Archive for February 13, 2017

Trump’s game in Saudi Arabia

February 13, 2017

Trump’s game in Saudi Arabia, American ThinkerJames Lewis, February 13, 2017

Mike Pompeo, the new CIA head, just flew to Riyadh to give a medal to the reigning son of the king (who is said to suffer from dementia).  While some conservatives regard this as a travesty (e.g., a “Not the Onion” commentary from Zero Hedge), I think this is meant to be an open signal to support the House of Saud, whose help is needed against the Iranians anyway and who support President El-Sisi against Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

saudiaward

It’s not clear what the Saudis did in exchange, but they have been under the gun, fearing that Western media would expose their role in support of violent jihad.  So this looks as though the Saudis have done a lot to settle those debts.  It’s not the kind of public gesture the CIA does a lot.

The Saudis can shut down ISIS/AQ/Al Nusra, or whatever the worst gang of maniacs calls itself today.  They also have no problem with selected assassinations.  SecDef Mattis has a long record of talking about morality and immorality in warfare, and he does not like sadistic monsters.  I think the moral dimension of defensive war has been missing during the Obama years.

These moves may signal both domestic and foreign agreements to calm things down.  The Saudis know that their control of OPEC is waning, since Trump is aggressively opening up domestic traditional and shale energy production (again, something Obama never would do).  But the Saudis need to make a “soft landing,” which is not going to be easy.  So they have been talking peace with Israel, on the assumption that Israel can communicate with the U.S. – at least under Trump.

These are all calming moves in a very agitated international situation. I believe that Trump is going to move aggressively against Muslim Brotherhood infiltration, probably with Saudi backing.  The Saudis are ideologically aligned with ISIS, al-Qaeda, and the M.B.s, but tactically, they could abandon them.  Violent jihad arose with OPEC, and now that OPEC is declining, it would be smart to convince the Saudis that the jig is up.

We can see if there is a marked decrease in jihadist violence.  If not, then the hypothesis is wrong.

The possibility of public exposure of their role in 9/11 is still very real and can be used to ensure their good behavior.

This is Kremlinology, but it’s falsifiable.  There are many dangerous enemies in the world, including George Soros domestically, and the intelligence agencies can torpedo a lot of stuff.  It is smart for Trump to calm things down and focus on the hard parts first.

 

National Security Council leakers worried Trump might arrest them

February 13, 2017

National Security Council leakers worried Trump might arrest them, American ThinkerEd Straker, February 13, 2017

If you’re a left-leaning member of the National Security Council and you’re unhappy with the duly elected president, what do you do?  Why, leak details of classified discussions and pending operations to the media, of course!

In a N.Y. Times article, which itself is based on NSC leaks, leakers try to portray the NSC in chaos, but in the process of attempting to do so, they reveal the scope of their disloyalty.

These are chaotic and anxious days inside the National Security Council, the traditional center of management for a president’s dealings with an uncertain world. Some staff members have turned to encrypted communications to talk with their colleagues, after hearing that Mr. Trump’s top advisers are considering an “insider threat” program that could result in monitoring cellphones and emails for leaks.

Now, why would NSC staffers talking with their colleagues, presumably about affairs of state, feel the need to encrypt their conversations from the man they work for?  I think the implication is clear – that these conversations are about undermining and leaking information to harm the Trump administration.

Nervous staff members recently met late at night at a bar a few blocks from the White House and talked about purging their social media accounts of any suggestion of anti-Trump sentiments.

Why would they need to do that?  Past anti-Trump sentiments are not against the law.  But leaking classified information is.  I think these leakers are trying to keep a lower profile to avoid being caught.

Last week, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis was exploring whether the Navy could intercept and board an Iranian ship to look for contraband weapons possibly headed to Houthi fighters in Yemen.

White House officials said that [the operation was cancelled]… because news of the impending operation leaked, a threat to security that has helped fuel the move for the insider threat program.

This is leakers in action.  But instead of writing an article about their illegality, this is only mentioned in passing, as part of the Times’ main interest in portraying the NSC as being in chaos.  What amazes me is how the Times doesn’t seem to think revealing bureaucrats leaking classified information is even a problem; the paper is are so disconnected from reality that its writers think anything, including disregarding national security laws, is justified, all in the pursuit of Trump.

[Some NSC staffers have left but] Many of those who remain, who see themselves as apolitical civil servants, have been disturbed by displays of overt partisanship. At an all-hands meeting about two weeks into the new administration, Ms. McFarland told the group it needed to “make America great again,” numerous staff members who were there said. New Trump appointees are carrying coffee mugs with that Trump campaign slogan into meetings with foreign counterparts, one staff member said.

Why is it partisan to have a mug featuring the slogan of the president…in his own White House?  When Obama was president, do you think staff avoided pro-Obama slogans?  I’m sure they didn’t.  These people are just appalled to be confronted with direct evidence that Trump is their president.  It shows that they don’t have either the temperament or the loyalty to do their jobs.

 

Female Ontario premier forced to sit in back corner when visiting mosque, while men prayed

February 13, 2017

Female Ontario premier forced to sit in back corner when visiting mosque, while men prayed, Jihad Watch

This was simply in accord with Islamic law, as several hadiths have Muhammad saying that if a woman is in front of a man as he is praying, his prayer is invalidated:

“Abu Dharr reported: The Messenger of ‘Allah (may peace be upon him) said: When any one of you stands for prayer and there is a thing before him equal to the back of the saddle that covers him and in case there is not before him (a thing) equal to the back of the saddle, his prayer would be cut off by (passing of an) ass, woman, and black dog. I said: O Abu Dharr, what feature is there in a black dog which distinguish it from the red dog and the yellow dog? He said: O, son of my brother, I asked the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) as you are asking me, and he said: The black dog is a devil.” (Sahih Muslim 1032)

“Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: A woman, an ass and a dog disrupt the prayer, but something like the back of a saddle guards against that.” (Sahih Muslim 1034)

“‘Urwa b. Zubair reported: ‘A’isha asked: What disrupts the prayer? We said: The woman and the ass. Upon this she remarked: Is the woman an ugly animal? I lay in front of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) like the bier of a corpse and he said prayer.” (Sahih Muslim 1037)

“Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: Qatadah said: I heard Jabir ibn Zayd who reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas; and Shu’bah reported the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) as saying: A menstruating woman and a dog cut off the prayer. (Sunan Abu Dawud 703)

“Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: Ikrimah reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas, saying: I think the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: When one of you prays without a sutrah, a dog, an ass, a pig, a Jew, a Magian, and a woman cut off his prayer, but it will suffice if they pass in front of him at a distance of over a stone’s throw.” (Sunan Abu Dawud 704)

Wynne didn’t complain about this degradation of women. Nor did she, although gay, say a word about the statements of the imam at the mosque she visited. The Toronto Sun article referred to below says:

As quoted in the CIJ News in 2015 from a question and answer session on Onislam.net, Imam Wael Shehab said “homosexuality is a sinful act in Islam … I’d cite the following fatwa of Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, president of the Fiqh Council of North America:

‘We should consider them people who get themselves engaged in a sinful act. We should deal with them in the same way we deal with any people who are involved in alcoholics, gambling or adultery. We should have deep repugnance to their acts and we must remind and warn them.”

If they persist he said “we should certainly avoid those people.”

Awkward.

And yet, there was Wynne being bigger than that, offering a heartfelt message of unity to him and his fellow Muslim followers….

Would the Toronto Sun have praised Wynne for “being bigger than that” if she had passed over in silence similar words spoken by a Baptist pastor?

Meanwhile, Sun reporter Joe Warmington showed himself to be touchingly naive and credulous:

As horrible as his previous quotes are, Shehab said he very much cherished the premier’s visit and her warm words and humanity. He explained although he’s on record for teachings in previous sermons, his views are not as they appear.

“They are taken out of context,” he told me gently. “They are not my views. My views are clear on my Facebook page. We stand for freedom, equality and justice for all. I support for human rights for all.”

Gently! He trotted out the brazen all-purpose scoundrel’s refuge excuse, that his words were taken out of context, and relied on Warmington’s apparent ignorance of Islam’s death penalty for homosexuality, but he did it gently!

kathleen-wynne

“Female Ontario Premier Forced To Sit In A Corner While Visiting Mosque,” by Chris Menahan, Information Liberation, February 12, 2017:

Before she was allowed to deliver a message that “we’re all the same,” Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne was forced to sit in the back corner of a Mosque all by herself while the Muslim men prayed.

From the Toronto Sun:

While the men prayed, she sat patiently in the back corner of the mosque waiting to say the words many in the room were so thankful to hear.

“There should be no fear ever in worshipping your God, our God, in Ontario or in Canada,” Premier Kathleen Wynne said to the worshippers who came for noon-hour prayers at the Muslim Association of Canada’s Masjid Mosque on Dundas St. W [on January 30th].

[…]“As-Salam-u-Alaikum (Peace be unto you). Thanks for welcoming me into your house, your home,” said Wynne, who also visited the “sisters” section of the mosque on the second floor. But other than media and her staff, she was the only female in the room for the male prayer.

“Our government stands with you. We are not different. We are the same. We are all Canadians.”

Wynne is Canada’s first openly gay head of government in Canada and the first female Premier of Ontario.

The mosque she spoke at is run by an anti-gay Muslim preacher…

She didn’t bring it up and ignored the issue entirely when the media questioned her on it.

Iranian Regime gets desperate; holds 300 exhibitions against MEK

February 13, 2017

Iranian Regime gets desperate; holds 300 exhibitions against MEK, Iran Focus, February 13, 2017

(Will President Trump work with the MEK for regime change in Iran? Should he? — DM)

mek-750

London, 13 Feb – The Iranian Regime held 300 exhibitions against the resistance group, MEK, in an increasingly desperate attempt to smear the Iranian Opposition.

This is believed to be in response to a report by the Regime’s Ministry of Intelligence which detailed the power of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI or MEK) and the progress they have made.

The report noted that young people are far more likely to side with the Resistance and that the Iranian Resistance is highly respected both at home and abroad.

Hashemi Nejad the director general of the state-funded foundation, Habilian, said: “We have held 300 exhibitions against MEK in Iran up to now. These days, MEK is getting recognised as a leading institute in Human Rights, our duty is to discuss Human Rights issues against MEK since Iranian youths are the target of MEK.”

The report noted that the MEK favoured regime change and the removal of the Iranian mullahs, but the MEK have never made a secret of that.

It also highlighted that the MEK had assisted the West by revealing Iran’s secret nuclear missiles programme.

They noted that in order to stop the youth from joining the MEK, the Regime would have to present a totally warped view of the Resistance Forces, which is what they have attempted to do with the exhibitions.

The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) noted in their recap of the report, that it was weird to hear the Regime admit that they had been trounced by the Resistance in terms of support from the Iranian people.

They wrote: “The truth is that after the regime was unable to destroy the MEK by inhumane siege and missile attacks and Mojahedin were able to maintain the integrity of their organisation and transfer themselves to a safe place, the regime is frightened now. That is why the mullahs regularly yowl and whimper about the danger of Mojahedin.”

They continued: “This fear and sense of danger is particularly due to the fact that the power and cohesion of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran has coincided on the one hand with the weakness and ultimate decay of the Velayat-e faqih regime and the crises engulfing the regime, and on the other hand by the fact that Iran’s society is on the verge of explosion and ready for uprising and revolution and is only waiting for a spark.”

More about the People’s Mojahdin Organization of Iran (PMOI/ MEK)

The People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (Also known as MEK, or Mujahedin-e-Khalq / Mujahedeen-e-Khalq), was founded on September 6, 1965, by Mohammad Hanifnejad, Saeed Mohsen, and Ali-Asghar Badizadgan. All engineers, they had earlier been members of the Freedom Movement (also known as the Liberation Movement), created by Medhi Bazargan in May 1961.1

The MEK’s quest culminated in a true interpretation of Islam, which is inherently tolerant and democratic, and fully compatible with the values of modern-day civilization. It took six years for the MEK to formulate its view of Islam and develop a strategy to replace Iran’s dictatorial monarchy with a democratic government.

MEK’s interpretation of Islam

The theocratic mullah regime in Iran believe interpreting Islam is their exclusive domain. The MEK reject this view and the cleric’s reactionary vision of Islam. The MEK’s comprehensive interpretation of Islam proved to be more persuasive and appealing to the Iranian youth.

MEK’s founders and new members studied the various schools of thought, the Iranian history and those of other countries, enabling them to analyze other philosophies and ideologies with considerable knowledge and to present their own ideology, based on Islam, as the answer to Iran’s problems.

MEK’s leadership’s arrest during the 70s.

The Shah’s notorious secret police, SAVAK, arrested all MEK leaders and most of its member’s in1971. On May 1972, the founders of the MEK, Mohammad Hanifnejad , Saeed Mohsen and Ali Asghar Badizadegan, along with two members of the MEK leadership, Mahmoud Askarizadeh and Rasoul Meshkinfam, were put before death squads and were executed after long months of imprisonment and torture. They were the true vanguards, who stood against the dictatorial regime of Shah. However, they are also recognized for their opposition to what is today known as Islamic fundamentalism.

The death sentence of Massoud Rajavi, a member of MEK’s central committee, was commuted to life imprisonment as a result of an international campaign by his Geneva based brother, Dr. Kazem Rajavi (assassinated in April 1990 in Geneva by mullahs’ agents) and the personal intervention of the French President Georges Pompidou and Francois Mitterrand. He was the only survivor of the MEK original leadership.

Massoud Rajavi’s critical role in characterizing religious extremism

From 1975 to 1979, while incarcerated in different prisons, Massoud Rajavi led the MEK’s struggle while constantly under torture for his leading position.

Massoud Rajavi stressed the need to continue the struggle against the shah’s dictatorship. At the same time, he characterized religious fanaticism as the primary internal threat to the popular opposition, and warned against the emergence and growth of religious fanaticism and autocracy. He also played a crucial role when some splinter used the vacuum in the MEK leadership who were all executed or imprisoned at the time, to claim a change of ideology and policy. Massoud Rajavi as the MEK leader condemn these individual’s misuse of MEK’s name while continuing to stress the struggle against dictatorship. His efforts while still in prison forced these individuals to no longer operating under the name of MEK and adopting a different name for their group. These positions remained the MEK’s manifesto until the overthrow of the shah’s regime.

Release of Political Prisoners on the last days of the Shah

A month before the 1979 revolution in Iran, the Shah was forced to flee Iran, never to return. All democratic opposition leaders had by then either been executed by the Shah’s SAVAK or imprisoned, and could exert little influence on the trend of events. Khomeini and his network of mullahs across the country, who had by and large been spared the wrath of SAVAK, were the only force that remained unharmed and could take advantage of the political vacuum. In France, Khomeini received maximum exposure to the world media. With the aid of his clerical followers, he hijacked a revolution that began with calls for democracy and freedom and diverted it towards his fundamentalist goals. Through an exceptional combination of historical events, Shiite clerics assumed power in Iran.

Khomeini’s gradual crackdown on MEK in fear of their popular support

In internal discourses, Rajavi the remaining leader of the MEK, argued that Khomeini represented the reactionary sector of society and preached religious fascism. Later, in the early days after the 1979 revolution, the mullahs, specifically Rafsanjani, pointed to these statements in inciting the hezbollahi club-wielders to attack the MEK.

Following the revolution, the MEK became Iran’s largest organized political party. It had hundreds of thousands of members who operated from MEK offices all over the country. MEK publication, ‘Mojahed’ was circulated in 500,000 copies.

Khomeini set up an Assembly of Experts comprised of sixty of his closest mullahs and loyalists to ratify the principle of velayat-e faqih (absolute supremacy of clerical rule) as a pillar of the Constitution. The MEK launched a nationwide campaign in opposition to this move, which enjoyed enormous popular support. Subsequently, the MEK refused to approve the new constitution based on the concept of velayat-e faqih, while stressing its observance of the law of the country to deny the mullahs any excuse for further suppression of MEK supporters who were regularly targeted by the regime’s official and unofficial thugs.

Khomeini sanctioned the occupation of the United States embassy in 1979 in order to create an anti-American frenzy, which facilitated the holding of a referendum to approve his Constitution, which the MEK rejected.

MEK’s endeavors to participate in the political process avoiding an unwanted conflict with government repressive forces

The MEK actively participated in the political process, fielding candidates for the parliamentary and presidential elections. The MEK also entered avidly into the national debate on the structure of the new Islamic regime, though was unsuccessful in seeking an elected constituent assembly to draft a constitution.

The MEK similarly made an attempt at political participation when [then] Massoud Rajavi ran for the presidency in January 1980. MEK’s leader was forced to withdraw when Khomeini ruled that only candidates who had supported the constitution in the December referendum – which the MEK had boycotted- were eligible. Rajavi’s withdrawal statement emphasized the MEK’s efforts to conform to election regulations and reiterated the MEK’s intention to advance its political aims within the new legal system”. (Unclassified report on the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran(PMOI/ MEK) by the Department of State to the United States House of Representatives, December 1984.)
However, the MEK soon found itself in a direct struggle against the forces of the regime’s Supreme leader. The MEK’s differences with Khomeini dated back to the 1970s, and stem from its opposition to what is known today as Islamic extremism. Angry at the position taken by the MEK against his regime and worried about the MEK’s growing popularity, Khomeini ordered a brutal crackdown against the MEK and its supporters. Between 1979 and 1981, some 70 MEK members and sympathizers were killed and several thousand more were imprisoned by the Iranian regime.

June 20, 1981- Khomeini’s order to open fire on peaceful demonstration of half-a-million supporters of MEK

The turning point came on 20th June 1981, when the MEK called a demonstration to protest at the regime’s crackdown, and to call for political freedom which half-a-million supporters participated at. Khomeini ordered the Revolutionary Guards to open fire on the swelling crowd, fearing that without absolute repression the democratic opposition (MEK) would force him to engage in serious reforms – an anathema as far as he was concerned; he ordered the mass and summary executions of those arrested.

Since then, MEK activists have been the prime victims of human rights violations in Iran. Over 120,000 of its members and supporters have been executed by the Iranian regime, 30,000 of which, were executed in a few months in the summer of 1988, on a direct fatwa by Khomeini, which stated any prisoners who remain loyal to the MEK must be executed.

Having been denied its fundamental rights and having come under extensive attack at the time that millions of its members, supporters and sympathizers had no protection against the brutal onslaught of the Iranian regime, the MEK had no choice but to resist against the mullahs’ reign of terror.

“Towards the end of 1981, many of the members of the MEK and supporters went into exile. Their principal refuge was in France. But in 1986, after negotiations between the French and the Iranian authorities, the French government effectively treated them as undesirable aliens, and the leadership of the MEK with several thousand followers relocated to Iraq.” (Judgment of the Proscribed Organizations Appeal Commission, November 30, 2007.)

MEK Today

The MEK today is the oldest and largest anti-fundamentalist Muslim group in the Middle East. It has been active for more than a half century, battling two dictatorships and a wide range of issues. The MEK supports:

• Universal suffrage as the sole criterion for legitimacy

• Pluralistic system of governance

• Respect for individual freedoms

• Ban on the death penalty

• Separation of religion and state

• Full gender equality

• Equal participation of women in political leadership. MEK is actually led by its central committee consist of 1000 women.

• Modern judicial system that emphasizes the principle of innocence, a right to a defense, and due process

• Free markets

• Relations with all countries in the world

• Commitment to a non-nuclear Iran

The MEK remains a strong and cohesive organization, with a broad reach both worldwide and deep within Iran. MEK is the leading voice for democracy in Iran, supported by its interpretation of Islam that discredits the fundamentalist mullahs’ regime.

Israeli PM Netanyahu Becomes D.C. Darling as Democrats Clamor for Meetings

February 13, 2017

Israeli PM Netanyahu Becomes D.C. Darling as Democrats Clamor for Meetings, Washington Free Beacon, , February 13, 2017

(“Now that our Dear Leader is gone, we sure do love Israel.” — DM)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu chairs the weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem on February 12, 2017. / AFP PHOTO / GALI TIBBON

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu chairs the weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem on February 12, 2017. / AFP PHOTO / GALI TIBBON

After years of tense relations with the United States under former President Barack Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is emerging as one of the most prominent international personalities, according to multiple sources who told the Washington Free Beacon that Democrats, Republicans, and high-level White House officials are clamoring for a sit down with the Israeli leader when he arrives in town on Tuesday.

Senior officials across party lines hope to let Netanyahu know that America has Israel’s back and that years of tension during the Obama administration is just water under the bridge, according to both congressional sources and those close to the Trump administration.

Netanyahu’s schedule is already packed with powwows between President Trump, senior administration officials, and a cast of leading lawmakers on Capitol Hill from both sides of the aisle.

Meetings will center on U.S. lawmakers’ desire to reset relations with the Jewish state. Multiple sources told the Free Beacon that sit downs with White House officials will focus on holding Iran accountable for violations of the nuclear deal, moving the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and combatting efforts at the United Nations to delegitimize Israel.

Netanyahu already has confirmed a 6:30 p.m. dinner Tuesday evening with newly installed Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. The meeting will take place inside the State Department.

Netanyahu is expected to meet with Trump and other senior officials Wednesday before heading to Capitol Hill, where he will meet with leading Democrats and Republicans.

Netanyahu is expected to take separate meetings with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), sources told the Free Beacon.

Further meetings could take place with members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee before Netanyahu travels to the House side of the Capitol for an evening meeting with House Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wis.).

There is a strong desire among all parties to show Netanyahu that after nearly a decade of chilly relations during the former administration, the United States is prepared to restore the historic relationship with the Jewish state.

“Netanyahu’s schedule is so full that he literally can’t find time for all the high level meetings people want to have with him,” said one veteran foreign policy adviser who is closely in touch with the White House on Middle East issues. “The truth of this is, it’s nature taking its course.”

Recent polling shows that support for Israel is at an all-time high among Democrats and Republicans. Democratic lawmakers in particular are no longer being pressured by the former administration to distance themselves from Netanyahu and Israel.

“Without Obama trying to force Democratic lawmakers to choose between Israel and the United States nature is taking its course and everyone wants to see how they can help bolster the U.S.-Israel relationship,” the source said. “Voters want to see this.”

One source characterized Netanyahu as the “cool kid in town.”

On Capitol Hill, senior sources focused on the Middle East expect that lawmakers will emphasize a reset in relations with Israel. They also will seek to reassure Netanyahu that key foreign aid packages to Israel will remain robust and fully funded.

“There’s broad recognition that it’s time to turn a page on years of hostility towards Israel from the Obama administration. President Trump and the Republican Congress are focused on strengthening Israel’s security and the U.S.-Israel relationship—not condemning housing projects in disputed territories and pushing anti-Semitic U.N. resolutions,” said one senior congressional aide familiar with the Israeli leader’s travel itinerary.

“This provides a major opportunity for both the United States and Israel to stand up to Iran and all those who seek to defame and destroy the Jewish state,” the source said. “Given the warm relationship between Bibi and Trump, everyone seems upbeat and optimistic about the future of the alliance moving forward.”

Dennis Ross, a veteran Middle East hand who worked for former presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama, told reporters on Monday that there is a strong desire to cast sour relations between the United States and Israel as a byproduct of the Obama administration.

That, Ross said during a conference call hosted by the Israel Project, is the “overriding message that emerges from this week,”

“Democrats will be anxious to show they’re close to Israel as well,” Ross said, adding that Netanyahu will convey the message that Israel’s relationship is with America as a whole, not any one administration.

Islamic Terror and the U.S. Temporary Stay on Immigration

February 13, 2017

Islamic Terror and the U.S. Temporary Stay on Immigration, Gatestone InstituteUzay Bulut, February 13, 2017

It is short-sighted and reckless to blame President Trump for trying to protect his country and keep his country safe — as any good leader is supposed to do. It would be much wiser to direct our anger where it belongs — at Muslim extremists and Muslim terrorists.

To many people, it must be easier to go after the U.S. president than after ISIS terrorists. That way, critics of the president can also pose as “heroes” while ignoring the real threats to all of humanity.

Critics of Muslim extremists get numerous death threats from some people in the West because they courageously oppose the grave human rights violations — forced marriages, honor killings, child rape, murdering homosexuals and female genital mutilation (FGM), among others.

Why do we even call criticism of such horrific practices “courageous”? It should have been the most normal and ordinary act to criticize beheadings, mutilations and other crimes committed by radical Muslims. But it is not.

On the contrary, the temporary ban aims to protect genuine refugees such as Bennetta Bet-Badal, who was murdered in San Bernardino. It would be much wiser to direct our anger where it belongs — at Muslim extremists and Muslim terrorists.

In San Bernardino on December 2, 2015, 14 people were murdered and 22 others seriously wounded in a terrorist attack. The perpetrators were Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, a married couple. Farook was an American-born U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent, who worked as a health department employee. Malik was a Pakistani-born lawful permanent resident of the United States.

Among the victims of the terror attack was Bennetta Bet-Badal, an Assyrian Christian woman born in Iran in 1969. She fled to the U.S. at age 18 to escape Islamic extremism and the persecution of Christians that followed the Iranian revolution.

“This attack,” stated the Near East Center for Strategic Engagement (NEC-SE), “showcases how Assyrians fled tyranny, oppression, and persecution for freedom and liberty, only to live in a country that is also beginning to be subject to an ever-increasing threat by the same forms of oppressors.”

“NEC-SE would like to take this opportunity to once again urge action to directly arming the Assyrians and Yezidis and other minorities in their indigenous homeland, so that they can defend themselves against terrorism and oppression. This tragedy is evidence that the only way to effectively counter terrorism is not solely here in the US, but abroad and at its root.”

Members of the Islamic State (ISIS) have declared several times that they target “kafirs” (infidels) in the West.

In 2014, Syrian-born Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, the official spokesperson and a senior leader of the Islamic State, declared that supporters of the Islamic State from all over the world should attack citizens of Western states, including the US, France and UK:

“If you can kill a disbelieving American or European – especially the spiteful and filthy French – or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way, however it may be.

“Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him.”

It is this barbarity that the new U.S. administration is trying to stop.

FBI Director James Comey also warned in July of last year that hundreds of terrorists will fan out to infiltrate western Europe and the U.S. to carry out attacks on a wider scale, as Islamic State is defeated in Syria. “At some point there’s going to be a terrorist diaspora out of Syria like we’ve never seen before. We saw the future of this threat in Brussels and Paris,” said Comey, adding that future attacks will be on “an order of magnitude greater.”

How many ISIS operatives are there in the U.S.? Are ISIS sleeper cells likely in American cities? The people who are trying to create hysteria over the new steps taken by the Trump Administration should focus on investigating these issues more broadly, but they do not. To them, it must be easier to go after the U.S. president than after ISIS terrorists. This way, they can also pose as “heroes” while ignoring the real threat to all of humanity.

It is not only Islamic terrorists that pose a threat. It is also the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, the font of all the modern extremist Muslim ideologies.

The crimes committed by radical Muslims are beyond horrific, but it is getting harder to expose and criticize them. Many critics of Islam in Western countries — including those of Muslim origin — have received countless death deaths and have been exposed to various forms of intimidation.

Some were murdered, such as the Dutch film director, Theo van Gogh. His “crime” was to produce the short film Submission (2004) about the treatment of women under Islam. He was assassinated the same year by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Moroccan-Dutch Muslim.

2055In 2004, Moroccan-Dutch terrorist Mohammed Bouyeri (left), shot the filmmaker Theo van Gogh (right) to death, then stabbed him and slit his throat.

Some have had to go into hiding. American cartoonist Molly Norris, who promoted an “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day”, had to go into hiding in 2010 after her life was threatened by Islamic extremists. She also changed her name and stopped producing work for the Seattle Weekly, the New York Times reported.

Who are these people hiding from? From the most radical and devoted followers of the “religion of peace”.

Why should people living in free Western countries be forced to live in fear because they rightfully criticize a destructive and murderous ideology?

They get numerous death threats from some people in the West because they courageously oppose grave human rights violations — forced marriages, honor killings, child rape, murdering homosexuals and female genital mutilation (FGM), among others.

Why do we even call criticism of such horrific practices “courageous”? It should have been the most normal and ordinary act to criticize beheadings, mutilations and other crimes committed by radical Muslims. But it is not. It does require tremendous courage to criticize these acts committed in the name of a religion. For everybody knows that the critics of Islam are risking their lives and security.

In the meantime, “an Islamic State follower posted a message on the Telegram app that said President Trump was wasting his time by blocking refugees from Syria,” reported the journalist Rowan Scarborough.

“‘Trump is preventing the entrance of the citizens of [seven] countries to protect America from terrorism,’ said the message captured by the Middle East Media Research Institute. “Your decision will not do anything to prevent the attacks; They will come from inside America, from Americans born in America, whose fathers were born in America and whose grandparents were born in America.”

President Trump’s executive order is not a ban on Muslims. Individuals of all religious backgrounds of these seven countries have been affected. Nor is it a ban on refugees. On the contrary, the ban aims to protect genuine refugees such as Bennetta Bet-Badal, who was murdered in San Bernardino.

It is short-sighted and reckless to blame President Trump for trying to protect his country and keep it safe — as any good leader is supposed to do. It would be much wiser to direct our anger where it belongs — at Muslim extremists and Muslim terrorists.

For the Media, the Only Jihad Is Against Trump

February 13, 2017

For the Media, the Only Jihad Is Against Trump, PJ MediaRoger L Simon, February 12, 2017

In their zeal to “Jump on Trump,” is our media — not to mention their 9th Circuit cohorts — doing an immense disservice to the American public by obfuscating, effectively censoring, serious discussion of Islamic immigration and what to do about it?

It’s a global problem, surely, and we have a lot to learn from the mistakes of the Europeans who — according to the latest polls — are expressing serious regrets about their open-border immigration policies.

Several countries are beginning to return their migrants, sometimes offering economic incentives.  And you can see why, reading last Friday’s report from the Gatestone Institute:

Several young  gang-rapists started laughing in a Belgian court while yelling:

“women should not complain, they should listen to men.”

The seven ‘men’ were seen in a video where they are standing around an unconscious girl who is lying on a bed, then seen pulling down her pants and raping her. Also in the video, they are dancing around the victim and singing songs in Arabic.

I imagine they’ll be getting some “extreme vetting.”  Let’s hope so anyway.  But does this “extreme vetting” go far enough? In America’s case, it’s complicated by the fact that Trump’s original seven countries in his travel ban are rather circumscribed and arbitrarily limited, despite having been the seven singled out by Obama. As we have seen on multiple occasions, second-generation jihadists come from all over Western Europe, like two of the above un-magnificent seven, not to mention North Africa and the obvious omissions of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.  They come from Russia and the Far East as well. Shouldn’t they all be on the list?  Yes, I realize the seven countries were chosen because at least some keep no verifiable records of who’s coming and going.  But I’m not sure that matters.  These days identities are more easily forged than ever.  The Daily Beast reports you can buy an undetectable UK passport from the Neapolitan Camorra.

So can “extreme vetting” finally do the job it’s supposed to do? What is the real extent of its capability?

Marine/contractor Steven Gern’s video from Iraq (before being asked to leave) is viral for a reason. Gern has an authenticity and seems to be telling the truth, two truths actually, and those truths are, to say the least, uncomfortable.  One is that many Iraqis (I would assume most Middle Easterners) hate Americans despite all we may have tried to do for them and would kill us if they had any opportunity. The second is that they are master dissemblers (remember taqiyya?) and are willing to wait years, all the while seeming perfectly pleasant, before acting on their hatred. This does not augur well for immigration, to put it mildly.

Given this dissembling/taqiyya that Gern speaks of, we do have some serious”extreme vetting” to do.  It’s almost impossible to see how it can be done without the most detailed attention. Obama, Hillary and Kerry did less than zero to improve the situation. They either exacerbated or ignored it, mostly the former.

Trump asked for a 120-day travel ban, a tiny length of time under the circumstances, to try, in his words, to figure out what’s happening.  But his rapacious opponents in the media (and the judiciary), slavering like a pack of morally narcissistic wolves, would have none of it. He was not to get one day.

Did they have another suggestion?  No, of course not.  Their suggestion comes down to this: anything but Trump.  Forget reason.  Forget what’s left of their own thoughtfulness.  Forget the safety of the American people and the world.  The Orange Man must pay.  He’s too vulgar… or something.  Maybe one of his daughter’s shoes gave someone a blister.  Or Stephen Miller was too rude to one of his high school teachers. Something significant like that.

Meanwhile, the media in its fact-finding mission does nothing to help us because it finds no facts, other than scurrilous gossip about Trump. That’s all they seem to look for. Their myriad liberal and progressive pundits make no suggestions either, contribute no fresh ideas (have you noticed?) to the fight, as if the status quo were just fine with them.  (This is true of many conservative pundits too — no thoughts on what to do about radical Islam.) It’s a mixture of selfishness and envy from which we all lose. Let our children or our children’s children deal with it.   (And they will.)  There may be a jihad in the big world, people being raped and having their throats cut, bombs going off, trucks driving into crowds of innocent tourists, but to our media, the only jihad worth fighting against is against Trump.