”[…]

Of course it couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that President Obama, along wth former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, completely destabilized the Middle East by destroying partners like Hosni Mubarak and Muammar Gaddafi — both of whom were cooperating with the U.S. to tamp down the radical elements within their respective countries; or that cutting and running in Iraq created the vacuums in which radicals now flourish.

It apparently also isn’t obvious to Sec. Kerry that there is something fundamental within Islam that fosters hatred, radicalism, and a penchant for armed jihad among no trivial number of its adherents.

Of course the simple, most obvious and truthful answer will never do for leftists, especially when it doesn’t suit their agenda.

Putin’s Message

April 15, 2016

Putin’s Message, Power LineScott Johnson, April 14, 2016

Vladimir Putin has a message for Barack Obama and the United States, a message he sent via Russian warplanes buzzing the Navy destroyer Donald Cook in the Baltic Sea. Yesterday the Pentagon released video of the jets flying extremely close to the ship more than 30 times over the past two days. Military Times originally reported the story yesterday here. CBS News quotes the Obama administration calling the “simulated attack” passes unsafe. The video below shows two Russian jets coming incredibly close on one of their passes.

Putin’s message is that he holds Obama in the utmost contempt and that it is safe for him to show it. He knows Obama thinks him retrograde. Obama transcends concerns about national pride as a relic of the past. Putin wants to spread his message and publicize Obama’s attitude to those who take matters of national pride and humiliation seriously, even if it is redundant in both cases.

Satire | Navy to Name New Destroyer The USS Alfred C. Sharpton

April 15, 2016

Navy to Name New Destroyer The USS Alfred C. Sharpton, Dan Miller’s Blog, April 14, 2016

(The views expressed in the body of this article are not necessarily mine, those of Warsclerotic or it’s other editors. — DM)

Thinker of the day

Inspired by the profound wisdom of Nancy Pelosi

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus stated this week that Navy ships no longer need be named after dead old White geezers with medals of honor or politicians who have helped the Navy. Naming them after politicians favored by our dear leader Obama is now Navy policy.

Sharpton may never have won a medal of honor, served in the U.S. Military or helped the Navy. However, he is a fighter for social justice and has destroyed lots of racist stuff. Once the Navy names a destroyer in his honor, he will have much more work to do. Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Min! White Power Gotta GO! Soon, under President Hillary Clinton, Admiral Sharpton will have an entire task force of destroyers with which to fight environmental and other racism. 

Navy Secretary Mabus is breaking new ground, and it’s high time somebody did. He recently stated that

an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer will be named the USS Carl M. Levin. The Michigan Democrat served 31 years in the Senate and chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee from 2007 to 2015.

One congressional staffer noted that Mr. Levin presided over the committee during the Obama administration’s major drawdown of troops and weapons systems. Joint Chiefs of Staff officers testified in recent months that they doubt they can fight one major war on the schedule outlined in the National Military Strategy.

Gutting the racist and Islamophobic U.S. military is good! Devout members of “our” military love killing peaceful Muslims and other people of color at least as much as they enjoy breaking things. As our dear leader Obama has often emphasized, we must negotiate with poor and underprivileged people who try to kill us. We must help them to see how wonderful they already are and how we can help them to become happier and even more wonderful. Use of “our” military only makes them hate us and so is completely out of bounds.

Naming a destroyer after the Reverend Sharpton will promote social justice and put racists in their proper place — under his heel. He is good at destroying America’s racist culture and that includes preventing racist white people from appropriating America’s vast and beautiful Black culture. Here’s a stupid video by a vile White racist pig, Bill Whittle.

Whites have never developed any culture of their own beyond that of enslaving Black people. Despite their White privilege, they have no legal right to appropriate the rich and vibrant culture of Blacks, whom they despise and continue to enslave.

Navy Secretary Mabus is also aligned with own dear leader Obama in recognizing the need to prevent global warming global cooling Climate Change. Children and other adherents to the Religion of Peace won’t harm us; Climate Change will kill us.

The Navy will become the first branch of the military to require big vendors to report their greenhouse gas emissions and to outline what they are doing to lower them in response to global warming.

“We’ve got skin in this game,” Navy Secretary Ray Mabus told a technology conference on government and climate change on Tuesday, noting that the Navy’s fleet is the military’s largest user of fossil fuels.

. . . .

The U.S. military in recent years has called climate change a serious threat to national security. The Pentagon has said climate change is exacerbating everything from droughts to the rise of Islamic terror. [Emphasis added.]

The pentagon appears to have misspoken: there is no such thing as Islamic terror, because Islam is the religion of peace and tolerance. Perhaps the pentagon meant the terror we inflict on innocent Muslims.

The administration routinely repeats that position when discussing the challenge of global warming as the top threat the world faces. GOP presidential candidates often cite the stance to criticize President Obama’s policy priorities. [Emphasis added.]

Hillary Clinton is the only presidential candidate totally opposed to environmental racism. On April 13th, She promised Al Sharpton “a task force” to fight it.

[A]ir pollution from power plants, factories, and refineries contribute to disproportionately high rates of asthma for African-American children. Nearly half of all Latino children live in U.S. counties where smog levels exceed the Environmental Protection Agency’s health standards, the campaign says.

Minority communities will also be disproportionately affected by climate change.

“And the impacts of climate change, from more severe storms to longer heat waves to rising sea levels, will disproportionately affect low-income and minority communities, which suffer the worst losses during extreme weather and have the fewest resources to prepare,” the campaign memo states.

. . . .

If elected president, Clinton says she will establish an Environmental and Climate Justice Task Force on her first day in office. [Emphasis added.]

By giving Admiral Sharpton a massive task force, President Clinton will make him Her principal destroyer of environmental racism. As Queen Hillary’s Monarch of the Sea, Admiral Sharpton will rule the waves as well as did Queen Victoria’s own sea ruler!

Three cheers for our own dear leader Obama, His great Secretary of the Navy, our soon-to-be glorious Monarch of the Sea and our loving next president, Hillary Clinton!

The little children knew years ago and now, after almost eight years under Obama, we must all celebrate their profound wisdom, clarity of thought and maturity by giving dear leader Obama at least another eight years by electing Hillary as our beloved Queen! Long may She reign!

Editor’s note:

Oh well.

 

ISIS Chant Praising Brussels Attacks Could Attract Recruits, Herald More

April 14, 2016

ISIS Chant Praising Brussels Attacks Could Attract Recruits, Herald More, Investigative Project on Terrorism, John Rossomando, April 14, 2016

A recent “nasheed” – or Islamic chant – posted by ISIS celebrating the Brussels attacks, could serve as a recruitment tool for ISIS to persuade potential jihadists to fight on the continent.

“We Destroyed Belgium” features ISIS’s self-proclaimed caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, speaking in the beginning, proclaiming the international nature of his group.

“Allah is our destination. He is our goal. Our Sheikh al-Baghdadi proclaimed the banner of jihad … With the strength of belief our weapons are raised … We destroyed Belgium … Infidels and hypocrites. With slaughter we come to you. No, no agreement And if they say, terrorist. I say, the honor is mine,” the nasheed says.

This nasheed comes amid ISIS threats of further attacks. The terror organization released a video last week threatening to strike against London, Berlin or Rome. Other ISIS threats in the wake of the Brussels attacks similarly featured Berlin and London.

“Plans are afoot as we read these words now,” said ex-jihadi and counter-terrorism expert Mubin Shaikh. “It is well within the scope of this thinking, to insert coded messages into some of these nasheeds.”

ISIS frowns on issuing open orders like “start the job” to sleeper cells in the field to commence operations, which is a lesson it learned from Al-Qaida, according to its manual “Safety and Security guidelines for Lone Wolf Mujahideen.” It insists on total silence and lack of communication prior to an operation; however, an innocuous coded message akin to the Japanese message “Climb Mt. Nitaka” sent prior to Pearl Harbor would go largely unnoticed by security services.

ISIS published dozens of nasheeds aimed at urging recruits to join them on the battlefield. This nasheed celebrating Brussels and similar nasheeds that appeared online prior to the Paris and Brussels differ in that they are more narrowly aimed at operations in Europe.

Two weeks before the Nov. 13 Paris attacks, ISIS’s Raqqa-based Al-Hayat Media released a French-language nasheed titled “Avance, Avance,” which the Middle East Media Research Institute’s (MEMRI) French-language service first reported.

It told ISIS’s followers in France to “Advance, Advance” and to “Kill apostates that the devil has lost, People with the false war is declared … Either you kill them or they kill you, that profit … Finish him with a bullet to the head.”

ISIS released an audio statement claiming responsibility hours after the Paris attacks. It used the same “Avance, Avance” nasheed.

Al-Hayat Media released another French nasheed on Feb. 28 titled “Pour Allah,” which could have signaled an impending attack on a European target. It proclaimed: “For Allah we sacrifice, for Allah we terrorize.”

“Pour Allah” appeared in an ISIS video celebrating the Brussels attacks was released on March 24, two days after the assault on the Brussels airport and Metro. The same video also included the “Avance. Avance” nasheed.

A source alerted the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) about each of these two nasheeds prior to the Paris and Brussels attacks, warning that in his opinion that preparations for an attack may have been underway.

“I would suggest monitoring the nasheed sharing places and doing content analysis of the lyrics,” Shaikh said. “It is possible that they have not thought of this yet but then again as an analyst I ask: why would you wait until they did and you could have prevented a major attack?”

See No Sharia: ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ and the Disarming of America’s First Line of Defense

April 14, 2016

See No Sharia: ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ and the Disarming of America’s First Line of Defense, Secure Freedom via You Tube, April 14, 2016

Girls Choose Suicide Bombing Over Life Under Boko Haram

April 14, 2016

Girls Choose Suicide Bombing Over Life Under Boko Haram, Clarion Project, April 14, 2016

Nigeria-Boko-Haram-Abductions-IP_1Nigerians protest against abductions by Boko Haram, demanding that the government act. (Photo: © Reuters)

A “proof of life” video showing 15 of the Nigerian schoolgirls kidnapped by Boko Haram in August 2014 has been shown to the parents of the girls.

It is believed to be the first footage they have seen proving their children are still alive.

The video is in the hands of negotiators and the Nigerian government.

The video was probably made in December 2015, CNN reported.

Some of those forced into being so called “jihadi brides” are clamoring to become suicide bombers. A 16-year-old teenager, identified only as Fati, told Britain’s The Express that if girls become suicide bombers they can escape a life of continual rape and potentially be rescued.

“They [the Boko Haram fighters] would ask: ‘Who wants to be a suicide bomber?’” Fati recounted. “The girls would shout: ‘Me, me, me.’ They were fighting to do the suicide bombings.”

“If they give them a suicide bomb” she said, “then maybe they would meet soldiers, tell them: ‘I have a bomb on me’ and they could remove the bomb. They can run away.”

Three quarters of the children used as suicide bombers by Boko Haram since 2012 have been girls, according to UNICEF.

Boko Haram is officially known as the Islamic State in West Africa since pledging allegiance to the self-styled Caliph of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in March 2015.

Islamophobia in one State (5)

April 14, 2016

Islamophobia in one State (5), Power LineScott Johnson, April 14, 2016

(Please see also, From Poet to Jihai: The Story of a Somali American in Minnesota. — DM)

On what seems like a daily basis, Minnesotans are lectured against the evils of “Islamophobia.” In October, Gov. Mark Dayton weirdly instructed “white, B-plus, Minnesota-born citizens” to suppress their qualms about immigrant resettlement in Minnesota, according to the St. Cloud Times. If they can’t, they should “find another state,” he added.

Andrew Luger, the United States Attorney for Minnesota is a paragon of political correctness who has inveighed against “the current wave of Islamophobia” and has stayed on the attack. Yesterday Luger and others gathered at the prestigious Minneapolis law firm Dorsey & Whitney to decry Islamophobia. Walter Mondale is of counsel at the firm and was a featured speaker at the event. The Star Tribune reports on the proceedings in “Minneapolis legal community, Somali-Americans latest to unite to confront Islamophobia.”

The Twin Cities have received more than 100,000 Somali Muslims in the past 20 years or so. Their presence is notable, yet signs of bigotry against them are virtually nil.

The star victim on display at the Dorsey & Whitney conference yesterday was Asma Jama (middle name Mohamed, by the way). Jama was assaulted by a patron at a local Applebee’s who “flew into a rage because she spoke a foreign language.” Jama speaks Swahili.

The perpetrator of the assault on Jama was one Jodie Burchard-Risch. Burchard-Risch is a nut who has probably had to push 1 for English one too many times. The Star Tribune provides no evidence for deeming her an anti-Muslim bigot. (MPR has a good account of the assault here, with photos.) So far as I can tell, “Islamphobia” had nothing to do with the assault. Indeed, I’m going to go out on a limb and guess wildly that alcohol was a substantial contributing factor to the incident. And when it comes to “Islamophobia,” this was the best they could do, so to speak.

“Islamophobia” is a concept fervently promoted since 2000 by the Organization of the Islamic Conference. It seeks to stigmatize expressions of disapproval of Islam as irrational manifestations of fear and prejudice. Implicitly, it raises the question of whether any fear of Islam is necessarily crazy. It also raises the question of whether some fear of Islam might be rational, but it instructs us to keep any unapproved answer to ourselves. It seeks to make us afraid to talk about perfectly reasonable fears. Andrew McCarthy has more on the provenance and uses of “Islamophobia” here.

Since the early 1990s, Minnesota has been flooded by waves of Somali Muslim refugees and immigrants. The number remains in doubt; official sources place it at something like 35,000. Unofficial estimates put it at well over 100,000. Whatever the number, it is large and growing.

Politicians like Dayton have proved highly effective in inhibiting public discussion of legitimate concerns about Minnesota’s Somali community. When I sat down to interview Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek in his office this past November, he bristled in response to my question about security issues related to the Somali community. Why was I focusing on that community? I referred to the congressional task force report recognizing Minnesota’s responsibility for 26 percent of the American fighters joining or seeking to join the ISIS. “I just came from an FBI briefing this morning,” Stanek told me at the time. “They told me we’re 20 percent.”

OK, but that still leaves Minnesota at No. 1 in a ranking where we would like to be No. 50.

Ten Minnesota Somalis have now been charged by Luger’s office with seeking to join or support ISIS. Four have pleaded guilty. The charges represent the culmination of a 10-month FBI investigation.

Reading the criminal complaints and underlying FBI affidavits supporting the charges in these cases is an alarming experience. The young men who have responded to the call of ISIL are full of hate for Americans and for the U.S. If they choose to act it out somewhere closer to home than Syria, we will have a major problem on our hands. After the massacre in San Bernardino, Calif., you’d think it might be time to talk about it.

The 10 men present something of a case study that belies the clichés around the subject of “radicalization.” These men were “connected” to schools and jobs. Their cases demonstrate plenty of opportunity for advancement and financial support. One of the men even maxed out his federal student loan account with a $5,000 withdrawal before seeking to depart Minneapolis for Syria.

Unnamed local mosques figure prominently in the cases. Islam is, of course, a common denominator. The 10 men are all Muslims seeking to join the jihad waged by ISIL.

Hillary Clinton actually had a useful observation buried in her Minneapolis speech this past fall on the subject of terrorism. She quoted Deqa Hussen, the mother of one of the 10 Somali men charged with supporting ISIS. Addressing other parents, Hussen said: “We have to stop the denial. … We have to talk to our kids and work with the FBI.” Clinton herself added: “That’s a message we need to hear from leaders within Muslim-American communities across our country.”

Which raises a question or two: Why don’t we hear that message more often from leaders within the Somali community? For that matter, why don’t we hear more expressions of gratitude from within the Somali community for their rescue from Third World disorder by the U.S. or for opportunities afforded to them in Minnesota?

Kyle Loven is the Minneapolis FBI’s chief division counsel and media coordinator. Speaking about Somali-related law enforcement issues to the National Security Society in Richfield in October, he conceded that the community gave rise to special challenges for law enforcement. “We walk a tightrope” with this community, Loven observed. “Every time we have to indict somebody, you should see the remarks we get. … Every time we have to make an arrest, it is a setback [in our relations with the Somali community].”

Luger is nominally responsible for a pilot program to prevent “radicalization” of Somali-Minnesotans. The program goes under the name “Building Community Resilience,” a classic euphemism of the Obama era. The program is to funnel as much as $1 million to support Minnesota’s Somali community. The memorandum of understanding between Luger and Minnesota Somali leaders reflects the wariness of Somali-Minnesotans. It stipulates that the program will not be used for surveillance purposes by any law enforcement agency or by any person working for or on behalf of any law enforcement agency.

You can see why the authorities might want to shut down discussion of reasonable concerns raised by Minnesota’s Somali community. They really would prefer not to talk about them. They would prefer to sweep them under a well-worn rug.

NOTE: This post is adapted from my December Star Tribune column “Islam and Minnesota: Can we hear some straight talk for a change?” I hope that was a rhetorical question. The answer is obviously no.