Archive for the ‘Donald Trump’ category

Hillary calls ‘half’ of Trump supporters ‘basket of deplorables’

September 10, 2016

Hillary calls ‘half’ of Trump supporters ‘basket of deplorables’, American ThinkerCarol Brown, September 10, 2016

If you support Donald Trump, you are “irredeemable,” part of a “basket of deplorables.” A “kind” who should never be allowed to rise again.  You are a “radical fringe” made up of “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobic,” “Islamophobic,” “anti-Semitic,” “misogynist,” “xenophobic,” “you name it” types.  Hillary Clinton paints you as hopeless moral lepers who should be banished to a remote island to live our final days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNgIrfbgqnY

We are so bad, so evil, that we are no better than “terrorists.”

We are “not America.”

We are all of these things (and more) according to Hillary Clinton. And anyone who thinks the language she uses to describe us is merely words spewed to inspire her base is fooling themselves.

Clinton will act on her words. And her actions will be as harsh and as anti-American as it gets. The boom will come down so hard that our lives will be impacted in ways that are almost impossible to fathom.

The stakes could not be higher.

It’s not enough to vote on November 8th. We must all be foot soldiers for the Trump campaign. It’s our last best hope. Because contrary to Jonah Goldberg’s perspective during a recent conversation with Glenn Beck that “we are never just one election away from doom,” I  believe we are.

And on route to explaining why, I’d like to first take up one specific point they discussed: Supreme Court appointments under Clinton. Goldberg noted that Ginsberg will just be replaced by a younger version of Ginsberg, as if it would be a wash. But it wouldn’t be a wash because, as Goldberg pointed out, the replacement would be “younger.” Right. Younger. As in on the court for decades, irrespective of which party is in power.

But if Clinton wins, we can predict which party will be in power election after election after election. Her presidency will seal our fate on a broad and lasting scale. The Democratic Party will turn what is now a major Electoral College advantage into a guaranteed win as massive numbers of Hispanics and Muslims are imported into the United States – demographic groups that vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.

November 8th is, I believe, our last chance to grab the reins of power, to keep this nation from crashing over the precipice upon which we precariously sit. Teetering and holding our breath.

Hat tips: Breitbart, Daily Caller, Los Angeles Times, The Blaze

 

Behind the Outrageous ‘ISIS Backs Trump’ Smear

September 9, 2016

Behind the Outrageous ‘ISIS Backs Trump’ Smear, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, September 9, 2016

isisandclinton

When Trump called Hillary a founder of ISIS due to her role in the destructive Arab Spring, the media underwent one of its ritual paroxysm of outrage. Heads spun around 360 degrees at CNN. The New York Times spit split pea soup clear across the office. NPR began crawling up the walls. And everyone who was anyone in the media agreed that Trump had been completely out of line in saying such a thing.

Never mind that Hillary Clinton had previously accused Trump of being an ISIS recruiter. There are different rules for your team. And now that the fifteen minutes of media outrage over Trump’s line passed, she’s free to do it again. And so, as a dog returns to its vomit, Hillary declared that ISIS is “essentially throwing whatever support they have to Donald Trump.”

That would be news to ISIS which focuses more on mass murder than getting out the vote in Illinois.

If the Islamic State is throwing its support to anyone, it’s the woman who helped get it off the ground. CAIR’s poll showed majority Muslim support for Hillary. But never mind the facts, ma’am.

Hillary Clinton claimed that ISIS said that it wants Trump to win “because it would give even more motivation to every jihadi.” Apparently Jihadis won’t be sufficiently inspired to murder Americans if Hillary is in the White House. They’ll just sit around eating Cheetos and playing Call of Duty.

But if Trump wins, they’ll finally start an exercise program and then blow themselves up.

ISIS got its biggest start under Hillary. It’s actually doing less well now that Hillary is out of office. Maybe the nation’s greatest living diplomat is underestimating how motivating she can be to Jihadis?

But Clinton insists that because Trump “doesn’t want to let Muslims from around the world come to our country”, his presidency would be a “gift to ISIS.”

Because apparently the one thing that the Islamic State wants for Christmas is to make it harder for its Muslim terrorists to kill Americans. Like Hillary’s makeup artist, the Jihadis really love a challenge.

But, just like last time around, Hillary’s smear is sourced to a dubious figure with even more dubious national security credentials.

This time it’s Matt Olsen who has a piping hot take in Time explaining, “Why ISIS Supports Donald Trump”. The original smear appeared last month in Foreign Affairs and was titled, “Why ISIS Is Rooting for Trump”. Olsen just recycles it and changes one word. Not only is he a liar, but he’s also lazy.

But Matt Olsen is also a third thing, besides lazy and liar, that’s far more dangerous.

His Time bio describes him as “the former head of the National Counterterrorism Center”. That’s technically true. It’s also like describing a firefighter slash arsonist only by his official job title.

When Obama wanted someone to help him free terrorists from Gitmo, he picked Olsen. Olsen’s task force approved the transfer of over 100 Islamic terrorists from Gitmo. He forcefully urged the closure of Gitmo and was accused by Congressman Frank Wolf of misleading him on terrorist releases.

Wolf accused Olsen of wrongfully expediting the release of terrorists, and overturning Department of Defense assessments, in order to do so.

In other words, if ISIS wanted a gift, it would be Matt Olsen wrapped in a big red bow. ISIS might still behead Matt, but it would probably give him a big kiss first.

Hillary Clinton cited Matt Olsen as a national security expert. “They have, as Matt Olsen has pointed out, said that they hope Allah delivers America to Trump,” she whined. Who knew that Hillary was this suspicious of Allah? It’s a given that she might worry about God, but Allah must be on her side.

Haven’t Obama and Olsen have freed enough of Allah’s faithful butchers to win his hellish support?

But Olsen isn’t using his expertise here. That would be too much work. Instead he just recycled the Foreign Affairs piece, “Why ISIS Is Rooting for Trump” by Mara Revkin and Ahmad Mhidi.

Who are they? Good question. Ahmad doesn’t have much of a bio. The Financial Times, which printed one of his pieces, describes him as “an independent journalist based on the Turkish border.” A German paper calls him a “Syrian journalist”. He’s apparently 26 years old. Another site appears to identify him as an anti-Assad activist. It might be more accurate to describe him as an activist, not a journalist.

Mara Revkin is a Resident Fellow with the Abdallah S. Kamel Center for the Study of Islamic Law and Civilization at Yale Law School. Who is this Kamel fellow? He’s a Saudi businessman who donated $10 million to Yale to study Sharia. He’s also the chairman and founder of the Dallah Al-Baraka Group.

Is the Dallah Al-Baraka Group involved with the Clinton Foundation? Do camels defecate in the desert?

Kamel is also an “establisher” of the Dar Al-Hekma College where Hillary Clinton spoke as Secretary of State.  If that name rings a distant bell, it should. A top official at the school is Huma Abedin’s mother. Other establishers include the “Saudi Bin Laden Group” and “Mr. Yaseen Abdullah Kadi”.

Mr. Kadi was a suspected associate of Osama bin Laden, had been accused of links to Hamas and was blacklisted on suspicion of providing material support to terrorists. Obama Inc. helpfully cleared him.

Kamel’s  Dallah Al-Baraka Group was one of the Saudi banks listed in a lawsuit by 9/11 families which were accused of having “conspired with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to raise, launder, transfer, distribute, and hide funds for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda in order to support and finance their terrorist activities including, but not limited to, the September 11th attacks.”

Back in 2001, the Al-Baraka Group had been linked to Al Qaeda transactions. Not to mention helping set up the financial branch of Hamas.

These are the impeccable sources for Hillary’s claim, for Matt Olsen’s claim, that ISIS supports Trump.

And what are the sources that Mhidi, that mysterious Syrian “journalist” somewhere on the Turkish border, and Revkin, a Resident Fellow with the “You Can’t Prove We Funded Al Qaeda or Hamas Center” at Yale, used to prove that ISIS supports Trump?

A screenshot of a supposed Telegram message. It’s the sort of thing a child could photoshop. Even Dan Rather, with his Microsoft Word documents from the 70s, would hang his head in shame.

And yet it’s what Matt Olsen quotes in his Time piece as proof that ISIS supports Trump.

You might think that if ISIS really wanted to get out the vote for Trump, it would do it in a more accessible format. Or that if the Democratic nominee wanted to accuse Trump of being a pawn of ISIS, she might have more evidence than this tissue paper.

ISIS doesn’t seem shy about publicity. It puts out a new atrocity video every week. Yet it can’t seem to manage to issue an official “We Love Trump” statement or invite the press to the launch party for its Super PAC.

And so we have a devastating indictment of ISIS’ love for Trump based on screenshots in an article written by a Syrian activist with unclear loyalties and a fellow at a center funded by a Saudi billionaire accused of terror links which was passed along by the guy who helped Obama free Islamic terrorists.

All of this raises serious questions about one candidate’s national security credentials.

And it isn’t Trump.

Canny Trump already negotiating with Russia

September 9, 2016

Canny Trump already negotiating with Russia, Washington Times

As a former military officer, I learned decades ago that when taking command of new unit, an officer has to be a strict disciplinarian. Rules have to be enforced and your subordinates need to respect and understand you are a determined person who takes your oath of office seriously. In reality, these first few months are a negotiation with your troops. First impressions count, they set the stage for your entire command.

Anyone who has followed this 2016 election cycle should know that Donald Trump is always negotiating. When the GOP nominee was talking about preventing Muslims from coming into the country “until we can figure out what is going on,” he was laying out a hard-line negotiating position that could be softened down the road if need be.

When he talks of deporting 12 million illegal immigrants, he is doing the same thing. Now amid hints of possibly softening that stand, he is seen as moderating and appeals to a larger swath of the electorate. I believe Mr. Trump will do the right thing for America when it comes to immigration, but the point is a negotiator starts negotiating long before the media spotlight highlights the actual bargaining begins.

I think Mr. Trump is doing the same thing with Russian President Vladimir Putin. He is laying the groundwork for what he believes will be future success dealing with Moscow. Mr. Trump has spent time in Russia. He has done business with Russians. He understands how they think. He understands they respect strength, not weakness. He understands they also want to be respected. Mr. Trump’s comments complimenting Mr. Putin as a strong leader “in a different system” are stroking the Russian president’s ego at a time when it will do the most good. The liberal media have freaked out because Mr. Trump refuses to follow the Obama administration line on Russia, but all he is doing is speaking nicely while carrying a big stick.

Mr. Putin has spent a lot of energy recasting the United States as Russia’s No. 1 enemy. Think about it — now that Mr. Trump is very popular among the Russian population, which for the most part yearns for peace just as Americans do, it will be more difficult for the Kremlin to cast America as an existential threat to the Motherland when Mr. Trump is in the White House.

Russians have a 1,000-year-old paranoia regarding the West. They have a deep need to be respected and a desire for prestige. Mr. Trump is playing to those psychological needs. He’s not being naively gushing like George W. Bush, or incompetently appeasing the Russians as Hillary Clinton and President Obama have repeatedly done. He is not narcissistically demeaning Russia is a third-rate power that doesn’t make anything, as our president has insinuated. He’s not making fun of Mr. Putin’s slouch. He is treating the Russian president as a leader worthy of respect, while at the same time looking out for the best interests of the United States.

Mr. Trump has not said he will surrender Western principles or values in the face of future Russian aggression. On the contrary, he wants to rebuild the U.S. military “so that no one will dare mess with us.” That has to give the Kremlin and the oligarchs pause. In the long run, rebuilding our hard and soft power at home will do more to enhance our national security than making promises we can’t or won’t keep. Our government owes $20 trillion, for heaven’s sake.

Mr. Trump’s comments on NATO members paying their fair share for defense are also spot on. The truth is that we do not have an alliance if all the other countries rely on the American nuclear umbrella while attacking our companies for monopolistic practices and tax violations in their own courts. Oh, the hypocrisy!

Russia belongs at the geopolitical table as a great power. Its history demands that. Mr. Trump is certainly aware of this and, by publicly acknowledging the fact, has cleverly already put down the opening marker in his negotiations with Mr. Putin. Mr. Trump’s not being what Lenin once called a “useful idiot” for Russia. He’s simply working the art of the deal.

Hillary: Islamic State saying, “Oh, please, Allah, make Trump president of America”

September 8, 2016

Hillary: Islamic State saying, “Oh, please, Allah, make Trump president of America” Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer, September 8, 2016

“We’ve made a judgment, based on a lot of research, that bringing Islam into the definition of our enemy actually serves the purpose of the radical Jihadists, and there’s a lot of evidence of that.”

In reality, there is no such research, and could not be: the idea that naming the enemy would play into the hands of the enemy is a dogma of the Washington establishment that is based on two untested and unproven assumptions. The first of these is that to call the jihadis “jihadis” would confer upon them a spurious legitimacy that would aid in their recruitment. But it is absurd to think that Muslims are looking to non-Muslim political leaders to tell them what Islam is and isn’t. The second is that to speak honestly about the motivating ideology of the enemy would alienate our Muslim allies. But there is no reason why that should be so either. To acknowledge that those who are fighting us are Islamic jihadis doesn’t mean that every Muslim is or must be on their side. There are innumerable examples from Muslim history of various factions of Muslims fighting against other factions. And the Muslim nations who are for various reasons opposed to the Islamic State and al-Qaeda know full well what Islam teaches; it isn’t as if they really don’t know how Islamic those groups are. If that knowledge hasn’t stopped them from opposing those groups now, public acknowledgment of what they are wouldn’t, either.

“He quoted ISIS spokespeople rooting for Donald Trump’s victory, because Trump has made Islam and Muslims part of his campaign. And basically, Matt Olsen argues, the Jihadists see this as a great gift. They are saying, ‘Oh, please, Allah, make Trump president of America.”

Here Clinton contradicts herself. “Oh, please, Allah”? Hasn’t she just engaged in “bringing Islam into the definition of our enemy”? Hasn’t she just admitted that they are Islamic, despite her repeated claims to the contrary?

And does the Islamic State really want Trump to win? Unlikely that they would prefer someone who says he will fight them strongly over someone who will continue the weak and ineffective half-measures that are being employed today.

hillary7-1

“Watch: Clinton claims ISIS praying for a Trump victory,” Israel National News, September 8, 2016:

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton gave her first interview to an Israeli media outlet this election season, sitting down for an exclusive interview with Israel’s Channel 2 that is set to air Thursday evening.

Clinton ripped into Republican nominee Donald Trump during the interview, claiming that his campaign rhetoric had bolstered the ISIS terror group.

When asked by interviewer Yonit Levi whether she would, if elected president, she would pursue the war on ISIS differently than her predecessor and, specifically, if she would refer to the conflict as a “war on radical Islam” – noting that the Obama administration has shied away from referencing “radical Islam” – Clinton suggested use of such terminology could actually strengthen Islamic terror.

“We’ve made a judgment, based on a lot of research, that bringing Islam into the definition of our enemy actually serves the purpose of the radical Jihadists, and there’s a lot of evidence of that,” Clinton responded.

The former Secretary of State then added that Matt Olsen, the former chief of the National Counterterrorism Center, had written in a TIME article, published Thursday, that “ISIS supports Donald Trump”.

“He quoted ISIS spokespeople rooting for Donald Trump’s victory, because Trump has made Islam and Muslims part of his campaign. And basically, Matt Olsen argues, the Jihadists see this as a great gift. They are saying, ‘Oh, please, Allah, make Trump president of America.”

“I’m not interested in giving aid and comfort to their aid and comfort to their evil ambitions,” added Clinton. “I want to defeat them, I want to end their reign of terror. I don’t want them to feel as though they can be getting more recruits because of our politics.”

The former First Lady then turned to her own plan for confronting ISIS, saying she would “intensify what is already happening: our air campaign, more support on the ground to the Arab and Kurdish fighters.”…

Donald Trump Hillary Clinton Commander in Chief Forum 9/7/16 NBC September 7, 2016

September 8, 2016

Donald Trump Hillary Clinton Commander in Chief Forum 9/7/16 NBC September 7, 2016, via YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THPVoGTEGVk

 

 

Donald J. Trump ​Military Readiness Remarks

September 7, 2016

Donald J. Trump Military Readiness Remarks, Trump campaign press release, September 7, 2016

Today, I am here to talk about three crucial words that should be at the center of our foreign policy: Peace Through Strength.

We want to achieve a stable, peaceful world with less conflict and more common ground.

I am proposing a new foreign policy focused on advancing America’s core national interests, promoting regional stability, and producing an easing of tensions in the world. This will require rethinking the failed policies of the past.

We can make new friends, rebuild old alliances, and bring new allies into the fold.

I’m proud to have the support of warfighting generals, active duty military, and the top experts who know both how to win – and how to avoid the endless wars we are caught in now. Just yesterday, 88 top Generals and Admirals endorsed my campaign.

In a Trump Administration, our actions in the Middle East will be tempered by realism. The current strategy of toppling regimes, with no plan for what to do the day after, only produces power vacuums that are filled by terrorists.

Gradual reform, not sudden and radical change, should be our guiding objective in that region.

We should work with any country that shares our goal of destroying ISIS and defeating Radical Islamic terrorism, and form new friendships and partnerships based on this mission. We now have an Administration, and a former Secretary of State, who refuse to say Radical Islamic Terrorism.

Immediately after taking office, I will ask my generals to present to me a plan within 30 days to defeat and destroy ISIS.

This will require military warfare, but also cyber warfare, financial warfare, and ideological warfare – as I laid out in my speech on defeating Radical Islamic terrorism several weeks ago.

Instead of an apology tour, I will proudly promote our system of government and our way of life as the best in the world – just like we did in our campaign against communism during the Cold War.

We will show the whole world how proud we are to be American.

At the same time, immigration security is a vital part of our national security.

We only want to admit people to our country who will support our values and love our people.

These are the pillars of a sound national security strategy.

Unlike my opponent, my foreign policy will emphasize diplomacy, not destruction. Hillary Clinton’s legacy in Iraq, Libya, and Syria has produced only turmoil and suffering. Her destructive policies have displaced millions of people, then she has invited the refugees into the West with no plan to screen them.

Including Veteran healthcare costs, the price of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could total $6 trillion, according to a report in the Washington Examiner. Yet, after all this money spent and lives lost, Clinton’s policies as Secretary of State have left the Middle East in more disarray than ever before.

Meanwhile, China has grown more aggressive, and North Korea more dangerous and belligerent. Russia has defied this Administration at every turn. Putin has no respect for President Obama or Hillary Clinton.

Sometimes it has seemed like there wasn’t a country in the Middle East that Hillary Clinton didn’t want to invade, intervene or topple. She is trigger-happy and unstable when it comes to war.

Hillary Clinton is just reckless – so reckless, in fact, she put her emails on an illegal server that our enemies could easily hack. Then Clinton’s team used a technology called bleachbit to acid wash her emails. They even took a hammer to some of her 13 phones, to cover her tracks and obstruct justice. These email records were destroyed after she received a subpoena to turn them over.

In the FBI report, she claimed she couldn’t recall important information on 39 occasions.

She can’t even remember whether she was trained in classified information, and said she didn’t even know the letter “C” means confidential.

If she can’t remember such crucial events and information, she is unfit to be Commander-in-Chief.

Her conduct is simply disqualifying.

She talks about her experience, but Hillary Clinton’s only foreign policy experience is “failure.” Everywhere she got involved, things got worse.

Let’s look back at the Middle East at the very beginning of 2009, before Hillary Clinton was sworn-in.

Libya was stable.

Syria was under control.

Egypt was ruled by a secular President and an ally of the United States.

Iraq was experiencing a reduction in violence. The group that would become what we now call ISIS was close to being extinguished.

Iran was being choked off by economic sanctions.

Fast-forward to today. What have the decisions of Obama-Clinton produced?

Libya is in ruins, our ambassador and three other brave Americans are dead, and ISIS has gained a new base of operations.

Syria is in the midst of a disastrous civil war. ISIS controls large portions of territory. A refugee crisis now threatens Europe and the United States. And hundreds of thousands are dead.

In Egypt, terrorists have gained a foothold in the Sinai desert, near the Suez Canal, one of the most essential waterways in the world.

Iraq is in chaos, and ISIS is on the loose.

ISIS has spread across the Middle East, and into the West.

Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, is now flush with $150 billion dollars in cash released by the United States – plus another $1.7 billion dollars in cash ransom payments. In other words, our country was blackmailed and extorted into paying this unheard-of amount of money.

Worst of all, the Nuclear deal puts Iran, the number one state sponsor of Radical Islamic terrorism, on a path to nuclear weapons.

This is Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy legacy.

But that’s not all. President Obama and Hillary Clinton have also overseen deep cuts in our military, which only invite more aggression from our adversaries.

History shows that when America is not prepared is when the danger is greatest. We want to deter, avoid and prevent conflict through our unquestioned military strength.

Under Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, defense spending is on track to fall to its lowest level as a share of the economy since the end of World War II. We currently have the smallest Army since 1940. The Navy is among the smallest it has been since 1915. And the Air Force is the smallest it has been since 1947.

When Ronald Reagan left office, our Navy had 592 ships. When Barack Obama took office, it had 285 ships. Today, the Navy has just 276 ships.

The average Air Force aircraft is 27 years-old. We have 2nd generation B-52 bombers – their fathers flew the same plane.

Our Army has been shrinking rapidly, from 553,000 soldiers in 2009 to just 479,000 today.

In 2009, our Marine Corps had 202,000 active Marines. Today, it’s just 182,000.

Our ship count is below the minimum of 308 that the Navy says is needed to execute its current missions. President Obama plans to reduce the Army to 450,000 troops—which would hamstring our ability to defend the United States.

It takes 22 years on average to field a major new weapons system.

In 2010, the US spent $554 billion on non-war base defense spending.

In the current year, we are spending $548 billion – a cut of 10% in real inflation-adjusted dollars. This reduction was done through what is known as the sequester, or automatic defense budget cuts. Under the budget agreement, defense took half of the cuts – even though it makes up only one-sixth of the budget.

As soon as I take office, I will ask Congress to fully eliminate the defense sequester and will submit a new budget to rebuild our military.

This will increase certainty in the defense community as to funding, and will allow military leaders to plan for our future defense needs.

As part of removing the defense sequester, I will ask Congress to fully offset the costs of increased military spending. In the process, we will make government leaner and more responsive to the public.

I will ask that savings be accomplished through common sense reforms that eliminate government waste and budget gimmicks – and that protect hard-earned benefits for Americans.

Government-wide, improper government payments are estimated to exceed $135 billion per year, and the amount of unpaid taxes is estimated to be as high as $385 billion.

We can also reduce the size of the federal bureaucracy through responsible workforce attrition – that is, when employees retire, they can be replaced by a smaller number of new employees.

We can also stop funding programs that are not authorized in law. Congress spent $320 billion last year on 256 expired laws. Removing just 5 percent of that will reduce spending by almost $200 billion over 10 years.

The military will not be exempt either – the military bureaucracy will have to be trimmed as well.

Early in my term, I will also be requesting that all NATO nations promptly pay their bills, which many are not doing right now. Only 5 NATO countries, including the United States, are currently meeting the minimum requirement to spend 2% of GDP on defense.

Additionally, I will be respectfully asking countries such as Germany, Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia to pay more for the tremendous security we provide them.

Finally, we will have at our disposal additional revenues from unleashing American energy. The Institute for Energy Research cites a “short-run” figure of as much as $36 billion annually from increased energy production.

Using these new funds, I will ask my Secretary of Defense to propose a new defense budget to meet the following long-term goals:

We will build an active Army of around 540,000, as the Army’s chief of staff has said he needs. We now have only 31 Brigade Combat Teams, or 490,000 troops, and only one-third of combat teams are considered combat-ready.

We will build a Marine Corps based on 36 battalions, which the Heritage Foundation notes is the minimum needed to deal with major contingencies – we have 23 now.

We will build a Navy of 350 surface ships and submarines, as recommended by the bipartisan National Defense Panel – we have 276 ships now.

And we will build an Air Force of at least 1,200 fighter aircraft, which the Heritage Foundation has shown to be needed to execute current missions – we have 1,113 now.

We will also seek to develop a state of the art missile defense system.

Under Obama-Clinton, our ballistic missile defense capability has been degraded at the very moment the US and its allies are facing a heightened missile threat from states like Iran and North Korea. As these potential adversaries grow their missile programs, US military facilities in Asia and the Middle East, as well as our allies, are increasingly in range, with the United States homeland also potentially threatened.

We propose to rebuild the key tools of missile defense, starting with the Navy cruisers that are the foundation of our missile defense capabilities in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. The Obama-Clinton administration tried repeatedly to remove our cruisers from service, then refused to modernize these aging ships.

We will start by modernizing our cruisers to provide the Ballistic Missile Defense capability our nation needs; this will cost around $220 million per modernization as we seek to modernize a significant portion of these 22 ships.

As we expand our Navy toward the goal of 350 ships, we will also procure additional modern destroyers that are designed to handle the missile defense mission in the coming years.

Accomplishing this military rebuild will be a fifty-state effort —every state in the union will be able to take part in rebuilding our military and developing the technologies of tomorrow.

In addition, we will improve the Department of Defense’s cyber capabilities. Hillary Clinton has taught us all how vulnerable we are to cyber hacking.

Which is why one of the first things we must do is to enforce all classification rules, and enforce all laws relating to the handling of classified information.

Hillary Clinton put her emails on a secret server to cover-up her pay-for-play scandals at the State Department. Nothing threatens the integrity of our Democracy more than when government officials put their public office up for sale.

We will also make it a priority to develop defensive and offensive cyber capabilities at our U.S. Cyber Command, and recruit the best and brightest Americans.

One of my first directives after taking office will be asking the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and all relevant federal departments, to conduct a thorough review of United States cyber defenses and identify all vulnerabilities – in our power grid, our communications systems, and all vital infrastructure. I will then ask for a plan to immediately protect those vulnerabilities. At the same time, we will invest heavily in offensive cyber capabilities to disrupt our enemies, including terrorists who rely heavily on internet communications.

These new investments in cybersecurity, and the modernization of our military, will spur substantial new job creation in the private sector and help create the jobs and technologies of tomorrow.

America must be the world’s dominant technological powerhouse of the 21stcentury, and young Americans – including in our inner cities – should get these new jobs.

We must also ensure that we have the best medical care, education and support for our military service members and their families – both when they serve, and when they return to civilian life.

Our debt to our men and women in uniform is eternal.

To all those who have served this nation, I say: I will never let you down.

We will protect those who protect us.

And we will follow their example of unity. We will work across all racial and income lines to create One American Nation.

Together, we will have one great American future.

We will be one people, under one God, saluting one American flag.

America will be a prosperous, generous and inclusive society.

We will discard the failed policies and division of the past, and embrace true American change to rebuild our economy, rebuild our inner cities, and rebuild our country.

We Will Bring Back Our Jobs.

We Will Make America Strong Again.

We Will Make America Safe Again.

And We Will Make America Great Again.

Trump Scores With Vets, Calls for Sequester End, Military Revival

September 7, 2016

Trump Scores With Vets, Calls for Sequester End, Military Revival, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, September 7, 2016

trump-1

Good.

These military cuts, despite the efforts to pretend otherwise, had quite a bit to do with Republicans doing the bidding of some libertarian bigwigs looking to get their agenda in through a backdoor. Also see, Deal, Iran. Confronting the sequester head on is the right thing to do.

In a preview, the Trump campaign said the New York billionaire would call on Congress to do away with the “sequester” budget cuts to defense, and request that military generals provide him with a plan for defeating the Islamic State terror group during his first 30 days in office.

Mr. Trump’s plan calls for the number of active Army members to climb to 540,000, the number of Navy ships and submarines to climb to 350, and the number of Air Force fighter aircraft to climb to 1,200.

Those numbers rely on recommendations by the Army chief of staff, the Heritage Foundation and the National Defense Panel, the campaign said.

Meanwhile the Clinton campaign is really relying hard on the LBJ playbook.

On Tuesday, the pro-Clinton super-PAC Priorities USA released a video ad that meshed Trump’s declaration that “I love war” over pictures of battle and a nuclear mushroom cloud.

Subtle. Vets meanwhile are backing Trump.

Donald Trump leads Hillary Clinton by 19 points — 55 percent to 36 percent — among voters who are currently serving or have previously served in the U.S. military, according to the latest NBC News|SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking Poll.

Homeland Security Head Praises Islamic Supremacists

September 5, 2016

Homeland Security Head Praises Islamic Supremacists, Dan Miller’s Blog, September 5, 2016

(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

Jeh Johnson, Secretary of Obama’s Department of Homeland Security, addressed the Islamist Islamic Society of North America on September 3d. He told the assembled “American Patriots” — and reminded the rest of us — of the glories of Islam and how greatly it influences and therefore benefits Obama’s America. He did not suggest that only by the further recognition of Islamic supremacy and the further Islamisation of America will they achieve their goals. Today is Labor Day; the rest of us have much work to do to prevent it.

johnson-isna (1)

Here is the text of Secretary Johnson’s speech, with indented comments by ignorant Islamophobes Robert Spencer (RS) and your’s truly (DM).

[I]t’s a great privilege for me to be present in person here today, to speak to this full convention of the Islamic Society of North America. I’m told I am the highest ranking U.S. government official and the first sitting cabinet officer to ever speak in person before this convention. I welcome that, as you have welcomed me. I am proud to have broken that glass ceiling, and to have created the expectation, in the future, that government officials of my rank will attend your annual convention.

President Obama has made it a priority for his administration to build bridges to American Muslim communities.

DM: Obama has “built bridges” to “moderate” Islamist organizations such as the Islamist Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas-affiliated organizations. He has rejected organizations such as The American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), which seek the reformation of Islam to respect and adhere to American values. AIFD and similar organizations are considered “Islamophobic” by CAIR, et al, who consider Islam perfect as it became when Mohammad left Mecca.

In 33 months as your Secretary of Homeland Security, I have personally visited American Muslim communities in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, rural Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Detroit, Dearborn, Chicago, Columbus, Houston, Minneapolis, and Los Angeles. I have come to know many of you, and I hope you know me.

DM: Indeed. They know him very well and like him. He and Obama have made great strides in furthering their notions of Islamic supremacy.

You have heard President Obama and me call out the discrimination and vilification you face in this current climate.

You have heard us say that the self-proclaimed Islamic State is neither Islam nor a state; that it is a group of terrorist[s] attempting to hijack your religion.

You have heard us, before multiple audiences of different political stripes, refuse to bend to the political pressure to call terrorism “Islamic” extremism. We know that ISIL, though it claims the banner of Islam, occupies no part of your religion, which is founded on peace.

DM: Do Secretary Johnson and Obama consider The Islamic Republic of Iran, the world’s foremost sponsor of Islamic terrorism, not to be Islamic? They should spend a bit of time reading the post-Mecca parts of the Quran, the Hadith and other Islamist texts. Indeed, they should watch this video which explains them:

After I am gone as Secretary, I hope you will always regard us as your Department of Homeland Security, aligned in interest with you for peace, the safety of your family, and the protection of your homeland. I hope you will always regard our new Office of Community Partnerships as your partner. [Emphasis added.]

DM: for that to happen, Hillary Clinton must become our next President and Donald Trump must not. Mr. Johnson despises Trump’s views on Islamist terrorists and on keeping them out of the country. Johnson seeks to have our elections considered critical infrastructure for DHS to “monitor.”

Tonight, in this last and biggest opportunity I will have as your Secretary of Homeland Security to address an audience of some 10,000 Muslim Americans all at once, I want to take our conversation to a new level. [Emphasis added.]

DM: Under Obama, DHS — founded shortly after the September 11, 2001 Islamist attack on America — has indeed become the Islamists’ DHS. Hopefully, that will change after the November elections.

A leader of this organization reminded me that, we spend a lot of time telling young Muslims in this country what you should not become. A more effective message is to tell you what, in this great country, you can become. We must not simply curse the darkness, but offer a candle.

Tonight I will not look at the large group of Muslims before me in this room through a homeland security lens. Tonight I will not talk to you about counterterrorism. Tonight I will simply address you as who you are, “my fellow Americans.”

Tonight I speak especially to the young people in this audience, and to your parents worried about your future.

Many of the young people in this room worry that, because of the current climate, your religion, your skin color, and your attire, you will never win full acceptance in this country.

I come before you tonight to assure you this is not true. Your struggle for full acceptance in this country is one you will win.

DM: Wouldn’t they have a better chance of being accepted as Americans by Americans if they accepted America — her Constitution and her laws, for example — and rejected Sharia Law and all that comes with it? Mr. Johnson did not suggest that.

How do I know this? Because my African American ancestors and I have traveled a similar road.

I hear your stories of discrimination, vilification, and of the efforts to tar you with the broad brush of suspicion.

I hear about the bullying and physical attacks that Muslims (and those perceived as Muslim) are experiencing nationwide.

DM: Many of those stories are fabricated by Islamists to support their notions about the pervasive nature of “Islamophic” hate crimes.

They are familiar to me. I recognize them. I look out on this room of American Muslims and I see myself. I see a similar struggle that my African American ancestors have fought to win acceptance in this country.

Realize it or not, your story is the quintessential American story.

Your story is an American story, told over and over again, generation after generation, of waves of people who struggle for, seek, and will eventually win your share of the American dream. Know the history of this country and you will know that — whether it’s Catholic Americans, Jewish Americans, Mormon Americans, Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Japanese Americas, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, or Muslim Americans — this will be true.

RS: Yes, you remember when Catholic Americans, Jewish Americans, Mormon Americans, Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Japanese Americas, African Americans, Hispanic Americans flew those planes into the towers, and bombed the Boston Marathon, and murdered 13 Americans in cold blood at Fort Hood, and four in Chattanooga, 15 in San Bernardino, and 49 in Orlando, and tried to commit mass murder at Garland and so many other places. You remember those global terror organizations made up of Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Irish, etc. committing acts of violence around the world, and threatening the imminent conquest of the U.S. and the rest of the free world.

RS: The Obama administration’s solicitude is entirely one-way, toward Muslims as victims of discrimination, which is false and inaccurate in the U.S. anyway. Meanwhile, the jihad advances, as do Islamic supremacist attempts to assert Sharia norms over American norms. Johnson had nothing to say about such things, or about the unaccountable phenomenon of so many Muslims in the U.S. adhering to the version of Islam that he assures us is un-Islamic. [Emphasis added.]

DM: Please see also, The West Needs Sharia Law – Pakistani cleric.

The arc of the American story is long, it is bumpy and uncertain, but it always bends toward a more perfect union.

DM: The Obama administration has sought a “more perfect union” with Blacks by supporting Black Lives Matter. It has thereby helped to kill many Blacks.

Some of you are frustrated that you have been publicly denouncing violent extremism for years, sometimes at your own peril, and have not been recognized for it.

DM: But not Islamist terrorism.

Some of you are discouraged that you must continually point to the patriotism of American Muslims, by pointing to your military service, and to those American Muslims who have died in combat for our country….

DM: Only if Obama, as I suggested here in jest that He had just done, recognizes Sharia Law as supreme in His America, will ISNA, CAIR, as well as similar Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas-affiliated Islamist groups be proud, patriotic “Americans.” It will take a village the total Islamisation of America. The rest of us? We don’t want it.

Conclusions

The notion of Islamic supremacy permeates the post-Mecca Quran and other Islamist writings, as explained in Dr. Warner’s Hijrah video provided above. When non-Muslim westerners go to Muslim countries, we are expected and required to adhere to their “superior” Islamic conventions: no booze, no “immodest” garb for females, and the like. If we don’t comply, we are jailed and/or expelled. We claim no superiority for western civilization and make no effort to demand that its norms be accepted or even to require their  recognition. Perhaps we should.

The West Needs Sharia Law – Pakistani cleric

September 3, 2016

The West Needs Sharia Law – Pakistani cleric, Dan Miller’s Blog, September 3, 2016

(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

According to a leading Pakistani imam, Islamists need to convince western civilizations that Sharia law is good and that we need it to root our the evils which possess us. His wise words must be music to Obama’s ears.

In a recent article, leading Pakistani cleric Maulana Zahidur Rashdi noted that Islam and the West are indeed in a clash of civilizations, as argued by U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.

The article, titled “The Cultural and Civilizational Struggle Between Islam and the West,” was published by Roznama Islam, an Urdu-language daily published from Karachi and Lahore, which is known for advocating Islamist causes and pro-jihad arguments.

Maulana Zahidur Rashdi is a leading Islamic scholar who frequently writes in newspapers and has visited several countries to preach Islam, especially Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bangladesh, Iran, Kenya, Iran, Uzbekistan, India, the U.K., Canada, the U.S., and others.

. . . .

“[Our Intellectuals See It Not As A War Of Civilization But As] A War Of Interests … Between The Developed And The Developing Countries, In Which Muslim Countries And Nations Are The Underdogs Due To Lack Of Progress”

“‘Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, has said that those Muslims who believe in shari’a should be expelled from America. Before this, U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump had too demanded a ban on the entry of Muslims into America. Newt Gingrich… has said in an interview: Western civilization is in a state of war. Shari’a is not compatible with the Western civilization, and we will gladly accept those Muslims who do not believe in shari’a. Newt Gingrich has also proposed monitoring mosques in America along with imprisoning individuals who visit websites of extremist organizations.

Accordingly,

“The West’s standpoint is very clear in that it is not ready to accept the enforcement of shari’a. In response to this, it is our responsibility to point out the errors of the Western civilization based on the common collective interests of human society and revealed [Islamic] teachings, to clarify the damages caused to human society by it [the Western civilization], and to bring forth benefits and necessities of Islamic Shari’a through reason and logic…”

President Obama has contended that America should not bar immigrants or refugee seekers who favor the imposition of Sharia law; that’s not who we are. Perhaps He does not want to stop His thus far successful efforts to end our terrorist shortage. In July of last year, Obama

condemned the terrorist attack in France that killed 84 people and denounced politicians who have suggested that Muslims be subjected to extra scrutiny in the United States because of their religion.

“In the wake of last night’s attacks, we’ve heard more suggestions that all Muslims in America be targeted or tested for their beliefs,” Obama said. The president appeared to be referring to former House speaker Newt Gingrich’s call on Fox News to deport all Muslims who follow sharia law.

Without mentioning Gingrich by name, Obama called his suggestion of a religious test “repugnant and an affront to everything we stand for as Americans.” [Emphasis added.]

“We cannot give in to fear or turn on each other or sacrifice our way of life,” Obama said. “We cannot let ourselves be divided by religion, because that is exactly what the terrorists want.”

Alas, some Muslims reject governmental adoption of Sharia law. Raheel Raza recently took issue with CNN commentator Sally Kohn, who had tried to defend Sharia law.

Raza’s response came after Kohn recently pretended to be an Islamic theologian and lectured the public on how “progressive” sharia law allegedly is:

There is a difference between personal, spiritual Sharia and the political incorporation of Sharia into law,” Kohn stated. “And within both, there are progressive interpretations as well as more fundamentalist conservative interpretations. So the word Sharia doesn’t mean one thing.” [Emphasis added.]

Kohn then blasted Donald Trump for “not knowing” what sharia law really stands for. This is likely when Raza’s radar went up, considering that the Muslim activist has first-hand knowledge about sharia law and the threat it poses.

Raza, who at great personal risk travels the world to educate people on the dangers of sharia law and who has worked for decades to wrestle her faith from the hands of extremists, thinks it odd that a progressive would defend the very Islamic tenets that promote homophobia, anti-Semitism, and the subjugation of women.

In an open letter to Kohn published on the Huffington Post, Raza writes:

Political commentator Sally Kohn has made several statements regarding sharia law, which were not only offensive but dangerous. In using her voice to propagate this liberal apologist position, she is doing a great disservice to progressive reform-minded Muslims like myself. Her words are an affront to me, a female Muslim activist, as I have made it my life’s mission to educate others on this topic and to wrestle back my religion from the clutches of extremists who wish to make sharia the law of the land. And I would be happy to debate her on this topic. [Emphasis added.]

As an openly gay woman, Ms. Kohn would be killed, jailed or persecuted under sharia law. As a devout Muslim woman, I – along with many true progressive Muslims – rightly view sharia, as it is practiced today, as an archaic distortion of Islamic law.

In a very diplomatic way, Raza suggests that perhaps Kohn doesn’t know as much about Islamic law as she thinks she does, and then offered up the following “brief lesson in sharia”:

What many sharia laws and statutes have in common are the following. They are:

· Homophobic
· Anti-semitic
· Anti-women
· Advocate amputations and stoning
· Preach killing of apostates
· Uphold the Blasphemy Law (which could get me killed)

“This homophobic, anti-woman, repressive sharia is no longer confined to the mosque or to majority Muslim nations,” Raza writes before providing the example of England’s 100 sharia councils that have been allowed to harm women in the West.

“As a woman, and as someone who enjoys the freedoms and liberties that are systematically assaulted by sharia law, Sally Kohn needs to think twice before defending this oppressive, perverse practice.”

“Words are powerful — so Sally, I beg you and others to stop defending the indefensible and to stand with us, not them,” the Muslim activists concluded.

It is typical of progressives, so willfully blind, that they hurt the very people they claim to champion. Sadly, progressives like Kohn would rather propagate left-wing lies about Islam without regard to how many people get hurt in the process, than actually learn from the people who know best.

Obama may think that Sharia law is good and that we need it, but rejects any “honest discussion” about it.

Would Iman Obama agree with Sally Kohn and Pakistani imam Rashdi that western cultures need the enlightenment that Sharia law brings? Then, perhaps we could become enlightened and progressive (but I repeat myself) like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran. Saudi Arabia recently sentenced a man to ten years in jail and two thousand lashes for “tweeting” about being an atheist.

The hardline Islamic state’s religious police in charge of monitoring social networks found more than 600 tweets denying the existence of God, ridiculing Koranic verses, accusing all prophets of lies and saying their teaching fuelled hostilities…

Turkey is enjoying an epidemic of child rape. The Islamic Republic of Iran likes to have mass executions and, when convenient, throws homosexuals off tall buildings.

gays off hall building

Stoning, pursuant to Sharia law, is also popular in Iran.

Of course, it has to be done only in conformity with Iran’s Sharia law, generally after a “confession.”

And on and on and on. Never mind, though, Iran is very technologically advanced, doubtless due to scientific guidance provided by its ayatollahs based on the teachings of Mohammad. Indeed, Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi recently promised that the “Hidden Imam” will arrive soon, and in “a vessel like a space ship.

Islamic Hijrah, migrating from Islamic countries to non-Islamic countries, is a way of conquest by political Islam — by Islamists. With it, comes Sharia law. If you haven’t the time or inclination to watch any of the other videos, please watch this one. Yes, it’s thirty minutes long, but well is worth the time.

Perhaps, by extending hands of welcome to more Islamist immigrants and refugees who seek to conquer us and “help” us by bringing Sharia law with them, we will accept that only based on Islamist teachings can we

clarify the damages caused to human society by it [the Western civilization], and . . . bring forth benefits and necessities of Islamic Shari’a through reason and logic…”

Obama would be very proud of them, and of us for imposing no religious ideological tests.

Pakistani Cleric Defends Clash Of Civilizations Theory: ‘Even Now Our Intellectuals Are Not Ready To Accept The Struggle Between Muslims And The West As A War Of Culture And Civilization’

September 2, 2016

Pakistani Cleric Defends Clash Of Civilizations Theory: ‘Even Now Our Intellectuals Are Not Ready To Accept The Struggle Between Muslims And The West As A War Of Culture And Civilization’ MEMRI, September 2, 2016

29757

In a recent article, leading Pakistani cleric Maulana Zahidur Rashdi noted that Islam and the West are indeed in a clash of civilizations, as argued by U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.

The article, titled “The Cultural and Civilizational Struggle Between Islam and the West,” was published by Roznama Islam, an Urdu-language daily published from Karachi and Lahore, which is known for advocating Islamist causes and pro-jihad arguments.

Maulana Zahidur Rashdi is a leading Islamic scholar who frequently writes in newspapers and has visited several countries to preach Islam, especially Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bangladesh, Iran, Kenya, Iran, Uzbekistan, India, the U.K., Canada, the U.S., and others.

Following are excerpts from his article:

“[Our Intellectuals See It Not As A War Of Civilization But As] A War Of Interests … Between The Developed And The Developing Countries, In Which Muslim Countries And Nations Are The Underdogs Due To Lack Of Progress”

“‘Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, has said that those Muslims who believe in shari’a should be expelled from America. Before this, U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump had too demanded a ban on the entry of Muslims into America. Newt Gingrich… has said in an interview: Western civilization is in a state of war. Shari’a is not compatible with the Western civilization, and we will gladly accept those Muslims who do not believe in shari’a. Newt Gingrich has also proposed monitoring mosques in America along with imprisoning individuals who visit websites of extremist organizations.

“The statement of the former speaker of the house is not the first such statement regarding this matter. Rather, statements of this nature have previously come from numerous American and European leaders. However, Newt Gingrich’s statement is unique in that a few points have been said bluntly without being diplomatic:

“One, Western civilization faces a state of war at this time. Two, Islamic shari’a is not compatible with Western civilization. Three, the Muslims believing in shari’a laws are not acceptable to the West. Four, the progressive thinking the West speaks of means abandoning shari’a regulations and laws, and the West will not accept anything less than this.

“Even now our intellectuals are not ready to accept the struggle between Muslims and the West as a war of culture and civilization. They say that this is not a civilizational struggle, but rather a war of interests and a struggle between the developed and the developing countries, in which Muslim countries and nations are the underdogs due to lack of progress and have been left behind due to not cooperating with Western society in civilizational progress.”

“Anything That Is Light For Islam Is Called Darkness In The West; And Anything That Is Called Light By The West Is Declared Darkness And Ignorance By Islam”

“However, Newt Gingrich has bluntly clarified that this is a civilizational war in which, on the one side, stands Western culture and civilization, which has enveloped most of the regions and cultures of the world due to scientific progress, military supremacy, economic domination and media control; whereas on the other side is the Islamic civilization, which is fighting a war for its survival and advancement with full force. The point is that this war is now becoming clear and it is written on the wall that in the future, of these two, only the civilization that is better able to solve problems faced by the human society will lead it. This is not only our claim, but a principle of nature and a necessity of the historical process.

“The former speaker’s statement that there is no compatibility between Western civilization and shari’a also warrants special attention. It is of concern to those among our intellectuals who have been engaged over the past two centuries in efforts to transform Islam according to [the standards of] Western civilization, and seek out interpretations of Islamic principles and laws that show them to conform with Western civilization’s principles and laws. These intellectuals cannot understand the simple fact that Islamic culture and civilization is based on the teachings of the Koran and the Sunnah [traditions of Muhammad] and wahi [revelations]…

“Allah says… ‘This Book we have revealed on you for the reason that you bring out people from the darkness towards light.’ In other words, according to Islam, pursuing the revealed teachings is called light and progressive. Whereas, for the West, rejecting and abandoning the shari’a directives is progressive. In other words, anything that is light for Islam is called darkness in the West; and anything that is called light by the West is declared darkness and ignorance by Islam. Therefore, it is meaningless and useless to search for the path of compatibility and understanding between the two. This is the reason that the West is not ready under any condition to tolerate Islamic shari’a to any degree and to allow enforcement of shari’a directives and laws even in the environment of Muslim countries…”

“This situation demands that instead of wasting time condemning and rationalizing the statements of Western leaders such as Newt Gingrich and Donald Trump, these statements are viewed as the reality on the ground and that a correct path is charted for leading Muslims. For a long time, I have been telling intellectual circles and educational centers of Muslims that the growing international struggle between Western civilization and Islamic civilization should be clarified at the intellectual and scholarly level… It has become essential to state in clear terms which matters are acceptable within the limits of the teachings of the Koran and the Sunnah and what flexibility exists to accept some matters.

“The West’s standpoint is very clear in that it is not ready to accept the enforcement of shari’a. In response to this, it is our responsibility to point out the errors of the Western civilization based on the common collective interests of human society and revealed [Islamic] teachings, to clarify the damages caused to human society by it [the Western civilization], and to bring forth benefits and necessities of Islamic Shari’a through reason and logic…”

Source: Roznama Islam (Pakistan), August 6, 2016.